A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon

A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon
Some of the sharpest images ever made with ESO's Very Large Telescope have for the first time revealed what appears to be an ageing star in the early stages of forming a butterfly-like planetary nebula. These observations of the red giant star L2 Puppis from the ZIMPOL mode of the newly installed SPHERE instrument also reveal a close stellar companion. The dying stages of the lives of stars continue to pose many riddles for astronomers. Credit: ESO/P. Kervella

Some of the sharpest images ever made with ESO's Very Large Telescope have, for the first time, revealed what appears to be an ageing star giving birth to a butterfly-like planetary nebula. These observations of the red giant star L2 Puppis, from the ZIMPOL mode of the newly installed SPHERE instrument, also clearly showed a close stellar companion. The dying stages of stars continue to pose astronomers with many riddles, and the origin of such bipolar nebulae, with their complex and alluring hourglass figures, doubly so.

At about 200 light-years away, L2 Puppis is one of the closest to Earth known to be entering its final stages of life. The new observations with the ZIMPOL mode of SPHERE were made in visible light using extreme adaptive optics, which corrects images to a much higher degree than standard adaptive optics, allowing faint objects and structures close to bright sources of light to be seen in greater detail. They are the first published results from this mode and the most detailed of such a star.

ZIMPOL can produce images that are three times sharper than those from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and the new observations show the dust that surrounds L2 Puppis in exquisite detail. They confirm earlier findings, made using NACO, of the dust being arranged in a disc, which from Earth is seen almost completely edge-on, but provide a much more detailed view. The polarisation information from ZIMPOL also allowed the team to construct a three dimensional model of the dust structures.

The astronomers found the dust disc to begin about 900 million kilometres from the star - slightly farther than the distance from the Sun to Jupiter - and discovered that it flares outwards, creating a symmetrical, funnel-like shape surrounding the star. The team also observed a second source of light about 300 million kilometres - twice the distance from Earth to the Sun - from L2 Puppis. This very close companion star is likely to be another red giant of a similar mass, but younger.

The combination of a large amount of dust surrounding a slowly dying star, along with the presence of a companion star, mean that this is exactly the type of system expected to create a bipolar . These three elements seem to be necessary, but a considerable amount of good fortune is also still required if they are to lead to the subsequent emergence of a celestial butterfly from this dusty chrysalis.

Lead author of the paper, Pierre Kervella, explains: "The origin of bipolar planetary nebulae is one of the great classic problems of modern astrophysics, especially the question of how, exactly, return their valuable payload of metals back into space - an important process, because it is this material that will be used to produce later generations of planetary systems."

In addition to L2 Puppis's flared disc, the team found two cones of material, which rise out perpendicularly to the disc. Importantly, within these cones, they found two long, slowly curving plumes of material. From the origin points of these plumes, the team deduces that one is likely to be the product of the interaction between the material from L2 Puppis and the companions star's wind and radiation pressure, while the other is likely to have arisen from a collision between the stellar winds from the two stars, or be the result of an accretion disc around the companion star.

Although much is still to be understood, there are two leading theories of bipolar planetary nebulae, both relying on the existence of a binary star system. The new observations suggest that both of these processes are in action around L2 Puppis, making it appear very probable that the pair of stars will, in time, give birth to a butterfly.

Pierre Kervella concludes: "With the companion star orbiting L2 Puppis only every few years, we expect to see how the shapes the red giant's disc. It will be possible to follow the evolution of the dust features around the star in real time - an extremely rare and exciting prospect."

Explore further

Hubble gazes at R Sculptoris and its hidden companion

More information: This research was presented in a paper entitled "The dust disk and companion of the nearby AGB star L2 Puppis", by P. Kervella, et al., to appear in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on 10 June 2015.
Journal information: Astronomy & Astrophysics

Provided by ESO
Citation: A celestial butterfly emerges from its dusty cocoon (2015, June 10) retrieved 23 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-celestial-butterfly-emerges-dusty-cocoon.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.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 10, 2015
and discovered that it flares outwards, creating a symmetrical, funnel-like shape surrounding the star.

Oddly enough, this is what a pinched plasma Birkeland current looks like.


Jun 11, 2015
You're joking, right?
None of the images in the PDF look at all like the ESO image above!
not likely joking- he is too dedicated to eu for that
for instance
Plasma ropes are of course code for Birkeland currents. More and more data daily which continues to confirm the electric nature of our Universe


cd thinks he is calling it correct
I know, I have the problem of calling every duck a duck too
but personally, i feel this is more accurate
actually, you would show a link to a JPG of a random pitted scar on a piece of metal during a plasma experiment and state that it is plasma discharge which generated the duck, despite all the evidence with eggs and mating rituals, thus the birkeland currents demonstrate that peratt and alfven are correct in their belief that astrophysicists can't play gin-rummy
he is a VERY devout acolyte

Jun 13, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :) I was passing and saw this from you in reply to cantdrive. Not to support anything from either 'side' in this exchange, but merely observing something in the tone and thrust of your reply to him:
Oddly enough, this is what a pinched plasma Birkeland current looks like.
You're joking, right? ...how is this any different than seeing clouds in the sky which "look like" a giant bunny rabbit? Or part of the Grand Canyon? Or a waterfall?
Please be careful before making sarcastic comments about others, especially in this instance and of this nature; since the 'mainstream' Bicep2 team initially did just what you sarcastically accuse others of doing...they saw "proof of gravity waves" (ie, "bunnies") in "CMB patterns" which were no indication of such in reality.

