On WR 140, "Bizarre Rings" [Actually "Shells"], and the Nested Double Layers Discovered in the SAFIRE Project's Test Chamber.

Wolf-Rayet 140 (WR 140) [Image Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, NASA-JPL, Caltech] 
vs. nested "plasma double layer" shells produced in the SAFIRE Project (phase III) test chamber [Image: video screenshot].

 

It never ceases to amaze me, the absolutely remarkable things that end up going unremarked. Well, it's about high time to remark upon one...

I've meant to post this blog or something like it for a long time, but had hoped one of my online colleagues would have stepped up to the plate with a more technical analysis, from our point of view, by now...

Thus far, it hasn't yet happened. So, you'll have to bear with my non-technical 'looks like' analysis. 

(Yes, I'm fully aware, 'looks like' doesn't necessarily mean 'is.' But ... I think this comparison nonetheless bears further rigorous investigation. Since, if 'looks like' turns out to be 'is,' it can tell us something extremely interesting about the cosmos, IMO. Possibly even something paradigm-shifting...)

So, not-so-long-ago now, the James Webb Space Telescope [JWST] team put out one or more press release(s) and published a paper or two in the journal Nature, which were picked up by the likes of news outlets such as Space, et al, regarding a novel observation of the Wolf-Rayet star "WR 140" (AKA, "Wolf-Rayet 140"). 

They noted that JWST had observed a heretofore unknown feature / structure unique to the the space around WR140. Specifically, they had captured an image of faint, somewhat ghostly, "bizarre rings" around the putative binary star system.

But, more than just 'rings,' Ryan Lau (Assistant Astronomer at the National Science Foundation’s NOIRLab, and principal investigator of the Webb Early Release Science program that observed WR 140) is quoted as saying:

"I was amazed. Although they resemble rings in the image, the true 3D geometry of those semi-circular features is better described as a shell."

Not just one shell mind you, but at least 17, if not more. The feature is structures a bit like an onion, with layers inside layers inside layers (at least 17 [and counting?]).

The question, my dear readers, is how we *interpret* the novel observation.

The team has forwarded a hypothesis regarding binary stars, solar winds colliding every 8 years or so and pushing out shells of dust in a somewhat spiral / conchoid manner, that then manages to somehow turn into this extremely regularly structure of nested spheres.

I, on the other hand, immediately likened the structure to something *entirely different* and altogether familiar to me: a specific novel result reported in several presentations about experiments done at the SAFIRE Project lab (testing the Electric Star / Electric Sun hypothesis, forwarded by retired professor of electrical engineering Donald Scott).

Not only was it a novel result, but it was actually initially observed & reported *prior* to the JWST observations, at least as early as 2015. Though the initial unrefined observations [below] occurred in Phase I of the SAFIRE Project, which may have {?} completed earlier than the 2015 conference presentation relating to Phase II of the SAFIRE Project:

Early images from the SAFIRE Project (Phase I). [Image: Composite of video screenshots.]

More refined observations and control of the plasma double layers came slightly later, as in this still frame from a presentation in 2017 (video of the evolving double layer shells in the experiment is slightly later, at this timestamp):

Later, more refined & controlled nested spherical "double layer" shells
inside the SAFIRE Project test chamber. [Image: video screenshot]

The JWST observation, however, was not reported until late 2022 (fully 7+ years after the SAFIRE Project had initially observed presented its experimental observations in 2015 [or earlier]).

So, for me, unlike for the JWST team, there was little if any "shock" or "surprise" at their observation of such a multi-shelled structure around one or more stars. 

In fact, to my mind, to the contrary, it should be an *expected* observation around stars, *under specific electrical/plasma conditions*, commensurate with the prior experimental observation in the SAFIRE Project test chamber, *if the Electric Sun/Star hypothesis is true and/or the experimental results obtained in the SAFIRE Project test chamber are applicable/scalable to stellar and/or cosmological scales.* [And we already know that plasma behaviors, and structures are scalable, spatially and temporally, over many O.O.M. (orders of magnitude).]

And, just as in the JWST observation (from Ryan Lau, previously quoted):

"I was amazed. Although they resemble rings in the image, the true 3D geometry of those semi-circular features is better described as a shell."

SAFIRE Project lead Monty Childs described the evolution of the Double Layer shells thusly, in his earlier 2016 presentation:

"...And these, uh, these 'double layers' ... We ended up finding that we had two, three, four, ... twenty. {!} These aren't, uh, disks, these are spherical, um, discharges. Plasma has a unique characteristic where it's translucent as you look through the center of it, and it looks like it's a disk. But, in fact, it's not. What you're looking at, actually, are spheres."

Not only are the 'double layers' spherical in the SAFIRE Project test chamber, but you can get more than one shell... 2, 3, 4, ... 20! Again, just as in the JWST observation of [at least] 17 currently observable concentric shells around WR 140... 

Electrical effects in plasma can *directly* and *reproducibly* generate *precisely* the multi-shelled structure observed by JWST [7+ years after the SAFIRE Project results].

In my opinion, this should probably be headline news. 

There should at least be a reasonable, reasoned discussion of the SAFIRE results / observations and their potential applicability to stellar atmospheres [precisely the domain it was designed to investigate], and to the cosmos at large. Presumably the SAFIRE Project team could give some insight into what they observed in the test chamber, under what specific discharge regimes, and thus what specific characteristics to look for in astrophysical observations of WR 140 in order to further investigate, differentiate between the models, and decide which theory/explanation most accurately fits/explains empirical observation.

