A new view of the solar system: Astrophysical jets driven by the sun

A new view of the solar system: Astrophysical jets driven by the sun
The yellow shape in this figure is the heliopause, the boundary between the heliosphere and the local interstellar medium. The sun sits at the center of this large bubble, but is too small to be seen here. The gray lines are the solar magnetic field lines and the red lines are the interstellar magnetic field. Credit: M. Opher

As the sun skims through the galaxy, it flings out charged particles in a stream of plasma called the solar wind, and the solar wind creates a bubble extending far outside the solar system known as the heliosphere. For decades, scientists have visualized the heliosphere as shaped like a comet, with a very long tail extending thousands of times as far as the distance from the Earth to the sun.

New research suggests that the sun's magnetic field controls the large-scale shape of the heliosphere "much more than had been previously thought," says Merav Opher, associate professor of astronomy and director of the Center for Space Physics at Boston University (BU). In the new model, the magnetic field squeezes the along the sun's North and South axes, producing two jets that are then dragged downstream by the flow of the interstellar medium through which the heliosphere moves.

The model indicates that the heliospheric tail doesn't extend to large distances but is split into two by the two jets, and that the format of the jets is similar to that of astrophysical jets observed in many other stars and around black holes.

"Most researchers don't believe in the importance of the , because the magnetic pressure on the solar wind's particles is far lower than the thermal pressure of the particles," says Opher, lead author on a paper appearing today in Astrophysical Journal Letters. However, the model shows that tension of the magnetic field controls what happens to the solar wind in the tail.

Picture a tube of toothpaste with rubber bands wrapped around it, suggests co-author James Drake, professor of physics and director of the Joint Space-Science Institute at the University of Maryland. In this case, the toothpaste is the jet's plasma, and the rubber bands are the rings of the solar magnetic field. "Magnetic fields have tension just like rubber bands, and these rings squeeze in," he says. "So imagine you wrap your toothpaste tube very tightly with a lot of rubber bands, and they will squeeze the toothpaste out the end of your tube."

"Jets are really important in astrophysics," Drake adds. "And from what we can tell, the mechanism that's driving these heliospheric jets is basically the same as it is in, for example, the Crab Nebula. Yet this is really close by. If we're right about all of this, it gives us a local test bed for exploring some very important physics."

"It's also exciting that these jets are very turbulent, and will be very good particle accelerators," says Opher. The might, for example, play a role in the acceleration of so-called anomalous "We don't know where these particles are accelerated; it's a bit of a puzzle," she says.

Solving such puzzles will be important for space travel. The heliosphere acts as "a cocoon to protect us, by filtering galactic cosmic rays," she says. "Understanding the physical phenomena that govern the shape of the heliosphere will help us understand the filter."

The new view of the heliosphere was discovered by accident as the team studied surprising data from the Voyager 1 spacecraft and tried to understand how the galaxy's magnetic field interacts with the heliosphere.

One of two identical twin spacecraft launched in 1977, Voyager 1 in 2012 became the first man-made object to exit the heliosphere and plunge into , according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

As the spacecraft approached and then crossed this boundary, "Voyager had very bizarre observations," remarks Opher. It did not register the anticipated major change in the direction of magnetic field as it made the crossing.

Struggling to explain these unexpected results, the team initially focused on the nose of the heliosphere rather than its tail. "The Voyagers had a flashlight in the kitchen, and nobody was looking in the attic," she remarks. "We noticed, while studying the draping of the galaxy's around the nose, that the heliosphere was much shorter than we anticipated." When she ran a much larger numerical simulation that continued to follow the flow of the solar wind, she unveiled the unforeseen two-tailed shape.

More data on the heliosphere's boundaries will become available sometime in the next few years when Voyager 2, like its twin, crosses into interstellar space.

In the meantime, additional evidence about the shape of the heliosphere is available from two spacecraft that measure so-called neutral energetic atoms (ENAs), particles that are created by interactions between the solar wind and neutral atoms from the , and whose presence gives an indication of the heliosphere's border.

Opher says that results from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) project can be interpreted to offer support for the two-lobed tail model, although she notes that IBEX scientists offer a different interpretation. Data from the Cassini spacecraft's ENA measurements also may suggest an almost "tailless" , she adds.


Explore further

John Richardson and John Belcher on Voyager 1's crossing and interstellar exploration

More information: The research paper, "Magnetized jets driven by the sun: the structure of the heliosphere revisited," Merav Opher, James Drake, Bertalan Zieger and Tamas Gombosi, was published Feb. 19, 2015, in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters. iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/800/2/L28/article
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Provided by Boston University
Citation: A new view of the solar system: Astrophysical jets driven by the sun (2015, February 19) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-view-solar-astrophysical-jets-driven.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
105 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 19, 2015
Let the anti EU trolls start posting in 3, 2, 1...

Feb 19, 2015
LOL. Watching solar physicists misinterpret one set of data after another was sickening. Unless they learn about Birkeland currents and "Z pinch" they will continue to cling to unproven models of nuclear fusion. I guess if your only tool is a hammer then all problems will appear as a nail. All recent data supports an electric model of the sun. The failed cosmological models that proposed black holes, the big bang, neutron stars and dark matter will soon be discarded.
Halton Arp was a student of Edmund Hubble and worked at the Max Planck I. in Germany. His book "Seeing Red" showed the data that revealed red shift as a function of AGE not distance was Nobel worthy. Chandra has confirmed his results. It invalidates the Big Bang theory and inflation. He will be known as a modern day Galileo.
Anthony Peratt at Los Alomas has shown spiral galaxy formation in plasma physics experiments. AND they have the necessary velocities that do not require black holes or dark matter. NOBEL.


