Close-up view of galaxies prompts re-think on star formation

universe
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

Astronomers have identified for the first time one of the key components of many stars, a study suggests.

A type of gas found in the voids between galaxies - known as - appears to be part of the star formation process under certain conditions, researchers say.

The findings overturn a long-standing theory about the conditions needed for star formation to take place - a process that happens when dense clouds of dust and gas inside galaxies collapse.

It was previously thought that stars could form only in the presence of a different type of gas - called .

Atomic gas is composed of individual hydrogen atoms. It is usually found in regions of space that do not contain any planets or stars and are largely empty, researchers say.

Molecular gas is made up of pairs of bound together, and is present in the densest parts of galaxies, where most planets and stars form.

The new study, led by the University of Edinburgh, provides the first evidence that atomic gas can fuel star formation. This happens when atomic gas flows into galaxies but does not have time to convert to the molecular form, the team says.

The discovery was made by studying galaxies in which explosions of massive stars - known as gamma-ray bursts - have been observed. It was thought the stars formed from molecular gas, but recent studies have shown these galaxies to be almost entirely deficient in molecular gas.

Using a radio telescope in New South Wales, Australia, researchers measured the levels of atomic gas present in the galaxies. The team found they contain large amounts of atomic gas, distributed close to , suggesting it can act as the fuel for .

Stars form in the same way regardless of the type of gas involved, scientists say. Gas molecules are destroyed early in the process, so the stars they produce are the same, they add.

The study, published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, was funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council. The research was carried out in collaboration with researchers at institutions across Europe, the US and Australia.

Dr Michal Michalowski, of the University of Edinburgh's School of Physics and Astronomy, who led the study, said: "We were analysing the atomic gas data for these when the results about their molecular gas deficiency were announced. We pieced together all the information, and found that may in fact form out of atomic gas, which was previously believed to be impossible."


Explore further

Neutral hydrogen gas in galaxy clusters

Journal information: Astronomy & Astrophysics

Citation: Close-up view of galaxies prompts re-think on star formation (2015, November 10) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-close-up-view-galaxies-prompts-re-think.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.
121 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 10, 2015
"We pieced together all the information, and found that stars may in fact form out of atomic gas, which was previously believed to be impossible."

I can only imagine the incredible ad hoc hypotheses yet to be conceived that somehow allows the gravitational collapse theory to remain afloat. Only in astrophysics do refuting observations mean nothing to the value of a competing theory. The bias is real.

Nov 10, 2015
nly in astrophysics do refuting observations mean nothing

Such as...?

Nov 10, 2015
Somewhere between this statement ...

"Stars form in the same way regardless of the type of gas involved, scientists say."

... and this statement ...

"We pieced together all the information, and found that stars may in fact form out of atomic gas, which was previously believed to be impossible."

... is a detailed explanation for why this is a problem for theory -- which is not explicitly given. And this is why we have to look to outsider critics to explain those details.

People wonder why Wal Thornhill is so popular as a critic of these ideas. It's very simple: He's one of the few writers that helps the public to see past the defensive posture.

Nov 10, 2015
The state of matter is of primary importance, it's neither molecular gas nor atomic gas, it's plasma and they are clueless to the physics involved!

Nov 10, 2015
They have it all backwards. Hydrogen is created by stars and moves outwards, naturally the density is greatest closer in to gamma ray sources.

Nov 10, 2015
@Hat, didn't you know? If you can make a tiny model of something in a lab,and then if you see something that looks similar, it automatically means it's the same thing. No measurements, no proof, no math. You just outright claim it's the same thing. Who cares if it's a galaxy sized structure versus a tabletop lab experiment. It looks the same! It must be the same! Welcome to EU.

Nov 10, 2015
@matt_s: Kristian Birkeland was responsible for, unquestionably, one of the most in-depth recording of auroral measurements of his time. He spent over half a year taking daily measurements of the electric and magnetic readings in Haalde, and then, did the exact same across over half a dozen observatories across the polar region. The entire wealth of that data can be read by simply reading his treatise, "The Norwegian Expedition", published in 1908. He took that data, engineered a laboratory experiment to approximate that data as best as physically possible, discovered that the reaction of the *data* produced auroral phenomena, and then formalized the first unarguably correct model of the aurora in astronomy. The SAFIRE team plans to do the exact same thing by comparing the spectroscopic/magnetic/electric data gathered from their rig and the data collected by the Solar Probe Plus.

Nov 10, 2015
Likewise, the SAFIRE team just published their first paper in IOP: http://iopscience...022/meta

The entire breadth of work regarding EU ideas, that has actually been published, is not about Talbott or Thornhill or Crothers. There is *actual* work that has also been done, and the field of solar plasma physics and plasma physics in general wouldn't be the same without Alfven or magnetohydrodynamics. Just saying...

Nov 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 10, 2015
Every physical system must have at least minimal number of elements (parts) from the beginning as basic condition to be able to function.

Like hydrogen and helium and other elements in later stars come together so completely that they start fusion and become stars because of the laws of physics?
Formation of stars is possible but only by the will of God Who control the divine matrix embedded in the vacuum of space.

Again I'd like to know how you know about this divine matrix put there by god and how you know their are both laws he can change to his will and are temporary and others he can't that are eternal laws. Its not in any bible I ever read. Where are you getting it from?

Nov 10, 2015
What if atomic gas is a byproduct of star formation?

Nov 10, 2015
Every physical system lose gradually structural integrity and functionality with time thanks to entropy

Like how an amorphous droplet of water becomes an exquisitely ordered structure -a snowflake- as energy is gradually *removed* from the system?

You completely misunderstand entropy.

