Cool, dim dwarf star is magnetic powerhouse

November 19, 2015
Artist impression of red dwarf star TVLM 513-46546. ALMA observations suggest that it has an amazingly powerful magnetic field, potentially associated with a flurry of solar-flare-like eruptions. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; Dana Berry / SkyWorks

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have discovered that a dim, cool dwarf star is generating a surprisingly powerful magnetic field, one that rivals the most intense magnetic regions of our own Sun.

The star's extraordinary magnetic field is potentially associated with a constant flurry of solar-flare-like eruptions. As with our Sun, these flares would trace tightly wound magnetic field lines that act like cosmic particle accelerators: warping the path of electrons and causing them to emit telltale radio signals that can be detected with ALMA.

Such intense flare activity, the astronomers note, would barrage nearby planets with charged particles.

"If we lived around a star like this one, we wouldn't have any satellite communications. In fact, it might be extremely difficult for life to evolve at all in such a stormy environment," says lead author Peter Williams of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The team used ALMA to study the well-known star TVLM 513-46546, which is located about 35 light-years from Earth in the constellation Boötes.

The star is a mere 10 percent the mass of the Sun and is so small and cool that it's right on the dividing line between (which fuse hydrogen) and brown dwarfs (which don't). One of the things that make this small star remarkable is that it spins rapidly, completing a full rotation about every two hours. Our Sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.

Previous data from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array in Socorro, New Mexico, show that this star exhibits a magnetic field that rivals the Sun's most extreme magnetic regions and is several hundred times stronger than the Sun's average magnetic field.

This puzzled astronomers because the physical processes that generate the Sun's magnetic field shouldn't operate in such a small star.

Video above: Animation of artist impression of red dwarf star TVLM 513-46546. ALMA observations suggest that it has an amazingly powerful magnetic field, potentially associated with a flurry of solar-flare-like eruptions. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; Dana Berry / SkyWorks

"This star is a very different beast from our Sun, magnetically speaking," states CfA astronomer and co-author Edo Berger.

When the researchers examined the star with ALMA they detected emission at a particularly high frequency (95 GHz or a wavelength of about 3 millimeters). Such a radio signal is produced by a process known as synchrotron emission, in which electrons zip around powerful : the more powerful the , the higher the frequency.

Video above: Animation of artist impression of red dwarf star TVLM 513-46546 without showing magnetic field lines. ALMA observations suggest that it has an amazingly powerful magnetic field, potentially associated with a flurry of solar-flare-like eruptions. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; Dana Berry / SkyWorks

This is the first time that flare-like emission at such high frequencies has been detected from a . It is also the first time that such a star has been detected at millimeter wavelengths, opening up a new avenue of study with ALMA.

Our Sun generates similar emission from solar flares but only intermittently. What's more, the emission from this star is 10,000 times brighter than what our own Sun produces, even though it has less than one-tenth of the Sun's mass. The fact that ALMA detected this emission in a brief 4-hour observation suggests that the red dwarf is continuously active.

This has important implications for the search for habitable planets outside the Solar system. Red dwarfs are the most common type of star in our Galaxy, which makes them promising targets for planet searches. But because a red dwarf is so cool, a planet would have to orbit very close to the star to be warm enough for liquid water to exist at its surface. That proximity would put the planet right in the bull's-eye for radiation that could strip its atmosphere or destroy any complex molecules on its surface, the astronomers speculate.

Astronomers will study similar stars in the future to determine whether this one is an oddball or an example of an entire class of stormy stars.

These findings have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal and are available online.

Explore further: Harsh space weather may doom potential life on red-dwarf planets

More information: "The First Millimeter Detection of a Non-Accreting Ultracool Dwarf," P. K. G. Williams et al. 2015, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal, arxiv.org/abs/1511.05559

Related Stories

Sharp-eyed ALMA spots a flare on famous red giant star

May 29, 2015

Super-sharp observations with the telescope ALMA have revealed what seems to be a gigantic flare on the surface of Mira, one of the closest and most famous red giant stars in the sky. Activity like this in red giants—similar ...