Feb 19, 2015
Even NASA is starting to pay attention. Donald Scott ("The Electric Sky") was invited to speak at the Engineering Colloquia at Goddard. A large number of astrophysicists attended. He made a significant impact on the course of NASA research missions. The MMS mission of 2014 (Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission) was a direct result of his presentation. This study will invalidate the nuclear fusion model of stars. It has become clear that the sun is an electrical body with massive electromagnetic fields. Now cosmologists can explain the lack of adequate convection velocities to support their theories. But will they? Self preservation is a strong motivator and may induce fierce resentment before it fizzles out in the sea of truth.
Tesla, not Einstein. Maxwell, not Newton. Alfvens, not Hawkings. Birkeland...Langmuir....Peratt....Scott.
The accretion that occurs at a Z pinch accounts for all star formation. Gravity alone just can't do it. Imagination not required. Get on board or a new job.

Feb 19, 2015
Let the anti EU trolls start posting in 3, 2, 1...

The "anti-EUers" tend to ignore articles such as this one. It's too hard to argue against reality.


Feb 20, 2015
For decades, scientists have visualized the heliosphere as shaped like a comet, with a very long tail extending thousands of times as far as the distance from the Earth to the sun.

In conflict with volumes of observational data.

New research suggests that the sun's magnetic field controls the large-scale shape of the heliosphere "much more than had been previously thought,"

Because they don't think, and prefer "thought experiments" rather than empirical data.

In the new model, the magnetic field squeezes the solar wind along the sun's North and South axes, producing two jets

There's those electric currents powering the sun.

"Most researchers don't believe in the importance of the solar magnetic field,

Because the worship at the "Alter of Relativity" and are completely ignorant of real plasma physics.

Picture a tube of toothpaste with rubber bands

He must know he's talking to astrophysicists. 1+1.....

Feb 20, 2015
"We don't know where these particles are accelerated; it's a bit of a puzzle," she says.

Obviously oblivious to plasma physics and electric fields. Pathetic!

The new view of the heliosphere was discovered by accident as the team studied surprising data from the Voyager 1

So much for predictions, hasn't slowed the standard model acolytes though. Religion is hard to overcome.

Struggling to explain these unexpected results

They will continue to struggle until they start to recognize what should otherwise be obvious if they knew anything about anything of which they study, that they must not ignore the electrical nature of plasma.

Feb 20, 2015
Man, one just had to know that the headline on this article would bring out a smorgasbord of EU claiming, pseudo-scientific, back slapping nitwits!


Feb 20, 2015
The MMS mission of 2014 (Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission) was a direct result of his presentation.


Absolute and complete lie. Scott spoke in Goddard in 2009, MMS was proposed in 1999.

His book "Seeing Red" showed the data that revealed red shift as a function of AGE not distance was Nobel worthy. Chandra has confirmed his results.


Wrong. Arp's model of intrinsic red shifts was debunked by SDSS. His counterexamples to Hubble's law were similarly debunked by spectroscopy which showed Arps "background" galaxy somehow made absorption lines in the "foreground" quasar, conclusively proving it was consistent with the big bang.


Feb 20, 2015
Anthony Peratt at Los Alomas has shown spiral galaxy formation in plasma physics experiments. AND they have the necessary velocities that do not require black holes or dark matter.


The resolution wasn't high enough to study black holes, so that's wrong. Secondly there was no attempt to show why flat rotation curves form every time. In that case it's no better than dark matter, you've just assumed a electromagnetic configuration instead of a matter one. Dark matter however has been shown to form NFW profiles ubiquitously, which explains flat rotation curves and why we always see them. Secondly it explains lensing and clusters, Perratt's model has not. His spirals are also not real spirals as the arms are physical and do not fit with pattern speed measurement.

It has become clear that the sun is an electrical body with massive electromagnetic fields.


And what specific quantitative predictions does EU make... Nothing. Not testable.

Feb 20, 2015
Anthony Peratt at Los Alomas has shown spiral galaxy formation in plasma physics experiments. AND they have the necessary velocities that do not require black holes or dark matter.


The resolution wasn't high enough to study black holes, so that's wrong. Secondly there was no attempt to show why flat rotation curves form every time. In that case it's no better than dark matter,

[.


At dark matter you now have summoned a fictitious entity to explain your position. It is untenable. Why do "scientists" think they are immune to the same psychological forces that affect all "laymen"? Oh that's right!! only the PRIEST class can ascertain certain truths regarding such things... OH the LAITY!!

Feb 20, 2015
From IMP-9 to 'the EU crowd':
And what specific quantitative predictions does EU make... Nothing. Not testable.
Be fair, IMP-9. They've been 'predicting' this sort of thing all along. It WAS 'testable', as above 'mainstream' article/observations confirm.

It is patently incorrect and disingenuous strawmen/accusations like yours above that undermines reputation/credibility of 'mainstream defenders' here.

Mainstream science/scientists do NOT need ego-tripping hangers-on denying/dissembling like that in their name; they have enough trouble defending themselves already against mounting evidence falsifying some of their most cherished but patently incorrect Big Bang etc 'interpretations' of observations.

And Maggnus also has an apology to make to cd etc, on ANOTHER EU 'issue', see: http://phys.org/n...lds.html

Even if we don't concur with all EU claims, we should be objective on points 'confirmed', instead of 'in blanket denial'?

Ok? :)

Feb 20, 2015
Tesla, not Einstein. Maxwell, not Newton. Alfvens, not Hawkings. Birkeland...Langmuir....Peratt....Scott.
Why no testable theories?

There is real irony here. Really, look it up yourself. It shouldn't take too long if you have any capability to think for yourself.
The geniuses Tesla, Maxwell, Alfven, Birkeland, Langmuir, and Peratt are all experimental, applied science researchers. Every one of them relied on empirical research and in situ findings to develop their theories. They are all based upon real, testable science, all of which added profoundly to our modern society and which we rely upon daily.
Einstein merely stole most of which he claimed as discoveries, and he even admitted it.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein
Newton developed his theories hundreds of years before plasma was an understood form of matter, recall 99.999% of the Universe is in the plasma state.
Hawking? Completely useless human, waste of wheelchair.