Nov 10, 2015
Thanks to the facts of obtained by observation which demonstrate the order and the unique physical conditions in the universe, as well as the unique combination of factors that make the Earth suitable for sustaining the life. I do not believe in coincidences.
Behind the increase in information (order) in a physical system, which includes instructions for the individual components of the system and how they should operate and interact with each other, is always associated with the ideas, the will and actions of intelligent being. In this system can be carried out only actions that are programmed on intelligent being. Physical laws and constants in the universe and its constituent elements impose these restrictions, which can be overcome only through new intervention of intelligent beings who stay behind its origin, and introducing of a new information. This happen with the help of divine matrix. This is the more reasonable explanation of observed reality in the universe.

Nov 10, 2015
Nobody has ever done experiments on earth to test ideas of the big bangers for expanding space and its eventual influence on the light. Their idea that the red shift in the spectrum of light coming from distant galaxies is based on pure faith and wishful thinking rather than scientific facts. No one ca test the physical conditions outside the solar system to conclude the these conditions are the same in the whole universe. The extrapolation is not scientific but based on fate.

Nov 10, 2015
@carlo. Just because it's worked in a single instance does NOT mean it is applicable to all cases. Far from.

Some of the ideas MAY have merit, but the way the acolytes assert they're true, without absolutely any evidence, is asinine. Moreover, they need to be predictable models (read: mathematical), otherwise they're essentially useless.

But I digress.

Nov 10, 2015
The extrapolation is not scientific but based on fate
@viko
besides being a huge logical fallacy and blatantly stupid...
lets look at this from a different perspective:
you're saying that, because we don't actually go out, rape and kill some men, take the time to watch those men decay after chopping them up (and eat a few parts), screw a couple of corpses, preserve a few parts in the fridge or freezer and walk around the same area ... then we can't ever know what he did inside that house to those people.

I know you won't get the analogy but...
with forensics, we really CAN tell what happened at a crime scene by examining the data presented and following the evidence... this is how science works, because what we do now is based upon the knowledge we gained in the past through experimentation and more

the same for astrophysics... it is kinda like the forensics of the universe, star and planet formation etc


Nov 10, 2015
Hi guys, so much room for activities here.

rossim = plasmasrevenge? I never knew but I am a fool.
Solon = tux with his DERPs?
viko = still illiterate, scientifically and linguistically

The ever objective CP touting EU again. I respect that they published a peer reviewed paper about very specific plasmas with a 600V difference of potential across them. However this was not a paper about cosmology and it wasn't published in a remotely Astrophysics related journal. Furthermore, something that completely overturns modern cosmology should be published in something with an impact more than the modest but respectable 3.5. Getting peer reviewed papers is a step in the right direction but it's still a long way up Cosmological Mountain barring some astounding "miracle year" level work. I'm not denying the legitimate scientific contributions of scientists in plasmas just that because they were right about auroras doesn't mean they are right about problems with the standard model. :)

Nov 11, 2015
Wal Thornhill ...He's one of the few writers that helps the public to see past the defensive posture
@Plasma
in almost the same way that Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner taught the world about the laws of physics

first off: Wally is an engineer. he is not trained in astrophysics let alone the ability to write studies that are comprehensible that include needed and relevant evidence. this is not supposition, this is factual based upon physicists review of the electric sun bs - here is just one http://www.tim-th...sun.html

I've found quite a few more

Secondly: evidence

third: ignoring validated evidence (worse yet, from plasma physics labs like PPPL)

i could go on, but there is no need
the eu is pseudoscience

claims that don't meet the methodology, practices and constraints of the scientific method are pseudoscience by definition
https://en.wikipe...oscience


Nov 11, 2015
Which specific observations show that scientifically viko? Have you tested this divine matrix out in experiments on earth or in space for that matter? What experiments have proven its existence and it being as you claim?

Nov 11, 2015
@matt: "Just because it's worked in a single instance does NOT mean it is applicable to all cases. Far from." I don't disagree, but respectfully, I wasn't the one making blanket generalizations. You did, and I pointed out that in fact the legitimate scientists like Birkeland and Alfven, who's work has been appropriated by people like Thornhill and Talbott, did in fact conduct legitimate scientific investigations. That one example was about Birkeland, the exact same could be said of Alfven. He's responsible for one of the most used and most valuable mathematical models for describing plasma phenomena in the field.

"Some of the ideas MAY have merit, but the way the acolytes assert they're true, without absolutely any evidence, is asinine."

Again, I don't disagree. Was just trying to demonstrate that underneath the hand-waving of the EU community, there were real scientists who did real work.

Nov 11, 2015
@EnthusiasticFool: I absolutely agree with you. Which is why it'll be very, very exciting for me to see what happens when they test the anode in their second-phase rig. The first-phase involved a small iron/copper anodes in a table-top bell jar. The second-phase is much more advanced: thick, dense metal enclosure for the vacuum chamber with a much larger anode so that they can increase the voltage and the amps, along with programmable spectroscopic/magnetographic arms that can travel around the anode in pre-determined "fly-bys", so that it can travel around the anode taking temperature/spectroscopic/electromagnetic readings of the anode, which will then be comparable to the data being gather by the Solar Probe Plus. You can see more about the second-phase here: https://www.youtu...Tttzh0oA

It's a well-designed experiment, and should produce more peer-reviewed material.

Nov 11, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool

I criticize the theories for mass consumption, but not people who gave opinion it this forum.
Interestingly why big bangers evolutionist deal with my personality rather than to defend with scientific argument these theories. In this way they declare lack of arguments and female emotionality. If the rating system does not pump their self esteem artificially,they would already have depresses. Now I understand what is the purpose of this rating system. For spiritual support of the losers in the dispute who do not tolerate the reality, so they want to invent their own reality. I have the habit to vote but I will start put 5/5 on my most emotional opponents.