Further, should the result/correlation be upheld, it nigh demands a careful reconsideration of some basic tenets of modern stellar theory and likely cosmology at-large, since this experiment stems not from the 'Standard Model,' but instead from the 'Electric Universe' / 'Electric Star' Model(s), wherein the prime mover and shaker of the cosmos is not the exceedingly weak force of gravitation, but the 39 OOM stronger [that's 10^39 or a 1 with 39 zeroes after it {!} times stronger] electromagnetic force...

In that model, the 'galactic web' is not 'neutral' or 'dead' but a network of interconnected 'power lines' [of a sort] lighting up, well, basically EVERYthing (stars, galaxies, etc.). Far more can be said on that, but I'll confined my remarks to the subject at hand for now, as a microcosm of the macrocosmic issue(s) at hand.

Given recent apparent falsifications of the Big Bang (fully formed galaxies with too high a redshift, thus allegedly "too mature, too early after the [alleged] Big Bang") and other tenets of the 'Standard Model,' it's about time to shake things up, and shift our thinking to a new paradigm. 

In my considered opinion, that is some flavor of Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, Magnetohydrodynamic Universe, Electrodynamic Universe, or however you bloody well want to phrase it. 

It's all the same song and dance. And it's time to do the Electric Slide/Boogie, 'cause ... according to They Might be Giants: "The Sun is a Miasma of Incandescent Plasma..." [Well, you're almost there, anyway! Just a few steps more...] Sing us out, boys!

What if the "City of God" ... was Electric?

It's not often that a book smacks you full across the face and leaves your jaw on the floor, and you in absolute gobsmacked stunned silence. But, yesterday ... was one of those days.

It started off innocuously enough, revisiting a question a colleague had posed a week ago, now that I had the last book in my hands from the late Dwardu Cardona, entitled "Newborn Star" (the last of his "God Star" series, prior to his passing).

The subject here is none other than the original provocation for the myth-making epoch, viewed, not from the point of view of the Standard Model of Cosmology, or really the "Standard Model" of anything (history, religion, mythology, etc.), but from the point of view of a rogue band of comparative mythologists and neo-Velikovskians, who have been tirelessly trying to reconstruct that which the ancient authors, thinkers, oral historians have told us, in their own way, in their own idioms and metaphors, in their own words (many of which, modern humanity simply no longer understands, not as they did).

This subject is far larger than what I can or will present here today. If you want the full story, you need to head over to www.thunderbolts.info, www.holoscience.com, www.electric-cosmos.org www.maverickscience.com, www.mythopedia.com, www.catastrophism.com, you need to read the Kronos & AEON journals, Pensée, the Thoth newsletters, you need to watch the Saturn Myth and Electric Universe presentations and videos. 

To majorly over-simplify, the ancients universally identified/proclaimed Saturn as our original 'Sun' and/or or original 'God,' Mars as the 'Warrior Hero,' Venus as the 'Great Comet,' 'Queen of Heaven,' 'Morning Star,' and later as the bringer of chaos and destruction. Plenty other mythological associations exist between these planets and mythic figures, and events, and specific symbols, relationships between these objects, gods, monsters, names, events, etc. This was also named that, this turned into that, which had this other name, etc., etc. On and on. They were often extremely specific. There are also symbols and pictographs carved in stone, or otherwise affixed to stone, for the ages. Symbols consistent around the world, in places that had no contact, yet they all drew, they all *saw* the same things [in the sky above them, as a celestial inter-planetary drama that has echoed down the ages through oral history, myth, religion, culture, & civilization itself].

Today's foray, however is a relatively small sampling... We shall concern ourselves with several symbols (previously identified), some mythological motifs, and an unexpected result from cutting edge plasma science research.

What Has Come Before

In the course of investigating the themes, imagery, personages, events recorded in mythology, it became apparent that if the things referred to in ancient mythology did in fact involve planetary bodies, in close proximity, there must be some explanatory physical processes involved, to account for the various forms seen in the sky, the events witnessed, the destruction wrought.

Inevitably, after much research, many arguments, discussions, papers, collaborations, newsletters, conferences, etc., general consensus has settled upon the strongest force in the universe (the electric force) and the fourth [some might argue 'first'] state of matter: plasma.

The Squatter Man

Around the world, the same pictograph, carved in, or painted on, stone. The "stick man" or "squatter man."

This symbol is now believed to have been part of an evolving plasma discharge (seen / drawn edge-on, in profile so-to-speak), elaborated by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt.

A number of picture of the day articles and blogs [1, 2, 3, ...] have been devoted to this association. It was also elaborated upon in the first episode of the Symbols of an Alien Sky videos (starting at approximately 18:45 in).

The Cosmic Thunderbolt (Thunderbolts of the Gods)

Similarly to the "stick man" or "squatter man," additional symbols are associated with the "thunderbolts of the gods" around the world.

These too are believed to be the visual representations of an evolving plasma discharge, as modeled by plasma physicists:

This has also been elaborated upon in Symbols of an Alien Sky.

Backbone of the Sky

Likewise, the symbolic representation of the "backbone of the sky" finds root in plasma physics as well.

This has also been covered in a number of picture of the day and blog articles [1, 2, 3] and podcasts [4].

