Mystery of planet-forming disks explained by magnetism

Mar 07, 2014
Magnetic loops carry gas and dust above disks of planet-forming material circling stars, as shown in this artist's conception. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(Phys.org) —Astronomers say that magnetic storms in the gas orbiting young stars may explain a mystery that has persisted since before 2006.

Researchers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to study developing have had a hard time figuring out why the stars give off more than expected. The planet-forming disks that circle the are heated by starlight and glow with infrared light, but Spitzer detected additional infrared light coming from an unknown source.

A new theory, based on three-dimensional models of planet-forming disks, suggests the answer: Gas and dust suspended above the disks on gigantic magnetic loops like those seen on the sun absorb the starlight and glow with infrared light.

"If you could somehow stand on one of these planet-forming disks and look at the star in the center through the disk atmosphere, you would see what looks like a sunset," said Neal Turner of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

The new models better describe how planet-forming material around stars is stirred up, making its way into future planets, asteroids and comets.

While the idea of magnetic atmospheres on planet-forming disks is not new, this is the first time they have been linked to the mystery of the observed excess infrared light. According to Turner and colleagues, the magnetic atmospheres are similar to what takes place on the surface of our sun, where moving spur tremendous solar prominences to flare up in big loops.

Stars are born out of collapsing pockets in enormous clouds of gas and dust, rotating as they shrink down under the pull of gravity. As a star grows in size, more material rains down toward it from the cloud, and the rotation flattens this material out into a turbulent disk. Ultimately, planets clump together out of the disk material.

In the 1980s, the Infrared Astronomical Satellite mission, a joint project that included NASA, began finding more infrared light than expected around young stars. Using data from other telescopes, astronomers pieced together the presence of dusty disks of planet-forming material. But eventually it became clear the disks alone weren't enough to account for the extra infrared light—especially in the case of stars a few times the mass of the sun.

One theory introduced the idea that instead of a disk, the stars were surrounded by a giant dusty halo, which intercepted the star's visible light and re-radiated it at infrared wavelengths. Then, recent observations from ground-based telescopes suggested that both a disk and a halo were needed. Finally, three-dimensional computer modeling of the turbulence in the disks showed the disks ought to have fuzzy surfaces, with layers of low-density gas supported by magnetic fields, similar to the way solar prominences are supported by the sun's magnetic field.

The new work brings these pieces together by calculating how the starlight falls across the disk and its fuzzy atmosphere. The result is that the atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates enough to account for all the extra infrared light.

"The starlight-intercepting material lies not in a halo, and not in a traditional disk either, but in a disk atmosphere supported by magnetic fields," said Turner. "Such magnetized atmospheres were predicted to form as the disk drives gas inward to crash onto the growing star."

Over the next few years, astronomers will further test these ideas about the structure of the disk atmospheres by using giant ground-based telescopes linked together as interferometers. An interferometer combines and processes data from multiple telescopes to show details finer than each telescope can see alone. Spectra of the turbulent gas in the disks will also come from NASA's SOFIA telescope, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) telescope in Chile, and from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope after its launch in 2018.

Explore further: A fluffy disk around a baby star

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Spitzer discovers young stars with a 'hula hoop'

Jul 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have spotted a young stellar system that "blinks" every 93 days. Called YLW 16A, the system likely consists of three developing stars, two of ...

A fluffy disk around a baby star

Aug 23, 2013

An international team of astronomers that are members of the Strategic Exploration of Exoplanets and Disks with Subaru Telescope (SEEDS) Project has used Subaru Telescope's High Contrast Instrument for the ...

Recommended for you

Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

12 hours ago

The fluorine that is found in products such as toothpaste was likely formed billions of years ago in now dead stars of the same type as our sun. This has been shown by astronomers at Lund University in Sweden, ...

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

Aug 20, 2014

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

Aug 20, 2014

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
5 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2014
That's very cool. It's amazing to me that so much has been discovered in my adult lifetime. Nearly the entire science of planet formation and the entire science of exoplanets has happened in the last 30 years.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2014
Gas and dust suspended above the disks on gigantic magnetic loops like those seen on the sun absorb the starlight and glow with infrared light.


