NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) watched the Sun’s magnetic forces twist and turn enormous plumes of superheated plasma in a tornado that is larger than the Earth. The particles observed by SDO – mostly partly iron – were measured at a blazing 5 million degrees. (2.8 million degrees C.)
A small, but complex mass of plasma gyrated and spun about over the course of 40 hours above the surface of the Sun (Sept. 1-3, 2015). It was stretched and pulled back and forth by powerful magnetic forces but not ripped apart in this sequence. The temperature of the ionized iron particles observed in this extreme ultraviolet wavelength of light was about 2.8 million degrees C. (or 5 million degrees F.) Credit: Solar Dynamics Observatory, NASA.
If we ever needed a reminder that we are little more than a flyspeck on an elephant’s butt, and nature can muster forces beyond our comprehension and squish us like a bug at a moments notice, this video is it. (h/t to Dennis Wingo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZw-baRd8L4
This is not a new finding, these were first noted from SDO imagery back in 2012:
Here is a 3D computer visualization
This supercomputer visualization sheds light on data gathered through new telescopes from hard-to-observe areas of the Sun.
Scientists using NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) have recently observed two sizes of solar “tornado”—rapidly rotating, funnel-shaped structures. Both the small and the large type are driven by magnetic energy, as opposed to the temperature and moisture contrasts that fuel actual tornadoes on Earth.
The smaller, more-frequent type shown here is the result of a 2012 discovery by a team of researchers in Norway, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
In this animation of the data, a virtual camera travels around, above, and into the funnel of a solar magnetic tornado. As lines swirl around the funnel, the colors denote how quickly the plasma is rotating (from slower yellow to faster green and turquoise). Outside the funnel, the red lines represent the magnetic field. The colored patch below the funnel is the magnetic footprint at the Sun’s surface.
At any moment, about 11,000 of these tornadoes, some of them as wide as the United States, may be spinning across the Sun’s surface. Each one can pack winds of more than 10,000 miles per hour. The tornadoes were discovered using the Swedish one-meter solar telescope, together with SDO data. Researchers think that heated plasma (electrically charged gas) rises through the tornadoes into the Sun’s corona, or upper atmosphere. This could help explain a longtime mystery: how the corona reaches temperatures of up to 5 million degrees Fahrenheit.
The larger type of solar tornado (not shown here), which can sometimes be wider than a hundred Earths, is related to bursts of magnetic flux called coronal mass ejections.
—–Magnetic Tornadoes as Energy Channels into the Solar Corona—–
Science: Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm (University of Oslo, Norway), Eamon Scullion (University of Oslo), Oskar Steiner (Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics, Germany), Luc Rouppe van der Voort (University of Oslo), Jaime de la Cruz Rodriguez (Uppsala University, Sweden), Viktor Fedun (University of Sheffield, U.K.), Robert Erdélyi (University of Sheffield, U.K.)
Visualization: Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm, University of Oslo, Norway, using CO5BOLD http://folk.uio.no/svenwe/research.ht… and VAPOR (Visualization and Analysis Platform for Ocean, Atmosphere, and Solar Researchers) http://www.vapor.ucar.edu
More information: http://www.solartornado.info
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Bible say : in the beginning there was the word; and the word was God
Science says: iin the beginning there was the word; and the word was Bang.
Philosophically they are identical.
Cosmology is an observational science. No philosophy needed.
Not even.
The first statement is a myth. The second is not what science says.
Science is filled with philosophy! The scientific method is based on philosophy and logical proofs are rooted in philosophical statements. When I want something analysed logically I go to a philosophy professor. They know every trick and misunderstanding and incorrect attribution in the book. For example the word “synecdoche” is very relevant to the analysis of CAGW. When a philosopher looks at the claims of CAGW they recognise that an attribute of the whole (the climate system) is being ascribed to one of its components (CO2). It is a type of category error, i.e. the incorrect assigning of an attribute to something which cannot have it. CO2 is an element of the atmospheric heating and cooling systems, but the attribute of the whole is ascribed by CAGW to CO2 as if it was responsible for the causing the effects of the whole which is impossible. Water vapour, for example, is described by CAGW as being ‘only a feedback’ and not the major cause of the GHG’s total effect.