Nov 11, 2015
@carlo - Alfven, Birkeland are a farcry from the current EU community. I would agree there have been actual scientists, but there's a key difference. Those two, for example, actually developed mathematical (useful) models to back up their assertions. Models with predictability, something current EU (especially the ones who hang out here) sorely lack.


Nov 11, 2015
@matt_s: I agree with you, and in fact I criticize the community on this regularly on their own forum. If you ever check it out, my handle there is "BecomingTesla", and I've become increasingly more vocal about the lack of actual work that happens in their community. I've been there for a while, and the more I stay, the more it becomes obvious that there's very little energy in that community dedicated towards actually doing science, instead of side-line criticism. The shame is that I think PC is a very interesting astrophysical framework, with a *lot* of potential, and a lot of EU ideas like the electric sun are very interesting, likewise with potential. Those ideas deserve legitimate work, experimentation, quantification, etc. That's why I like the SAFIRE team so much - they're actually testing the hypothesis.

Seriously, check out the youtube link. It is a very interesting, and well-made experiment.

Nov 11, 2015
@Hat: As far as I'm concerned, there doesn't need to be a "us vs. them" mentality within the sciences. When I first started posting here, as well as when I first walked into the EU community, I was much more militant. I also had a much weaker grasp on what my issues were with "mainstream" physics, and everything was about criticizing GR and black holes. I didn't understand that my issue with GR has nothing to do with empirical fact and everything to do with my preference of natural philosophy (I dislike mathematical formalism, and prefer mechanical frameworks, so field theory irks me). Although I do still affirm, like anyone else, that without additional components like DM, the validity/predictive efficacy of GR is limited more to strictly the solar system, where it works almost perfectly.

Nov 11, 2015
Now, I can just accept that there are issues within the SM like the "missing satellite problem" or the "orbital plane problem", that there are issues within the PC framework like the "missing synchrotron problem," and work within both. I just want to do *real* science. I want to study astrophysics, and plasma physics, run a lab, and publish papers. That's it.

Nov 11, 2015
bschott: You mention something about this often when you talk to me, and to this day I'm still not sure who's work it is you're talking about, or what your issue is. As far as I understand, electricity and magnetism are a chicken-and-egg situation, a changing B-field produces a changing E-field, which produces a changing B-field, which produces...on and on. Oersted proved that a changing E-field produces a B-field, and Faraday proved the exact opposite. Your issue of which comes first doesn't make much sense to me. The entire point is that you cannot separate one from the other - if one is present, then so is the other.

The argument in plasma astrophysics is that within certain parameters (if the plasma is dense enough, if the resistance is low enough, if the conductivity is high enough, etc.), then you can approximate the B-fields within certain plasmas as being frozen-in.

Nov 11, 2015
Alfven, who formalized the approximation in the first place, said that its use has to be extremely limited, because it's not often the case that space plasmas fall correctly within these boundary parameters. According to him, that criticism hasn't been widely recognized or adopted within astrophysics, and so to him fields of research like magnetic reconnection were "pseudo-fields", because they were not correctly using the approximation. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know. I'm still a beginner. But no in either the PC community or the SM community argue the existence of magnetic fields in space. I'm not sure who's work it is that you're criticizing...

Nov 11, 2015
@carlo

I agree with what you're saying. I'll checkout SAFIRE as well, always interested to learn more. I also agree that plasma concepts are fascinating, and it would be cool to see more work done in that area.

The funny part about the "us vs them" mentality is that, say EU proved their case one day and developed models that exceeded GR in predictive ability and accuracy, then people like stumpy, me, etc. would become just as avid defenders of it as we are of the standard view now. But until that day... business as usual.

If they engaged in rational discussion (like you are doing now), the "us vs them" mentality would go away as well. The concept of blindly asserting you are correct, while thousands of brilliant astrophysicists are wrong, while your evidence is "it looks the same" versus the mathematical predictability of GR... just rubs some people wrong. Again, not saying it's you, but definitely many of the EU crowd here are guilty of it.


Nov 11, 2015
In space plasma, when were talking a particle density of a few per cm3, they are moving due to interaction with magnetic flux, not generating it.

And that magnetic flux is "just there", due to magic apparently.

Nov 11, 2015
@bschott: When someone says that "electricity makes all magnetic fields", they're not necessarily wrong. As far as I understand (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong), even within a bar magnet the magnetism is supposed to originate from the alignment of the magnetic moment in the electrons, their orbital states, and the electron's spin, i.e., flux in the electric field.

In space plasmas, what is supposed to be producing the magnetic flux that the particles are interacting with? And just the same, any magnetic flux is going to produce electric flux - we just talked about that. In fact, didn't PO just write an article about a paper describing how small-scale plasma dynamos generated in larger plasma turbulence (of which, current flow is possible source [but not the only]), produce magnetic fields that align to produce larger b-fields? Interestingly enough, almost like the bar magnet?

Nov 11, 2015
@matt: In all fairness, I can understand the hostility that people in the EU cultivate for mainstream astrophysics, given that they've appropriated the work of Alfven and Birkeland. Historically, both of them were marginalized by the mainstream community, and largely on the basis of theoretical authority over their data. All of that work that I described Birkeland as having done? It was essentially completely disregarded by the British/American physics community, largely because Kelvin has published earlier that any electrical connection between the Sun and planets ran contrary to Newton's postulate of vacuous space. Alfven did just as much good empirical research, and was likewise disregarded, and in some ways allegedly slandered. The two of them fought a constant uphill battle to have their work recognized, despite the fact that it was correct.