Today's "Revelations"

As I was perusing Dwardu Cardona's last published book ("Newborn Star"), prior to his passing, I happened upon some curious passages on pages 432 & 433 and then again on page 435, in sections entitled "Queen of the Seven" and "The City of God":

"...the goddess was reputed to been the holy queen of the Annunaki, which makes her, together with An, the presiding ruler over the seven-walled celestial temple." (pg. 432)

"The celestial Uruk was said to have been encircled by seven walls, or to have been laid by seven sages, which brings us back to the seven encirclements that evolved around the proto-Saturnian orb." (pg. 433)

"A Babylonian text claims that Ninurta built a wall, although it is not said that this wall surrounded him. The Phoenicians, however, did believe that Saturn ended up surrounding his abode by such a wall. Now, as it happens, the word for 'wall' in various Semitic dialects is a variation of h-y-t -- thus hait or hayt in Arabic, and ħajt in Maltese -- ... The interesting thing about this, however, is that these words all actually mean -- or were derived from terms that used to mean -- 'surround,' 'encircle,' and/or 'to encompass.' All of which seems to imply that the very word for 'wall' originated as the encircling enclosure around what all religions proclaim to have been God or his habitation." (pg. 435)

Well, this was all rather interesting... So, I decided to look into the book index to see if there were references to the 'seven walls,' it pointed me towards the entries for 'rings.' I paged back through a few references to 'rings' and finally set eyes upon pages 239 to 247, which included several examples of carved rock art depicting concentric circles, which Dwardu has equated to rings of debris thrown off by Saturn, which may have settled into what are now Saturn's rings.

A interesting passage describes the behavior associated with these "rings" or enclosures, whatever they are alleged to be:

"There is also an indication that the proto-Saturnian rings were actually seen to rotate. Thus, for instance, the divine court of Osiris/Saturn was known as the shenit, a term that is related to shenu and shen-t, the meanings of which are given as 'circuit,' 'circle,' 'periphery,' 'circumference,' but also as 'orbit,' 'revolution,' 'a circuiting,' and 'a going round.'" (pg. 241)

If one leafs a few pages further back, one comes across the section entitled "Concentric Enclosures," wherein one finds an interesting passage:

"Halos were, as they still are, also known as glories. In the book of Enoch, God's glory is alluded to as a 'flaming fire' that was 'round about him.' Elsewhere we read of 'the glory of the Lord that was like a devouring fire.' What is more important is that the glory, or halo was said to have consisted of 'seven sheaths of fire, laid one over another.'" (pg. 234)

Paging further back to pages 230 to 231, we find a section entitled "The Seven Heavens" with he following passage:

"God is not only said to have 'made firm the heavenly circle,' but, very much as in ancient Egyptian belief, to have divided it into seven hekalot, or heavenly halls, or, as elsewhere indicated, to have 'created seven circles from inside.' More than that, these seven hekalot were themselves explicitly described as having been nothing more than the seven heavens said to have been created by God. These heavens were said to have consisted of fire and water, which fire was stressed not to have been of an earthly or physical nature." (pg. 231)

Skipping ahead again to Chapter 17, and the section "Divine Purple," on pages 266 and 267, it is emphasized that purple / blue was considered a ritually sacred color associated with God's domain as observed in the heavens, and ritually emulated / reproduced here on Earth by way of blue / purple linens encircling the tabernacle, or holy space, used to ritually represent "God's [terrestrialized] dwelling place."

This brings us to today's possible "revelation," from the cutting edge plasma physics experiment known as the SAFIRE [Solar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment] Project. The project aims to use modern scientific methodology, practices, and equipment to test the Electric Sun / Electric Star hypothesis via DoE (Design of Experiment) methodology. If you wish to know more about that project, you can view the YouTube Playlist.

In particular, relevant to today's topic, in performing plasma experiments in the lab, something unexpected happened. An anomalous structure that nobody was expecting appeared in the chamber. An enclosing, glowing, energetic structure encircled the anode (positive spherical electrode), then another, and another, and another. Depending on how the parameters were adjusted, as many as 15 concentric shells of energetic, glowing plasma were created. Not only did they glow, but they moved, and rotated.

Upon further investigation, they found that these structures were electrical double layers, and that depending upon the parameters of the experiment they could produce many, many such shells.

The tentative question I pose today is whether this unexpected structure fits, as other plasma physical structures have fit previous visual depictions of mythical symbols & motifs, what Dwardu Cardona has called the "Concentric Enclosures" motif of mythology, and/or the specifics of certain known representations of those motifs?

Has modern science quite possibly accidentally explained the 'original provocation' for the mythological descriptions of the "concentric enclosures" and "heavenly abodes" of the earliest conceptions of "God" (as a central body [planet] dominating the visible heavens)? In one of its active phases, did Saturn develop concentric enclosing "double layers" that would have been visible to mankind, giving rise to the myth-making epoch?

Does it fit most, or all, of the bills? Concentric enclosures? Whirling or rotating nature? Visual comparisons to "sheaths of fire," "laid one over another"? Even explaining the association of the holy color(s) blue/purple?

Have we, quite possibly, nailed down yet another plasma physical process that accounts for one of the many forms allegedly seen in the skies, giving rise to the myth-making epoch, as Mankind struggled to make sense of the chaos transpiring in the skies above them?

On Martian Spiders, Ice Spiders, the Namibian Desert and Remaining Open-Minded.

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science ..."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Chapter_1:_Philosophy_and_Politics
http://tinyurl.com/cm3fnpp

These words ring as true today as when they were originally penned by philosopher Bertrand Russell circa 1950. 

It is incumbent upon scientists of all caliber to hold ideas tentatively rather than dogmatically. When new evidence comes to light, it is incumbent upon the scientist to evaluate the new information to the best of their ability and, where necessary, discard or re-evaluate those ideas upon which the new information may have bearing.