Image: Snowing in space?

November 2, 2015

The flurry of what looks like snow in this video is actually a barrage of energetic particles. This is what's known as a solar radiation storm, hitting an instrument onboard ESA/NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, ...

Recommended for you

Jupiter's great red spot heats planet's upper atmosphere

July 27, 2016

Researchers from Boston University's (BU) Center for Space Physics report today in Nature that Jupiter's Great Red Spot may provide the mysterious source of energy required to heat the planet's upper atmosphere to the unusually ...

The role of magnetic fields in star formation

July 29, 2016

The star forming molecular clump W43-MM1 is very massive and dense, containing about 2100 solar masses of material in a region only one-third of a light year across (for comparison, the nearest star to the Sun is a bit over ...

Seven new embedded clusters detected in the Galactic halo

July 25, 2016

(Phys.org)—A team of Brazilian astronomers, led by Denilso Camargo of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, has discovered seven new embedded clusters located unusually far away from the Milky Way's ...

Mars gullies likely not formed by liquid water

July 29, 2016

New findings using data from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter show that gullies on modern Mars are likely not being formed by flowing liquid water. This new evidence will allow researchers to further narrow theories about ...

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bschott
2.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2015
This puzzled astronomers because the physical processes that generate the Sun's magnetic field shouldn't operate in such a small star.


Not "shouldn't"...couldn't....If the mainstream model of our sun was correct. But since a select few of us outside mainstream theoretical astrophysics have been saying it isn't for a long time, this is just another feather in the new cap we had to start because we have filled two already.

Each feather of course representing an observation which defies the model.

We also have a comedy video coming out showing how the mainstream attempt to deal with these observations.
El_Nose
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2015
i wonder with those strong magnetic field lines -- if it had a gas giant with a large magnetic field - could we mine antimatter from the gas giant with reasonable efficiency.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2015
We also have a comedy video coming out showing how the mainstream attempt to deal with these observations.


No, the comedy you are thinking of is Don Scott's Electric Sun rubbish. Debunked decades ago, and full of totally unscientific nonsense, and no observation or evidence to support it. Just built on the mistakes of Juergens, decades earlier. As an engineer, Scott was probably unable to spot such mistakes, and should stick to engineering.
http://www.tim-th...sun.html
bschott
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
We also have a comedy video coming out showing how the mainstream attempt to deal with these observations.


No, the comedy you are thinking of is Don Scott's Electric Sun rubbish. Debunked decades ago, and full of totally unscientific nonsense, and no observation or evidence to support it. Just built on the mistakes of Juergens, decades earlier. As an engineer, Scott was probably unable to spot such mistakes, and should stick to engineering.
http://www.tim-th...sun.html


I agree Scotts model is rediculous, but it is definitely not the comedy I am thinking of.
wduckss
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
Transit star (from planets in the star).
Nevertheless following the rules. Quick rotation of the outer layer and the slower rotation of the inner provide a strong magnetic field.
Thus rapid rotation should be for consequence, have rings.
This type of (not) star yet to be explored. They are significantly different of the same the body that are not the central body.
It will be many novelties.
Enthusiastic Fool
4 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
but since a select few of us outside mainstream theoretical astrophysics have been


I enjoyed your comedic use of "select few" as if you had been hand-picked for your special qualifications. Nice one.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
Nevertheless following the rules. Quick rotation of the outer layer and the slower rotation of the inner provide a strong magnetic field..

Earths inner core is said to rotate FASTER than the outer as the generator of our magnetic field. What rules are you referencing?
That - or I'm gonna have to start taking Alzheimers meds....
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
I wonder what wound it up to such a speed ?? IIRC, our solar system's angular momentum is distributed across the planets, with Jupiter grabbing much. Dare we assume this curious star has no planets ?? Or has it formed from the merger of two smaller, close-binary stars ??
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
We also have a comedy video coming out showing how the mainstream attempt to deal with these observations.