The additional infrared light is likely from the ELECTRIC CURRENTS which create the "magnetic storms". This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood. Magnetic "loops" and "storms" are not magical, they must be created by electric currents.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Gas and dust suspended above the disks on gigantic magnetic loops like those seen on the sun absorb the starlight and glow with infrared light.


The additional infrared light is likely from the ELECTRIC CURRENTS which create the "magnetic storms". This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood. Magnetic "loops" and "storms" are not magical, they must be created by electric currents.


Where's the plasma in a proto-planetary disc?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 07, 2014
The additional infrared light is likely from the ELECTRIC CURRENTS which create the "magnetic storms". This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood. Magnetic "loops" and "storms" are not magical, they must be created by electric currents.


Look! It's got the word "magnetism" in the title! That will mean a clown from the EU pseudo-science crowd will post how it's "obvious" this was missed by plasma and astro physicists! They'll likely say something about how magnetism has never been considered in models of stellar or planetary formation, and then claim the EU faithful have been predicting this for years.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
The additional infrared light is likely from the ELECTRIC CURRENTS which create the "magnetic storms". This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood. Magnetic "loops" and "storms" are not magical, they must be created by electric currents.


Look! It's got the word "magnetism" in the title! That will mean a clown from the EU pseudo-science crowd will post how it's "obvious" this was missed by plasma and astro physicists! They'll likely say something about how magnetism has never been considered in models of stellar or planetary formation, and then claim the EU faithful have been predicting this for years.



Ya were a tad late in posting that.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
Lol Q, I didn't read what the clown wrote, I just added my bit to it and moved on :)
The Shootist
4.6 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2014
they must be created by electric currents.


Next yer gonna tell me meteor craters are caused by space lightning.
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2014
they must be created by electric currents.


Next yer gonna tell me meteor craters are caused by space lightning.


Not only that but the volcanoes on Io are caused by "space lighting". And the grand canyon was also dug by "space lightening". (And he will back it up by saying "laboratory plasma experiments" prove it.)
Scroofinator
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 07, 2014
You clowns are comical, you should get a traveling act together. Even when the scientists you claim as "your own" show evidence that magnetism has helped solve one of the problems in astrophysics, you still naysay. What is so hard about believing magnetism has a larger role in the universe? I think this may have something to do with the collective ego of the mainstream science community.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
Where's the plasma in a proto-planetary disc?

There's all sorts of 'currents' going on. The inspiraling material being heated by friction may be partially ionized also by X-rays; then then there is chemistry going on and some molecular 'intermediate states' have partial/full charges rather than being neutral; not to mention the overall disc mass is 'going through the proto-sun electro-magnetic fields/influence and generating all sorts of chaotic interactions at the micro and macro scale. You can think of the accretion disc and central body as a 'homopolar' generator system. The flux tube surrounding the disc 'torus' of material will produce many internal/surrounding 'excursion' due to the unstable/turbulent nature of all such plasma/currents of material in space. It's a mess of feedback loops of electric 'charges' (protons/electrons) currents, generator 'flow/flux' tube/pipelines configurations and magnetism effects interactions making the mess unstable over distances. :)
BishopBalderdash
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Gas and dust suspended above the disks on gigantic magnetic loops like those seen on the sun absorb the starlight and glow with infrared light.


The additional infrared light is likely from the ELECTRIC CURRENTS which create the "magnetic storms". This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood. Magnetic "loops" and "storms" are not magical, they must be created by electric currents.


Where's the plasma in a proto-planetary disc?


Everything that we see glowing out in space is plasma and thus is sensitive to electric and magnetic effects which, BTW, are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
GSwift7
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2014
Everything that we see glowing out in space is plasma and thus is sensitive to electric and magnetic effects which, BTW, are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity


Not really. Dust and neutral gas glows just fine too, and there's plenty of it out there to observe.

Gravity is thought to be the ultimate force in the Universe (according to our best thoery). Even a neutron star has enough gravity to overcome the electrical bonds inside atoms, and a black hole has even more. The core collapse types of supernovae are also thought to start with the failure of the subatomic bonds in the core, when gravity overcomes the other fundamental forces.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2014
... neutral gas glows just fine ...

How?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
... neutral gas glows just fine ...