Nov 11, 2015
there doesn't need to be a "us vs. them" mentality within the sciences
@cp
there isn't: never really has been WRT certain posters here
it is all about evidence
when I first walked into the EU community, I was much more militant
and here as well- you've defended them in the past...
but at least you've changed to a more evidence based argument FWICT (good)
magnetic reconnection were "pseudo-fields" ...Whether that is the case or not, I don't know
check this out then: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

also - Sec 5.14 PG 161
https://www.cfa.h...sics.pdf

Nov 11, 2015
And while science is self-correcting, and so their work was ultimately recognized, it's really upsetting and frustrating to me that as an astrophysics student, if I choose to follow their research and work on solving some of the problems with PC theory, like the missing synchrotron problem, I will most likely be marginalized as well, regardless of how hard I work or the data I'll collect. It just doesn't seem right to me. I understand that the standard model is standard for a reason, but I dislike that the BB seems to have a complete monopolization over astrophysics. It can be dominant, while still allowing room for alternative models to compete.

Nov 11, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool

I criticize the theories for mass consumption, but not people who gave opinion it this forum.
Interestingly why big bangers evolutionist deal with my personality rather than to defend with scientific argument these theories. In this way they declare lack of arguments and female emotionality. If the rating system doesn't have not pump their self esteem artificially,they would already have depresses. Now I understand what is the purpose of this rating system. For spiritual support of the losers in the dispute who do not tolerate the reality, so they want to invent their own reality. I have the habit to vote but I will start put 5/5 on my most emotional opponents.

You ignore and dismiss out of hand anything we offer you as it goes against yourppredetermined worldview. Your "questions" have been answered hundreds of times now on this site alone yet you just ignore us and keep asking the same questions.

Nov 11, 2015
@stumpy: "When I first started posting here, as well as when I first walked into the EU community, I was much more militant." - That's the full context of what I said, I haven't forgotten my earlier posts. And while I appreciate the links, and will certainly reference them later on in my education, I'm not making any assertion about the validity of Alfven's criticism on things like magnetic reconnection. I haven't read enough about either his criticism, or the published material on magnetic reconnection, and I wouldn't understand enough to make a confident assertion about it if I had. I'm happy to know that the his criticism exists, and it will be something I keep in my mind constantly as I study so that after a few years of doing research, I can make my own assessment on it. That feels like the most rational course of action - just put it away for later. Right now I just need to study.

Nov 11, 2015
Nobody ... pure faith and wishful thinking rather than scientific facts. No one ca test the physical conditions outside the solar system to conclude the these conditions are the same in the whole universe. The extrapolation is not scientific but based on fate.

You are forgetting astronomical observation. It extends our experience to the outskirts of the universe and confirms the universal validity of physical laws.
But I trust your "creator" does not agree with me and has a "lake of fire" waiting for me.

Nov 11, 2015

Formation of stars is possible but only by the will of God Who control the divine matrix embedded in the vacuum of space.


Yeah, we did some research on the divine matrix as part of my MS. The Higgs field does not extend in to the matrix, as expected, and n-dimensional metric was impossible to determine, as would be expected with any divine structure.

So is it a unitary matrix? That would make the unitarians quite happy !
Is the matrix dei a virgin ?

Nov 11, 2015
The funny part about the "us vs them" mentality is that, say EU proved their case one day and developed models that exceeded GR in predictive ability and accuracy, then people like stumpy, me, etc. would become just as avid defenders of it as we are of the standard view now
@matt
@cp
absolutely! ...because i don't care what side of the fence anyone is on... only in the evidence
this likely goes back to my profession
but it applies to science just as equally

I can understand the hostility ...
@cp
i don't
to me it is prepubescent and immature

there is only evidence - and the past is just as much a learning tool as the evidence, be they mistakes or successes
& sometimes you can learn more from mistakes

there is a difference between learning and moving on and the cradden tantrums of the eu

Nov 11, 2015
@stumpy: "there is only evidence - and the past is just as much a learning tool as the evidence, be they mistakes or successes"

Birkeland had evidence, and so did Alfven. It's fantastic that the mainstream astrophysical community eventually realized this, but Birkeland died about thirty years before he could see the validation of his theory, and he spent the bulk of his career being slandered by Chapman and disenfranchised by the Royal Society. We've talked about this before, and I hold that stand. Science is ultimately about evidence, and evidence will win the day, but science-in-practice is largely also about internal politics, dominant theory and pressure from peers to conform. Seriously stumpy, pick up a copy of "The Northern Lights" by Jago. Birkeland was an extremely hard-working scientist and a brilliant mathematician. It's not always just about evidence.

Nov 11, 2015
In this way they declare lack of arguments and female emotionality.

Is there any form of bigotry that you are NOT guilty of ?

Nov 11, 2015
Is it legitimate to use their marginalization as a blanket "get out of jail free" card? Or to demonize the mainstream scientific community as a whole? No, it's definitely not. But as someone who wants to be a hard-working, well-studied, and empirical scientists *and* work on PC theory, like Birkeland or Alfven or Peratt did, yes, it is frustrating to me. And that feels justified. If I chose to work on this field of research, I'll basically be committing myself to working alone, with very little help in the way of colleagues, or research funding, or even lab space.

Nov 11, 2015
viko isn't looking for knowledge. He is looking to validate his delusion - the delusional already have all the knowledge they will ever have.........none

Nov 11, 2015
@jsdarkdestruction

You offer only unfounded misconceptions that you can not defend with scientific arguments. Science founded on the axiom to deny the Creator is at an impasse. It has no useful move because the imaginable world that it creates can be supported only by imaginable phenomena. - dark matter, energy, bla holes, hidden dimentions, etc. Not by facts.
I believe that in the universe there are no coincidences and order is a product of the ideas and actions of the Creator.
You extol the achievements and intellect of man and constantly "growing opportunities" according to the mantras of humanism, but deny the higher intelligence and capabilities of the higher than man God. The reason is only one. God has power over people and has a high moral standard and demands on us. Some people with slave mentality unwilling to accept this reality because it puts on them the requirements for responsible behavior which is natural attitude for the free people.