Feb 21, 2015
The magnetic field of Sun couldn't collimate the solar wind particles at such a distances, as the strength of magnetic field decreases with fourth power of distance from dipole.


You are applying the wrong physics, as usual. The magnetic field of a cosmical Birkeland current decreases at 1/√R, that's 1 over the square root of the radius for the mathematically challenged.

Feb 21, 2015
@cantdrive

"Hawking? Completely useless human, waste of wheelchair."

That statements says more about you than Hawking.

Feb 21, 2015
@cd
@any other eu poster

yall should be debunking this theory wholeheartedly based upon the abstract alone
after all, according to CD's previous posts, there is no possible way it can be correct
per CD
The same MHD which is used to this very day by the gravity acolytes which Alfven, et al. later showed to be false 50 years ago with direct empirical laboratory evidence and experimentation. Not to mention the multitudes of in situ measurements which has shown those same MHD assumptions
therefore, any and ALL eu proponents and acolytes supporting this study must, by default, be wrong OR they have no idea what they are talking about
(because of blatant stupidity and intentionally not learning anything about science at all)

I guess CD et al didn't read the abstract or study?

where is your personal integrity now?
where is your delusional belief in alfven now?
it must be true because it has magnetic in it?

religious and pseudoscience acolytes are all the same

Feb 21, 2015
I wonder how EU supporters explain the impossibility of gravitationally collapsed stars, neutron stars and black holes. Since gravity is very real and computations take it into account, it makes sense for a collapsed body of gas to increase its temperature as it collapses and given the right mass to ignite nuclear fusion. In the same way, for very large masses the end product will be a black hole (or a high density object anyway).

So how does the EU make these objects disappear? And if they don't disappear, then how does EU take into computation the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces?

And finally, how does EU explain the acceleration of 1g at the surface of the Earth?

Feb 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 21, 2015
@cd
@any other eu poster

yall should be debunking this theory wholeheartedly based upon the abstract alone
after all, according to CD's previous posts, there is no possible way it can be correct
per CD
therefore, any and ALL eu proponents and acolytes supporting this study must, by default, be wrong OR they have no idea what they are talking about

None of us "EU'ers" are supporting this study as the study is more pseudoscience nonsense. What has been shown is the data and observations completely falsify all of the ignorant hypotheses of the astrophysicists. Still, they use the same methods and models which caused them to propose the falsified nonsense in the first place. Nothing has changed other than they proved themselves wrong, which they acknowledged.
All we are agreeing with is they have proved themselves wrong. The irony is the know it, but choose the path of insanity by continuing with the same actions but expect a different outcome.

Feb 21, 2015
I wonder how EU supporters explain the impossibility of gravitationally collapsed stars, neutron stars and black holes.

By just that, acknowledging they are impossible. They are nothing more than mathematical fairy tales. The pseudoscientific analogues of unicorns and leprechauns.

it makes sense for a collapsed body of gas to increase its temperature as it collapses and given the right mass to ignite nuclear fusion.

Actually, the opposite is true. As "gases" heat up they expand, there is no more a fundamental fact of thermodynamics than that simple statement! There is another simple fact about stars, there is no gas. Zero, nada, zilch. There is not one iota of gas which is any part of a star. Stars are 100% plasma and the physics of plasma are completely different than those of gases. This is a fact.

So how does the EU make these objects disappear?

How do you make a unicorn disappear? Merely by opening ones eyes.

Feb 21, 2015
how does EU take into computation the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces?

More irony here, Peratt's galaxy formation simulation fully accounts for the effects of gravity. Being ignorant of the facts is no defense for you, quite frankly you are making blanket claims from a position of utter ignorance.

And finally, how does EU explain the acceleration of 1g at the surface of the Earth?

Because EU understands gravity is a real phenomena. It's measured at 1g because science stills sees the Earth as the center of the Universe. The fact that DM must be conjured up to explain the shortcomings of gravity elsewhere further confirms this notion. After all these years the standard theory still has no mechanism to explain gravity, another simple fact their acolytes refuse to acknowledge.
The EU does not suffer the same shortcoming, they have a proposed mechanism.
http://www.holosc...niverse/

Feb 21, 2015
They've been 'predicting' this sort of thing all along. It WAS 'testable', as above 'mainstream' article/observations confirm.


No, they've been waving their hands. Point me to a single quantitative prediction which preceded this paper. You people read plasma in the title and announce successful predictions and pretend people haven't been studying this stuff since the space age.

At dark matter you now have summoned a fictitious entity to explain your position.


No. To simply explain a rotation curve all you need is mass. It's other observations at force this matter to be unusual. Perratt's model faces none of this data so you have no idea what "fictitious entities" he would have to conjure up. A hypothesis is never untenable if it provides testable avenues, for dark matter that is in the large scale structure of the universe. You're confusing personal prejudice with logic.

Feb 21, 2015
I still don't see why gravity alone could not collapse a big enough mass into a black hole or a neutron star.

Feb 21, 2015
None of us "EU'ers" are supporting this study as the study is more pseudoscience nonsense
@CD
oh, right, because the following quote from you is a total zinger with regard to the above article
The "anti-EUers" tend to ignore articles such as this one. It's too hard to argue against reality
WHEW! i am SO glad you are now telling me that the quote is actually saying that you don't support the news! WOW!
ROTFLMFAO

and just like ANY religious acolyte, when cornered about your belief, you simply change your story to reflect the most convenient lie

just like your argument against mainstream astro's not knowing Plasma physics which has been debunked so many times that even the uninitiated think you are pathetic when you bring it out

eu is pseudoscience
like it or not


Feb 21, 2015
@IMP-9.
They've been 'predicting' this sort of thing all along. It WAS 'testable', as above 'mainstream' article/observations confirm.


No, they've been waving their hands. Point me to a single quantitative prediction...