A good scientist must remain open-minded toward new ideas and remain willing to have his outlook changed, should new evidence require it. This may include strengthening one's opinion that an idea is correct or, alternately, certainty may fall by the wayside as plausible alternative explanations come to light.

It is such an alternative line of inquiry that shall be brought up in this entry (though no definitive answers are yet to be had), with respect to the geological features native to the south pole of the planet Mars, affectionately nicknamed "Martian spiders."

A number of hypotheses have been forwarded over the last decade with respect to how they form, including analogies with living systems such as plants (due to similarity to Fibonacci branching seen therein) or Banyan trees (courtesy of speculation by Sir Arthur C. Clarke). Though many such thoughts have not been borne out by more detailed observations.

The current model in vogue in astrogeology circles seems to involve the notion of icy geysers, despite the fact that no such geyser has ever actually been itself observed. Granted, such a geyser would likely be composed of gases and dust too fine to resolve from orbit, even with the wonderful HiRISE (High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment) instrument. But, that hasn't stopped conceptual artists from running with the fanciful ball:

Artist's impression of hypothetical geysers on Mars.

The notion behind "Martian geysers" is that a layer of solid frost forms over the surface during the Martian winter months. Then, during spring, solar heating causes the surface under the CO2 frost to heat up before the overlaying frost itself heats up, building pressure via sublimated CO2 until the surface frost cracks and a geyser of CO2 and surface material is ejected and blown about by the wind.

Early on, low resolution images were touted by some as being confirmatory images of geyser jets and their shadows:

Screen capture from a larger HiRISE image.

While it seemed convincing to some at first glance, even a cursory perusal of HiRISE images quickly disabuses one of such notions:

Zoomed in screen capture of the above region.

Extreme close-up version of the above region.

It becomes readily apparent that such features are, in point of fact, nothing more than v-shaped fans of surface material with dissimilar albedo (brightness, or the lack thereof) either defrosted or simply overlying the layer of frost. Possibly both, if dust from a small defrosted area were blown into a v-shape by the wind and proceeded to be warmed by insolation and thusly defrost the surface immediately below it.

There are, of course, problems with the 'geyser' model, and models of the 'Martian spiders' generally.

Why should such geysers create radial filamentary ravines? Why not just a large circular crater or some other form? Why are the 'Martian spiders' located only at the south pole of Mars and not formed equivalently at the north pole? Why are streaks and fans of material created in other regions without creating 'spider' formations in the surface materials? Why do the filamentary channels of the 'spiders' sometimes appear to flow uphill 'against gravity'? Why do the ravines sometimes appear to run along ridges or avoid depressions? There seem to be a number of anomalous features not well explained by most popular models.

A more radical suggestion has been offered by proponents of the Electric Universe hypothesis. [1][2][3] That is, that the aforementioned 'Martian spiders' may share something in common with electrically created Lichtenberg figures:

"Lichtenberg figures ... are branching electric discharges that sometimes appear on the surface or the interior of insulating materials. They are named after the German physicist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, who originally discovered and studied them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenberg_figure

"Lichtenberg figures may also appear on the skin of lightning strike victims. These are reddish, fernlike patterns that may persist for hours or days. ... A lightning strike can also create a large Lichtenberg Figure in grass surrounding the point struck. These are sometimes found on golf courses or in grassy meadows."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenberg_figure

As noted on Wikipedia, lightning has been responsible for creating many lovely Lichtenberg figures on golf courses and such:

Lightning strike to a golf course.

Lightning strike to another golf course.

Lightning strike(s) to yet another golf course.

In fact, compared one to the next, there is a certain undeniable similarity between 'Martian Spiders' and Lichtenberg figures:

'Martian spiders' and Lichtenberg figures both seem to display a fractal-like branching and self-similarity. The aforementioned self-similarity is visualized in this graphic from the Tesla Mania web site:

That said, a very similar fractal-like character can be seen in some river systems or dry features attributed to past river systems. Take for instance this feature in the Saudi Arabian desert, as compared to the above Lichtenberg figure:

Saudi Arabian desert vs. electrical Lichtenberg figure.

While it begs the chicken-vs.-egg question of "which came first the rivers or the riverbeds," that's a debate for another day.

We can go as far as to say that discharges on the surface of or internal to insulators are not unknown in the sciences. In fact, surface discharges are briefly covered in Anthony Peratt's textbook Physics of the Plasma Universe (recently reprinted by Springer-Verlag):

"4.6.1 Surface Discharges"

"Surface discharges are produced by large electric fields that develop between the surface and subsurface layers in a dielectric materials as a consequence of energetic charged-particle deposition. For example, when space craft dielectrics are exposed to bursts of kiloelectronvolt particles during magnetic substorms, the particles penetrate a few micrometers to a few millimeters, building up field strengths which may be of the order of hundreds of kilovolts per centimeter. A schematic representation of this is shown in figure 4.18."

"If the material is a conductor or a semiconductor, a conduction current will flow in response to the charge deposition and will effectively neutralize the field. If the material is an insulator, the space charge will build up at a rater faster than the local relaxation time, and the associated electric field will increase. When the field reaches a critical value that depends on the material, surface smoothness, and porosity, a surface discharge will occur. This is a problem that often occurs in laboratory pulsed-power and, in fact, is a limitting constraint on how much power can flow in laboratory transmission lines. Figure 4.19 illustrates the "[Lichtenberg] figures" recorded just below the surface of an acrylic transmission line spacer. Voltage breakdown at dielectric interfaces nearly always results in the formation of these dendritic-type streamers."