Question: Are you a 'blogger' now? If so, beware insidious "publish or perish" trap. Take extra care to get all the 'sides' and objective facts/comprehensions fully sorted first. :)

Jun 13, 2015

Cantdrive and all others promoting pseudoscience deserve all the sarcasm thrown their way.

EU, the "expanding earth", ancient aliens, astrology, bigfoot, etc, when looked at objectively only merit derision.

Jun 13, 2015
Oddly enough, this is what a pinched plasma Birkeland current looks like.
You're joking, right?

The articles author even alludes to the hourglass shape of the nebula. Of course there are many factors affecting the actual shape, but the hourglass shape seems rather ubiquitous in the universe.

Jun 13, 2015
Hi Vietvet. :)

Cantdrive and all others promoting pseudoscience deserve all the sarcasm thrown their way.

EU, the "expanding earth", ancient aliens, astrology, bigfoot, etc, when looked at objectively only merit derision.
I get what you are saying. But you missed the point of being impartial and not hypocritically applying double standards. Did you get what I meant about 'mainstreamers' doing exactly what they ridicule others for? In other words: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones of any sort, 'sarcastic' or otherwise. Else it is double standards hypocrisy and demeans both 'sides' of a discussion where that tactic is used.

That was the point. Impartiality and no sarcastic double standards, no matter who the interlocutors are. Else it undermines one's claims to integrity/authority etc. Yes? :)

Jun 13, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
Please be careful before making sarcastic comments about others, especially in this instance and of this nature; since the 'mainstream' Bicep2 team initially did just what you sarcastically accuse others of doing...they saw "proof of gravity waves" (ie, "bunnies") in "CMB patterns" which were no indication of such in reality.
Sorry RealityCheck, but I think "balderdash and poppycock" are appropriate words to use here.....candrive85 did not do any data analysis (other than 'it looks like ...'), and did not publish a paper. The initial BICEP2 preprint was certainly flawed, but your characterization of it is incorrect.
The point was that the 'mainstream' Bicep2 team/exercise was doubly egregious because they tried to dress it up as coming from proper scientific method/exercise/claims as being from trustworthy mainstream team/source. See? That such 'mainstreamers' do what others are accused of is even *more* egregious/hypocritical therefore. Careful. :)

Jun 13, 2015
Silly me for not publishing my findings in a 1000 characters or less. Being this is merely a forum I've got every right to say it looks like a fuzzy bunny or whatever it may be...

Jun 14, 2015
Indeed you have.

Just as you have every right to say "but avoid astrophysicists at all costs. They believe magnetic fields are magical", as you did in a different thread.

The trouble is that saying these sorts of things, without being able to back them up with DIRECT, hard evidence, rather damages your credibility, wouldn't you say?

But I have "direct, hard evidence" that astrophysicists believe in magic, they continuously refer to frozen-in fields and such.

And as previously discussed, very little about astrophysics produces direct, hard evidence. Including much of the above, which relies largely on inference and assumptions.

Jun 14, 2015
But I have "direct, hard evidence" that astrophysicists believe in magic, they continuously refer to frozen-in fields and such.
is that your evidence?
where is a link or proof to a reputable peer reviewed journal with astrophysics and plasma physics?

on top of that, are you aware of plasma physics from places like PPPL.gov and the previously mentioned Hannes lab from JeatTate?

because you have also historically claimed that magnetic reconnection is not real ...and yet every plasma physicist and electrical engineer i know (and every link i've seen with reputable science sites) demonstrates this and explains it


the only people ignoring those studies, experiments and evidence is you and your eu pals...

why is that?

Jun 14, 2015
For example, does detection of 21cm radiation 'from the sky' count as "direct, hard evidence" of the existence of clouds of plasma containing neutral hydrogen atoms?

I tend to feel it is fairly solid evidence, but I've had this convo with another poster and they pointed out there is still inference and assumption in the 21cm line as being related to neutral hydrogen. From a Plasma Cosmology (PC) POV, the neutral hydrogen is both predicted and it is confirmed by experiment and PIC simulations of interacting plasmas as Peratt has already been shown. I've also read several papers by Verschuur et al. regarding the CIV and Bennett pinch properties of these "clouds". The presence of these "clouds" is fully consistent with PC theory, but it remains difficult to claim it as direct hard evidence.




Jun 14, 2015
Let me guess, you think referring to "frozen-in fields" is "magic" because Alfven said so (in effect), right?