That is logic, a subset of philosophy.
There is indeed overlap between certain aspects of philosophy and science. There is also the philosophy of science.
But myth, not so much. Mythological thought is pre-scientific. It’s what the scientific method replaced. Naomi Orestes and Steven Mosher are trying to revive a 2600 year old habit of thought.
The Ancient Near East cosmology, in both its Mesopotamian and Egyptian versions, was based upon consensus, to which standard Orestes and Mosher would have us return.
By contrast, the scientific method, which has achieved such great advances in understanding nature since 1543, is based not upon consensus, but its opposite, ie what can be shown by observation.
Watching the solar corona devil (like a big dust devil, not a tornado) is cool.
What I find intriguing is watching the upper corona frequently tear the top off of the corona devil.
Winds or magnetic loops, whatever. Too toasty for me to go and find out, not forgetting the cost issues.
In reply to:
William,
Bah, bah, bah, bah, all talk no observations, no specifics to support any of your comments. Science is the investigation of paradoxes and anomalies. Your knowledge of astronomical anomalies and paradoxes is zip, yet you have very, very, strong ‘opinions’ about the big bang theory. What is the basis for those very, very strong opinions?
There are over a hundred observational anomalies and paradoxes in peer reviewed papers that indicate the Big Bang theory is in crisis has been in crisis for at least the last 20 years.
1) Quasars do not exhibit time dilation which is a paradox. Super Nova spectral show evidence of time dilation. As time dilation is observed super nova, this fact that quasars do no exhibit time dilation provides support for the assertion that quasars less than z=1 in distance. Support for this assertion is the fact that local intergalactic gas ionization requires twice as many quasars as observed to explain ionization.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
This the link to the published 2010 paper. (There is 2001 and 2006 paper same conclusion).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract
The quasars are aligned as they are not billions of light years apart. There is evidence (See the late Halton Arp’s peer reviewed papers and book on this subject) of highly ionized gas clouds connecting quasars that should be billions of light years apart based on redshift. There are a dozen independent observational types all in peer reviewed papers to support that assertion.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/
You are WAY behind the times. Go to http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology and study the presentations cos01 to cos17 and learn a bit [if it is possible].
About the lack of time dilation:
“This is a quite remarkable and very important paper but not for the reasons that the author states. He has managed to select exactly a perfect sample of quasars which has redshift variation not correlated with time dilation. As we have seen this conclusively proves that intrinsic redshift is found in quasars. If he had set out with the intention of proving this, he could not have managed it better
http://www.leif.org/EOS/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf
You may also benefit from studying
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
“”At any moment, about 11,000 of these tornadoes, some of them as wide as the United States, may be spinning across the Sun’s surface. Each one can pack winds of more than 10,000 miles per hour. The tornadoes were discovered using the Swedish one-meter solar telescope, together with SDO data. Researchers think that heated plasma (electrically charged gas) rises through the tornadoes into the Sun’s corona, or upper atmosphere. This could help explain a longtime mystery: how the corona reaches temperatures of up to 5 million degrees Fahrenheit.””
After having watched the videos and before reading the above paragraph, was thinking “corona heating.”
11,000 +/- of these tornados on the solar surface woo woo…
Not why we are here today..
Pondering
Hemispheric Asymmetries in the heliosphere nose and Hemispheric Asymmetries in Solar Polar Field reversals and Periodicities.
IBEX: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS (2009-2013)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/20/meta#apjs497246r11
D. J. McComas1,2, F. Allegrini1,2, M. Bzowski3, M. A. Dayeh1, R. DeMajistre4, H. O. Funsten5, S. A. Fuselier1,2, M. Gruntman6, P. H. Janzen7, M. A. Kubiak3
© 2014
“”..Figures 24 and 25 also show a substantial north–south asymmetry developing on the upwind side, especially in the 2013 maps (right columns), with broadly increasing spectral slope in the north, but not in the south…
..Figure 28 shows the time evolution of ENAs for the dominant energy/latitude dependent emission regions of the Ribbon. From 2009 to 2012, ENA fluxes are declining at all energies in both the northern and southern portions of the Ribbon. However, in 2013, while the northern Ribbon ENAs continue to show declining fluxes, especially for the highest two energies, the southern Ribbon ENA fluxes appear to have flattened out or even slightly recovered. Thus, the evolution of the Ribbon fluxes in the two hemispheres has become quite different in 2013. We note that this difference cannot be simply explained by the difference in the survival probability corrections, which diverge between the north and south in 2012–2013 (e.g., Figure 6) as these corrections are only a few percent different, especially at the higher energies were the Ribbon flux evolution becomes so different…””
All very interesting, but of no relevance to solar activity or the sun on account of the supersonic solar wind.