No, the comedy you are thinking of is Don Scott's Electric Sun rubbish. Debunked decades ago, and full of totally unscientific nonsense, and no observation or evidence to support it. Just built on the mistakes of Juergens, decades earlier. As an engineer, Scott was probably unable to spot such mistakes, and should stick to engineering.
http://www.tim-th...sun.html

It's funny, the only thing ever offered in an attempt to "debunk" the Electric Sun is a bunch of hand wavey nonsense and misapplied physics such as Timmy "The Tool" Thompson. It would be entirely surprising to see you attempt to actually debunk it yourself with legitimate reasoning.You're gonna have to do better than Timmy and his use of completely misused pithball electrostatics he refers to explain away his own nonsense.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
Hi all. :)

From the above article:
...a constant flurry of solar-flare-like eruptions.
...these flares would trace tightly wound magnetic field lines that act like cosmic particle accelerators...
...a mere 10 percent the mass of the Sun and is so small....
... it spins rapidly...
...this star exhibits a magnetic field that rivals the Sun's most extreme magnetic regions...
Still very busy; so, briefly, my observations: Proliferation of plasmoid concentration/heating/fusion events (normally 'hidden' below larger mass/diameter stars like our sun)? Small diameter means stronger magnetic field pattern/lines closer-in/more curved detected directly via synchrotron radiation (whereas larger diameter sun's counterpart close-in/curved signals/field blocked by upper layers)? Higher rotation frequency may actually reflect the higher cyclotron frequency of plasmoid-jets plasma going round close-in/more curved/shorter mag-field lines, further amplifying/reinforcing same? Cheers all.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
Oops. Duplicate post removed. Cheers.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2015

@cantthink
Yada, yada, yada. Cretin. Where is the evidence? Tool. You have none. That is why it is called pseudoscience. It's bollocks. Scott is an engineer (allegedly) with f___ all knowledge of astrophyshics. Prove me wrong. Link to something, f ___wit.

And trust me, Thompson is far more highly regarded in the astrophysical community than either of the f___wits Thornhill or Scott. Totally forgetting about the eejit Talbott. Link to something, f___wit. Where is the evidence? There isn't any. So STFU..

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015

@cantthink
Yada, yada, yada. Cretin. Where is the evidence? Tool. You have none. That is why it is called pseudoscience. It's bollocks. Scott is an engineer (allegedly) with f___ all knowledge of astrophyshics. Prove me wrong. Link to something, f ___wit.

And trust me, Thompson is far more highly regarded in the astrophysical community than either of the f___wits Thornhill or Scott. Totally forgetting about the eejit Talbott. Link to something, f___wit. Where is the evidence? There isn't any. So STFU..


You display your mentality, a vulgar cretin more aptly describes yourself. And you prove my "prediction" of the response devoid of any reason whatsoever. What a surprise! Here is Dr. Scott's website; http://electric-c...xOLD.htm
When you unwrap your lips from Timmy's tool you can read Dr. Scott reply to Timmy's ridiculous misrepresentation of the real physics involved.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
Still very busy; so, briefly, my observations: Proliferation of plasmoid concentration/heating/fusion events (normally 'hidden' below larger mass/diameter stars like our sun)? Small diameter means stronger magnetic field pattern/lines closer-in/more curved detected directly via synchrotron radiation (whereas larger diameter sun's counterpart close-in/curved signals/field blocked by upper layers)? Higher rotation frequency may actually reflect the higher cyclotron frequency of plasmoid-jets plasma going round close-in/more curved/shorter mag-field lines, further amplifying/reinforcing same? Cheers all.

Rather cryptic, RC... Mind elaborating so us normal people can assimilate what you said?
jim_xanara
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015

You display your mentality, a vulgar cretin more aptly describes yourself. And you prove my "prediction" of the response devoid of any reason whatsoever. What a surprise! Here is Dr. Scott's website; http://electric-c...xOLD.htm
When you unwrap your lips from Timmy's tool you can read Dr. Scott reply to Timmy's ridiculous misrepresentation of the real physics involved.