You people read plasma in the title and announce successful predictions and pretend people haven't been studying this stuff since the space age.
I was alluding to their insistence that lab-informed plasma physics be used by mainstream, instead of 'hot gas' etc interpretation/explanations. Point is, true lab-informed plasma physics gives different behaviour than what 'hot gas' models do. Which is why Sun phenomena is still somewhat 'mysterious' to mainstream.

Hans Alfven & cd, however distasteful their attitudes/comments re mainstream (probably because of the history of indiscriminate abuse from you/mainstreamers from 'day one'?), had valid points to make. Be fair point-by-point. Ok?

PS: I am NOT part of EU crowd. Merely objective observer. :)

Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy. Give it a rest, will ya! You obviously don't understand properly or view fairly any of that which you are babbling about. Please apologize properly and fairly to cd; and DO stop your INDISCRIMINATE SPAMMING of these threads/discussions with your personally motivated 'in blanket denial' hate rants. Please. Thankyou.

Feb 21, 2015
@cantdrive

"Hawking? Completely useless human, waste of wheelchair."

That statements says more about you than Hawking.


Thanks Vet-Skippy. I don't get to see his stuffs anymore, so that reminds me why I don't. Just like NAZI antisemitic stuffs that caused me turn on the "Don't Show Me This Button".

It looks like the only friends Really-Skippy have left are NAZI's and antisemites and people who make fun of handicapped geniuses. At this rate he won't find anybody anywhere who will talk to him, except to make the fun with him like I do.

Feb 21, 2015
(probably because of the history of indiscriminate abuse from you/mainstreamers from 'day one'?)

Bingo, Reality Check is correct yet again!

@Stumpy. Give it a rest, will ya! You obviously don't understand properly or view fairly any of that which you are babbling about. Please apologize properly and fairly to cd; and DO stop your INDISCRIMINATE SPAMMING of these threads/discussions with your personally motivated 'in blanket denial' hate rants. Please. Thankyou.

Too much pride and down right stupidity to get it.

oh, right, because the following quote from you is a total zinger with regard to the above article

The "anti-EUers" tend to ignore articles such as this one. It's too hard to argue against reality

The reality is the data and observation that falsified the hypotheses, you really need to get your stupid out of your way.

Feb 21, 2015
Poor Uncle bot-voting Idiot. Still working on his false association 'hate list' for his bot-voting based on person not science. How surprising...not, hey folks? Poor poor bot-voting Uncle Idiot.

Feb 21, 2015
just like your argument against mainstream astro's not knowing Plasma physics


The article above makes this point, I don't really have to continue to make already proven claims against the astrostupidists (although I will). If they had a clue they wouldn't be incorrect in every aspect of their pitiful hypotheses.

Feb 21, 2015
I still don't see why gravity alone could not collapse a big enough mass into a black hole or a neutron star.

As previously stated, ignorance is no excuse.

Feb 21, 2015
claims against the astrostupidists (although I will)
@CD
funny thing... you do continue to make the claim, but you've never once EVER been able to prove it
not once!

whereas I have already repeatedly demonstrated that you are a complete and utter liar when you say that astrophysicists don't know Plasma physics
http://arxiv.org/...92v1.pdf
http://phys.org/n...een.html

By all means, please continue to make the claims
it only undermines your credibility
especially as it is so easily debunked
ignorance is no excuse
seems to be a fine excuse for you to use

Again, i point out that you should be learning about real physics first before speculating about why educated people make the decisions they do: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Or do you refuse because it is too hard to learn?
you like to follow the party line for eu... why not actually get an education and find out some real physics
it is FAR more interesting

Feb 21, 2015
Stars are 100% plasma and the physics of plasma are completely different than those of gases. This is a fact.
No it is not. A lot of observations across the spectrum by contemporary instruments currently studying the sun tell us that this article merely confirms those observations, where the nature of ol' sol is concerned.

As a matter of fact, the sun has a surface of iron - actually calcium ferrite - where the temperature is measurably lower than in the visible neon plasma layer of the photosphere.

There is a lot of information on this subject on this website: http://www.thesur...sun.com/

Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy.
@RC
1- you don't know what you are talking about, so just go back to your ToE jam and saving the world with your climate change proposal which you will simply lie about later on and make some excuse for not posting anything or being able to present any evidence, just like you always do
2- this is an old argument between cd and i, and you've never once been able to contribute to it for either side, so FOAD
3- TL;DR
4- baiting, trolling, reported

Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy.
@RC
1- you don't know what you are talking about...
2- this is an old argument between cd and i, and you've never once been able to contribute to it for either side...
3- TL;DR
4- baiting, trolling, reported
The 'denial' stream runs strong and deep in this one!

I already pointed out where you, Maggnus et al were wrong, and cd et al were right, on at least ONE point: http://phys.org/n...lds.html

I also pointed out to IMP-9 et al that this article also confirms some of cd et al's 'issues'.

And have you forgotten where I taught Da Schneib about PLASMOIDS occurring within the sun to produce some of the observed plasma flows/mass ejections and magnetic flux tube swirls/features?

Why persist in AVOIDING FACTS pointed out to you? Why persist in DENIAL of "evidence" (which you claim to "follow" but obviously don't)?

Stumpy, give your ego-driven 'personal', denialist, lying, spamming, "FOAD" crap, a rest. Apologize to cd. :)

Feb 21, 2015
Fool, laughing at your own cleverness in the mirror. You think you're "schooling" people, just like the greater fool, Farsight. Why don't you and he and Zephir collaborate to make something less rational than the Bible?

I'll be long dead before you can scrape together enough for the vanity press...

Feb 21, 2015
Poor poor saposjoint (alias Dr_toad, since banned). What a complete waste. All treasonous troll, no integrity. Poor poor self-deluding lying dolt and self-demonstrably 'sad Internet case'. Proven. His 'friend' and fellow liar and 'internet tragic' troll is being proven to be wrong and others right; so this 'toady friend' comes in 'on cue' trying to divert attention from that. Too sad, hey folks?

