Magnetic fields created before the first stars

Jan 02, 2013 by Julia Weiler

Magnets have practically become everyday objects. Earlier on, however, the universe consisted only of nonmagnetic elements and particles. Just how the magnetic forces came into existence has been researched by Prof. Dr. Reinhard Schlickeiser at the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum. In the journal Physical Review Letters, he describes a new mechanism for the magnetisation of the universe even before the emergence of the first stars.

Before the formation of the first stars, the luminous matter consisted only of a fully ionised gas of protons, electrons, helium nuclei and lithium nuclei which were produced during the Big Bang. "All higher metals, for example, magnetic iron could, according to today's conception, only be formed in the inside of stars", says Reinhard Schlickeiser. "In early times therefore, there were no permanent magnets in the Universe." The parameters that describe the state of a gas are, however, not constant. Density and pressure, as well as electric and magnetic fields fluctuate around certain mean values. As a result of this fluctuation, at certain points in the plasma weak magnetic fields formed - so-called random fields. How strong these fields are in a fully ionised plasma of protons and electrons, has now been calculated by Prof. Schlickeiser, specifically for the gas densities and temperatures that occurred in the plasmas of the .

The result: the magnetic fields fluctuate depending on their position in the plasma, however, regardless of time - unlike, for example, such as , which fluctuate over time. Everywhere in the luminous gas of the early universe there was a with a strength of 10-20 Tesla, i.e. 10 sextillionth of a Tesla. By comparison, the earth's magnetic field has a strength of 30 millionths of a Tesla. In , field strengths of three Tesla are now usual. The magnetic field in the plasma of the early universe was thus very weak, but it covered almost 100 percent of the plasma volume.

Stellar winds or supernova explosions of the first massive stars generated shock waves that compressed the magnetic random fields in certain areas. In this way, the fields were strengthened and aligned on a wide-scale. Ultimately, the magnetic force was so strong that it in turn influenced the shock waves. "This explains the balance often observed between and thermal gas pressure in cosmic objects", says Prof. Schlickeiser. The calculations show that all fully ionised gases in the early universe were weakly magnetised. Magnetic fields therefore existed even before the first stars. Next, the Bochum physicist is set to examine how the weak magnetic fields affect temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.

Explore further: Neutrino trident production may offer powerful probe of new physics

More information: R. Schlickeiser (2012): Cosmic magnetization: from spontaneously emitted aperiodic turbulent to ordered equipartition fields, Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.261101

Related Stories

Why solar wind is rhombic-shaped?

Nov 15, 2011

Why the temperatures in the solar wind are almost the same in certain directions, and why different energy densities are practically identical, was until now not clear.

Are pulsars giant permanent magnets?

Nov 22, 2011

Some of the most bizarre phenomenon in the universe are neutron stars. Very few things in our universe can rival the density in these remnants of supernova explosions. Neutron stars emit intense radiation ...

With stimulus aid, scientists hope to mimic nature's dynamos

Oct 09, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the cosmos, all celestial objects - planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies - have magnetic fields. On Earth, the magnetic field of our home planet is most easily observed in a compass where ...

Recommended for you

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

High Flux Isotope Reactor named Nuclear Historic Landmark

Sep 12, 2014

The High Flux Isotope Reactor, or HFIR, now in its 48th year of providing neutrons for research and isotope production at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been designated a Nuclear ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (21) Jan 02, 2013
"All higher metals, for example, magnetic iron could, according to today's conception, only be formed in the inside of stars", says Reinhard Schlickeiser. "In early times therefore, there were no permanent magnets in the Universe."


Protons and electrons?

Pkunk_
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2013
OMG , the EU guys are going to be all over this one. I predict them coming out of the woodwork in droves over this one.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2013
No joy for EU/PC religion though, it shows that an utterly weak magnetic field was the result of cosmology and not the constraint which is, of course, why we reject the notion in the first place. Earlier an unobserved belief, now a failed notion even before cosmology comes into it. (If it can be seen in the CMB, natch.)

Gravity is visibly responsible for structure formation that comes out of fluctuations in the inflation field as seen as temperature fluctuations in the CMB, it is a part of the 6-parameters inflationary standard cosmology we have. Here they are reduced to look for heretofore unobserved components of CMB temperature fluctuations.