How?

friction.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Friction?

Are you saying friction charges the dust or gas? Ionised is not neutral. What's another name for ionised gas?

Is the friction caused by movement? Flowing ionised material. That wouldn't have electric properties, would it?

Dust and neutral gas glows just fine too, and there's plenty of it out there to observe.
- GSwift7

Not really.

Most dust grains in interstellar clouds are charged, and in dense dark clouds, small grains may carry a substantial fraction of the negative charge.
- link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-3945-5_23

Not so much neutral stuff after all.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
I'm not disputing that the majority of particles will have either positive or negative charge. There will be neutral particles though. Simple chemistry will work to create neutral molecules in clouds cool enough for bonds to hold. Oppositely charged particles will seek eachother out to some extent and stick together until they are neutral. You can recreate this effect with kitchen table chemistry, so it's not complicated.

Neutral particles can glow in a number of frequency ranges. They can reflect or refract just about any frequency. Or they can absorb just about any frequency and re-radiate in infrared. Larger particles can even be heated until they glow incandescently in visible light. Further still, particles can glow in the form of irridescence, flourescence or photoluminescence (all kinda the same thing, I know). So, plasma isn't the only thing that glows.
no fate
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
"Simple chemistry will work to create neutral molecules in clouds cool enough for bonds to hold. Oppositely charged particles will seek eachother out to some extent and stick together until they are neutral. You can recreate this effect with kitchen table chemistry, so it's not complicated." GSwift

Space is not a neutral environment. Oppositely charged particles do not get the chance to seek each other out because they are flowing along flux lines, oppositely charged particles do not follow the same ones. This why they haven't all "stuck together".

It is more complicated than your kitchen chemistry understanding.

Fluorescence is a plasma effect, Irridescence is a reflective effect, Photoluminescence is an energy in/energy out effect. None are even close to the same thing other than the involvement of photons. You covered 2 of three before your mistep.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
Fluorescence is a plasma effect,


Uh, no. That's not entirely correct. Fluorescence is merely emission of a photon when an excited molecule returns to it's ground state. It usually involves the emission of a longer wavelength photon than the one which caused the excitation. Why do so many people just make up stuff when the real answer is so easy to find with Google?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
Simple chemistry will work to create neutral molecules in clouds cool enough for bonds to hold. Oppositely charged particles will seek each other out to some extent and stick together until they are neutral. You can recreate this effect with kitchen table chemistry, so it's not complicated.


That's quite the asinine statement, quite contrary to both observation and lab experience.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
Neutral particles can glow in a number of frequency ranges. They can reflect or refract just about any frquency
- GSwift7

Are we to desend into definitions or semantics?

Does our moon glow at night?

Reflection/refraction is to shine.

So, plasma isn't the only thing that glows
- GSwift7

Indeed. However using Occam's razor it would seem the most reasonable explanation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
This would be extremely obvious IF astrophysicists really understood plasma physics, that which the think they understand but have drastically misunderstood

@CD
and AGAIN
repeating the same thing over and over does NOT make it more true
given the following:
http://adsabs.har...56..152N
http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/
http://w3fusion.p...edu/ifs/
http://mrx.pppl.gov/
we can positively prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your above claims are not only FALSE, but INTENTIONAL LIES meant for obfuscation or whatever
quoting a 44y/o article with the assumption that the world never changed without checking your facts is stupidity, which is completely apparent given that you keep making the same unsubstantiated claim with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
GSwift7
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2014
Space is not a neutral environment. Oppositely charged particles do not get the chance to seek each other out because they are flowing along flux lines, oppositely charged particles do not follow the same ones. This why they haven't all "stuck together


Where did you get that notion? That's completely wrong. We observe amino acids, and other complex molecules, in every molecular cloud we can see. Simple chemistry takes place all over space, whenever the materials aren't too hot to allow it. Plasma is a hot state of matter, and not everything in space is hot you know. Be careful not to over-generalize. The heavy materials we are made of are a rare exception to the general rules, after all, right?

That's quite the asinine statement, quite contrary to both observation and lab experience


No it's not, and the rudeness was un-called-for.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
The amino acids do not originate in the cloud, they are not formed in the cloud, charged particles do not combine into amino acids...unless they are apparently in your kitchen, and there are 2 fairly current articles on cold plasma on this site right now. Check your facts.