You manage to give cretins a bad name. It would be interesting to see a day in your life. I think it's difficult for the average person to imagine just what an epic loser you are. We know from your behavior on here that you're deluded in the extreme. 99/100 people can yell, "STFU!" and it makes no difference whatsoever to you. You parrot complete nut cases. I mean, if it's nut jobbery, can't you even do your own??? Don't mind your perennial 1 ratings. I have to conclude that you're a good example of what happens when kids are raised without physical discipline.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
You manage to give cretins a bad name.
Yep, and jonesdave is on the list.
99/100 people can yell, "STFU!" and it makes no difference whatsoever to you.

100 people could tell me "STFU" and I would careless, just like all successful people.
You parrot complete nut cases.
Like Birkeland, Alfven, Langmuir, Arp...
I mean, if it's nut jobbery, can't you even do your own???
As you mentioned, I am but a parrot.
Don't mind your perennial 1 ratings.

Vanity is of no concern to me.

I have to conclude that you're a good example of what happens when kids are raised without physical discipline.

Lots of wooden spoons were used in my house, my parents were part of the 99.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2015
Lots of wooden spoons were used in my house
@cd
explains a lot, really-you're not supposed to eat the spoons
Timmy's ridiculous misrepresentation of the real physics
first off: Thompson's refute of scottie-boy was not only plasma physics and astrophysics, but it was also based upon known physics and experiments and plenty of references were provided... scottie was a failure to provide refute for said evidence

secondly, the reason you like to denigrate Thompson is becuase he made you look like a complete idiot here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

lastly: we already know you are a conspiracy theorist clinging to ANY pseudoscience that isn't validated, proven here: http://phys.org/n...ris.html

plus, your claims above are what is known as a FALSE CLAIM
http://www.auburn...ion.html

tighten your tin-foil hat... your EM's are leaking out...
LOL
wduckss
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
Whydening Gyre
"That - or I'm gonna have to start taking Alzheimers meds...."

Regulation of growth of the body, and the speed of rotation of the body about the axis. "Generally: the larger the object, the older it is. When it grows up to 10% of the Sun's mass, it loses its crust and becomes a solar object, a star ..." From: http: //www.svemir -ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#growth1
Fast rotation and a significant proportion of complex elements (to a relatively low temperature) = strong magnetic field.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2015
Rather cryptic, RC... Mind elaborating so us normal people can assimilate what you said?


Good luck with that Cher. It's probably tip top secret until we perish while waiting on him to finish up doing whatever it is doing to his toes.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You have made it up to 4 today. glam-Skippy is holding on to 1.9 and Mike-That-Talks-To-Him-Self-Skippy is bouncing between 3.8 and 3.9 and the two-pennies-Skippy is still dropping, he's down to 3.6. How about we turn the score board back on? Yeah, let's do that.
bschott
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
but since a select few of us outside mainstream theoretical astrophysics have been


I enjoyed your comedic use of "select few" as if you had been hand-picked for your special qualifications. Nice one.


That was sarcasm, so thanks. It is considerably more than a "select few", hell even at this site it's about 50/50 among active posters. Only mainstream physicists that are, shall we say, obligated to support it's models can claim something works one way despite observational evidence that it doesn't:

This puzzled astronomers because the physical processes that generate the Sun's magnetic field shouldn't operate in such a small star


It's phrased to suggest it's the same mechanism. This isn't even possible due to the difference in how the mainstream models both bodies...you guys ignore this like it's a weird anomaly without truly understanding what it means.

If one of you can suggest a plausible explanation inside the bounds of the models, please do.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
Mind elaborating...?
Sure. Have few extra minutes to spare (but still can't stay long). Briefly, points were:

- such smaller diameter star's close-in magnetic field easily observed (ie, it occurs above that star's surface); whereas the 'equivalent-distance-from-centre' fieldlines would be hidden from view within the body of our sun. So we can see the 'stronger, inner parts' of that smaller stars mag-pattern;

- the easily observed, more curved/stronger fieldlines would be (picture a spherical magnetic-dipole 'pattern' where closer-in fieldlines are shorter stronger/faster) 'cyclotron accelerators' for any 'plasmic' material shot up into those stronger fieldlines by that star's exploding-plasmoid 'jets';

- also, any 'cyclotron radiation' used to estimate star's 'body rotation speed' may actually be indicating 'cyclotron frequency' speed of 'plasma material flow around that star', rather than that star's 'bodily rotation speed'.