I wonder how much these fields, if they exist, contribute to the interstellar magnetic field Voyager soon will see.

@ cantdrive: Proton and electron magnetic dipole moments were unordered and therefore no permanent magnet analogs. The article describes how the particles reacted to field fluctuations.
kevinrtrs
2.8 / 5 (25) Jan 02, 2013
IF magnetic fields existed before stars were formed then it means that it was impossible for stars to form in the first place since the magnetic fields clearly oppose any collapse of a so-called cloud of gas to form a star. This of course working in conjunction with the fact that any gas resists compression and that the collapsing cloud of gas would have to preserve momentum by speeding up its spin.
So how then did the first stars form?
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2013
kevinrtrs mumbled
..So how then did the first stars form?
Quite easily actually, if you have studied physics, probability & quantum mechanics.

Suffice it to say the 'conjecture' by the author has issues of spatial & temporal divergence variations.

I know you kevinrtrs, not only are you not able to answer simple questions about your deity & how he/she/it cant communicate except through a non-indestructible bible but you're unable to offer any suggestion as to how to definitely communicate unequivocally with the deity to get an answer subject to some sort of discipline ie as in "Science".

Obviously (doh) kevinrtrs, it is early days for projecting any sort of hypothesis so far in the past, when you kevinrtrs have learned some astrophysics perhaps you kevinrtrs might offer a mathematical observation based on the same physics & logic we use each & every day which also shows substantively your deity (as described by Moses) is either an impotent fool or doesnt exist.

Good bye.
gwrede
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2013
Torbjorn:
No joy for EU/PC religion though
They're coming, I know they are. There is no way you can stop them! They don't feel remorse, or pain, or logical constraints. And the will not stop. Ever. Before they rip your brains out!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 02, 2013
IF magnetic fields existed before stars were formed then it means that it was impossible for stars to form in the first place since the magnetic fields clearly oppose any collapse of a so-called cloud of gas to form a star. This of course working in conjunction with the fact that any gas resists compression and that the collapsing cloud of gas would have to preserve momentum by speeding up its spin.
So how then did the first stars form?
Kevin. How are you ever going to learn anything new if you ask questions while assuming you already know the answers?

Cant you see how this severely limits your chances for personal growth? Scientists certainly do not do this and see how much they have learned?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 02, 2013
Magnetism is everywhere.

"Andrea Rossi has made some very interesting revelations about what the Hot Cat is capable of doing. We have heard about the 1000 C plus temperatures that it can apparently reach with stability, and how this will be able to generate steam at sufficient temperatures to produce electricity efficiently.

Now he is saying that the Hot Cat can also produce an electromagnetic force (EMF), and not through some kind of thermoelectric process, but directly from the hot cat reactor."
http://www.e-catw...hot-cat/

-Rossi is just like columbus. Pons and fleischmann were like the vikings who said there was something out there but were only laughed at. The US navy is like Henry sinclair who quietly went and looked for himself on the behest of the templars, and then came back and carved ears of corn into the walls of Rosslyn Chapel.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
Magnets have practically become everyday objects. Earlier on, however, the universe consisted only of nonmagnetic elements and particles. Just how the magnetic forces came into existence…

Indeed, there is mysterious magnetic field with strengths of 110Gμ−is widespread in the cosmos, which cannot explain conventionally! May be this 'Completed Einstein theory of relativity' could answer the problem.
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Ober
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
Keep Rossi out of this. I think most believers of Rossi have now given up on him as a deluded fool. The dream was nice, but he can't deliver.
packrat
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
Well, I don't assume to know the answers and I think Kevin has a perfectly valid question. I can't think of any particular reason why the atoms in a gas cloud in space should start collecting together either without something with more gravity or charge etc.. in the middle of the collecting spot to get it started.
I would also like to know how this Prof. Schlickeiser, decided what the gas densities and temperatures where that occurred in the plasmas or any other gas masses of the early universe without just guessing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 02, 2013
Keep Rossi out of this. I think most believers of Rossi have now given up on him as a deluded fool. The dream was nice, but he can't deliver.
But he has delivered and you havent kept up. I know, everybody wants to be a skeptic. Its an excuse for impatience. Visit the website.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2013
Well, I don't assume to know the answers and I think Kevin has a perfectly valid question. I can't think of any particular reason why the atoms in a gas cloud in space should start collecting together either without something with more gravity or charge etc.. in the middle of the collecting spot to get it started.