Figure 4.19. [Lichtenberg] figures recorded on the surface of an
acrylic insulator used in a terawatt pulsed-power generator.

"Surface discharges will also occur on natural dielectrics in the solar system when these surfaces are exposed to large fluxes of energetic particles. This condition can be found, for example, where magnetospheric currents interact with the surfaces of the giant planets and their satellites."

If one wishes to see the formation of a Lichtenberg figure in acrylic (an insulator), one need only watch the video from the folks over at Tesla Mania. It's almost mesmerizing watching all the secondary flashes after the main discharge, as pockets of internal charge redistribute themselves.

Returning to the subject at hand, it would seem that there are several ways that fractal-like, branching, filamentary features can be created.

In fact, another process capable of creating such features is known by the name of diffusion limited aggregation:

"Diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) is the process whereby particles undergoing a random walk due to Brownian motion cluster together to form aggregates of such particles."

"The clusters formed in DLA processes are referred to as Brownian trees. These clusters are an example of a fractal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-limited_aggregation

Below is an image of a Brownian tree created in a computer simulation whereby a 'seed' is placed in the center of the 2D space and other 'particles' are allowed to 'randomly walk' until they move to a position adjacent to the 'seed,' or adjacent to another 'particle' connected to the 'seed' or subsequent branches at which point they stop moving and become part of the overall 'structure':

Diffusion limited aggregate with seed at center.

Clearly, it bears a not-insignificant visual resemblance to Lichtenberg figures and likewise to 'Martian spiders.'

Perhaps more germane to the discussion of the so-called 'Martian spiders' than the Saudi Arabian desert comparison (above) may be the desert region around Koes, Namibia:

Here we see a great many systems of dendritic channels converging on many central points. Not entirely dissimilar to the 'Martian spiders.' So, perhaps there *is* an Earthly analogue after all? It definitely bears further investigation... The standard description of these features is that they are drainage features.

When one zooms in on a 'Martian spider' one sees that it is typically a large mass of filamentary / dendritic channels pointing inward toward some central point (possibly a depression?):

However, there is at least one more method of creating filamentary, branching, fractal-like formations that bears further investigation. It's also native to our own planet, thus accessible for observation. But, I'm guessing not many astrogeologists moonlight as snow-shoers or cross-country skiers. So, they can be forgiven for never have heard terms like 'slush hole,' 'spider hole,' 'ice spider' and 'ice octopus.' But perhaps they should still get acquainted? If only to rule out one more interesting anecdotal candidate...

So, what are these features?

"As soon as it snows on top of ice, that creates a force pushing down on the floating ice.  All ice, including perfectly safe thick ice naturally cracks day and night, expanding and contracting with changing air temperatures.   When the ice cracks water can rush up through the crack on top of the ice but under the insulating snow, and form slush pockets.   These slush pockets can become very broad, sometimes covering entire lakes under the snow, and they are a hazard to travelers."
http://wintertrekking.com/safety/overflow-slush/

"Slush hole:  A hole created by water flowing up through an ice sheet, almost always as a sheet is being depressed by a snow fall. They are the are the formation phase of what become [octopus] patterns when they freeze."
http://lakeice.squarespace.com/glossary/

"[Octopi] are frozen patterns associated with water flow up through the ice and into an overlying layer of snow/slush."
http://lakeice.squarespace.com/glossary/

Put simply, a slush hole is a hole in lake or river ice through which water has welled up from below, usually due to snow over-burden pressing the ice sheet downward, creating a slushy spot. This can be a hazard for cross-country skiers, sledders, snow-shoers, hikers, etc.

A slush hole.

However, in addition to just creating a slush pocket, upwelling water can also infiltrate the snowpack, wicking up into and melting it.

A slush hole with long dendritic flow channels.

When the water melts the snowpack, it often does so in a dendritic pattern. It may also be that as snow melts it simply flows down hill toward the nearest low point and perhaps does so in rivulets that melt dendritic pathways. When it creates such dendritic patterns, it's termed a 'spider hole.' Here's a video showing one up close:

What can happen thereafter is that the meltwater refreezes and you end up with frozen channels in a dendritic pattern. In some cases, you can then also have deposition of additional snow or rain and some melting and/or refreezing. The end result are features typically called 'ice spiders,' 'ice octopi' sometimes also 'stars' or 'crabs.' A sampling of 'ice spiders' found around the web are included below, for reference:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezra/5759639/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76798588@N00/95825175/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pallo/135039466/

http://www.skridsko.net/skridskonet/bild/bild-v.asp?id=38009

Clearly, some of these features also compare reasonably well to 'Martian spiders.'

Is it possible that, at some point in Mars' past, Mars may have had water, which could have eroded the surface in some fashion? Perhaps. Though there are potential problems with this solution, not least of all that the channels of Mars's 'spiders' seem to sometimes flow uphill against gravity as well as downhill. We can't very well invoke 'novel physics.' Can water's propensity toward 'wicking' (capillary action) account for this apparent motion against gravity? Or is even that an insufficient solution?

Is it possible that these figures were created by geysers of sublimating CO2 and entrained dust? Perhaps. Though that model has its own problems. Why do other defrosting regions not display the same filamentary dendritic channels, despite similar topography and similar CO2 frost? Why are the 'spiders' confined to the southern polar region and seemingly completely absent from the northern pole?

Is it possible that, at some point in the past, Mars was scarred electrically with Lichtenberg figures? Perhaps.