@Qstar- Did google happen to mention the functioning mechanism behind fluorescence...what excites the molecules which coat the internal wall of the tube and causes them to release the optical wavelengths? Did you google what the pulse from the ballast does when it fires the tube, the initial reaction ? Why some people think they can google half an answer that suits themselves and pass it off as scientifically valid...oh yeah, mainstream ideology.

Further down on your Wiki page: "The mercury atoms in the fluorescent tube must be ionized before the arc can "strike" within the tube."

Still sloppy I see.

GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
Fluorescence is a plasma effect, Irridescence is a reflective effect, Photoluminescence is an energy in/energy out effect. None are even close to the same thing


Good call on the irridescence not being radiative. I was wrong to include that one.

Flourescence is a type of photoluminescence. I suppose that black body radiation/thermal radiation could also be thought of as a kind of photoluminescence. My point that plasma isn't the only thing that glows still stands, even if I didn't bother to look up correct details before I posted.

Are we to desend into definitions or semantics?


Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like that. I hate it when people do that to me.

Indeed. However using Occam's razor it would seem the most reasonable explanation


That makes me wonder: does all plasma glow? I mean aside from black body radiation.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
@Qstar- Did google happen to mention the functioning mechanism behind fluorescence...what excites the molecules which coat the internal wall of the tube and causes them to release the optical wavelengths? Did you google what the pulse from the ballast does when it fires the tube, the initial reaction ? Why some people think they can google half an answer that suits themselves and pass it off as scientifically valid...oh yeah, mainstream ideology.

Further down on your Wiki page: "The mercury atoms in the fluorescent tube must be ionized before the arc can "strike" within the tube."

Still sloppy I see.


Not sloppy at all. You implied fluorescence was a plasma only phenomena. That was sloppy. Fluorescence arises when a high energy photon is absorbed and the absorbing molecule then emits two or more lower energy photons. Neutral molecules can fluoresce, almost all fluorescence in nature involves neutral molecules. Ions rarely fluoresces.

Not wiki, just a complete education.
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
"quoting a 44y/o article with the assumption that the world never changed without checking your facts is stupidity, which is completely apparent given that you keep making the same unsubstantiated claim with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE" -

Stump, do you realize how old the gravity based model of the universe is? Everything you said above applies. All of our current information conflicts with it (gravity model). When a model is valuable for it's predictive ability, you don't get to increase the observed matter content and it's effects by 75%, claim it is unseen and then distribute it precisely where it needs to be to make the model match observation. The model did NOT predict reality.
no fate
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
Q - There is a difference between what you implied I meant vs. what I said...which is that fluorescence is a plasma effect. So yes, sloppy. The plasma in the tube causes the fluorescence, it provides the energy for the reaction in the neutral phosphors which coat the tube, the process doesn't work without the plasma. This is why it is a plasma effect. At no point did I say or imply that the plasma produced the visible light without reacting with neutral molecules.

Still sloppy.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
Q - There is a difference between what you implied I meant vs. what I said...which is that fluorescence is a plasma effect. So yes, sloppy. The plasma in the tube causes the fluorescence, it provides the energy for the reaction in the neutral phosphors which coat the tube, the process doesn't work without the plasma. This is why it is a plasma effect. At no point did I say or imply that the plasma produced the visible light without reacting with neutral molecules.

Still sloppy.


This is an article about planet forming disks, not about tubes of phosphers and plasmas..

what I said...which is that fluorescence is a plasma effect


That is incorrect. That is not what florescence is.

Where do ya get that I've referred to any tubes or such? Google "fluorescence", maybe then ya will get on the same page.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
The plasma in the tube causes the fluorescence


Rocks and minerals can be flourescent.

You know, I had never really read anything about the subject of photoluminescence before. That's a really interesting subject, now that I've read a couple of things about it. I'll have to do a bit of further reading when I have time. cool stuff!

The trolls have really taken us off topic this time, haven't they?
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
"Where do ya get that I've referred to any tubes or such? Google "fluorescence", maybe then ya will get on the same page."