Most models predict quantum fluctuations as being the agent that triggered the variations in densities. Then gravity took over, dense became denser, less dense became less dense.

I would also like to know how this Prof. Schlickeiser, decided what the gas densities and temperatures where that occurred in the plasmas or any other gas masses of the early universe without just guessing.


Rather than "just" guessing, it would be educated guessing. Does the good Professor reference which particular model he used to start with? There are more than just a few to work with,,, assuming that the early universe, post inflation worked with the same physics that we have.
RitchieGuy01
Jan 03, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
In Genesis the light (aka electromagnetic field) was created (Gen 1:3) before separation of matter from energy (waves) (Gen 1:6). Which was opposed with Bible deniers often, because we shouldn't have the light without matter, which would radiate it.
Gigel
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2013
Keep Rossi out of this. I think most believers of Rossi have now given up on him as a deluded fool. The dream was nice, but he can't deliver.
But he has delivered and you havent kept up. I know, everybody wants to be a skeptic. Its an excuse for impatience. Visit the website.

I still wait for the day when Mr. Rossi will show his first 10 000 $ he made with his discovery. Until then, I will be paying attention to other things.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923 got rather enthusiastic (again), might be his meds, with this quote
Andrea Rossi has made some very interesting revelations about what the Hot Cat is capable of doing.
Should we hope this "Hot Cat" is not some sort of feeble pussy !

Once we have a full energy accounting with good instrumentation and definitive experimental method then we can move forward with the necessary extrapolation and the great trepidation such LENR could be available to *any* interested party. Should we be, at least, a little paranoid of the short and long term potential consequences - however they may be masked, of the enthusiastic immediacy, by a predominantly positive paradigm ?

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2013
Andrea Rossi has made some very interesting revelations about what the Hot Cat is capable of doing.

You may have noticed that he has made these 'revelations' in one form or another for the past decade or so. Always with the same result: Nobody sees anything.

He's producing hot air (an his machine not even that)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (20) Jan 03, 2013
In Genesis the light (aka electromagnetic field) was created (Gen 1:3) before separation of matter from energy (waves) (Gen 1:6). Which was opposed with Bible deniers often, because we shouldn't have the light without matter, which would radiate it.
Except that back when the book was written people were referring to daylight and did not realize it came from the sun. And so they got it wrong. We know this because they made similar fundamental mistakes about creation, the flood, etc.
Should we hope this "Hot Cat" is not some sort of feeble pussy !
Hey - a pun.
such LENR could be available to *any* interested party.
If you had the chance to make a 100 billion lira on something that is easy to copy, wouldnt you be a little guarded as well?
http://www.e-catworld.com/

They have 3rd party confirmation, commercial sales, a big new corporate partner, and many competitors. And NASA patents for widom-larsen applications.

Skepticism is a rush eh?

Make room in your basement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (21) Jan 03, 2013
You may have noticed that he has made these 'revelations' in one form or another for the past decade or so. Always with the same result: Nobody sees anything.
Actually his results have been increased funding, many demonstrations (albeit difficult to analyze and therefore copy) and some sound theory including widom-larsen. And similar results by the US navy, MIT, and elsewhere.

But it is good to remain skeptical. Shows maturity.
He's producing hot air (an his machine not even that)
But this is not skepticism, this is drawing a conclusion without the adequate evidence needed to do so. Decidedly unscientific. Try a little research.
Estevan57
3 / 5 (32) Jan 03, 2013
By the way, Otto, E-Cat World is put out by Frank Acland,a science fiction energy writer. Looks more like fiction than science. He is also invested in Rossi's business, But I'm sure there is NO conflict of interest there.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
But this is not skepticism, this is drawing a conclusion without the adequate evidence needed to do so. Decidedly unscientific. Try a little research.

That's the point: He presents no evidence.

It's like religion. Those who make extraordinary claims must first furnish the proof. Or are you saying I have to disprove god because someone once said somewhere "god exists"?
If not then I put this to you: Why do I need to prove he hasn't achieved LENR?