I have as much respect for Alfven that relativists have for Einstein, I certainly don't see it as a fault. Alfven, his students, and collaborators are responsible for a great deal of what we know about modern plasma physics. And Alfven didn't say it was magic, he said it was a dangerous "Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept", one where you think you understand a phenomena but drastically misinterpret it. The "frozen-in" condition goes hand in hand with MHD, which is by far the dominate hypothesis on the treatment of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma is not a perfect conductor, magnetic fields cannot be frozen-in.



Jun 14, 2015
Hi JeanTate, cantdrive.
@cantdrive85: The silliness is RealityCheck's, in equating the first BICEP2 paper with your <1k character musings.
Where did I do that, Jean? My observations re bicep2 are all stand alone as to application or not of proper objective scientific method/discourse based on the tenable facts not mere confirmation biased assumptions/interpretations from the theory being overlain on the data and analysis of said data. Regardless of instance being discussed by anyone else, including between you and cantdrive. I take no 'sides', only observe on the impartial science method/results under discussion. Period. Jean, cantdrive, please resist the temptation to use 'strawmen' (created about me or anyone else) in tactics/discussion between you two. Thanks. :)

Jun 14, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

That was a caution aimed at warning about the general trap that all carelessly applied 'assumptions/biases' will cause 'pattern' recognition that is ARTIFACT of those assumptions/biases, irrespective of what/who is doing it or why or what 'method' they are applying that IS obviously biased. There is no 'equivalence' implied, merely the same MECHANICS of self-delusion, no matter how 'serious' the 'exercise' or person. I cautioned on the TRAP per se. No implied 'equivalence' of situation/persons/processes was intended. Merely the OUTCOME of 'seeing' ARTIFACTS of bias and self-delusion, no matter HOW it comes about or why. That was all. No specific 'equivalence' reading into it necessary or intended. Thanks. :)

Jun 15, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
There is no 'equivalence' implied,
Sorry, but this is nonsense. What does "just" mean, in this context?
merely the same MECHANICS of self-delusion, no matter how 'serious' the 'exercise' or person. I cautioned on the TRAP per se. No implied 'equivalence' of situation/persons/processes was intended. Merely the OUTCOME of 'seeing' ARTIFACTS of bias and self-delusion, no matter HOW it comes about or why. That was all. No specific 'equivalence' reading into it necessary or intended.
Then may I suggest that you failed -... - to communicate what you intended.
Jean, I'm sorry too, but 'semantics battles' are so 'yesterday'. :)

The context was clear. ie, ANYONE can fall prey to self-deluding artifact "patterns" from expectations and confirmation biases involved in any 'observation'. What matters is NOT to throw 'sarcastic' stones when living in glass houses. They may do more damage to the 'thrower' than the 'target'.

Avoid it. :)

Jun 15, 2015
Direct, hard evidence of in situ measurement in the lab up to the interplanetary medium has shown the plasmas are scalable to at least 12 orders of magnitude. At what point do you think this should change? As far as I'm concerned, it is up to you to explain why the physics should be different, apparently for no other reason than to support your own beliefs. There is no need to invent "new physics" or magical entities such as DM/DE to explain away the mysteries of the cosmos if it can be explained by known physics.

[Tim]Scott's IEEE paper is poorly written, and fundamentally flawed.

It's flawed according to Timmy T because he clearly doesn't understand the well known principals of EE (remember, he's an astrophysicist that believes in magic), you know the same ones that allow you to use that computer sitting in front of you. Those same principals which Dr. Scott wrote about in the textbook he published. Timmy still tries to debunk using pith ball electrostatics, pathetic!

Jun 16, 2015
Further, I guess you do not accept "approximation" in plasma physics.

"Approximation" is fine, it is plasma physics and there are innumerable outcomes depending upon innumerable factors. "Approximation" is absolutely necessary. What is not needed is the "abomination" that astrophysicists wholeheartedly depend upon. It is the same "abomination" that leads to "mysteries" around every corner, "curious" occurrences, "unexpected" and "unpredictable" phenomena, and the requirement to invent 96% more invisible, undetectable, magical stuff to explain reality. Remember, approximation okay, astrophysical abomination bad. M'kay....

Jun 16, 2015
I'd like to sketch what a quick-n-simple research program might look like, to investigate cd's idea in a scientific way.

Start with plasma phenomena being scalable:

Why stop at planetary nebula, let's go galactic. If it matches galactic observation then nebula will be a cinch.

Here are a couple;

a couple more;



How about a book?

There real irony to your "scientific exercise" is the the standard theory predicted no x-rays, gamma rays, lest radio waves for that matter. High energy physics was introduced to astronomy by Alfven back in 1950.

Jun 16, 2015
Kinda like giant invisible, undetectable, magical stuff that connects galaxies, powers the Sun, causes stars in spiral galaxies...

Ah yes, invisible to your eyes but not to our modern instruments. But that's just your willful ignorance rearing it's ugly head again.


Thanks Herschel for showing us the "invisible, magical filaments" which connect everything we see...