Feb 21, 2015
Stars are 100% plasma and the physics of plasma are completely different than those of gases. This is a fact.
No it is not. A lot of observations across the spectrum by contemporary instruments currently studying the sun tell us that this article merely confirms those observations, where the nature of ol' sol is concerned.

As a matter of fact, the sun has a surface of iron - actually calcium ferrite - where the temperature is measurably lower than in the visible neon plasma layer of the photosphere.

There is a lot of information on this subject on this website: http://www.thesur...sun.com/


Another example of gullibility and a lack of critical thinking.

Feb 21, 2015
I was alluding to their insistence that lab-informed plasma physics be used by mainstream, instead of 'hot gas' etc interpretation/explanations.


But people have been doing that since the space age began, to claim that is a new suggestion new is downright nonsense. "Hot gas" models do not always provide radically different results, for example in situations where the pressure energy density is much higher than the magnetic energy density the fluid properties will dominate. "Hot gas" physics is the first order physics, it is not what people use to study the solar environment now, but it did lead to the predictions of a solar wind by Parker from before the space age. Solar phenomena is not mysterious because people are only just applying plasma physics, if that were true it would have been solved decades ago.

And I don't appreciate the slander of calling be an abuser much so why not stick to the point. None of this has anything to do with the "predictions" of EIU.

Feb 22, 2015
but it did lead to the predictions of a solar wind by Parker from before the space age


Birkeland predicted the solar wind decades before, to give credit to Parker is ingenuous at best. In 1913 Birkeland wrote;
"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space."
Which he followed in 1916 with;
"From a physical point of view it is most probable that these new solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds"

So it would seem Parker was nothing more than a plagiarist.

Feb 22, 2015
Let the anti EU trolls start posting in 3, 2, 1...


What exactly do feel is falsified concerning any of what you recall is EU theory? You have it all completely backwards. Black holes don't suck things in because they aren't bottomless pits of curved 'space-time.' They are the central plasmoids emitting radiation, that is what's observed regardless of whatever you think. Milky Way's black hole was observed the same, not able to gravitationally overcome a nearby nebula. The sun doesn't cause the heliosphere, the heliosphere and Milky Way magnetic field produce the sun. Everything we KNOW of the sun is magnetic in nature, including sun spots, CMEs, the corona, the super-rotation of the equatorial region, solar-wind acceleration, etc. Anything on the interior is indirectly observed and theoretical, it cannot be confirmed. As the observations continue to get clearer they always seem to point to some electromagnetic cause.

Feb 22, 2015
Stars are 100% plasma and the physics of plasma are completely different than those of gases. This is a fact.
No it is not...
As a matter of fact, the sun has a surface of iron - actually calcium ferrite...


Another example of gullibility and a lack of critical thinking.

I'm assuming this is directed at me, more irony from the dementia crowd.

If you read the link you might recognize they are supporting an electric Sun model, not surprisingly this is over your head.

It should also be pointed out the presence of Ca(FeO2)2 in no way invalidates my claim.
The eminent plasma physicist A. Peratt describes certain plasmas;
"...instead of small angle collisions dominating transport that can be modeled with a Fokker-Planck equation, one must use the full Boltzman equation description. For example, a metal is in many respects a plasma, yet conventional definitions breakdown."

Metals at these temps are certainly plasma, as stated 100% plasma.

Feb 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 22, 2015
So it would seem Parker was nothing more than a plagiarist.


Further proof you don't know anything about space science. Parker was not the first to come up with the solar wind, but he was the first to make a model of it which made predictions, much of that was verified in the coming space age. Birkeland wasn't the first to suggest was a wind in the helioshphere, it was seen in the double tails of comets some time before.

Feb 22, 2015
Further proof you don't know anything about space science.

Try being a bit less vague then, by saying;
"but it did lead to the predictions of a solar wind by Parker from before the space age"
you leave much to the imagination with statements such as this.

BTW, Birkeland was likely the first to claim the solar wind was comprised of "electrons and flying electric ions" and as such the first to properly describe them. If you are aware of a previously described notion, I would be very interested to learn about it.

Feb 22, 2015
BTW
@CD
again, you approach science with such a religious fervor and take the belief of the party line as inviolable
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Even Einsteins famous E=MC2 is actually mentioned before his simplification, but it was also included in an overly complex formulation of other stuff
you can even read that here: https://en.wikipe...#History

But Einstein got credit for concentrating on the important stuff and being able to make predictions

This is one of the biggest flaws of your pseudoscience eu: predictions
you don't make many which are correct, and some of the ones you do get correct are for reasons other than what you think, and that's been proven more than once (See: Tim Thompson)

Epic failure with regard to science, cd
and more proof that you are religiously attached to a faith, not science

Feb 22, 2015
@IMP-9
I was alluding to their insistence that lab-informed plasma physics be used by mainstream, instead of 'hot gas' etc interpretation/explanations.
But people have been doing that since the space age...
It's the LAB-informed plasma physics that was not being fully applied to astrophysical observations/explanations that was cd's issue. If you see: http://phys.org/n...lds.html
...you will see that some mainstreamers finally ARE doing what cd recommended; and explanations ARE 'different' than previous.
Solar phenomena is not mysterious because people are only just applying plasma physics, if that were true it would have been solved decades ago.
I had to teach Da Schneib about PLASMOID processes/currents in SUN subsurface. Previous "Hot Gas" explanations moot.
And I don't appreciate the slander of calling be an abuser...
If you haven't abused cd, Hans etc indiscriminately like the others have, then my apologies! :)

Feb 22, 2015
I had to teach Da Schneib about PLASMOID processes/currents in SUN subsurface. Previous "Hot Gas" explanations moot.
no evidence of this happening ever, anywhere

perhaps you could supply that link so that everyone can see what really transpired?