Wright is completely silent (does not mention any) of the 100 astronomical paradoxes and anomalies that cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. Science is the study of anomalies and paradoxes, to solve scientific problems, not the perpetuating of Zombie theories. Your silly copy of a power point presentation which you know nothing about and your complete inability to discuss any of the details of a couple of dozen of the most discussed paradoxes/anomalies that are widely discussed in peer review papers confirms you know zip about the 100 astronomical paradoxes and anomalies. Cosmology has been in crisis for at least 20 years.
50% of the observational measurement of the 3.7 k ‘background’ is removed as that 50% is deemed to be thermal from cold dust that surrounds the Milky Way galaxy same as the cold dust that surrounds other galaxies, to create what is called the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Dark matter, Dark Energy, Inflation all have been created to keep the Big Bang theory on life support. The big bang theory fails to explain the most basic observations without inflation and dark matter.
CMB and Inflation. The predicted minimum variance of the cosmic microwave background is 1 part 7000 to at most 1 part in 10,000. The reason for the minimum variance is due to the fact that there are galaxies in the universe.
The observed CMB variance is one part in 100,000.
The hand waving ‘theory’ which is called ‘inflation’ saves the day. Inflation expands the entire universe at 100,000 times the speed of light and then stops the hyper expansion with no change in velocity.
The inflation theory requires (invents a new field) which is appropriately called the inflaton field which expands Einstein space when necessary to keep the big bang theory on life support. There is no explanation as to where the energy comes from to expand Einstein space for an entire universe or why inflation starts or ends. Wright completely ignores the inflation mechanism energy paradox (where or where does the energy come from to expand an entire universe and then stop the hyper expansion with no change in velocity) and does not explain that the Big Bang theory cannot explain the most basic astronomical observation (the existence of galaxies) without inflation. Inflation is not even mention in the standard short form definition of the key pillars of Big Bang.
Wright’s quasar section does not mention the fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation and does not mention the fact that quasars also do not exhibit Faraday magnetic rotation, both observations support the assertion that all observed quasars are less than z=1. There is no mechanism (and there are no peer reviewed papers that attempt to propose a mechanism) that can magically change quasars with redshift to make it appear that quasars do not exhibit time dilation.
As I noted Halton Arp noticed thirty year ago that there are clouds of highly ionized intergalactic gas surrounding strings of quasars that are coming from their parent galaxy. These weird specific patterns of a low redshift parent galaxy with a string of quasars with gradually reducing redshifts along the string and then as the ejected quasars evolve with time newly developing galaxies at the end of the string, is observed throughout the universe.
Subsequent new analysis confirms Arp’s original observations. The redshift along the string of ejected quasars is highest when they are originally ejected and decreases with time as they move away from their parent galaxy and evolve with time and start to ejected what are called Wolf-Rayet stars and form Wolf-Rayet galaxies. As Arp notice there are knots along the spiral galaxy arms as these early galaxies eject from their quasar core.
It is these Wolf-Rayet stars in Wolf-Rayet galaxies which eject immense amounts of hydrogen and helium gas in the galaxy where they are developing and outside their parent galaxy to create the background gas that the Big Bang theory alleges was created 13.7 billion years ago.