Jun 16, 2015
Hi JeanTate, cantdrive. :)

Be careful not to argue based on simplistic 'scaling' and nothing else considered. The whole scaling thing gets messier as the scale of space content and distances and other forces and time delays/feedback loop factors come into play more dominantly/inextricably. In lab scale, the setups/process are 'clean' as to forces/timing and content etc involved. But as the scale gets bigger, more possibilities for 'excursions' and evolutions and mixing/complicating 'structures/features etc. Don't just 'link each other to death' based on simplistic assumptions/baselines etc, actually THINK what could be happening that makes you BOTH 'right' in some aspects, but also both 'missing' some other aspects not yet included in either of your respective 'links/observations'. Can't say any more at this stage. Just giving you both a 'heads up' that you two may be too simplistic in your respective views/understandings/basis from which you are arguing.

Jun 17, 2015
Interested in some details?

Just put it out there, do we need to ask?

Funny thing is, no such filaments are observed (primary sources? Just ask!)

Well I guess we do. May we see it?

Jun 17, 2015
You know, come to think of it, yeah! I smell a sock puppet. The "spin" is palatable, the "redirection" detectable. The oft handed mention of Lil' Timmy T's comments and links from a year ago. The sudden yet "subtle" historical commentary of these two particular EU theorists and the obvious distaste of them. The repeated request for peer review articles from "relevant" sources, a little nugget your buddy Cap'n Stupid latched onto about a year ago. Yep, there is no doubt of sock puppeteering. Oh sure, it will be met with stern denial and claims to the contrary but the tone and comportment are deafeningly clear. My statement of disinformation and duplicity by you in the other thread (where you took personal offence) is more true than ever now, isn't it TT. Shameful for a "scientist"!

Jun 17, 2015

Speaking of misdirection.

Your paranoia is showing.

Jun 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 17, 2015
I personally think that a person who uses the comment section of Physorg to throw degrading personal attacks should be banned. I am talking of bluehigh who used the word 'bitch' to qualify user JeanTate.

The moderator already had to delete one of his comments just two days ago, but he reiterated again with the same kind of abusive language; see here http://phys.org/n...nal.html

I sent a written complaint to Physorg and I hope many other users will do the same.

Jun 17, 2015

Besides your comment being unjustly insulting it's just plain bizarre. Jean's comments have been informed, intelligent, and moderate in tone.

"Extreme zealotry"? Where?

Jun 17, 2015
First, though, a couple of websites (blogs)

Obviously, you feel your blogs are better than others, you have any primary relevant sources?
It's easy to find a lot more primary sources,...

There is no question there exist an enormous edifice that is the standard model, but no amount of primary sources nor the lack of them proves anything when dealing with theoretical sciences such as astrophysics. In regards to Peratt's models, recall they are an approximation. An approximation that does not require 84% more magical stuff to explain away the problems. It's highly disingenuous to claim EU theory to not be new, it is "new" compared to the effort and expenditure put forth by the standard theory. Many tens of thousands of people influenced by the publish or perish attitude have been been involved in the edifice of the ST, several tens (possibly 100's) of people have been involved in researching the electrical nature of the universe. Science isn't a popularity contest tho.

Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

The first line in your response to cd above injects a deliberate 'semantics strawman'. You know perfectly well from the preceding context, and from your own admission in that second line, that he meant you (JT) feel the blogs you referenced are better than the blogs he (cd) referenced. Why do you resort to such cheap shot semantics/strawmen first line, when your second line would have been the proper start of your reply to cd above? Resist this tendency, else you will end up just another trolling ego who misses the point while playing their ego games. Thanks.

PS: Yesterday, in the "What are Gravitatiinal Waves" thread, I provided the following link in a response to Protoplasmix...


Did you catch it? You see? I wasn't lying to you when I told you that "team stood by their results/claims" even after made aware of errors and flaws. Am still trying to find time for fuller links list.

Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
....I've now begun to wonder what you hope to achieve with such comments......May I ask, how much longer should I wait before you reach the next stage, where - presumably - you'll have something specific and concrete to write about?
The comment was for the benefit of your discussion with cd. That's it. It's up to you both, respectively, whether you feel so 'certain' that ALL the factors involved have been taken into account in your respective observations/analysis/conclusions that you reject any suggestion your 'takes' may be simplistic/incomplete. I invited you to think further before being so 'certain' and hence at loggerheads while missing important additional factors. You already know I cannot say any more if that would affect my ToE complete publication. That is when more specific and concrete details/factors will be provided. Until then, you are both urged to re-think your respective 'takes' which have some common ground and some missing ground. :)

Jun 17, 2015
PS: JeanTate. Here are a couple of examples where GIGO analyses/maths and exercises in extracting meaning from observations may depend on inbuilt assumptions and biases which may not be readily realized to exist until it is too late....and GIGO and pseudoscience 'results/claims' inevitably have to be retracted....eventually....depending on how quick/slow the 'peer review' mainstream corrects. Sometimes it takes decades. That is the problem in Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, more than in any other discipline. As I have been pointing out, objectively and correctly, for a decade and more; and have more recently been increasingly proved correct by mainstream itself lately. Better late than never, hey? :)

Be aware that 'citation' and 'references' metrics/dependence is fraught with herd mentality 'beliefs' and sloppy adherence to possibly flawed past 'work'.