I didn't say you referred to tubes. I referred to tubes as it is the most common frame of reference for the phenomenon of fluorescence. The same page as you, we don't even work out of the same books. Of the 3 examples GS7 provided, only one must rely on photons produced by plasma/electric current, as neutral molecules do not emit UV light. The other 2 examples use low/visible energy photons that can have any source and do not require the direct contribution of UV photons from plasma.

The article makes an interesting assertion-

"Astronomers say that magnetic storms in the gas orbiting young stars may explain a mystery that has persisted since before 2006." - maybe this why CD85 thinks hurricanes are electric.

I would like to hear a mainstream definition of a magnetic storm.

"You can't go out there, it's raining flux and Tesla's! You'll be drenched!"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
"Simple chemistry will work to create neutral molecules in clouds cool enough for bonds to hold. Oppositely charged particles will seek eachother out to some extent and stick together until they are neutral. You can recreate this effect with kitchen table chemistry, so it's not complicated." GSwift

Space is not a neutral environment. Oppositely charged particles do not get the chance to seek each other out because they are flowing along flux lines, oppositely charged particles do not follow the same ones. This why they haven't all "stuck together".

It is more complicated than your kitchen chemistry understanding.

Fluorescence is a plasma effect, Irridescence is a reflective effect, Photoluminescence is an energy in/energy out effect. None are even close to the same thing other than the involvement of photons etc.
Yeah really. If these guys want to refute EU they ought to do so without mindless bullshit and name calling and mutual uprating for credibility.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
Where did you get that notion? That's completely wrong. We observe amino acids, and other complex molecules, in every molecular cloud we can see. Simple chemistry takes place all over space, whenever the materials aren't too hot to allow it.
So does plasma chemistry.
http://escampig20..._356.pdf

-The less you say the better off you'll be g.
it's not, and the rudeness was un-called-for.
Rudeness is completely appropriate.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2014
I referred to tubes as it is the most common frame of reference for the phenomenon of fluorescence.


But it's not the most common, it's an entirely man-made and artificial "frame of reference for the phenomenon of fluorescence". Plasma causing fluorescence is the not even the most common cause of fluorescence. Fluorescent lighting (that is what you are referring to) is a relatively recently "invented" thing,,, it's an artificial engineering phenomenon, so it's not a good example upon which to explain natural phenomena.

That is problem that can'tdrive is stuck in, he thinks anything done artificially in the lab is directly transferable to nature, but it's almost always not so. 1st principles may work in both a natural and artificial situation, but initial conditions must be evaluated independently.

Fluorescence does not require plasma, it doesn't require an external magnetic fields. It only requires an energetic photon and a molecule of the correct structure.
no fate
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2014
I owe GS7 and Qstar an apology. Plasma is not required for ALL fluorescence, the molecules simply require higher energy to be absorbed in comparison to what is emitted...and in a special case the energies can be the same. I was only aware of UV triggered fluorescence and should have dug further before making that assertion. Also thanks to mother nature for one of many humbling experiences.

I was sloppy.
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2014
So does plasma chemistry.-The less you say the better off you'll be g.


So? Your statement doesn't make any sense at all. Go back and read my comments again. You're just agreeing with things I already said.

I was sloppy


It's just an internet comment section, and we're just here for fun (most of us). I have no problem with casual comments or people disagreeing with me. I'm sure Q feels the same. Don't worry about it. :) I don't even get bent out of shape about otto's comments, and he's DELIBERATELY trying to get under my skin. Like I said before, I enjoy it most of the time, or I wouldn't bother.
no fate
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
The trade off is worth it GS- being humbled through a learning experience. And I agree with your other comment about this being cool stuff. I've been mixing work with reading about various forms of Bioluminescence and minerals that fluoresce for the last couple hours, always thought fireflies were cool,and masses of them put on beautiful show. Never questioned how they did it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
do you realize how old the gravity based model of the universe is?