Nov 11, 2015
We've talked about this
@cp
and i will say it again: i don't care if someone's feelings were hurt in the past because they couldn't get recognition - that fact or point doesn't mean or justify that everything they say or said is equally valid today
Birkeland was
so?
It's not always just about evidence
yes, it is:
your arguments above are not about physical evidence (re: quoted post) it is about the ego and history- which is not relevant to proving that something is validated unless you're arguing about history or psychology: neither of which are astrophysics

one of the primary reasons for the scientific method is to remove bias
scientists compete to prove each other wrong- that's what makes it work
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

one of the best/fastest ways to get ahead is to provide evidence (not friendship or support) that can be validated etc...
even (& especially) if it overturns/refutes historical evidence

Nov 11, 2015
@cp con't
Birkeland had evidence, and so did Alfven
you cannot state that the historical scientific community is the same now as it was then, just like you cannot state that the community is the same now as it was during Newton's days (or further back)

the community evolves and learns from their mistakes just like the science does... although perhaps not as quickly, this doesn't mean you are correct in stating today's community is the same as theirs (all you have to do is line up all the players and see for yourself- lots of dead folk there)
science-in-practice is ...internal politics, dominant theory and pressure from peers to conform
and this is the primary argument of every pseudoscience acolyte out there to justify their belief without evidence: if it was broke during Newtons time, it is still broke, therefore i will ignore it

so because it is for A, it must also be that for X?
i can prove that wrong: Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Nov 11, 2015
@stumpy: You can't stand on the argument of "evidence means everything", when the people who produced the largest volume of evidence were marginalized because their work ran counter to dominant theory of the time, stumpy. Birkeland *had* evidence. As a matter of fact, he gathered the most raw, bare data on the aurora from all across the world of any of his contemporaries within astrophysics, and used that data to produce a laboratory experiment that almost perfectly approximated the data, and the phenomena he was studying. All of that perfectly legitimate work was disregarded, largely on the authority of one scientist.

I agree that the scientific method works, in concept and theory, through purely empirically driven progress. But there is a difference between theory and practice, and evidence is *not* always the deciding factor in what theory is advanced and which is marginalized. Academic science, as an institution - not as a philosophy - is not perfect, and never has been.

Nov 11, 2015
If you're going to make the argument that things are different now than they were back in the 1910's or 1940's, well, that's perfectly valid I suppose. But it's not what I've heard, and that doesn't come from people in the EU, that comes from friends who are scientific grad students, who discuss these issues as they exist today. The fact that pseudoscientists use it as a shield doesn't change the fact that it is still a persistent problem. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nov 11, 2015
that's perfectly valid I suppose. But it's not what I've heard
@cp
anecdotal evidence is equivalent to eyewitness testimony - it is the worst kind of evidence there is
my reply to your friends would be to actually do a study that has measureable quantifiable data that can prove the point of the political argument

When science (and the community) are exposed to facts, it then becomes another's job to test said findings.. . hence validation (or refute)
doesn't change the fact that it is still a persistent problem
you can't say it is a persistent problem if you can't prove it is a "real" problem

almost every nooB will feel persecuted when they attempt to bring what they feel are good ideas to light only to have them rebuked (for any reason, regardless of justification)

the nooB also doesn't have the experience or training of the others
this doesn't mean either side is correct

that is why anecdote from friends is meaningless WRT the above

Nov 11, 2015
Viko, I hold myself to a very high moral standard. One higher than you hold yourself.
If god exists and created all this he/it is amazing. Trying to pin god down with our human standards and religions is an insult to god to think he would be as petty as us humans like your bible portrays him as. If god exists he's probably atheist and both dumbfounded and aghast at what ourr human religions have claimed about him/it and done in his/its name.

Nov 11, 2015
@cp cont'd
as for this
The fact that pseudoscientists use it as a shield...
for starters: pseudoscience uses it because it gives them an excuse to not validate their arguments with tightly constrained arguments that remove bias... it allows for anecdote and any other evidence that "feels right" or is subjective

secondly: pseudoscience by definition can't be acceptable as a scientific (or even logical) argument because it doesn't rely upon factual or evidenciary proof for a claim
this is no different than religion
try interchanging the two when thinking about the above and then think about it...

just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it is true... because you will seek anything that validates your claim while ignoring that which refutes it - the tactic of both religion and pseudoscience (and conspiracy, etc)

this is why evidence is the key to science
it is also why you can't argue the point because bubba and jenny say it's true

Nov 11, 2015
We as a civilization must protest and contest accepted beliefs, this is the only way forward.
@Hat1208
and i agree! this is also how i see Science in general today
now, this doesn't mean there aren't problems even still today (as evidence by the "scandal" of retracted papers recently)... but overall, Scientists, and science are always at the edge of discovery Seeking to contest, or validate, accepted knowledge

and i will always applaud those on that edge seeking to find evidence
and those performing fundamental research (without which we cannot progress)


Nov 11, 2015
@stumpy: At the end of the day, I think you and I both agree on the approach towards legitimate physics, but disagree on the role of politics and authority in the progress of science. Which is fine, in my book. I think I'm just not willing to place as much faith in the establishment as you are, and that simply comes from my reading of scientific history and from, as you said, personal anecdote. I plan on doing real, legitimate science in my future, despite the fact that it may be within an alternative framework. If, after doing things the right way, I find it easy to transition into the mainstream and get published, I'll be a happy man for it. I just don't think that will be the case. I'm not planning for it. Hopefully you're right though.