Good luck, to you both, and to everyone. Rethink it all....and be polite and objective; else science discourse suffers.

Jun 17, 2015


"The two sides based their calculations on different assumptions, so they got different answers. One group rejects the idea of imperfection in this particular case, and the other does not".


"....lack of analytical skills necessary to find meaning in the data......paper claiming they had built an algorithm using genomic microarray data that predicted which cancer patients would respond to chemotherapy.

...found a morass of poorly conducted data analyses with errors ranging from trivial and strange to devastating......"The common thread between each of these public failings was the poor or questionable quality of the original analysis. The errors that were made showed a lack of judgement, training and quality control,"

Beware GIGO, bias, pseudoscience from anywhere, no matter citations/references.

Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :) Here is the actual relevant context/exchange: From you 9 hours ago...
Per cantdrive85's ('cd') request, some details and sources. First, though, a couple of websites (blogs) which discuss the serious inconsistencies between what's in the papers cd has cited and astronomical (and other) observations:
Note your specific reference re blogs: "First, though, a couple of websites (blogs)..."

Then came this in reply from cd, quoting your above specific reference re blogs...
First, though, a couple of websites (blogs)
Obviously, you feel your blogs are better than others, you have any primary relevant sources?
Now your reply above...
@RealityCheck: Nonsense. Here's what cd wrote:
...which goes on to assert some other 'context' of your own which is not the relevant one involved in my observation to you above. Please avoid such cheap ego tactics of misdirection/denial of obvious context. It never ends well, diminishes science discourse.

Jun 17, 2015
PS: The bicep2 team's whole exercise was fatally flawed from go to whoa. No amount of disclaimers and appeals to future peer review etc etc would ever change that. They were made aware of their many errors in methodology, analysis etc etc, yet they still 'stood by their results'. Can't get more straightforward than that to realize that mouthing of 'sciency' excuses for NOT doing proper due diligence and objective analysis etc will never change the fact that such 'science' exercise was no use to anybody let alone science. The team SHOULD have THEMSELVES realized they were doing the WRONG thing IMMEDIATELY when they appropriated and misused a graph from another COMPETING group's presentation without permission/understanding. And they should NOT have pretended to have any credibility in the matter/results/claims AT ALL. It was apparent to all except you and the others here/elsewhere who desperately WANTED it to be 'true'.

Did you read the two examples in my PPS to you above?

Jun 17, 2015
RC is correct on the context, and it's another example of the disinformation you are so deftly capable.

Have you just declared it is impossible to do science, based on astronomical observations? And why do you say astrophysics is a theoretical science?

The ST is more metaphysical pseudoscience than science. Claims about the BB, philosophical metaphysical pseudoscience, not science. Claims of DM and DE, more of the same. Claims about CMB, statistical gymnastics and remember maths is not science, it is a tool for science. Claims of magnetic reconnection, pure pseudoscience and the belief in plasma with "frozen-in" fields.

It's not impossible, but the conclusions reached about the observations are based upon inference and assumption.

or the magical ones which connect (all) galaxies


Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
Did you read the two examples in my PPS to you above?
Yes. What do I think of them? Apples and oranges.
It's about the overall culture and past failures yet to come to light. The problem was INCOMPETENT and/or BIASED analysis/methodology. It affects all sciences, including the whole basis for CMB based 'analysis/interpretations' biases/analyses OF what is actually observed astronomically to date.
It was apparent to all except you ...who desperately WANTED it to be 'true'
...no evidence about what I "WANTED" (or didn't want....
I 'read' it in your kneejerk avoidance of unpleasant truths, asking for links etc, all of which 'back story' you should have already covered before engaging on it all. Then you accused me of 'belief' in an attempt to DENY my PROVEN objectivity on the matter. It was YOU who went on 'belief when you couldn't believe that the 'team' was WRONG from start or 'stand by results/claims' when made aware. Beware prejudice.

Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate. You seem to be conflating cd's point about BB's philosophical basis (ie, a 'beginning' creation event per se as distinct from an Eternal infinite universe) with the philosophical basis of 'dimensionless point' that present MATHS axioms which is currently used but fails (which is why I have been developing MY MATHS from a real physical entity, not philosophical notion of dimensionless point, for MY reality-based MATHS for ToE modeling).

Be careful not to conflate issues/points between two interlocutors. Thanks. :)

PS: Did you see the earlier link re the bicep2 team 'standing by their results' even after being made aware of their errors and flawed 'work'? If not, here it is again...


Jun 17, 2015
Inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

@ Jean-Skippette. How you are today? I am fine dandy today.

Really-Skippy is anything but inconsistent. I thought you would have noticed how consistently he can write a thousand postums without even once accidentally saying anything? What you thought all of us were joking when we told you all he wanted to do is keep you hooked with his foolishments?

Jun 17, 2015
Hi JeanTate.

Don't get riled. The situation: I made a suggestion to all last year, that they check out the bicep2 'work' for themselves because I, and many others apparently, saw immediately errors and flaws in both the methodology and analysis and other aspects of that 'offering'. Since then a campaign by troll-gang has been attcking me instead of admitting I was correct and they wrong not to check it out objectively as I did and suggested.