Feb 22, 2015
It's the LAB-informed plasma physics that was not being fully applied to astrophysical observations/explanations that was cd's issue
no, it's not
cd claims (still) that astrophysicists don't even know plasma physics, even though that has been repeatedly debunked over the past year so many times, it makes anyone reading wonder if cd is illiterate (actual comment from another poster via PM)

even when demonstrated wrong he repeats the same mistakes, and then makes basic mistakes in physics via plasma physics that are readily researched on line and can be found within seconds of searching
(see: magnetic reconnection, birkeland currents, grand canyon formation, moon crater/dust devil formation, Diocotron instabilities in various posts)

repeating the same thing doesn't make it true
cd repeats the same lies over and over thinking it helps validate his cause
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Feb 22, 2015
@Stumpy. Give it up, mate. It's all there in the posting record. If you don't have time to 'remind' yourself, then I am certainly not going to waste more time on you and your 'in denial' problems. Please stop spamming your personal tactics and denials of the reality all over the place. Apologize to those you need to apologize to, and start afresh with more objectivity, honesty and less ego, self-interest. Good luck.

Feb 22, 2015
Man, one just had to know that the headline on this article would bring out a smorgasbord of EU claiming, pseudo-scientific, back slapping nitwits!
-And also a few empty posts from effete name callers.

Feb 22, 2015
cd claims (still) that astrophysicists don't even know plasma physics,


They don't, the article above is proof. They are experts at "hot gas" physics, also known as theoretical plasma physics. They are completely ignorant of electric discharge (real) plasma physics, that's why everything is mysterious, unexpected, and requires endless adjustments to their models and hypotheses.

Feb 23, 2015
They don't, the article above is proof
@CD
Ok, i will use small words for you CD:

Tamas Gombosi is Professor of Engineering; Professor: Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space and pioneer of cometary plasma physics

main author, Merav Opher- studied plasma physics and is currently developing new computational models (such as coupling Kinetic-MHD models; PIC Codes-MHD; new AMR techniques, etc)

James Drake -plasma physicist researcher

3 of 4 of the authors are leading plasma physics researchers and astrophysics plasma researchers
all of them having been educated in plasma physics

Thus, by simple 3 second search, i've proven you a liar as well as promoting a fallacy
it also means that you are wrong yet again
We can always go right to the source and simply query the authors about their education (even though i've read all 4 CV's) and specifically ask them, but you already know they will say that they HAVE learned plasma physics


Feb 23, 2015
They are experts at "hot gas" physics, also known as theoretical plasma physics
@cd
i am going to go ahead and forward your "concerns" and claims to the authors and get them to specify exactly what education they have regarding plasma physics

because, you are still too stupid to figure out how to research higher education curriculums and see for yourself that ALL Astrophysicists have to learn plasma physics because it is a MAJOR part of their research and knowledge, having stars and all in the heavens

Just because someone uses MHD doesn't mean it isnt accurate
After all, i've already shown you once before that one of your own fusion nuclear plasma physicists uses MHD usually when modelling it for the building of the fusion reactors, and that was using one of YOUR links and YOUR author

I am certainly not going to waste more time on you
@rc
promises promises
see comment: http://phys.org/n...les.html

Feb 23, 2015
They don't, the article above is proof
@CD
Ok, i will use small words for you CD:

Tamas Gombosi is Professor of Engineering; Professor: Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space and pioneer of cometary plasma physics

main author, Merav Opher- studied plasma physics and is currently developing new computational models (such as coupling Kinetic-MHD models; PIC Codes-MHD; new AMR techniques, etc)

James Drake -plasma physicist researcher

3 of 4 of the authors are leading plasma physics researchers and astrophysics plasma researchers
all of them having been educated in plasma physics

Thus, by simple 3 second search, i've proven you a liar as well as promoting a fallacy
it also means that you are wrong yet again
We can always go right to the source and simply query the authors about their education (even though i've read all 4 CV's) and specifically ask them, but you already know they will say that they HAVE learned plasma physics



100 stars!

Feb 23, 2015
Actually, the opposite is true. As "gases" heat up they expand, there is no more a fundamental fact of thermodynamics than that simple statement!


That's a thoroughly misleading description of a simple thermodynamic process.

As gasses expand, they cool down and reduce in pressure, and as they compress they heat up and increase in pressure. Under a compressive force such as gravity, the temperature of the gas increases until the pressure reaches an equilibrium with the force of compression.

This is a simple fact anyone can check with a medical syringe and a thermometer. Squeeze the piston and observe the air inside getting hotter until it meets the force and the piston stops moving. If you let go, the piston bounces back up and the air inside cools down.

(continued...)

Feb 23, 2015
(...continued)

When the piston in the example is constantly squeezed, the air in the cylinder remains at a constant volume and constant elevated temperature as long as heat is not allowed to escape.

When the heat escapes to the ambient environment, the pressure drops and allows the piston to move further in, which decreases the volume and heats the gas back up again. The piston keeps moving in until it reaches a final equilibrium at a volume where the pressure of the gas at the ambient temperature matches the force on the piston.

If the cylinder is filled with ideal gas and with absolute zero ambient temperature, it could in principle compress right down to zero volume, resulting in a singularity. With real gasses however, the inter-molecule and inter-atom forces take over at some scale and prevent further compression. This is the point where, if the force was increased, ionization would begin and eventually fusion.


Feb 23, 2015
For a mass of gas in space, it will compress together down to a density where its thermal pressure at the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation matches the force of its own gravity.

If the mass and gravity of the cloud of gas is greater than this thermal pressure, it keeps on compressing to the point where the electron clouds around atoms get squeezed together and the gas forms a sort of metallic fluid or liquid "plasma" in the middle of the cloud.

If more mass is introduced, the pressure of gravity overtakes the electrostatic forces between the nuclei and they begin to fuse. At this point the cloud of gas ignites and blows up.