@Hat: Thank you for the complement! I appreciate it a lot. Like I said, when I first started posting here I was much more hostile. It's good to know that I'm bringing better conversation.

Nov 11, 2015
Astronomers have identified for the first time one of the key components of many stars, a study suggests.


When I read this on the front page, I said to myself, "I bet it's water!" This place has been brain-crazy long enough to now have running jokes.

Nov 11, 2015
@bschott: Hadn't heard of thermomagnetism, or the Magnetic Seebeck effect. That's fairly interesting, actually. Appreciate the share.

Nov 11, 2015
I think I'm just not willing to place as much faith in the establishment as you are
@cp
it isn't about faith at all... it's about evidence (i can't stress this enough)

and it's not that i can't see your point, either
i don't dispute that politics or anything else is involved in any "job". it's human nature
I plan on doing real, legitimate science in my future, despite the fact that it may be within an alternative framework
there really isn't an "alternative framework". there is only science...
as long as you conform to the scientific method and can provide evidence, etc... it is science

what you are referring to is working without the support (and resources) of an established university, lab or other org. that may have political, financial or other motivations as well - an independent researcher (not unheard of even today)


Nov 11, 2015
@stumpy: When I say faith, it is equitable to trust within the academic scientific establishments, not faith within science as a system of producing reliable knowledge. And my trust in the establishment, as with any other institution/organization like Volkswagon or Congress, comes with the history of how it operates. The issues that I've been talking about aren't issues with the scientific method, they are systemic issues that come out of the institutions. I'm talking about the Royal Society, or the Journal of Astrophysics, or the peer-review system as a whole, not *science.* Science runs on evidence, and it is why scientific knowledge is ultimately self-correcting. But the history of these institutions, from what I had read across many different fields, is that those with alternative theories are marginalized, regardless of the wealth of their evidence.

Nov 11, 2015
@cp cont'd
but disagree on the role of politics and authority in the progress of science
i don't think you and i disagree as much as you think
it is just that, when discussing the evidence for anything, it is irrelevant to the topic

take climate change, for instance: the deniers want to assume that, because there is media attention to an argument (anti AGW) that said argument must have the same validity as the reciprocal (the science of AGW)

this is obviously not the case

so, whereas i can acknowledge that there are human problems in any job, the entire bases of the scientific method centers around the evidence and the ability to validate/replicate it

this is the only way to argue any scientific argument: ignoring this means you're arguing philosophy or religion (IOW- it is subjective and thus cannot be considered argument from logic or evidence)

also- anecdotes are great for teaching, but absolutely fail in validation of evidence
thus, irrelevant to argument

Nov 11, 2015
I trust science to eventually produce accurate theories about celestial motion, or thermodynamics, or how current travels across the surface of a conductor. I don't trust scientific institutions to behave in perfect objectivity, and that distrust is simply of a product of my studying scientific history as it regards said institutions.

When I mentioned alternative frameworks, I meant PC astrophysical hypotheses and ideas versus BB and SM hypotheses, not alternative framework to the scientific method. But, you're correct, if I chose to work on those ideas, I would definitely be pushed into independent research.

Nov 11, 2015
When I say faith, it is equitable to trust
@cp
i know what you meant:
i trust no one. i am a retired investigator. i can only trust what i can validate... this is the reason i only follow the evidence
The issues that I've been talking about aren't issues with the scientific method, they are systemic issues that come out of the institutions
except that your inferred argument is that you can't trust the evidence because of the institution ("theories are marginalized")
which is why i counter argued that it is about evidence, not the institution
like i said: i don't think we disagree as much as you think
But the history of these institutions...that those with alternative theories are marginalized, regardless of the wealth of their evidence
to this i would reply with your own words
Science runs on evidence, and it is why scientific knowledge is ultimately self-correcting
it really is all about the evidence

Nov 11, 2015
I don't trust scientific institutions to behave in perfect objectivity
no human run anything will be able to behave with perfect objectivity
When I mentioned alternative frameworks, I meant PC astrophysical hypotheses and ideas versus BB and SM hypotheses
by PC do you mean Plasma Cosmology or Politically Correct?
if you will specifically concentrate on Plasma Cosmology, then i suggest really using those links i gave
i will also caution you - plasma physics is great to know, but unless you also consider the knowns (like Gravity, etc) then it will be pseudoscience
this goes for anything, really...anything that will ignore relevant scientific contributions for the sake of attempting to justify a belief over following the evidence is simply not science

this is the eu ... not that there isn't valid science in some of their claims, but that they will ignore relevant knowns in order to falsely proclaim something that is not valid (Moon craters)


Nov 11, 2015
I think I see what you're saying, and I think you're right, we don't disagree as much as it seems. But, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to ignore the amount of authoritative power institutions like the RS have/had in directing the flow of scientific progress towards one path over the other. It didn't matter than Birkeland had enormous amounts of evidence supporting his theory. Chapman developed a mathematic model to explain aurora, which conformed to prevailing astrophysical theory, and it was pushed as the dominant model for over forty years. The evidence for Birkeland's model was on the table, right along side Chapman's model, and the institutions of the day had the final say in who was promoted and who was relegated - despite being wrong about which was correct.

Birkeland's model was eventually vindicate through *new* satellite evidence, but should it have taken forty years of developing an incorrect model to get there?

Nov 11, 2015
"no human run anything will be able to behave with perfect objectivity"

Agreed.

"by PC do you mean Plasma Cosmology or Politically Correct?"

Plasma cosmology, sorry for the lack of clarification. I appreciate the cautionary advice, I'll keep it in mind.