He's the one that makes the claims (and continually claims to have shown something or other which no one can independently corroborate with any serious measurements.)

I've been reading about Rossi's cold fusion for more than a decade. And to tell the truth I was excited at first. But long since it has exhibited all the hallmarks of a scam (and Rossi is someone with a past conviction for scamming)
Estevan57
3 / 5 (32) Jan 03, 2013
Rossi could always run it with natural gas:
http://energycata...ural-gas

Could be the the worlds first gas-powered cold fusion incinerator.
If only the cold fusion part worked. I have FAITH that it will...
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
But this is not skepticism, this is drawing a conclusion without the adequate evidence needed to do so. Decidedly unscientific. Try a little research.

That's the point: He presents no evidence.

If not then I put this to you: Why do I need to prove he hasn't achieved LENR?

He's the one that makes the claims (and continually claims to have shown something or other which no one can independently corroborate with any serious measurements.)

I've been reading about Rossi's cold fusion for more than a decade. And to tell the truth I was excited at first. But long since it has exhibited all the hallmarks of a scam (and Rossi is someone with a past conviction for scamming)
antialias

U guys are so unfair to my lover man GhostofOtto. If Otto says that the LENR is for real, then it's for real. No ifs ands or buts. Isn't that right, Otto. U know so much more than these clowns here. They don't know U the way I do. U guys stop picking on my Otto. . . .he's smarter than y'all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (20) Jan 03, 2013
That's the point: He presents no evidence.
Well he hasn't presented it to YOU has he? He has presented evidence enough to backers to secure funding and partnership, like any prudent businessman would. That in itself is fairly dependable evidence.
Estevan57
3.1 / 5 (34) Jan 03, 2013
Well, with funding and partnership being the only kind of evidence needed for Otto, he should congratulate Pat Robertson and the 700 Club on their discovery of God and religion.

Both have the same amount of evidence.

Funding is evidence of discovery? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Good One, Otto.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2013
Hello little flea
Well, with funding and partnership being the only kind of evidence needed for Otto, he should congratulate Pat Robertson and the 700 Club on their discovery of God and religion.

Both have the same amount of evidence.

Funding is evidence of discovery? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Good One, Otto.

-Oh sorry esai I don't converse with lying stalking trolls except to remind them what kind if person they are. Per my profile page. Have you seen it?

Jesus saves. Why don't you try conversing with him?
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
SEE THAT. That proves how much smarter my GhostofOtto is than all the rest of U retards.
Y'all need to consider to stop commenting in Otto's physorg because y'all are just to retarded to give your dumbass opinions. My lover man GhostofOtto runs rings around all the rest of U.

Otto, I sold my sorghum farm to my brother in Sicily and he will grow sorghum when he comes back to Florida. I did that so that U and I can be married. Same sex marriage is so right for us

All the rest of U tards who keep on voting down my GhostofOtto and his sockpuppets such as FrankHerbert. . . .please stop doing it. Don't U understand yet that Otto then has to give himself all fives so he can get up to 5/5?

kiss kiss and suck suck Otto
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2013
That's the point: He presents no evidence.
Well he hasn't presented it to YOU has he? He has presented evidence enough to backers to secure funding and partnership, like any prudent businessman would. That in itself is fairly dependable evidence
Not by any means, many ways to scam so called investors - who generally know little about physics and chemistry and tend to rely more on gut instinct than substantive experiments. Emotions are easily manipulated by many sophisticated techniques, much harder to manipulate intellect & especially so when that intellect has rigour & follows good discipline !

Having been a public company director & lived through the original cold fusion scenario where I & others bought futures in palladium we watched with some interest the activities of GEC & many failures to replicate.

All we need is good experimental technique & it need NOT disclose any tech at ALL, it is the DUT as 'black box', so easily done !

When has this been done ? & why not ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2013
original cold fusion scenario where I & others bought futures in palladium
-Should have bought nickel. Rossi apparently sold his house to finance this thing early on. I wonder if he has since bought a much bigger one?
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (32) Jan 04, 2013
Any proof that it works, Otto or do you refer to your profile page any question that you can't handle?

Otto speaks - The big bad man axed me for facts so I puts more lies on my big bad man page instead. That'll show him.