But, one supposes the take away message is that there are no hard and fast answers. It would seem that many different processes seem to be proposed for and/or capable of creating dendritic features. 

A 'Martian spider'

A lightning scar to a golf course.

The desert around Koes, Namibia.

An 'ice spider.'

So, we must be willing to keep an open mind, to hold opinions tentatively and not dogmatically as well as to allow ourselves to reassess existing hypotheses in light of additional data presenting additional avenues of inquiry. It may be that this new avenue does not pan out. That wouldn't, of course, mean it was a 'bad' idea. It would simply mean that it was possibility that didn't pan out. And we should be willing to give all possibilities a shot, even if only to rule out one more contender.

Dark Days For "Dark Matter"

A central pillar of the Standard Model has taken a shellacking this month. Two separate studies have come out contra "dark matter." If this central pillar falls, the entire house of cards may collapse under its own weight.

So, what is "dark matter?"

"Dark matter" or "missing mass" is an abstract concept that came out of the failure of gravitational cosmology to account for certain observations of objects in space.

"The idea of dark matter was born at Caltech in 1933 ... In observations of a nearby cluster of galaxies named the Coma cluster, Fritz Zwicky calculated that the collective mass of the galaxies was not nearly enough to hold them together in their orbits.

"He postulated that some other form of matter was present but undetected to account for this 'missing mass.' Later, in the 1970's and '80's, Vera Rubin similarly found that the arms of spiral galaxies should fly off their cores as they are orbiting much too quickly."
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_We_See_Dark_Matter_999.html

Essentially dark matter is an error bar on the Standard Model of [Gravitational] Cosmology. We can calculate how much mass is needed, gravitationally speaking, to hold galaxies and such together. We can then observe galaxies and other objects in space across the range of the electromagnetic spectrum from radio up through gamma rays and assay whether or not the actually observable mass of the objects matches up with theoretical predictions.

Simply put: the observable matter in galaxies is insufficient to account for their characteristics.

There are, thus, two options:

1. Consider the gravitational models falsified and move on to a different theory.
2. Forgo falsification and invent a new theory or substance to salvage the gravitational model.

 Option two leads down a path paved with "dark matter." Basically, invisible, unobservable material is hypothesized then sprinkled liberally wherever the math says there's not enough mass, but there should be. In effect it is an error bar on the gravitational model, telling us precisely how much mass is 'missing' (under the assumption that gravitational theories are correct, despite observations having falsified them).

Don't worry, it gets weirder...

Not only is the stuff invisible, in order not to throw off other theories, it also only interacts gravitationally with other matter.

"Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be seen directly with telescopes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

That is, it doesn't emit electromagnetic radiation (the aforementioned EM spectrum, from radio up through gamma rays) and neither is it influenced by electric or magnetic fields. But, one supposes this shouldn't be surprising since it is, at its heart, only a mathematical kludge.

But wait, it gets weirder!

Despite dark matter not interacting with the known electromagnetic forces, some theorists want to shoehorn in some kind of electromagnetic-like force anyway, but one specific to dark matter.

"...just like ordinary matter couples to a long-range force known as 'electromagnetism' mediated by particles called photons,' dark matter [may couple] to a new long-range force known (henceforth) as 'dark electromagnetism,' mediated by particles known (from now on) as 'dark photons.'"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/29/dark-photons/

It's difficult to tell whether these folks are just pulling our legs or they're actually serious. Though, the fact they've submitted a paper on the subject seems to imply the latter.

So, okay, say for a moment that we accept the premise that dark matter exists. We don't. But let's say we did. This should be a testable theory.

And, testing it, some scientists are (in various ingeniously clever and indirect ways, keeping in mind we can't directly observe dark matter since it doesn't emit EM radiation or interact with electric or magnetic fields and we still have no idea how gravity itself actually works at the most basic physical level).

But, before dark matter has even been experimentally confirmed, scientists have already started incorporating it into other theories and applying this new tool to other fields of inquiry, building up a rickety structure of beliefs and assumptions all resting on this now load-bearing pillar. Reification is a dangerous thing. Once you start believing a thing is real, you stop questioning its reality and it becomes an unquestioned (even if also unproven) assumption, often mistaken for a "fact."

Recently, some scientists tried calculating how often WIMPs (Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles; one "dark matter" candidate particle) impact the human body. They predicted about "once a year," but in working through the problem they came up with something closer to "once a minute."

But, as such things go, their results have tons of assumptions, not least of which being that dark matter is abundant everywhere, including here. A reasonable assumption, considering that upwards of 23% of the mass/energy of the universe.

But, wait a minute... What's that? Breaking news! Two studies released in the past month have offered tentative refutations of dark matter based on actual observations of local space (in the Sun's and the Milky Way's neighborhoods). And one experiment here on Earth appears to be offering null results (that is, no evidence of "dark matter").

Earlier this week, scientists released the results of a survey of the Milky Way's local cosmic neighborhood. The press release had the following to say:

"'Once we had completed our analysis, a new picture of our cosmic neighbourhood emerged,' says Pawlowski.

"Team member Pavel Kroupa, professor for astronomy at the University of Bonn, adds 'We were baffled by how well the distributions of the different types of objects agreed with each other.' As the different companions move around the Milky Way, they lose material, stars and sometimes gas, which forms long streams along their paths. The new results show that this lost material is aligned with the plane of galaxies and clusters too. 'This illustrates that the objects are not only situated within this plane right now, but that they move within it,' says Pawlowski. 'The structure is stable.'