Nov 11, 2015
... unfounded misconceptions ...

Your specialty
... facts ...

You are unfamiliar with any.

I believe that in the universe there are no coincidences and order is a product of the ideas and actions of the Creator.

See the above.
... mantras ...

Another of your specialties.

Nov 11, 2015
Plasma cosmology, sorry for the lack of clarification
gotcha
I appreciate the cautionary advice, I'll keep it in mind
personal note: this is easier said than done (yep. it's anecdotal, but used as a teaching tool to reinforce the cautionary advice)
But, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification
it very well may be... after all, i am an investigator, not a scientist

it's just that, from what I've seen, it has always worked out in the end as well... and always, always because of the evidence:
Newtonian physics, GR/SR, slinkies, Quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, immunizations, the spread of bacteria in surgery, Internet,

this is the reason for my "oversimplification" and what you called my faith

nothing can stand against the evidence
this is true of criminals as well as scientists, IMHO

Nov 11, 2015
I figured it out, Captain Stumpy is the Batman.

I came late to the critical thinking game, since I live in a place where teachers don't teach you how to learn things and the people around you usually can't. You know when you have really weird dreams that make sense while you're dreaming, but are obviously just random insanity when you wake up and reflect on it? It's like that, only the random insanity dream state ran your life through your nervous system before you become rational.

Nov 11, 2015
I thought this calculation was previously documented from 0 to light and all the wave forms in-between. Hydrogen is a molecule made from a proton and an electron. A waste product produced from dark energy, while the antimatter is absorbed as a mass in dark matter. Pure hydrogen clouds collect into a mass, first stage stars, extremely large, as the center collapses through gravity, the protons and electrons bond creating neutrons, the neutrons bond with electrons and protons, creating more complex atoms until Iron is produced, killing the star. The collapse forces the bonding of more complex structures. Second and third tertiary stars have trace heavy elements within them and cannot collect the size only the mass, forcing them to be smaller. Who wishes to discuss this? Have much more information.

Nov 11, 2015

@my2cts

Preciselly tuned forces and physical constant which suport the order in universe are matras? Or mantras is the unique conditions on planet Earth for life supporting.

Which one is not? The order is born from chaos by chance? Or information is self made?
Or multiverse - the bigest speculation in th universe?

Nov 12, 2015
The term mantra's fits like a glove to your meaningless phrases on the "creator".

Nov 12, 2015
Oy. Lots of cranks, no testable prediction why the cranks respective 'ideas', loosely described, are not competitive against the established theory. But it is really simple: cranks can't derive testable predictions, and when they do they fail misreably.

That doesn't happen with the protoscenario, which has a lot of successes, - such as this one, adding yet another viable pathway - little or tension with observations, is an inevitable result of massive cloud assembly, and has been observed in vivo.

"[Star formation theory] is closely related to planet formation, another branch of astronomy. Star formation theory, as well as accounting for the formation of a single star, must also account for the statistics of binary stars and the initial mass function."

[tbctd]

Nov 12, 2015
[ctd]

"The first observed newborn star-forming clump, aged less than 10 million years old, was found in a galaxy about a corresponding light travel distance of 10.4 billion light years away, at an age when the universe was about 3.3 billion years old. The clump is about 3,000 light-years wide, and has a mass more than 1 billion times the mass of the sun, creating 32 stars each year with the mass of the sun, and produced about 40 percent of the stars in the clump's host galaxy."

[ https://en.wikipe...ormation ]

The most deluded cranks are of course here too, creationists, that see anything as evidence for their magic. But an 'idea' that explains everything explains nothing - no testability. (So why is their crap littering science sites!?)

OTOH magic has been firmly rejected in tests since the 19th century, starting with thermodynamics. There never was 'a creation'. It's been two centuries. Take a hint!

Nov 12, 2015
@my2cts

Give scientific argument to be interesting. Not meaningless and boring declarations.
Your impossibility to defend the fantasies in which you are believed with scientific arguments is obvious even to young children.

Nov 12, 2015
@my2cts
Your impossibility to defend the fantasies in which you are believed with scientific arguments is obvious even to young children.

Funny, how all your comments seem to backfire.
At the age of 5 I concluded that there could not be a supernatural intelligence (although I was entirely unfamiliar with these terms). But you still believe that stuff and preach here thaty your personal delusion is superior to science. Scary.

Nov 13, 2015
What is worse?
@David
i chose C:
the person who proselytizes (and repetitiously regurgitates ad nauseum) a nonsensical religious belief that has no logical basis nor evidenciary support which encourages delusional dogmatic thinking and prejudice due to the insistence that only those who accept the singular nonsensical religious post can be "good" or in any way educated


Nov 14, 2015
So now, Stumpy, you need to come clean.

Is life most important in life or is it not?

If not, provide your truthful evidence without ever using life. As life is a truth.

If so, then please explain why the killing, enslavement and torture, of the innocent animals, including humans, for the sole purpose of personal gratification (fun, unneeded nutrition, sport, taste, glamor, fashion, etc.) is in the best interest of life in general? But hey, you can't do that without lying.

You really need to take a god hard look at yourself. You have attempted to justify and hide the murder of the innocent at the most pivotal moment in all human history. You can do better, but that will require humility before the truth, that which none of us is above.

I don't even know what you are talking about. It therefore is probably religion.
This is physics blog. Please go away and STAY away.
Amen.

Nov 14, 2015
"At the age of 5 I concluded that there could not be a supernatural intelligence (although I was entirely unfamiliar with these terms)."

How headlong and admirable career. Why do not you write a bestseller?

One good reason not to do it is that no one will be interested of windbag except the club of windbags.