The new multi spectral analysis shows 50% of the high redshift galaxies are Wolf Rayet galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0051
Massive star formation in Wolf-Rayet galaxies
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507298v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603188v1
Implications of the metallicity dependence of Wolf-Rayet winds
DUSTY INFRARED GALAXIES: SOURCES OF THE COSMIC INFRARED BACKGROUND
Because of assumed great distance there is now the same ultra luminous problem that was waved away for quasars for Ultraluminous infrared galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4869v1
Hyperluminous infrared galaxies from IIFSCz
The morphological paradox is 70% of the galaxies in the local universe are spiral galaxies. There is no mechanism that can cause a galaxy to suddenly start producing 1000 Wolf-Rayet stars per year. The assumption that the Wolf-Rayet observation is caused by a major merger will create an elliptical galaxy, rather than a spiral galaxy. Based on the number of ‘high redshift’ Wolf Rayet galaxies in the ‘early’ universe there should be no spiral galaxies in the local universe.
Furthermore paradoxically there is no change in the percentage of spiral galaxies verse elliptical galaxies from z=0 to z=1. There is no morphological change. It is as if the universe is eternal.
The weird high redshift objects such as super dense galaxies completely disappear. There is absolutely no evidence of a class of galaxies in the local universe that differs from the others.
The observations support the assertion that the universe is eternal, rather than the theory that the universe was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago.
Cosmology has been in crisis for at least 20 years
On the contrary, the last 20 years has been a Golden Age for cosmology. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/FanPrecisionCosmology.pdf
Using the SLOAN data [ http://www.sdss.org/ ] shows
“In summary, using samples from SDSS and 2QZ, we demonstrate that not only is there no periodicity at the predicted frequency in log (1 þ z) and z, or at any other frequency, but there is also no strong connection between foreground active galaxies and high-redshift QSOs. These results are against the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies or have periodic intrinsic noncosmological redshifts”.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/432754/pdf
both observations support the assertion that all observed quasars are less than z=1.
The SLOAN data says otherwise: http://www.sdss.org/science/
http://www.leif.org/Quasar-Spectra.png
“Stacked spectra of more than 46,000 quasars from the SDSS; each spectrum has been converted to a single horizontal line, and they are stacked one above the other with the closest quasars at the bottom and the most distant quasars [with z = 5] at the top.”
“Powered by the accretion of gas onto supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, quasars are the most luminous objects in the Universe. With discoveries from its earliest imaging campaigns, the SDSS extended the study of quasars back to the first billion years after the Big Bang”
http://www.leif.org/research/Quasar-Spectra.png
What is interesting about solving the cosmological puzzle is its solution (the key to the puzzle is what happens physically when very large bodies collapse and how does the body that forms when very large bodies collapse change cyclically with time) has real practical implications as to what is currently happening to the sun, to fundamental physics, and to how the climate will change in the immediate future.
There will be renewed interest in the sun if and when there is a significant change to the planet’s climate. I am waiting for the observational evidence to move the show on. Until there is, this is a Coles notes summary of some of the related problems.
There is a physical reason for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record. Can you see the cyclic abrupt climate change in this graph? Cyclic or not cyclic? Abrupt changes?
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
When you were a child did you ever pretend? Try to imagine a different theory. Is that possible for you? Do you have scientific imagination?
Pretend you have never heard about the big bang theory, now look at the cosmological observations. Pretend you are interested in solving the cosmological puzzle and have researched the peer reviewed papers concerning the more than a hundred different cosmological anomalies and paradox. Pretend you have read Halton Arp’s book “Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science” that was published more than 20 years ago.
What observations does Arp have in his book? What was the academic community’s reaction when Arp forced peer reviewed academic journals to publish anomalous observations which cannot to this day be explained? The immediate reaction of the academic journals was to rejected the papers that outlined the anomalous observations as there was no explanation for the observations in question.
It is a fact not at theory that there are now more than a 100 anomalous observations and paradoxes concerning the Big Bang theory. It is not possible to disprove anomalous observations. What cosmologists have done is to either ignored specific anomalous observations and paradoxes that disprove the big bang theory or alternatively they have created new Zombie mechanisms such as ‘inflation’, dark matter, and dark energy to avoid a paradox.
There are now (20 years after Arp wrote his book) more quasar anomalies such as the observation that there is no time dilation of quasars with redshift and no Faraday magnetic rotation of quasars with redshift, spooky alignment of a massive group of quasars that is almost a billion light years apart based on redshift, and there now acknowledged anomalous large groups of quasar where the group size is greater than can be explained by the big bang theory (see my comment above and below for a link to a peer reviewed paper). The other quasar found anomalies and paradoxes support the assertion that Arp made 30 years ago in peer reviewed papers.