"''In the standard theories, the satellite galaxies would have formed as individual objects before being captured by the Milky Way,' explains Kroupa. 'As they would have come from many directions, it is next to impossible for them to end up distributed in such a thin plane structure.'"
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2118-do-the-milky-ways-companions-spell-trouble-for-dark-matter

If the observations stand up to scrutiny, the Standard Model has a hard time explaining them with the current dark matter-centric theories. Team members put the situation thus:

"Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in the universe, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit."
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2118-do-the-milky-ways-companions-spell-trouble-for-dark-matter

The question is, will the paradigm actually shift or will additional 'fixes' and 'patches' be added, order to save the oft-falsified theory?

A week or two ago, a different paper was released showing that observations of local objects in the Sun's neighborhood (stars, dust, gas) account well for their motions via gravity, with no room for any extra "dark matter."

The press release puts the implications bluntly:

“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see -- stars, dust and gas -- in the region around the Sun,” says team leader Christian Moni Bidin ... “But this leaves no room for the extra material -- dark matter -- that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

"Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found. Our results contradict the currently accepted models. The mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious."
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/

That is, no mass is "missing" from our local neighborhood. Ergo, no dark matter is required to explain the motions of objects in local space, despite the Standard Model's expectations that it should be there. As they say, galaxies "certainly rotate faster than the visible matter alone can account for," gravitationally speaking. Their results "contradict the currently accepted models" and "a new solution ... must be found."

In fact, this revelation has implications for detection efforts here on Earth. Even if dark matter exists, if there is none in our local neighborhood, it'll be a lot harder to detect.

"The new results also mean that attempts to detect dark matter on Earth by trying to spot the rare interactions between dark matter particles and “normal” matter are unlikely to be successful."
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/

But more likely it won't be detected because, well, it's 'just not there.' It's a figment of the over-active imagination of astrophysical mathemagicians.

But, that brings us to the 'testability' requirement of theories and the experiment currently being run here on Earth to try to detect dark matter: Xenon 100.

It got some press back in the day (2012) when it released preliminary results from its first 11 days of operation.

"Now, a third experiment called Xenon 100, which its makers say is even more sensitive than the other two [DAMA & CDMS-II], has failed to detect the impact of any dark matter particles, casting doubt on the earlier results. 'Dark matter particles continue to escape our instruments,' says Xenon 100 spokesperson Elena Aprile of Columbia University in New York."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839

However, there was a modicum of backlash against the Xenon 100 results, but the team has continued on undeterred, preferring their results to speak for themselves.

Appropriately enough, the team published a new paper in 2011 regarding the results of 100 days of Xenon 100 data. Their conclusion:

"In 100.9 live days of data, acquired between January and June 2010, no evidence for dark matter is found."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2549

 So, at 100 days, the results are the same as they were at 11 days. "No evidence for dark matter is found."

In all, it seems that dark matter is on the shakiest of footings and current research is not bearing it out. The question, again, is whether the repeatedly falsified model will finally be thrown out... Time will tell.

It is suggested that researchers follow-up, embrace and extend the fully electrodynamic Particle-in-Cell (PIC) simulations carried out by Los Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt back in the early 1980's, showing that galaxies can and should be explained in terms of the ubiquitous electrically conductive plasma permeating the universe. Starting from an electrodynamic point of view, galaxy rotation curves come directly out of the simulations, no dark matter required.

Astrophysicists need to move on from one of the weakest forces (gravity) to one of the strongest forces (electromagnetism), and acknowledge the electrodynamic nature of the universe as a whole.

We already know that we live in a so-called "magnetic universe." But, then again, we also know from whence springeth magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are generated by electric currents. Period.

"...steady electric and magnetic fields cannot generate themselves. Instead, they have to be generated by stationary charges and steady currents. So, if we come across a steady electric field we know that if we trace the field-lines back we shall eventually find a charge. Likewise, a steady magnetic field implies that there is a steady current flowing somewhere. All of these results follow from vector field theory (i.e., from the general properties of fields in three-dimensional space), prior to any investigation of electromagnetism."
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node37.html

"...all steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description."
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html

If we live in a magnetic universe, more fundamentally, we live in an electric universe. Live it, love it, deal with it.

So, lets dispense with the pixies and fairy dust and get down to the business of determining what actually runs the universe. Answers are at hand, if we're courageous enough to slaughter a few sacred cows in the process.

Lasers Shine Light on the Electric Universe

All roads lead to one inevitable conclusion: As electric currents produce magnetic fields, any magnetic fields we observe must be produced by electric currents. New research using lasers shows that even where shock waves and magnetic fields correlate, it is an electric current loop that generates the magnetic field.

Science marches blindly onward. The time has come to remove the blinders and explore our Electric Universe.

Galactic magnetic fields have been a thorn in the side of gravitational cosmology for the better part of a century. Where do they come from? How did they get there? Why do they persist? Why didn't gravitational cosmology predict them? Why are Hannes Alfvén's predictions almost always prescient? (Okay. Ambiplasma may have been a garden path. We can accept that. Nobody's perfect.)

Simply put, those who espouse gravitational models of the universe seems to willingly put on blinders to the efficacy of the electromagnetic field in explaining the workings of the universe. Hopefully this blog serves to peel back the veil ever so slightly.

The current leading contender for 'how galactic magnetic fields got there' in the gravitational universe are so-called magnetic 'seed fields,' unexplained small-scale fields that somehow get whipped up and amplified into bigger fields through 'dynamo action.'

