Interstellar Clouds And Dark Nebulae

---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
---

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.

.

[mallardhead]

Thank you, Jane Houston Jones! You've got a great job! Thanks for the information!

[butchdeadlift]

Ears bleeding from sparkles sound effect;

[fertilizerspike]

@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

[fertilizerspike]

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.

[fertilizerspike]

@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".

[fertilizerspike]

@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.

[cordzion]

Oh my God! Was that Russell's Teapot?

[fertilizerspike]

@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" 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.

[pinguino]

nice..sharing nd understanding makes a better future

[fertilizerspike]

@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]

@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.

[fertilizerspike]

@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.

[AutodidacticPhd]

@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.

[fertilizerspike]

@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.

[Lygre]

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.

[fertilizerspike]

@ScienceIsKnowledge

Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.

[fertilizerspike]

@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.

[fertilizerspike]

@JesterAzazel
I didn't remove those comments, talk to the channel owner.

[fertilizerspike]

@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.

[AutodidacticPhd]

@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?