Then you came along, tried to argue against recorded FACT, that the 'team' STILL 'stood by' their results even when they were made aware of their errors, and that their flawed 'work/results/claims' would not stand even the most cursory objective scientific scrutiny.

I 'read' into your continuing attempts to make rationalizations/excuses for them, with repeated denials/references to whatever else was published, as if that made any difference to MY initial point in fact: They did NOT correct themselves; still claimed credibility.

OK? :)

Jun 17, 2015
PS: Now that we both are 'on the same page' about bicep2 team/work/history etc, let's forget it and move on, as the original team members have done since then. :)

Oh, I am still trying to find time to collate all those other links as we discussed early on re various matters in science culture/process etc. Will get back to you on those when I can.

Cheers! Good luck with your ongoing discussions with cantdrive! And you with JeanTate, cantdrive! Be nice to each other, hear? :)

Jun 17, 2015
RC is correct on the context
So, no more claims that I'm a sockpuppet? Thank you for the clarification.

There you go again, on your own tangent. And, no! You still remind me of Timmy T. The arguments are remarkable similar, to a T.

Sorry, that's not the consensus model of cosmology

Back to the popularity contest... Except the CMB is supposedly the afterglow of the BB.

And what, exactly, is DE (per the papers, not popsci articles)

Ah yes, the mysterious "force" the led to the expansion of the 2011 Nobel to three winners.

Translation: "don't understand the maths, therefore it's wrong"?

I don't understand it and I don't care to, but this guys sure does.

True. Just like in plasma physics

Yep, but lab evidence adds credence. BB, BH, and ST cosmology doesn't have much of it, at all. Just the assumption and inference.

Jun 17, 2015
you cited refers to cold dark matter filaments

Them calls it DM filaments, I calls em' BC's. The difference, DM is an invention to save a failed hypothesis, BC's are a real measured phenomena.

The cellular and filamentary nature of the Universe was predicted way back in the 50's by Alfven, it was stumbled upon by the ST well afterward mostly due to "direct observation", ad hoc and a posteriori. Kinda like most of the ST.

Jun 17, 2015
HI JeanTate. :)

Jean, you're in denial mode; even going so far as 'chatting personalities' with a bot-voting moron who admits to playing games, not understanding the science and sabotaging the 'metrics' and discussions according to his 'karma points' list....on a science site no less. And please don't associate me with anyone else as to reasons for not doing what you want me to do. I already told you many times now that it is the troll issues that turned me off further in-detail discourse on forums, and that I already have all I need, including my new maths based on reality entities as axioms, for modeling/publishing my ToE complete. It seems you have made a conscious choice to 'prefer' idiot Uncle trolls and saboteurs of discourse than try to acknowledge you have learned something: ie, that you don't know everything; that you cannot trust every mainstream 'work/claim' just because of person/source status/citations etc; and that I am not the troll of the mod-troll lies. :)

Jun 17, 2015
In the popular press, yes; in actual scientific papers, no

Such a disconnect, black is white, up is down... You'd think the "scientists" would be up in arms that they're so misrepresented. But there they are, pandering to the press in spite of the falsities.

And you've read the material on the Nobel Prize website on this, right?

Mostly popsci articles, such as those found here on PO that apparently report the opposite of reality. In fact, you should be writing post after post to PO on this popsci site of all the inaccuracies they publish, it should be obvious as to how much more damaging a "respectable" site like PO not representing the "actual" science papers is to the progress of science is than some random guy posting "pseudoscience" in the comment section.

That preprint contains some, um, rather rudimentary errors

I like a challenge, be specific!

if you're interested

Does it stoke your ego? We have to ask every time?

Jun 18, 2015
Per Peratt, such currents would emit a great deal of synchrotron radiation

You keep referring to Peratt after claiming he's wrong, strange.

Sometimes you've got to look in the right places, like where the current density is highest.
Such as where they pinch, where they'll glow in gamma;

But it's just a "popsci" press release, so the Fermi Bubbles probably aren't real. Since these non-primary sources report the opposite, were likely actually seeing giant rubber duckies in space. Another reason they aren't likely real is there is no explanation for them in the ST.

But, per your source, they exist only in a simulation!

Except when we get lucky and we can see them when they're "backlit"


Jun 18, 2015
a couple of (blogs) ...Brian Koberlein: https://briankobe...niverse/

I finally got around to this. I haven't read anything so pathetic since, well Timmy T's and TB's abortions of science fact.

The Sun as a CFL bulb? Absolutely moronic, TT, TB, and BK must be Siamese triplets, joined at the stupid. Even TT's pith ball electrostatics is slightly more accurate, but not really.

No neutrinos? More duplicitous lies fabricated by pros, a common thread amongst the triplets. It's the quantity, not the presence. Nobody questions solar fusion, just the origin.

The other examples? Why bother, his head is firmly buried where the neutrinos don't shine.

Jun 18, 2015
I took your advice and went to the Zoo looking for BC's and pinches, lo and behold...

cones- and
 large ones

That's the pinch.