@no fate
I am not sure where you are going with this. My specific point was that even if Alfven's point was valid when the comment was made, it was valid 44yrs ago
and I have my doubts as to the level of believability as well: for starters, it is a blanket accusation

making a claim is one thing, but given that CD makes the same claim over and over, while he has been proven wrong about this particular lie, is the height of stupidity

Especially when anyone can open a college curriculum for astrophysicists and see that Plasma physics is included in it (whereas the alternative is NOT the case, and Electrical Engineers (EE) do not take a myriad of astrophysical issues into account when designing an X-box, mostly due to ignorance as they never trained to do it. The authors of the EU are predominantly EE's from what I have seen, and they publish in an EE journal with no impact on astrophysics...)

see what I mean now?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2014
Gswift says
So? Your statement doesn't make any sense at all. Go back and read my comments again. You're just agreeing with things I already said.
-but forgets he already said
Simple chemistry takes place all over space, whenever the materials aren't too hot to allow it. Plasma is a hot state of matter, and not everything in space is hot you know
Plasma chemistry is chemistry that occurs in materials existing in the plasma state which is something different from your 'simple chemistry' whatever that is. This takes place in relatively hot ionized gases.

How is this agreeing with what you said? Please visit and read the linked article before responding.
we're just here for fun (most of us)
I suppose pretending we know what we're talking about is fun. Rooting out bullshit is also fun. I wish more people were having the latter kind of fun instead of the former.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
I would like to hear a mainstream definition of a magnetic storm.
Is this what was too much trouble for you to look up?

"A geomagnetic storm is a temporary disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere caused by a solar wind shock wave and/or cloud of magnetic field which interacts with the Earth's magnetic field."

-These are also called magnetic storms.

-You know, in the very near future your personal AI will not allow you to misspeak. In the future most of our communicating will be trading links to established and confirmed facts.

So I suggest you all had better start getting used to it.
no fate
4 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
@ Captain - I beleived your point to be that better instruments and more detailed observations lead to a more complete picture and will often invalidate assumptions made without the benefit of said info.

The repetitive claims CD makes about the EU and plasma are not experimentally supported. I challenged him on the fundamental physics behind his galactic circuits in my first posts on this forum, only to find the same thing day in and day out, unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws in the theory. My response to your post was to illustrate we all do this, and I then went and did it in this very thread.

I assumed my knowledge to be superior to someone elses and was schooled by realworld physics that clearly showed I was wrong, that I lacked sufficient understanding and supporting data. I forgot the cardinal rule, never assume.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 14, 2014
Bioluminescence and minerals that fluoresce for the last couple hours, always thought fireflies were cool,and masses of them put on beautiful show.t.

I REALLY like it when they spell out my name...:-)
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
Lol Q, I didn't read what the clown wrote, I just added my bit to it and moved on :)

Wow. You call him a clown and yet beclown yourself. Epic fail there, "science" devotee.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
Dear Scooby gang;

yyz, Gawad, Maggnus, Whydening Gyre, Captain Stumpy, no fate, et al

You realize that you are encouraging someone who admits
You know, I had never really read anything about the subject of photoluminescence before
-and yet still felt the need to comment on it like he already had done so?

Pleasant and polite discourse is no substitute for being right. Lazy, thoughtless posting is certainly rude and insulting. You should be admonishing those who do it, not rewarding them.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
Dear Scooby gang;

yyz, Gawad, Maggnus, Whydening Gyre, Captain Stumpy, no fate, et al

You realize that you are encouraging someone who admits
You know, I had never really read anything about the subject of photoluminescence before
-and yet still felt the need to comment on it like he already had done so?

Pleasant and polite discourse is no substitute for being right. Lazy, thoughtless posting is certainly rude and insulting. You should be admonishing those who do it, not rewarding them.

ruh-roh...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2014
Pleasant and polite discourse is no substitute for being right. Lazy, thoughtless posting is certainly rude and insulting. You should be admonishing those who do it, not rewarding them

@otto
you are correct in most of that. Pleasant discourse can also be a tool for learning, though -IMHO, and can show others how to "respectfully" disagree with another rather than flame/call attention and add derision

example: no fate and I had a miscommunication. it was settled respectfully with no after effects. everyone makes mistakes, myself included. I should have clarified my statement

I do feel that if someone adds something that is a point of dispute then it can be corrected like the above discourse, and it also allows others to learn by example, be it the involved parties or the observers

Also, as we are all individuals, it would be best not to attempt to establish some perceived relationship that is not present

Thank you for your point, I will take it under advisement
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
I have done google searches on specific topics which have yielded links to these threads. I personally feel a responsibility to get things RIGHT.
example: no fate and I had a miscommunication. it was settled respectfully with no after effects. everyone makes mistakes, myself included. I should have clarified my statement
Example: in a recent thread Gswift made the statement that Curiosity wheel damage was inconsequential as they only had a short way left to travel. In reality they have only gone 1/3 of the way. G failed to acknowledge his error; but in fact his biggest error was not looking it up in the first place, BEFORE he posted.