That happens in the beginning of star formation - the gas ignites and expands, then falls back in many times until it finally gathers enough mass to sustain compression against the pressure of fusion. These repeated explosions produce density ripples in the surrounding accretion disc, which coalesce into planets.


Feb 23, 2015
And simulations that reproduce the abovementioned form of star ignition, the resulting wavelenght of the ignition pulses neatly reproduces the orbital distances of the planets, indicating that this is indeed what happened.

I would like to see the electric universe hypotheses produce any testable/computable model that would produce the same.


Feb 23, 2015
Man, one just had to know that the headline on this article would bring out a smorgasbord of EU claiming, pseudo-scientific, back slapping nitwits!
-And also a few empty posts from effete name callers.


Hypocrite much?

Feb 23, 2015
@Stumpy. When will you apologize and move on from your shrill hysterical, emotional personal attacks/lies about BICEP2, based on your self-serving 'denial' of the record/reality?

I merely cautioned you to LOOK for YOURSELF for the flaws I saw for MYSELF (not 'read' anywhere). Some of the flaws were obvious according to KNOWN science already (many mainstreamers helpfully outlined all those for YOU afterwards in the articles/news etc). So I didn't NEED to explain anything about those flaws, since they were obvious to KNOWN science. YOU didn't bother doing checking for yourself, so you have yourself to blame on the known science aspects you missed.

Some FURTHER flaws were not mentioned/covered by mainstreamers at all (even NOW), simply because they and their explanation was NOT 'known science'. THESE FURTHER flaws I would not elaborate/explain in detail, for reasons given. Why keep 'missing' and misrepresenting the situation explained at the time? Grow up, apologize, Cap.

Feb 24, 2015
self-serving 'denial' of the record/reality?
you mean like this? http://www.scifor...page=246

or this one, where after giving you a second chance (as undefined) you were banned for baiting and trolling ON THIS EXACT SUBJECT with these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS? http://www.scifor...?page=68]http://www.scifor...?page=68[/url]

so you, try to push your lies as a sock like zeph, but when caught, cry foul: http://www.scifor...?page=67

http://www.scifor...?page=68]http://www.scifor...?page=68[/url]

your "experiment" shows that a heavily moderated site that does NOT allow people to break the rules and continue to come back as socks makes for a more scientific, less chaotic, more interesting and sincere approach to actual science discussion

It also proves that people who lie and break the rules don't get THIRD chances

you're a proven troll
caught in yet another lie
reported


Feb 24, 2015
regarding the links like this one: http://www.scifor...?page=68]http://www.scifor...?page=68[/url]
posted above in my post

for those having problems with the links: PO is not letting me fix them
i will post those again, but you can also simply change the page number in the copy/paste operation in the HTML address bar
So you can go from banlist/?page=68 directly to
banlist/?page=246

all three links here again:
http://www.scifor...page=246

http://www.scifor...?page=67

http://www.scifor...?page=68]http://www.scifor...?page=68[/url]

Feb 24, 2015
@Stumpy. Give it up. Experiments proved mod-troll gang's abuses of power/position by colluding in bait-and-ban tactics to ban me.

You link to the 'ban list', but it does NOT represent the full story, does it? You claim to "follow the evidence", but conveniently 'omit' fuller evidence 'inconvenient' to the lying/half-truth 'versions' you STILL try to con readers with. Sad.

Why keep doing that, when your tactics have already been exposed, proven fraudulent, driven by mod-troll gangmember malice towards me (who exposed/proved the abuses). Futile.

Face it, Stumpy, you joined a mod-troll gang which had me on a 'hit list' because I exposed their anti-science abuses. You were misled; then became COMPLICIT in misleading others for your 'gang recruiting' motives. Surely you now realize your MISTAKE in joining that 'gang'; and that I'm not 'just another troll/crank'; because I've been objective and in the right; and you've been 'personal' and in the wrong.

Apologize, move on, Cap.

Feb 24, 2015
@rc
still no evidence to share then??

those links demonstrate facts that support my conclusions and posts with black-and-white cold hard facts

irrefutable facts because they are true, valid and cogent

so... you are:
OT
BAITING
TROLLING
SPAMMING

reported

and consider each one of my following down-votes a re-post of this exact post
since i am becoming bored with proving you a troll
it's too easy
besides, i thought you were going to save the world from AGW?
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

what conference are you going to speak at?
LMFAO

Feb 24, 2015
Apologize, move on, Cap.


@ Really Skippy. How you are tonight Cher? I am good tonight again and thanks for asking.

I don't suppose it would do any good to ask if you would apologize to everybody first would it? Everybody else might forgive you if you did that. But not ol Ira-Skippy, the last few times you apologized to me you took em right back in the very next postum, and I am not going to fall for that one again, non not me.

Oh yeah, I almost forget, I talked to a couple of peoples down in Australia on the radio last week or maybe the week before.

They are some really nice Skippys but they don't know who I was talking about when I asked about you. But they did think it was funny and said they might drop by to see what I was laughing about and if you really are as weird as I told them you are. They talk like Mick Dundee and said I talked strange too. The didn't know who I sounded like, just strange to them. Yeah, they were really nice.

Feb 24, 2015
what conference are you going to speak at?
LMFAO


Where you at Captain-Skippy? I am fine, thanks. If you find out where the conference is going to be and how much the tickets are would you postup the info here on the physorg? I would take some vacation time off from work if it is on a day I'm supposed to be on the river.

And if it don't cost too much. Not the tickets, I could probably not have any problem with that, I mean cost too much to get where he is going to be speechifying and hotels nights if it is way far so I have to pay to fly to it.

Hooyeei, I would love to see the Really-Skippy giving a speech to a conference of real scientists. I wonder if he is going get on them about the way they do their diligence?