Wright’s blog and modern cosmological text books do not include the more than 100 anomalous observations that send the big bang theory into crisis. A single anomaly or paradox should send a theory into crisis. More than hundred is comical, ridiculous.
As Halton Arp noted almost 30 years ago based on observations (i.e. Arp does not have a theory that a specific group of quasars were ejected from a specific parent galaxy, that is what he observed.) It is fact that there is a cloud of very, very, hot ionized intergalactic gas that surrounds some of the quasars of a group of what should be according to the big bang theory unrelated quasars. The super hot ionized gas that surrounds a group of quasars (the quasars in questions based on redshift should be millions of light years apart and hence unrelated) points in the direction of the parent galaxy that ejected the quasars in question. This same weird formation and arrangement of super hot ionized gas surrounding a group of what should be unrelated quasars is found in all regions of the universe.
The random check for quasar clustering is (there is now accepted agreement that quasars do anomalously cluster) ignores the issue is the anomalous clustering is a specific group of quasars, not all quasars in general. Other quasars are related to their own group, not to a disconnected group.
This super hot ionized intergalactic gas (the fact that there is intergalactic gas that is a million degrees k surrounding a group of quasar is another anomaly to explain. Why is the intergalactic gas so hot? The reason why the intergalactic gas is so hot is the same reason/cause that ejected the quasar and caused an non cosmological redshift that changes with time. Very, very high electric charge imbalance cause non cosmological redshift. Electric charge imbalance causes current movement as the charge attempts to equalize between bodies which is the reason for the super hot intergalactic gas. As the charge imbalance of the ejected quasar object reduces the quasar in question starts to eject the Wolf-Rayet ‘stars’ and form a satellite galaxy which overtime evolves into a massive spiral galaxy. This same mechanism history is seen in our local group of galaxies.
There is another set of papers which try to come up with zombie mechanisms to heat up intergalactic gas and to keep the intergalactic gas hot for hundreds of millions of years, basic analysis indicates it should cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502458v1
The following are more peer reviewed papers that discuss the spooky alignment of large scale structures in the ‘cosmic microwave background’, the radiation in question is not cosmic it from dust that surrounds the Milky Way that is heated by the Milky Way by external galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353v3
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738
http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.6221v1
Study the results from the SLOAN survey [now covers a million quasars]:
http://www.sdss.org/science/
“Measurements of large-scale structure in SDSS maps of galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas have become a central pillar of the standard cosmological model that describes our understanding of the history and future of the Universe. SDSS data have helped to demonstrate that the Universe is dominated by unseen dark matter and pervasive dark energy, and seeded with structure by quantum fluctuations in the infant cosmos. Those fluctuations have grown into the large-scale structure we see today.
The SDSS’s high-precision maps of cosmic expansion history using baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) have been especially influential in quantifying these results, yielding exquisite constraints on the geometry and energy content of the universe. BAOs were first detected in galaxy clustering by the SDSS-I and in the contemporaneous 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, and have since also been detected in intergalactic hydrogen gas using Lyman-alpha forest techniques.
These BAO measurements are beautifully complemented by the results of the SDSS-II Supernova Survey, which has provided the most precise measurements yet of cosmic expansion rates over the last four billion years. In addition, statistical measurements of galaxy motions and weak gravitational lensing provide some of the strongest evidence to date that Einstein’s General Relativity is an accurate description of gravity on cosmological scales.”
The BB is alive and well.
Quasars are active nuclei of galaxies.
Gravitational lensing shows that quasars are a vast distances.
It is a fact not at theory that there are now more than a 100 anomalous observations and paradoxes concerning the Big Bang theory.
You could increase your flagging credibility by listing and linking to the papers that claim the ‘more than a 100’ anomalies…
I meant: listing and linking to the more than 100 papers.
In the meantime, you might benefit from studying the use of gravitational lensing showing that quasars are at cosmological distances and that their redshift-distance relation simply follows the standard Hubble law:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Courbin/paper.pdf
Quasars are just active galaxies seen pole-on
That is interesting. Thanks.