This is a systemic pattern of irresponsibility. We all have the duty to correct it, and certainly not to encourage it by engaging in rating politics.

The best science is apolitical. Science-oriented threads should not be full of unresearched notions when the ability to confirm facts is SO easy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
Example: in a recent thread ...Curiosity wheel damage

@otto
not trying to fight about this, but that thread is also a good example of my point
you DID point out that the wiki page had the information about the cut-outs, however, it had no citations backing up the claim, either (and wiki has been known to be wrong on occasion, you know). And the JPL site didnt seem to have the info that I could find, I went directly to the source and found that it is a common practice explaining about the cut-outs and it is in the visitor info. as well as the talk that JPL gives visitors... which was confirmation from source in lieu of citation

as for the "rating politics"... I used to not vote at all, until I noticed too many sock-puppets down-voting legitimate answers out of spite

You have a legitimate gripe, and I sympathize, but unless there is strong moderation or at least adherence to the rules of posting... after all, although relevant, might our current dialogue be considered off-topic
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
you DID point out that the wiki page had the information about the cut-outs, however, it had no citations backing up the claim, either (and wiki has been known to be wrong on occasion, you know)
I knew it was right because I had seen it before, here
http://www.nasa.g...29f.html

-which I had found by googling 'curiosity wheel pattern'. Many returns. I included the wiki ref because it demonstrated how readily available the info was.

I don't usually rate people I'm actively discussing something with, unless it's obvious they are being dishonest or trolling or are continually downrating me at the time. Discussing IS rating.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
I knew it was right because I had seen it before, here
http://www.nasa.g...29f.html
-which I had found by googling 'curiosity wheel pattern'. Many returns. I included the wiki ref because it demonstrated how readily available the info was

@Otto
interesting. Why not include that link rather than just mention wiki?
Just curious, mind you. It would have been a better reference. Seems a bit out of character
I see your point, and I concur with most of your assessment
I will take the rest under advisement and think about it
I dont see any major changes taking place here unless there is a moderator assigned, though.
Or there is a core band of known users that decide to moderate the threads themselves through other various means. Something to consider? Find some posters who are educated and have them moderate within the limits imposed by the guidelines, then utilise the whole group for power plays... but that would necessitate sharing personal info like e-mail addy
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
interesting. Why not include that link rather than just mention wiki?
Just curious, mind you.
BECAUSE I wanted to demonstrate how ubiquitous and easy to find that piece of info was. Wiki was at the top of the list. Anyone looking would have seen that one plus at least a dozen others in google. Its the kind of question that would occur to lots of people, and it has. And its not the kind of info that someone would fudge in wiki without getting fixed.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
yyz, Gawad, Maggnus, Whydening Gyre, Captain Stumpy, no fate, et al

Pleasant and polite discourse is no substitute for being right. Lazy, thoughtless posting is certainly rude and insulting.


Well, yes and no. I understand your point, but there are many reasons for giving a particular score to a poster-or NOT voting. Being right/wrong may not be the only one. Correcting oneself, admitting gaps in knowledge, etc. may also count to the voter. There are also many reasons why one might be wrong. New information may be available that one isn't aware of, for any number of reasons, not only layziness. There are characters on here like Zeph who merit admonishment FAR more, and yet you leave them unmolested; I don't grind YOUR nads about LENR even if it can't be nuclear, do I?

