this is great

[mooeypoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation#Synchrotron_radiation_in_astronomy

 

Maybe, the irregular galaxies are the death of spiral galaxies. The galaxy has fed on the gas and matter, forming stars that are dieing, at least thats my idea.

Maybe maybe. Evidence.

 

If you've read the rest of my post ("How did galaxies get that way?") you would see that we *know* what makes Galaxies of the other types and it is NOT what you suggest.

 

If you insist on keeping your theory afloat, you are in dire need of providing evidence to your ideas. Right now they do not follow.

[Peron]

That doesn't mean they're the only (or the major) effect on Galaxy shape.

 

Your logic does not follow, and it does not fit the other galaxy types that exist in the universe.

 

I was talking about birkeland currents, spiral galaxies can form when only a birkeland current forms. Like here, http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m082.html

 

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Louis_peratt01.jpg

 

notice the fifth image. Coincedence?

 

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/graphics.simulations/cicumBgal2.jpg

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe maybe. Evidence.

 

If you've read the rest of my post ("How did galaxies get that way?") you would see that we *know* what makes Galaxies of the other types and it is NOT what you suggest.

 

If you insist on keeping your theory afloat, you are in dire need of providing evidence to your ideas. Right now they do not follow.

 

Electricity plays in the forming of galaxies and we can observe that, i provided many evidence. My idea only applys to spiral galaxies.

[mooeypoo]

I was talking about birkeland currents, spiral galaxies can form when only a birkeland current forms. Like here, http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m082.html

 

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Louis_peratt01.jpg

 

notice the fifth image. Coincedence?

With the lack of better evidence, yes, a coincedence.

 

"It looks pretty much teh same" is never a proof of anything other than it looks pretty much the same.

 

If anything, it's an opening curiousity to start an investigation. You're most welcome to start one and post your findings, but you'll have to post *evidence*, not images that look the same.

 

I can find images that DON'T look the same - the fact you are selectively picking images does not do well to your theory.

 

Electricity plays in the forming of galaxies and we can observe that, i provided many evidence. My idea only applys to spiral galaxies.

"Plays" in the forming of galaxies is not the same as it being the MAJOR PLAYER in the forming of galaxies, surely you can see the flaw in that logic.

 

If you think your idea is valid, you will need to supply valid evidence, and not just "ooh, that's pretty" images. Those are worthless to your cause and prove nothing.

[Peron]

With the lack of better evidence, yes, a coincedence.

 

"It looks pretty much teh same" is never a proof of anything other than it looks pretty much the same.

 

If anything, it's an opening curiousity to start an investigation. You're most welcome to start one and post your findings, but you'll have to post *evidence*, not images that look the same.

 

I can find images that DON'T look the same - the fact you are selectively picking images does not do well to your theory.

 

 

"Plays" in the forming of galaxies is not the same as it being the MAJOR PLAYER in the forming of galaxies, surely you can see the flaw in that logic.

 

If you think your idea is valid, you will need to supply valid evidence, and not just "ooh, that's pretty" images. Those are worthless to your cause and prove nothing.

 

I might not have proof, but they do...http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b

 

[The Electric Galaxy

 

The scandalous truth is that there is a model of spiral galaxy formation that has long been demonstrated by laboratory experiment and "particle in cell” (PIC) simulations on a supercomputer. But instead of using stars, gas and dust as the particles, subject to Newton’s laws, the particles are charged and respond to the laws of electromagnetism. This seems like an obvious approach when we know that more than 99.9 percent of the visible universe is in the form of plasma. Plasma is a gas influenced by the presence of charged atoms and electrons. Plasma responds to electromagnetic forces that exceed the strength of gravity to the extent that gravity can usually be safely ignored. This simple fact alone suggests why gravitational models of galaxies must fail. ]

 

Heres more... [We see the signs of electrical influences everywhere in the Cosmos, but astronomers remain impervious to these telltale clues. Consider the image above of the Radio Galaxy 3C31 (also called NGC 383). This galaxy is a MINUSCULE object, little more than a dust mote, when seen against an immense display of highly energetic charged particles. Electrons in twin polar jets, accelerated to near the speed of light are the witnesses to the most intense electrical discharge activity known to science. Our instruments detect this activity through its synchrotron radiation and through the twin lobes of high-energy radio signals. So how is this huge region of electrical activity to be interpreted? In standard models, an electrically-neutral galaxy is asked to generate electrical activity across volumes of space THOUSANDS of times greater than the volume of the galaxy. But simple electrodynamics says this is impossible! How does a galactic-size, neutral object produce a vast domain of electrical activity around it? A plasma cosmologist looking at this image will see electric currents incomparably larger than the galaxy, being focused down by a plasma "pinch," at energy levels capable of lighting and organizing stars into the ubiquitous galactic spiral structure.

 

But mainstream astronomers who see this picture can only imagine that a "supermassive black hole" - a nearly infinite compression of matter which they assure us exists in the heart of every galaxy - is devouring material and "spitting it out" to produce X-ray energies. But it's imperative that we understand what astronomers actually mean when they claim to "see" a black hole. Long before scientists began speculating about "dark matter" and "dark energy" (invisible and undetectable entities which we are told make up 96% of the Universe) astrophysicists observed that galactic cores exhibit vastly more concentrated energetic activity than could be achieved by gravity alone, unless something hugely massive (yet incredibly small) were present. So they effectively "divided by zero." They employed the near zero force of gravity to explain a nearly "infinite" compression of matter -- the only thing they could imagine under their theoretical assumptions. It's no longer physics; it is a bizarre mathematical conjecture. They called these speculative, monstrous concentrations of matter "black holes," imagining that they "consume everything around them." ]

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/042208_is_the_universe_electric.htm

 

I can bring up all sorts of proof. About how the sun discharges thousands of amps into our earth, cause earthquakes, storms, and other phenomena.

[mooeypoo]

Peron, they're using the same type of "Evidence" you used by showing cute pictures and how they look like electric plasma and then jump to the conclusion that they are.

 

I didn't find any peer reviewed articles that support anything they're saying.

 

 

As I've said before, I, too, can nitpick specific types of pictures of the universe to lead towards a prefered point of view. That isn't science. If I (and they) were to look at *ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA*, and all the available observations, then this theory falls on its face (read back on this thread to see some of the reasons why).

 

Nice pictures are not proof of anything.

 

Well written, well designed website that lacks peer reviewed references (or any references at all, for that matter) is not evidence of anything either.

 

~moo