The CIV effect most likely.
Some objects 

And of course the electric currents producing the self constricting fields, you know the Birkeland kind. Unless Maxwell was off his rocker and the "magnetic confinement" is actually "magical confinement".

But microwave surveys - and there are quite a few - show no such structures.

It's difficult to "see" through the local MW fog to see these distant features. Peratt and Verschuur have explained and shown this quite clearly.

Jun 18, 2015
Sadly, Jeanie and cohorts get offended by honesty. Your gang of misinformed contributors are attempting to justify bad science. I find that offensive. Oh well, the decline in student uptake of 'STEM' is clearly blood on your hands.

Jun 18, 2015
The Sun as a CFL bulb? Absolutely moronic

I agree. Yet there it is, right in the books which Thornhill and Scott have published! :-O And the book Koberlein used as his primary (EU) source. So you'd better take your wrath up with the authors, not the bloggers.

I take it up with the blogger because he missed the boat by a mile, he's all wet. The CFL bulb analogy is his own, and just shows how poorly he understands the electric discharge model presented by Dr. Scott.

A primer?

Now, I owe, I owe, so off to work I go...

Jun 18, 2015
Brian Koberlein briefly discussed the Sun's observed (optical) spectrum,

What he did was obfuscate and introduce a strawman, by presenting the emission spectrum of a CFL bulb as "proof" the ES model was wrong. Any jackass (except BK and those who accept what he says at face value) should understand the CFL emission will be limited to the very narrow array of "gases" present in the bulb. The Sun doesn't have this limitation.
As far as quantification, Alfven discusses this in his Nobel lecture. There is a reason the mathematicians so eagerly latched onto MHD and their theoretical plasmas, it fit nicely with their "elegant maths". The maths "we know from experiment to be wrong" as he described. No theory is hatched totally complete with all the details and blanks filled in, every one takes time to develop and blossom.

Jun 18, 2015
It would also seem as if BK completely dismisses lab experiment as being valid to science. He prefers his pet theory to rigorous scientific discovery. What else would you expect from a pseudoscientific metaphysicist tho?


Jun 18, 2015
It would also seem as if BK completely dismisses lab experiment as being valid to science. He prefers his pet theory to rigorous scientific discovery. What else would you expect from a pseudoscientific metaphysicist tho?


One of these day I'll learn not to post from the iPhone, impatience and slow 3G connections cause me to post incorrect links. Not to mention small screens and bad eyes. Anyway here is his "blog" where he dismisses lab experiment.

And thanks for following it up to show his absolute deceitful hypocrisy in dealing with science. He shows the attitude that his pet experiment which shows his beliefs to be true is good and is proof, your experiment is meaningless and nothing more than a duck...

He is a pathetic excuse for a human, let alone a "scientist"

Jun 18, 2015
Hi JT, cd.

An observation on your dialogue: It's good to see some of the 'heat' has been removed from your exchange. It does an old impartial scientist/observer's heart good to see it. Keep it up! :)

To some issues between JT and cd:
electrical discharge does not produce an approximately blackbody continuum
Consider the physics/spectrum in such phenomena as Ball Lightning (St Elmo's fire?), not just generic 'clean' cases. Also, scaling gets tricky with more environmental factors possible than just in lab experiments., For 'density' factors/possibilities, consider also what plasma densities/pressures/flows-dynamics etc in Tokamaks.
An easy way to see that the CMB is truly background is to note that both WMAP and Planck found hundreds of 'point sources'.
Consider well the possible implications of "found hundreds of point sources" for CMB; also likelihood/effect of vastly more numerous lesser sources/processes of redirection/dispersion/attenuation etc.


Jun 18, 2015

JeanTate, your constant requests for 'quantification' is no substitute for understanding of the basic underlying physics involved, before any further scaling/quantification is introduced. I have more than once had to educate one of the "shut up and calculate/quantify" type to understand what he was missing of understanding/observation while he obsessed on his "shut up and calculate" approach. Also please bear in mind that many larger scale phenomena observed involves 'nested' features/dynamics which may look like 'one large' feature but is actually a composite/nested feature (much like the magnetic field of a bar magnet is not one feature from one source, but the nested/composite 'resonance' pattern/feature of all the smaller internal ATOMIC magnetic phenomena and domains of multiples of same.

In other words, BOTH of you be careful to consider 'nested' dynamics/features involved in larger scale observations/phenomena, else you'll talk past each. Ok? Cheers. :)

Jun 18, 2015
That is, the similarities show that the underlying physics must be the same.

Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, to expect the underlying physics be different is illogical. In the entire blog he wants to insist different physics for different objects/scales, basically in defense of a gravity only (large scale) POV. In my view, the two images at the header speaks volumes, they look the same because they're made of the same stuff, revealed at different scales. The physics should be the same, when dealing with nature Occam's Razor tends to win out. When "quantified" using a gravity only POV on the large scale, it misses the mark enormously. Add back in the difficult to quantify electrical nature we understand is employed by nature on the small scale to the larger scale and those deficiencies evaporate.