It thrills me to know that you fear me so much.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923 is more interested in ego
-Should have bought nickel.
Really, you were around, how much did you invest in/buy ?
Rossi apparently sold his house to finance this thing early on. I wonder if he has since bought a much bigger one?
Since you weren't there it's more correct to say 'supposedly'. Please don't be naive TheGhostofOtto1923, its easy to give impressions & in any case it would be stupid to sell any asset when its far more efficient to mortgage them and/or vector tech into a rights issue, keep the house, saves time in disruptions like moving & instead be intelligent, focus on making the device work definitively !

Where is a *proper* energy integration experiment done ?

ie. Power in -> Out over a given time period which must be at least 4-10 times longer than any speculated potential for energy storage risk assessment issues...

So many things about the way Rossi 'works' seems contrived to seduce the greedy & technically ignorant "investor" :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2013
It thrills me to know that you fear me so much.
Like the dog fears the flea. I think you may have a cognition problem esai. Do you like to growl at yourself in the mirror?GRRRR arf arf
Really, you were around, how much did you invest in/buy ?
I have an ounce of platinum sitting around somewhere.
Where is a *proper* energy integration experiment done ?
Why is it exactly that you need to know, or that rossi needs to tell you -? So that you can invest in nickel mines maybe?
ie. Power in -> Out over a given time period which must be at least 4-10
??

"05/12 - Andrea Rossi has been consistent in saying that his E-Cat systems have a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 6 — meaning that the total energy output of an E-Cat is six times the amount of energy input."
So many things about the way Rossi 'works' seems contrived to seduce the greedy & technically ignorant "investor" :-)
-Like palladium buyers?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 05, 2013
Look - pictures! Sweedish!
http://www.e-catw...ighting/

"Theesa planta ees a commerciala planta" -Andrea Rossi

-There you have it. Incontrovertabila proof that rossi exists. Buy nickel.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
The PO posters are apparently unable to face the reality. Not surprisingly, most of mainstream physicists have the same attitude - they're just asking another and another money for their useless research, but to help the financial situation at least a bit is apparently over their intellectual capacity and moral integrity.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (28) Jan 05, 2013
So Rossi is compared to Columbus for discovering....Rossi?
Way to change the subject --- not.

Proof of Holy Mary's existence - http://nokia-ph-g...ry-toast

The Mary-toast maker actually does have a working product.

As far as Rossi is concerned, consistant in saying something is not the same as producing results. You frequently harangue people for putting ideas without proof on this site, but you yourself produce the fantastic notion of Rossi's "discoveries" without any evidence other than his word and an investors "newsletter".

Even der Wiki would be sufficent...

Perhaps Mike Massen is correct, and Rossi has seduced a technically ignorant "investor".

ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
Why are you talking about A. Rossi? A.Rossi never published anything about cold fusion. It were professional physicists like Piantelli and Foccardi who did it so in full extent before twenty years already. And who bothered to replicate their experiments? No one... No you can tell me something more about ignorance..
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 05, 2013
Proof of Holy Mary's existence - http://nokia-ph-g...ry-toast
The Mary-toast maker actually does have a working product.
Heres proof that fleas exist. They seem to be working pretty hard eh?
http://www.youtub...jN_GHIic

-But theres plenty of proof here at physorg. And on my profile page. Have you seen it?
RitchieGuy01
Jan 05, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Estevan57
3 / 5 (26) Jan 06, 2013
Hey GoatsofOtto -
"Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me."

This quote from your profile page is someone else. Should be easy to guess who. I guess that makes you a liar. Pudel
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 06, 2013
Hey GoatsofOtto -
"Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me."

This quote from your profile page is someone else. Should be easy to guess who. I guess that makes you a liar. Pudel
Naw I disagree. I decline to converse with you on the topic and Ritchieguy pops up, posting the sort of slime you are known for. Per my profile page. Cause and effect. A valid inference. This is how science works yes?

And which of the 2 of us is a documented liar, stalker, and corrupter of underage relatives? That would be you wouldn't it?
Estevan57
3.2 / 5 (27) Jan 06, 2013
What a treat. I shall translate you, for you.
"I decline to converse with you on the topic" You were caught saying something really stupid. - Pons Columbus, Rossi, etc.