Feb 24, 2015
PS @Stumpy. Did you find the thread where I taught Da Schneib about the plasmoid processes occurring in the sun's subsurface which may explain mass ejection processes when solar physics scientists still could not do so?

So, Stumpy, follow THAT evidence, of where you were mindlessly cheerleading Da Schneib in his insults and denials (based in his own ignorance)....until he had to admit I was correct on the science and in original thinking. You went quiet; but now 'forget' to recognize and admit that evidence too, while still making up your lying/half-truth 'versions' to 'support' your continuing untenable personal attacks.

Apologize, move on, Stumpy.

Feb 24, 2015
If you find out where the conference is going to be and how much the tickets are would you postup the info here on the physorg? I would take some vacation time off from work if it is on a day I'm supposed to be on the river.
@Ira
as soon as i find out where he is going to be, i will definitely share the info with you and the rest of phys.org

If you can, try to send me a PM or message on Sciforums ( http://www.sciforums.com ) so i can get you my e-mail address
Then i can share some really cool stuff with you

Did you find the thread where I taught Da Schneib
@rc
you can't find something that does not exist
perhaps i should look here for it: https://www.googl...af4331c2

still no evidence?
then you are
OT
BAITING
TROLLING
reported

Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy.
@rc, you can't find something that does not exist
You really are full of it. Your 'convenient' denials, lies, 'omission' when "following the evidence" tactic is there for all to see beyond shadow of doubt: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Note Da Schneib (post dated Oct 10, 2014) admitting:
However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
That admission came after much insults and other mistakes (including re BICEP2 fiasco) from Da Schneib (and others) about me and my scientific knowledge/work.

He and they were so "certain" they were right; and kept insulting me even though they were patently wrong.

I also explained that PINCH of plasmoids produce the necessary high-strength mag-field/compression for fusion.

I even had to educate him re various sources of positrons from Earth's Magnetic Field/charged particles collisions/interactions.

Stumpy, you lied to the forum again.

Apologize, move on.

Feb 25, 2015
@rc

I just reread that entire thread. You were making sh*t up and De Schneib was schooling you. He was honest enough to admit to an error but other than that he OWNED you.

Feb 25, 2015
Hi Vietvet.
@rc, I just reread that entire thread. You were making sh*t up and De Schneib was schooling you. He was honest enough to admit to an error but other than that he OWNED you.
Really? Wow. You must have gone to the same 'school for liars and deniers' that Stumpy attended.

If you properly read the thread you'll come to different 'conclusion'. You must have 'skimmed and selected' with 'confirmation reading bias' as your 'standard' for "following the evidence", just like Stumpy is 'expert' at doing.

Did you read my above post? I even pointed out the instances where I was right and Da Schneib wrong; and had to explain to him.

See, this is what happens when you default to the same flawed 'research' and 'interpretations' and 'biases' that BICEP2 'team' (and Stumpy) have been guilty of. You're so 'certain' you are right, even when the reality/record/science proves you are wrong.

Not a good look, Viet. Do better if you want to have any credibility here. Good luck.

Feb 25, 2015
... De Schneib was schooling you
@Vietvet
he can't see reality like you can because of his Dunning-Kruger and his conspiracy/delusions
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

another funny thing: he took several hours away from posting to research that post because he thinks it says something that proves him right...

but still... more than 1500 posts later, he has not presented a single piece of evidence supporting his personal conjecture about BICEP2!

Not one piece!
wanna know why?

because there is none
AND
because he didn't understand the paper in the first place

which is obvious considering his posts on sciforums (as rc OR Undefined) : http://www.scifor...?page=68

it was one reason he was banned again
baiting and trolling with the exact same comments he uses here
imagine that


Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy, have sense to know when to stop digging. Your desperate 'cheerleading' of others even when wrong is getting too silly. When Vietvet re-reads that thread properly he'll find his above 'conclusion' hasty and incorrect in light of the facts therein, and you'll again look an even bigger 'me too!' goose. You and all genuine readers/members here know I was right re BICEP2 (mainstreamers proved this for you afterwards). You and they also know that I showed Da Schneib where some of his knowledge/attitude was found wanting (I pointed out and explained it to him in that other thread). You know you have got me all wrong, just because you trusted a (proven) mod-troll-gang's lies and their 'hit list' and then became complicit to their mindless personal lies and 'hits'. This latest instance of you lying to the forum (that such a thread "didn't exist") should be enough to sober you. Just apologize for your self-serving trolls and lies about me and my work; so we can all move on.

Feb 25, 2015
Just apologize for your self-serving trolls and lies about me and my work; so we can all move on.


@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I'm good again, thanks.

How can the Captain-Skippy tell lies about work you ain't never done? Or work that you keep so secret that the CIA can't even find out if there really is any work for them to plagiarize?

Feb 25, 2015
How can the Captain-Skippy tell lies about work you ain't never done? Or work that you keep so secret that the CIA can't even find out if there really is any work for them to plagiarize?
@Ira
read my reply to you here, along with the one at the end to Vietvet
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

we might be able to stop the flood of pseudoscience, lies and stupid trolling/baiting
at least for a while, anyway

Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy. You must be really desperate to ask your 'friend', bot-voting idiot Ira, to come to what you no doubt think is your 'rescue'. The facts as per that thread, are:

- DaSchneib kept denying, accusing me of "lying, making things up" etc;

- I tried to explain to him where and how he was wrong, both in attitude and in science; - he eventually had to admit he was wrong, didn't know everything he was so "certain" that he 'knew' about the matter;

- I had to explain to him pinch effects of 'plasma focus process' form 'plasmoids' which 'locally' produced the requisite fields/compression for fusion in many subsurface solar locations/times;

- I also corrected his 'certainties' re 'positron' sources' when he maintained it could only be from DM (Axions) annihilation; and

- his admission of error came in an exchange with cd as part of our cross-discussion.

So, you lied to the forum, Stumpy, about that thread "not existing"; and now you deny/twist the facts. Just apologize.

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