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/fallofbigbang/
This site lists about 36 papers calling out such anomalies for your reading pleasure.
The papers just show how rich the universe is. A good example is number 3 on your list:
“An ultraluminous quasar with a twelve-billion-solar-mass black hole at redshift 6.30”
Contrast that with William’s claim that all quasars have redshift less than one.
Number 5 shows that the standard ΛCDM model passes their test.
And so on.
On number 5: the ‘tired light excuse’ excude is not supported by observations
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
While we wait for local observation to confirm or disprove the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted and that a solar cycle interruption is the cause of cyclic abrupt climate change, here are more of the piles and piles of anomalies and paradoxes which have general public are not aware of.
There piles and piles of anomalies concerning why spiral galaxies form rather than elliptical galaxies, why spiral galaxy parameters including momentum is tightly controlled and increases with galaxy mass.
Those observations are a paradox for a hierarchical galaxy formation which is what the big bang predicts. Random galaxy mergers would produce random angular momentum of the resultant and would turn spiral galaxies into elliptical galaxies.
The relatively new discovery that 1/3 of all spiral galaxies are bulgeless is salt into the paradox.
Finally the discovery of super luminous infrared galaxy adds another paradox. What can cause the massive increase infrared luminosity with red shift. The galaxies in question are too bright which creates theory problems for the big bang theory. The leading theory that super infrared brightness is caused by mergers returns to the why are two thirds of the galaxies spiral.
Paradox 1 – Spiral Galaxy Existence Paradox, Conservation of Momentum/Merger Paradox,
How do spiral galaxies avoid mergers? Why are there any spiral galaxies? 2/3 of the mass in the local universe is in spiral galaxies. Due to the conservation of angular momentum (angular momentum cannot be created or destroyed) the merger of two spiral galaxies which have different angular momentum (the problem is the angular momentum of the stars of the two merging galaxies) will produce an elliptical galaxy or an elliptical like galaxy not a spiral galaxy and will produce a galaxy that has log normal angular momentum. This is a very, very basic paradox.
There must be some unknown mechanism that is stopping spiral galaxies from merging. Dark matter is not a solution to this problem. Changing the laws of gravity does explain this observation. The problem is the conservation of angular momentum and the mergers of spiral galaxies that have stars.
The existence of a set of a graduated set of flat bulgeless spiral galaxies makes this paradox more sever.
The bulgeless galaxies somehow grow without mergers and turn into normal massive spiral galaxies.
Paradox 2: Tightly Correlated, Graduated increasing Angular Momentum and four other Spiral Galaxy Parameters, Goldilocks Spiral Galaxy Momentum Paradox
Disney et al’s discovery that spiral galaxy have a tightly correlated set of parameters. Mergers will in addition to producing elliptical like galaxies, will not produce spiral galaxies that have a graduating increase in angular momentum.
As I noted this paradox requires a Goldilocks angular momentum mechanism which will add the correct amount of angular momentum (not too much, not too little) as the galaxy grows in mass to maintain the tight correlation of galaxy parameters.
Paradox 3: Discovery of hyperluminous infrared galaxies and discovery that roughly 50% of the high redshift galaxies are hyperluminous. The paradox is there is no mechanism besides mergers to cause the hyperluminous infrared emission in the big bang theory. The competing eternal theory has spiral galaxies ejecting Wolf-Rayet ‘stars’ as an internal process, a process that does not involve interaction or mergers of galaxies. Major mergers produce elliptical galaxies rather than spiral galaxies. There is a paradox as 2/3 of the galaxies from z=0 to z=1 are spiral galaxies and roughly 1/3 of the spiral galaxies are bulgeless spiral galaxies. Why are there so many spiral galaxies?
Galaxy spin is thought (assumed) to be the result of early tidal torquing. That assumption is not correct. There needs to be new mechanism (I repeat, a new mechanism) that produces a precise graduated increase in momentum as the spiral galaxy grows/gains mass.