Gotta go. Cheers. :)
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
Bahahah magnetic in the title, look who posts!

EU is crap science, among the worst type of pseudo -mystic religious tripe.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)

I see the usual suspects downrated my post responding politely to your request for elaboration of the scientific points raised in my previous post. I supplied what you requested; and yet I got downvoted by the usual suspects without any attempt on their part to say why or on what scientific basis they did so? Why is that, do you think? :)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
and yet I got downvoted ... without any attempt on their part to say why or on what scientific basis they did so?
sam-i-am, the reason no one usually tries to engage you in conversation is simple:
1- you don't converse, you attempt to lecture, and you are not capable of either

2- you aren't supplying any links/references, therefore there is no need to post counter argument

3- you will ignore any counter argument that doesn't agree with your POV anyway, and then you will flood the site with your beliefs and irritate everyone

as it is, you will already flood the site with your POV, accurate or not
& you will already complain about your treatment to try to claim that you're a victim
& you're always going to continue until you "get the last word in"

so what would be the point of attempting discourse with you?

it would be similar to trying to teach a pet dog to speak English... only you're likely to see results from the dog
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2015
Hi Whyde, Forum. :)

See that? Explains it all.

When I have not been at liberty to go into scientific detail, I was downvoted.

When I am at liberty to elaborate as I have in this instance, I am downvoted.

Even when I made a counter-argument in my reply to antialias in another thread which he could not refute, these same trolls downvoted even that.

And further still, in another thread where Da Schneib was honorable enough to admit he was wrong and me right, I was also downvoted by these same troll gang (who were also wrong).

It all flies in the face of the above claims by CapS, doesn't it?

What more proof of what is behind these gang-based/bot-voting 'personal' downvotes?

No honor or sense in that lot, is there?

It increasingly appears that ""that's all there is to them".....malignant trollish mentality and ego "all the way down"....sabotaging and personalizing every otherwise scientific/logical thread/discussion/issue they contaminate/derail. Sad :(
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Hi Whyde, Forum. :)

See that? Explains it all.

When I have not been at liberty to go into scientific detail, I was downvoted.

When I am at liberty to elaborate as I have in this instance, I am downvoted.

Even when I made a counter-argument in my reply to antialias in another thread which he could not refute, these same trolls downvoted even that.

And further still, in another thread where Da Schneib was honorable enough to admit he was wrong and me right, I was also downvoted by these same troll gang (who were also wrong).

It all flies in the face of the above claims by CapS, doesn't it?

What more proof of what is behind these gang-based/bot-voting 'personal' downvotes?

No honor or sense in that lot, is there?

It increasingly appears that "that's all there is to them".....malignant trollish mentality and ego "all the way down"....sabotaging and personalizing every otherwise scientific/logical thread/discussion/issue they contaminate/derail. Sad :(
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2015
sub: welcome trend set
It is an eye opener to next dimensional Sensex-Astronomy to cosmology studies.
Plama Regulated Electromagnetic phenomena in magnetic field environment searches PRIDHVI-region around 100 AU and 10,000 intense region beyond sun
your info: Red dwarf star TVLM 513-46546, at 35 light-years from Earth in the constellation Boötes.It spins rapidly, completing a full rotation about every two hours. Our Sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.
vidyardhi nanduri [cosmology Vedas Interlinks]
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015
and yet I got downvoted ... without any attempt on their part to say why or on what scientific basis they did so?

Scientific basis? For that you would have to post some content.

Here's a hint why you get downvoted (which leads to an actual, serious question): This site is a site for science fanbois (not scientists). To make an analogy: imagine this were a site dedicated to a footaball. You come in here claiming "I am a great football player. I haven't played anywhere yet - but just you wait until I play my first game. Then you'll see that I'm the greatest player that ever was".