"Scientists believe that galactic magnetic fields are generated from weaker seed fields. These seeds are then amplified via a dynamo mechanism, in which the rotation and turbulence of the galaxy’s interstellar medium – the gas and dust between stars – acts to reinforce the original magnetic field."
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5222/lasers-shine-light-galactic-magnetic-fields

But, how did the 'seed fields' get there? Magic? God put them there when He created everything from nothing? Man put them there when he mathematically created everything from nothing (the Big Bang)?

"However, this mechanism doesn’t explain how the seed fields themselves come into being."
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5222/lasers-shine-light-galactic-magnetic-fields

Since electric currents are not generally permissible in a gravitational universe (they either don't exist at all, don't exist on the largest scales or don't do anything of consequence, depending who you ask), some other method of creating magnetic fields must come into play. Seemingly, the only other way of generating high-energy events is collisions (banging things together).

"One of the proposed methods for creating seeds is via shock waves..."
 http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5222/lasers-shine-light-galactic-magnetic-fields

So, when all else fails, it seems 'shock waves' are invoked to get things going. Though, why 'shock waves' should be expected to generate magnetic fields isn't entirely clear, other than the fact that something has to do it.

I wonder, does a bullet flying through air produce a magnetic field? It certainly generates a shock wave. I suppose it might be an interesting experiment... Though, it's outside the scope of this blog.

To test the hypothesis, scientists have created a shockwave in the lab using a high-power laser.

"[A] pulsed laser was directed at a small carbon rod inside a chamber filled with helium gas [to mimic an explosion] ... This explosion created a shock wave ahead of the expanding material. As the shock wave moved through the plasma in the chamber, a current loop was created, which in turn generated a magnetic field."
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5222/lasers-shine-light-galactic-magnetic-fields

As expected, the shockwave generated a magnetic field. Indirectly. The shockwave generated a current loop (an electric current), which in turn generated the magnetic field. This process is known as the 'Biermann battery.' Now, the Biermann battery effect was what they were looking for. So, kudos for that... But the worry is that now science will put its blinders back on and ignore the middle man (electric currents), claiming that 'shock waves generate magnetic fields, enough said.' Too often this kind of pseudo-pedagogical oversimplification is what creeps in.

We should be cautious to always remember the causal chain of events. Yes, a shock wave can lead to a magnetic field, but only through the generation of an intermediary electric current and not through any other action. In the end it is the electric current that produces the observed magnetic field.

So, really what they have confirmed, once again, is that electric currents are the sole source of magnetic fields in the universe (as was pointed out in the initial post of this blog). A shock wave is merely one method of producing an electric current.

It is, thus, still the contention of this blog that where magnetic fields are observed in the universe, we must work backward and ask what electric current systems are driving them.

"Electric current can be directly measured with a galvanometer, but this method involves breaking the electrical circuit, which is sometimes inconvenient. Current can also be measured without breaking the circuit by detecting the magnetic field associated with the current."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Electromagnetism

Magnetic fields are diagnostic for electric currents. By observing magnetic fields we can infer that a current is present and determine characteristics of that current. This holds just as true in space as it does here on Earth in the lab. For instance, astronomers recently announced the strongest electric current observed thus far in the universe flowing in the jet of galaxy 3C303.

The scientists testing the shockwave hypothesis, however, caution that shock waves are not the only method that has been proposed for generating magnetic 'seed fields.' Other hypotheses includes stars or other objects 'casting off' their magnetic fields into interstellar space. Such a 'casting off' is nonsense, since magnetic fields cannot be 'frozen in' to plasma as has been repeatedly claimed by astronomers (Don Scott).

Unmentioned is the assertion decades ago by Hannes Alfvén that galaxies should be expected to possess magnetic fields owing to the fact that they are electrical structures not dissimilar to a unipolar inductor. If this is so, then so-called 'seed fields' would be an unnecessary artifice, as the electric currents flowing in and around a galaxy analogous to a unipolar inductor would be the only source required to account for the observed magnetic fields.

Perhaps some day soon, we can dispense with the need for 'seed fields' altogether and move to a fully electromagnetic explanation of the ubiquitously observed magnetic fields throughout the universe. So ubiquitous are they, in fact, that a number of mainstream publications have alluded to the fact that we live in a "Magnetic Universe."

But, what is a "Magnetic Universe" if not a second order "Electric Universe" wherein the cart has been placed before the horse?

"Underpinning all this is a serious problem: we simply don't know what created this cosmic magnetism, or how it has maintained its strength over billions of years ... We don't [know] when or how the first magnetic fields were generated, or how they have stayed so strong and ordered over billions of years. "
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/4248/the-magnetic-universe

If we can agree that "electric currents are the sole source of magnetic fields in the universe," as was also put forth in the initial post of this blog, then we should also agree that any such "Magnetic Universe" must more fundamentally be an "Electric Universe." Steady magnetic fields arise from steady electric currents. Changing magnetic fields arise from changes to the underlying currents. Thus, if we see that magnetic fields in the universe persist and remain stable, we must also assume that the feeder currents also persist and remain stable.

That currents exist and do things of interest, must at this point become relatively non-controversial. It's time to acknowledge that obvious fact and move forward with our newer and more complete tool set. Where we see magnetic fields, we should seek to determine the underlying current structures.

Perhaps our universe is more readily knowable than we had heretofore dreamed? Galactic unipolar inductors, filamentary nebulae compressed by electromagnetic forces, high energy impulsive events driven by exploding circuits, and so on. All knowable, all testable hypotheses given a more complete understanding.