Simulations produce spins (spiral galaxy angular momentum), independent of mass, with a log-normal distribution.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.1554.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0702585v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3015
None of these have any bearing on the validity of the BB. All they do, is showing us that we are beginning to get better observations of the early universe. And you still have more than 97 papers to go.
And spiral galaxies do merger. Here is a nice example:
http://i.space.com/images/i/000/045/709/i02/NGC-7714.jpg?1424228776
As no one has bothered to list (more likely everyone understands what happened to Halton Arp who just insisted that observational anomalies and paradoxes should not be ignored and should be not be pasted over with Zombie mechanisms) the more than hundred anomalies and paradoxes related to the big bang theory in a form that is accessible to the general public, the general public is completely unaware that the Big bang theory is in crisis and has been in crisis for at least 20 years.
The Big Bang theory is a Zombie theory, an urban legend. The Big Bang theory is a theory that is stopping the progress/blocking the discovery of the most important breakthrough in fundamental physics, in the history of physics. Comparable to the discovery of nuclear power. Big thing, leads to interstellar travel.
As I noted the key to solving this entire mess, is to solve what happens when very large bodies collapse. Hint look the quasar observations, throw away the standard quasar model that has been kicking around for at least 20 years. Remember quasars do not exhibit time dilation or Faraday magnetic rotation with redshift. Explain why that is so. What are the implications of that fact?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3377v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276v5
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924v1
As no one has bothered to list
So you don’t have such a list, and therefore no documentation for your claim of ‘more than a 100’ anomalies. Well, I thought so, but was given you the benefit of the doubt.
There are more than 100 anomalies and paradoxes. Each issue requires a Coles Note explanation for a general audience to explain why it is a paradox.
An example is the fact that the CMB varies as 1 part in 100,000 while it must vary no less than 1 part in 7000 to 1 part in 5000 to explain the existence of galaxies (clump-ness of matter distribution). ‘Inflation’ is a magical expansion of Einstein space with no explanation as to energy source to make the problem go away. Inflation requires the creation of an ‘inflaton’ field which there is absolutely no proof exists. The inflaton field appears when required to cause the entire universe to expand 100,000 times faster than the speed of light and then suddenly stops expanding space to avoid killing the BB with excess velocity.
Some of the above issues such as the BB theory cannot explain the fact that 70% of the galaxies are z=0 to z=1 are spiral rather than elliptical and cannot explain the existence of bulgeless galaxies are very, very, basic.
Disney et al’s finding concerning spiral galaxies is astonishing:
There is however no point in listing the entire 100 and some anomalies and paradoxes are difficult to explain the a general audience.
I have listed sufficient linked (for example the four quasar anomalies, no time dilation with redshift, no Faraday rotation with redshift, and a reduction in super massive black hole mass with redshift, super large quasar structures which exceed the BB maximum structure constraints), the spiral galaxy set of anomalies, the CMB large structure alignment anomalies, the dark matter structural anomalies, the lack of dark matter in the local universe, the missing baryon problem, the anti matter problem, the CMB lack of variation problem (hello inflation), and so on to make my point.
The objective is to solve a scientific problem, not to beat a dead theory with paradoxes and anomalies. There are a comical number of Zombie mechanisms that have been created to keep the BB theory on life support, which is ridiculous, pathetic.
The BB theory was in crisis, 20 years ago. In last 10 years more and more paradoxes and anomalies have started to be discussed in peer reviewed papers. As the funding fathers of key theories pass away, there is less and less resistance to calling a dead theory, a dead theory.
What I finding interesting is that you knew nothing about the 100 anomalies and paradoxes and yet parroted the ridiculous precision cosmology silly comment.
Scientific progress is absolutely blocked if there are fundamental errors in base theories. If the BB theory is a Zombie theory, inflation is a silly mathematical model that has absolutely no connection with science. Akin to alchemists trying to convert lead to gold. It may appear sciency but does not advance science.
As I said before: none of what you call paradoxes have any bearing on the BB. If you feel that paradox A is not explained by BB, then explain how it is neatly explained by Crank Theory X, e.g. “BB theory cannot explain the fact that 70% of the galaxies are z=0 to z=1 are spiral rather than elliptical and cannot explain the existence of bulgeless galaxies are very, very, basic”, so how does Crank Theory X explain that?