Now, even you would find someone with that attitude completely ludicrous and tell him to STFU, no?

So here's the question: What's the point? Even if you could convince us science fanbois on here that you are great* what have you gained? Nothing. No recognition whatsoever in any scientific community.

*not gonna happen in a trillion years. Don't kid yourself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015
Hi antialias. :)
...have to post some content.
I did. Also elsewhere I addressed your 'grandfather paradox' argument claiming "one can create frames of references where effects precede causes". Did you understand the science/logic which makes those frames 'imaginary', hence non-sequitur?

To make an analogy: imagine this were a site dedicated to a footaball.
So you are not a scientist' and neither is anyone else speaking for/defending mainstream science theory/practice? No wonder the arrogance/error you/they have demonstrated more than once. And you can't "play football" here; chess, yes; and do science discourse, based on objective facts/logics being presented/discussed in the articles/threads, as per science site purpose/rules.

...convince us science fanbois...
Who's trying to "convince fanbois" of anything? I objectively observe/comment (while certain non-scientist 'fanbois' personalize/derail discussion, skew ratings metric).

'Play' fair, mate. :)
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
"I did. Also elsewhere I addressed your 'grandfather paradox' argument claiming "one can create frames of references where effects precede causes". Did you understand the science/logic which makes those frames 'imaginary', hence non-sequitur?"

Your response in that thread was neither logical, nor scientific.

"No wonder the arrogance/error you/they have demonstrated more than once."

That's rich.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
Your response in that thread was neither logical, nor scientific.


You will be singing a different ballad when he publishes his book about toes (if we don't all perish first.)

Would you like a sample of what to expect in his toes book? Well since you ask for it I am happy to make you happy with that.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Oh yeah, that's is our Really-Skippy at his finest talking about scientifical things and how he is changing the world of physics with biased subjective unobservational no-math-necessary explanations of how the universe really works. Hooyeei, that is some good stuffs there, he maybe should get the Ignoble Prize for that sort of foolishment.
yep
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
Bahahah magnetic in the title, look who posts!

EU is crap science, among the worst type of pseudo -mystic religious tripe.


Like your miracle Big Bang and dark matter B.S. is any better? Your as dogmatic as any religious zealot and as deluded.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
'Play' fair, mate
ROTFLMFAO
OMG that made me spit my coffee all over the cat!

.

Your response in that thread was neither logical, nor scientific
@Matt_s
yeah... maybe he was for more concerned with his saving of us all? LOL
after all, he is going to save the world from climate change:
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

.

magnetic in the title, look who posts!
EU is crap science, among the worst type of pseudo -mystic religious tripe.
@Maggnus
I think you hit a sore spot with the cult members
Your as dogmatic as any religious zealot and as deluded
methinks they're feeling the pressure of guilt?
maybe they didn't meet their quota of converts?

it's really too bad they're not into purple... then we could enjoy the sighting of any passing comet as they tried to enter "heavens gate"
LMFAO

for the serious science folk here something NEW: http://arxiv.org/...8446.pdf
yep
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2015
Sore because of how ridiculous you guys can be. You do not even realize you believe in space magic because it's standard theory. "Intellectual phase locking"
Serious science folk question.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Would you like a sample of what to expect in his toes book? Well since you ask for it I am happy to make you happy with that.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Dammit Ira. You owe me a keyboard. I sprayed my coffee all over it laughing so hard.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Sore because of how ridiculous you guys can be
@yep
wait-a-minute!
so.. because we follow provable evidence based conclusions &
because we don't simply accept, wholeheartedly, a debunked pseudoscience &
because we prefer original reputable sources that aren't known pseudoscience sites &
because we accept proven validated studies (like GR/SR)
THEN
WE are ones who believe in "space magic"????