"Ritchigeuy pops up quoting the kind of slime you are known for"
This person is obviously following you and doesn't have my typing patterns, or manner of speach in any way. He/she is a frequent poster, and SHOULD be Very easy to figure out who it is.
Quick! who have you accused of being Ritchieguy? Besides everybody, that is.
You have always had trouble telling one person from another.
This is how you work, not science.

You have misquoted me, taken words out of context and attributed others' quotes to me. I guess that would make YOU the liar, Otto.

Since you use Google and sockpuppets to change votes in previous
comment sections, that would make You the stalker.

Since I have no underage relatives I must assume YOU are the corrupter of a minor.

Answer: You are the documented liar, stalker, and corrupter.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2013
Well, I don't assume to know the answers and I think Kevin has a perfectly valid question. I can't think of any particular reason why the atoms in a gas cloud in space should start collecting together either without something with more gravity or charge etc.. in the middle of the collecting spot to get it started.


I think the missing link here is the proposed --and more or less proven-- existence of local density fluctuations in the early universe, as evidenced by the non-uniformity of the CMBR.

Once it's established that these variations existed, it follows that they could cause enough local gravitational attraction to create infall and continual further capture of nearby matter as the universe continued to expand.

The ignition of this first generation of stars would have produced shock waves that would have then further accelerated the process, cascade-fashion.

This would have only strengthened local magnetic fields.

Or at least, that's my understanding of the process.

rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2013
Hmmm, the field was present because matter/energy is present. At this point, given the nature of magnetism/matter/energy, organization to larger structures is inevitable. Electron capture, increasing the magnetic moment of one atom in the cloud would initiate density fluctuations.

RitchieGuy01
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923 aka FrankHerbert
Otto. . . . .why are U hurting me by telling lies about me and why are U saying that all these other people are me? U KNOW that there is only ONE RITCHIEGUY and that is ME. U have been looking for me in all those other people just so that U can pretend that U aren't a homosexual, but we both know that U have turned me on to the joys of suck suck and anal sex when U showed me your bigjuicycock at the motel where we stayed each nite.
And now U are avoiding talking to me and U won't even call me. Why?
U told me U love me and that we could get married when same sex marriage becomes legal.
But now U are pretending that U don't know me even tho U called everyone else RitchieGuy because U don't like the way they talk, and they aren't me.
Otto, please call me and let me back into your life, I don't want anyone else but U.

kiss kiss and sucksuck from me to my cockman, Otto
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2013
Answer: You are the documented liar, stalker, and corrupter.
For irrefutable rebuttal please visit my profile page.

-I see many many sockpuppets have been hard at work uprating you but you are still at a 2. This must cause you great consterpation. Keep bearing down is all I can recommend.

4.3 Noumenon | Caliban | FrankHerbert | Lizard_Minelli | Minstrel_Cycle | Pfennigfuchser | lite | Socks _onASteroids | TheGhostofOtto1923_goesPostal | FerrisBueller_TheWise | Make_A_Hole | 99_Bottles_of_Beer_OnTheWall | Follow_The_Moolah | Ghost_Busters8 | Screw_the_Pooch | Anudda_Nigg_In_FrankHerberts_Ass | Biddy_Biddy_BumBum |
Socialist_DirtBag
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2013
That's amazing, Ghost. It looks like you have many many enemies and Estevan57 has many many friends on Phys.org

Are you sure it isn't YOU that is giveing Estevan57 and other people high or low scores with all those names? I've looked for your name and Phys.org on Google, and I see that Estevan57 is correct that YOU DO rate your TheGhost name and the name FrankHerbert high scores by using all your sock puppets to raise your scores. The problem is that no names of the voters are any longer available.

That's not nice, Ghost, and it's very dishonest. Can you explain why you do that? And why do you down vote other people the same way with all your sock puppets AFTER the threads are no longer on their profile and activity pages?

YOU make a bad Socialist, Ghost. YOU are too dishonest and too self centered to be an honest Socialist and YOU are TOO intolerant. Consider me your enemy also as I will vote you down at every opportunity, and I suggest all other good Socialists do the same.
Ober
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2013
Man I love this thread. One mention of Rossi, and that was it for keeping on topic. Ohhh and RitchieGuy01 you CRACK ME UP!!! Keep up the good work, and I hope you get your Otto man back one day!!!!