Scientific progress is absolutely blocked if there are fundamental errors in base theories
The scientific progress in Cosmology the past 20 years has been stupendous and not blocked in any way.
We have pinned down the parameters of the Universe with exquisite precision: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmological-Principle.pdf “We describe and discuss the various observational probes that led to this conclusion and conclude that the ΛCDM model, although leaving a number of open questions concerning the deep nature of the constituents of the Universe, provides the best theoretical framework to explain the observations”.
The point is that the precise data put very strict limits on the variation of the parameters describing the BB.
Of course, you have to be aware of this [and you don’t seem to be] in order to comprehend the fantastic progress we have seen the past 20 years.
All of these observations strongly support the hot Big-Bang paradigm which not only predicts the important events in the evolution of the universe, but allows one to calculate observable quantities and obtain excellent agreement between calculations and observations, something Crank Theory X, Y, Z, … cannot do.
about the 100 anomalies and paradoxes
Before it was ‘more than 100’, but OK, some economy with the truth might be excused for the sake of the cause, but you have not produced a list of the fabulous 100, so it seems that you don’t have it.
We discuss three possible explanations of this paradox
So there are perfectly good explanations for this. No need to throw out the BB.
What three possible explanations did you have for this set of seven paradoxes?
Oh, I forgot defending a Zombie theory is a complete waste of time.
Inflation is akin to alchemy. Without inflation the Big Bang theory cannot explain the existence of galaxies or the astonishing uniformity of the CMB or the fact that space is absolutely flat (p.s. Flat space is just would you would expect in an eternal universe).
Inflation is a magic wand. Inflation expands Einstein space (entire universe) 100,000 times faster than the speed of light and then abruptly stops the expansion of space to avoid excess velocity which would invalidate the Big Bang theory. There is no explanation as to where the energy source comes from to expand the entire universe, at 100,000 times the speed of light. The Inflation theory appeals to a new field appropriately called the Inflaton field which there is absolutely no evidence exists. Cranky theory or not?
The universe is eternal rather than the theory that the universe was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Where was the universe 100 billion years ago? Sitting in box on shelf waiting for the command?
The mechanisms in an eternal universe are different than the mechanisms in a BB universe.
2/3 of the mass in the local universe is in spiral galaxies. The spiral galaxies have a tightly controlled angular momentum that is not possible via a merger history. Likewise mergers destroy spiral galaxies. Something is stopping mergers from occurring, to enable their to be 2/3 of the mass in the local universe in spiral galaxies.
50% of the high redshift galaxies are ultra luminous galaxies. The high redshift universe is too luminous which is not possible due to Big bang theory limitations (See problem at first light.)
Quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift, do not exhibit Faraday magnetic rotation with redshift, and are found in super large clusters which exceed the BB limit for structure size.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0702585v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276v5
external galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353v3
basic analysis indicates it should cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502458v1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2546v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604448v1
What three possible explanations did you have for this set of seven paradoxes?
Read your own link…
Apparently you did not study
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmological-Principle.pdf “We describe and discuss the various observational probes that led to this conclusion and conclude that the ΛCDM model, although leaving a number of open questions concerning the deep nature of the constituents of the Universe, provides the best theoretical framework to explain the observations”.
Do that, then come back.
None of your ‘paradoxes’ have any bearing on the BB, but are simply expressions of us learning more about the details of the subsequent evolution.
“None of your ‘paradoxes’ have any bearing on the BB, but are simply expressions of us learning more about the details of the subsequent evolution.”
But the subseqent evolution ain’t goin the way the “theoretical framework” says it’s supposed to and “theoretical frameworks” ain’t facts in my lexicon. However, I seriously thank you both for the rigorous discussion, both entertaining and enlightening.
All theoretical Frameworks must be based on observations. With better observations we get better theories. We learn more about the variation of the initial conditions. And theories are never facts. A theory summarizes observations and those are the facts.
Leif,
Thanks again. I always enjoy and value your input and the fact that you give us that input. The proper response is “you’re welcome”.
William, don’t waste time arguing with someone who doesn’t think the Sun has a strong influence on our climate. Who would trust such a person?