WTF?
like i said:
until you can actually find evidence for your delusional eu beliefs, like the various craters/canyons, breaking up of asteroids/comets, Cassini not being shocked into non-function, and so much more, then you are believing in a delusional RELIGION

by definition it MUST be a religion as it centers a set of codified rules for the exclusion, prejudgement and pressures of punishment of others based upon the beliefs of a faith- without evidence- that can't be proven at all, and HAVE been proven false already

it is, by definition, a CULT
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2015
Hi antialias. :)
I sprayed my coffee all over it laughing so hard.
Who was the laughing stock last year, mate? You and your gang of personality trolls, that's who. You were the only ones here to fall hook line and sinker for that BICEP2 fraudulent 'publish or perish' garbage. You 'believed' it all....just because some mainstream bozos told you to!

Is that the standard of 'objective intellect/integrity' which passes for 'good' among you and your fellow bot-voting mugs carrying on worse than any of the religious/denier trolls here?

And then there was that time last year when you and your gang also laughed at me, trolled my exchange with Da Schneib.

But the laugh was on you and your silly gang when finally Da Schneib bravely admitted he was wrong and I correct re plasmoids etc in our sun.

Haven't you learned your lesson yet, antialias?

Your arrogant laughter, trolling, personal tactics is obviously impeding your objective scientific comprehension/integrity. Learn. :)
my2cts
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2015
Bahahah magnetic in the title, look who posts!

EU is crap science, among the worst type of pseudo -mystic religious tripe.


Like your miracle Big Bang and dark matter B.S. is any better? Your as dogmatic as any religious zealot and as deluded.

So you admit that EU is crap. You are making progress.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2015
Hi my2cts. :)

Mate, take extra care when making smart aleck rejoinders like that. They can be two-edged swords when composed without due attention to the possibility of blowback from your own haste to belittle others. For example, by your unwittingly allowing/confirming the "like crap" connection between (his) UE and (your) "miracle Big Bang and dark matter B.S.", you just tacitly agreed that BOTH are "like crap". Not your intention, I trust. But that's how your smart aleck rejoinder comes across because you were more eager to belittle than to actually argue the merits politely/objectively. It helps to counter trolls/deniers/pseudoscientists better when we all can maintain a minimum level of courtesy and objectivity, like real honest scientists/interlocutors should, at all times. That way it will be easier for all observers to assess the debate and tease out the relevant facts in the end. That was just some impartial advice from a friend of you/forum. Cheers. :)
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2015
Who was the laughing stock last year, mate? You and your gang of personality trolls


Still an inveterate liar, I see, RC. Sad, but not surprising. At the time AA was among the first to counsel caution with those results and to wait for confirmation, as did all of the scientificly literate "gang" on PysOrg.
yep
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2015
Who was the laughing stock last year, mate? You and your gang of personality trolls


Still an inveterate liar, I see, RC. Sad, but not surprising. At the time AA was among the first to counsel caution with those results and to wait for confirmation, as did all of the scientificly literate "gang" on PysOrg.

Your memory is shite and your scientifically literate gang of trolls believe in space magic based in19th century assumptions. Your serious scientists like AA would rather ignore scientific findings like this http://www.aanda....-15.html
And argue semantics with me. The data is coming in and you will not be able to deny or ignore it forever!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2015
Hi Gawad. :)
Who was the laughing stock last year, mate? You and your gang of personality trolls


Still an inveterate liar, I see, RC. Sad, but not surprising. At the time AA was among the first to counsel caution with those results and to wait for confirmation, as did all of the scientificly literate "gang" on PysOrg.
Why make such an obviously false claim, mate? If you read the relevant threads/posts, you'd see I was the first to counsel caution because of many/varied obvious (to me) flaws in that 'publish or perish' offering masquerading as 'science'. Your 'scientifically literate heroes' were the ones treating that 'offering' as 'valid science/conclusions' instead of the crap it was. Their 'uncritical belief' in it was great at the time; and all too eager to use it to 'justify' ongoing attacks on perceived 'cranks'. Hence my caution to them NOT to keep doing so because said 'exercise/study' was multiply flawed.

Still, no hard feelings this end,mate. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.