You should be admonishing those who do it, not rewarding them.
That's one opinion; my own opinion is that we "should" be interacting with them based on our perceptions of the value of their contribution.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
otto:

Plasma chemistry is chemistry that occurs in materials existing in the plasma state which is something different from your 'simple chemistry' whatever that is


I know that. See my earlier comment. The guy I was talking to was making a foolish claim. I was pointing out that it's not all plasma, so you're just agreeing with me. lol

this is from my comment to him:

I'm not disputing that the majority of particles will have either positive or negative charge


As for the curiosity wheel issue, I was right. The wheels are designed to take a bit of damage without completely failing, and the test rover here on Earth has driven several times farther than Curiosity is intended to. Compared to the total distance the wheels are designed to last, Curiosity only has a short distance left to drive. I even linked to interviews with the project manager at JPL to support that statement. You are a liar.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
BECAUSE I wanted to demonstrate how ubiquitous and easy to find that piece of info was


So? Sometimes it's nice to actually interact with other people. I had originally asked a question, and Captain ventured a guess. Neither of us tried to claim that we knew what they were. I was guessing that someone else would probably know the answer. Sometimes it's fun to just guess, and then find out if you got it right afterwards. Unless you're anti-social and you don't like talking to people, though in that case, I can't imagine what you're doing here in the first place.

I agree with Captain. Sometimes you make good points, but your tone is childish. You keep saying that you care for the integrity of the comment section, but you're the one saying things that no reasonable person wants to read. Do I need to go find quotes where you've used profanity and name-calling? People don't want to see that nonsense. If you are really worried about the site, you wouldn't do that. Again, a liar.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
Gawad:

WELL SAID!

I don't bother with the ratings, but I agree with what you said. The whole point of the comment section is for people to talk about the articles. This is a place for speculation, discussion, disagreement, sharing ideas, etc.

When people are rude and disruptive, like otto, it makes people not want to read the comments or get involved in the discussions. I think that's a bad thing, so I totally disagree with his opinion about it. He needs to just go make his own blog, so he can be the boss. Judging by the amount of negative ratings he gets, I'd say most people agree with me.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2014
Judging by the amount of negative ratings he gets, I'd say most people agree with me.


Yep!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
Judging by the amount of negative ratings he gets, I'd say most people agree with me.


Yep!

Ship o' fools...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
Ship o' fools...
Speaking of which, I notice you and your pseudo-scientific cohorts have been mighty quiet. Having a hard time brushing aside real science are you? Must be hard having to face how badly duped you have been all this time.

People tried to help you to understand, cantsupporthistheories, but your stubborn refusal to consider the actual evidence has now left you bereft a both theories and support. Tell you what, try starting from the beginning and this time set aside your bias and belief that you already know the answers. You'll be a much happier person that way.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
Along came Mr. Goodtrips
Looking for a new ship.
Come on people better climb on board
Come on babe we're going home
Ship o' fools...

Ship o' fools...

The human race was dying out
No one left to scream and shout.
People walking on the moon
Smog gonna get you pretty soon

5 points for anyone who can get the reference without looking it up!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
Along came Mr. Goodtrips
Looking for a new ship.
Come on people better climb on board
Come on babe we're going home
Ship o' fools...

Ship o' fools...

The human race was dying out
No one left to scream and shout.
People walking on the moon
Smog gonna get you pretty soon

5 points for anyone who can get the reference without looking it up!

@GSwift
my wife says its the Doors
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
@GSwift
my wife says its the Doors


5 points to the winner's husband then!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923
I have one point I wish you to address. You commented:
Lazy, thoughtless posting is certainly rude and insulting. You should be admonishing those who do it, not rewarding them

This is an admirable trait, and I have seen you adhere to the next comment
I have done google searches on specific topics which have yielded links to these threads. I personally feel a responsibility to get things RIGHT

please answer this then: WHY are you so selective in who you "admonish" and who you attack?

Case in point: I've seen you attack one person for "musing", and yet you ignore others and allow them to post absolute stupidity without a backward glance even though it is obviously wrong, misrepresented, or even completely illogical and looney? (for instance: zephir and his pseudoscience, and other blatant misrepresentations)

this is just a curiosity of mine. you've defended Zeph before, and I wonder why. he's intelligent, but predominantly posts crap easily refuted
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Case in point: I've seen you attack one person for "musing", and yet you ignore others and allow them to post absolute stupidity


lol, what's even more funny is when he himself posts BS about stuff like fusion rockets or uses a sci fi novel as a reference.