Jun 18, 2015
He also is making blanket statements, which are false.
the Sun is actually electrically charged.

Therein lies an implication of neutrality. But compared to what? It's own different regions? It's immediate surroundings? The solar wind? The Earth? Jupiter? The local ISM? What? It's obvious (basic principals, hopefully no papers needed) that none of these examples are "neutral" compared to any of the others, including what. Plasma is not "neutral", especially very hot plasmas. He is confusing the term "quasi neutral" with here on Earth gas neutral. Magnetospheres, solar flares, Birkeland currents, double layers, heliospheric current sheets, Van Allen belts, aurora, and a long, long list of other phenomena could not occur in absolute neutrality (basic principals). He doesn't seem to understand these basic principals, as such much of his "debunking" ( as well as TB's, TT's) is based upon flat out ignorance ( or malevolence) of the physics involved.

Jun 18, 2015
First, the project has not yet published any results, has it?

The scientists involved intend to have a presentation at the upcoming EU2015 Conference: Paths of Discovery
But no, no papers as i'm aware. They probably want to refrain from repeating the embarrassment displayed by the bicep 2 fools last year.

Second, in what way(s) does SAFIRE test anything to do with the Sun?

It's an exercise in approximation, fulfilling and developing the quantitative constraints you keep blathering about, further developing our knowledge of plasma discharge given certain conditions, and addressing questions regarding anomalous phenomena observed by astrophysicists. Not purely mathematical gymnastics but experimentation, ya know that ol' nugget.

More on SAFIRE

Theoretical MHD plasmas ("that we know from experiment to be wrong"), or real plasmas, take your pick! You probably know my vote.

Jun 19, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
no substitute for understanding of the basic underlying physics involved
Dude, what in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster led you to think that cd and I disagree over "the basic underlying physics involved"?
Dudette, what makes you think I meant 'disagree' on the basics? I said:
your constant requests for 'quantification' is no substitute for understanding of the basic underlying physics involved
The point being that while insisting on "numbers/quantities" you miss the underlying physics understandings which apply.....regardless of scaling/quantification. Until you two are ACTUALLY and properly 'on the same page' basic Plasma-and-gravity interactions understandings wise, then you two will forever be talking past each other. Please stop cutting out relevant context and putting your own 'spin' on what is said to you and so creating your own strawman context to make irrelevant 'comebacks'. It demeans science discourse.


Jun 19, 2015

Consider well the possible implications of "found hundreds of point sources" for CMB; also likelihood/effect of vastly more numerous lesser sources/processes of....
This got you my downvote. ....clearly never read any of the WMAP or Planck papers on this topic.
Clearly I have I read all that you read, and more (my bicep2 'reading' proved it). Clearly you are resistant to being made to THINK things through instead of just accepting what you have been 'inculcated' with by mainstream reading which has 'set' your faculties to 'denier mode' when being asked to think and scrutinize implications beyond what you act as if it is 'done and dusted'. It's was IMPLICATIONS of what they 'found' as to 'point sources' per se which I asked you to consider, not their 'methodology/conclusions'.

You exhibit disturbingly similar reaction to mod-trolls here who resisted suggestion to think/check bicep2 claims for themselves.

Downvoting is no substitute for understanding. :)

Jun 19, 2015
Downvoting is no substitute for understanding. :)


There are a few people here I wish would chew on those words and consider the implications, but it would be pointless as they already know it all, and there is no room for a different understanding if your perspective has already been decided for you.

Jun 19, 2015
I find this extremely doubtful, but I'll reserve judgement until the paper reporting their results is published.

No, you already passed judgement; "I find this extremely doubtful" and "Electric Sun test?"
Let me understand this

I'll type real slow.
cannot be determined (approx)

N o . T h a t i s n o t w h a t w a s s a i d.
That such a charge can only be 'relative' to some other body?

The Sun and everything within (and without) it's sphere of influence are part of a circuit (how plasma operates, basic principals), as such it is all relative.

The long, long list of phenomena is also direct support for the circuitry.
as described by General Relativity and the Standard Model (of particle physics, QM...

But...QM and GR aren't compatible. And SR and GR aren't compatible, nor SR and QM, or QM and QM, or GR and GR. It's a hodgepodge. Unification under EM is much simpler, and more elegant.

Jun 19, 2015
Quick test then: I am within the Sun's sphere of influence...

You are one of the few bodies in the Universe that is completely devoid of electric charge, the purest definition of electrical neutrality. Not a single firing neuron, no neural network, nary an electric impulse of any sort.
Huh? Some sort of "unified EM"

I'm far, very far removed from being the first to suggest a unified theory. As a matter of fact, Einstein suggested such an abomination, which he continued to do until his death.
"The intellect seeking after an integrated theory cannot rest content with the assumption that there exist two distinct fields totally independent of each other by their nature," Einstein said in his Nobel lecture in 1923.
"he believed there was a link between the need to resolve apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics and the need to unify electromagnetism and gravity."
Like galactic BC's, since we haven't figured it out, it can't be so. According to you.

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