Nov 14, 2015
Viko go away and stay away.
Your infantile beliefs and posts are a disgrace for phys.org.
You're spreading of hatred, comparing atheists to monkeys,
and your threats , "lake of fire", remind me of IS.

Nov 14, 2015
So now the truth is religious? Are you not truthfully alive?
I am not speaking non-sense. I have stated the very basic first and Most Important Truth in Life, and you have discarded it.

Your words and actions are causing great harm to others, and yourself. Either the truth matters to you or it doesn't. We have determined that you have chosen not to have a truthful conversation, when regarding that which is most important in life itself.

You really have no any point to make concerning anything "truthful" in your comments here. Every word you type to these others trying to tell them that they don't understand something, is for nothing, because you have publicly refused the importance of the truth.

As if understanding something is more important than having a life in the first place. You speak pure hypocrisy.


I wish somebody had explained him like this a long time ago. Finally I understand after all this time.

Nov 14, 2015
We all see the ultimate consequence of the POVs posted here by viko_mx.
I request phys.org to put an end to his mischief and finally clear him off this blog.

Nov 14, 2015
I am not speaking non-sense
Yeah, you are. As always.

Nov 14, 2015
So now the truth is religious?
@daveyW the delusional acolyte
"truth" is subjective. you've provided no empirical supporting evidence for your "truth", nor specifically defining all said parameters
Your words and actions are causing great harm to others, and yourself
False claim; subjective and delusional argument without evidence
Either the truth matters to you or it doesn't
which one? there are many "truths"
you need to come clean
i bathe regularly: at least twice a year! [hyperbole/sarc]
Is life most important in life or is it not?
nonsensical question without clear concise definition:
what about vegetative states in humans without the ability to interact with reality?
that is technically "alive" (life), but clearly not a state one wishes to be in, eh?

here are two links you should consider reading fully: http://www.dpa.st...h17.html

http://www.auburn...ion.html

Nov 14, 2015
@davey the drunk cont'd
If not, provide your truthful evidence
vegetative humans after physical trauma affecting cranial integrity as well as brain functions
...without ever using life
if i want to prove dead is great? WTF does that even mean?i can prove there are brain dead posters... https://sciencex..../davidW/

As life is a truth
1- life isn't defined as truth any more than apples are defined as mammals
2- the scientific definition of "alive" is still being argued... the common meaning has too many debatable points WRT "life"
...please explain why the killing, enslavement and torture, of the innocent animals, including humans, for the sole purpose of personal gratification ... is in the best interest...
strawman argument and irrelevant to the topic
also: religion is the biggest cause of death on the planet... definitely not in the best interest of "life" at all, so perhaps you can explain why it is so popular still?

Nov 14, 2015
@davey is crocked cont'd
But hey, you can't do that without lying
please show where i've lied, thanks
note: don't bother using drunk or religious arguments or your circular nonsense about life to define something as a lie as it would never be capable of being used anywhere except in your delusional mind
You really need to take a god hard look at yourself
[sic] which god should i ask for a "god hard look" at myself?
You have attempted to justify and hide the murder of the innocent at the most pivotal moment in all human history
this is called libel as well as blatant stupidity
i've never once advocated or supported homicide nor can you prove this is accurate without crawling through your tortured delusional medicated brain pickled beyond the ability to effectively communicate basic ideas

thanks for playing, though... but you really shouldn't post drunk

Nov 14, 2015
Hi viko_mx. :)

I politely asked you not to bring subjective personal/political/religious etc fantasies into objective observation/discourse/commentary in natural (not 'supernatural') sciences.

Why do you keep doing it?

Is your childhood brainwashing so complete/irreversible that your mind has no other way to 'see' reality than to filter it through the religious/political fantasies that have addled your mind so badly for so long?

For your own/family's sanity's sake, try to shake off that early 'programming' by superstitious/lying 'priests/scammers'.

Re-boot your observational/skeptical faculties, then see reality for what it is, not what you've been brainwashed to 'think/believe' it 'is'.

You exhibit 'religious mania' syndrome of denial-and-rationalization 'defense mechanism' mind-delusions. Keep that up, and total mental collapse from catastrophic cognitive dissonance inevitable.

Religious etc 'brainwashing' ends badly (viz Paris attacks).

Wake up, viko_mx. :)

Nov 14, 2015
Is, or is not, life most important in life the most important truth in life?


Important to who? I suppose that depends on the couyon you ask. After you decide who it is you are asking, then maybe you could also put something about who's life. Mine is more important than yours, if you ask Mrs-Ira-Skippette. Little Ira-Skippy's is more important than mine in my opinion.

I am sure your momma thinks yours if more important.

Answer yes or no. Keep in mind that if you answer no, using life, you have lied.


Some silly questions don't have a yes or no answer. That's because the questions are not completed.

But it is starting to look like the silly looking pointy cap is pretty darned important to you. But if your life is more important than the headgear, I would not wear him down in the Ninth Ward me, stick to Quarter, eh?.

Nov 14, 2015
Now I get tired of reading all these comments from people like stumpy insulting others while they clearly have no appreciation of honesty and also have a broken mind.


Hooyeei, I bet you hurt the Captain-Skippy's feeling with that one. I hope you are really getting tired of it, maybe then you will go away. Because somehow I just don't see that changing.

I have seen people afflicted with metal disease treat others better.


Is that your problem? What you do Cher, gnaw the walls before they quit using the lead paints?

You don't really want me to get a few thousand people posting the same thing here, do you?


Tell them they got to wait in line behind the few thousand other silly couyons who was here first.

I have been at this a very long time and it would take work, but it is possible. Don't push your luck.


Laissez les bons temps rouler. (That's coonass for: "I'm pushing real hard Cher")


Nov 14, 2015
What is THE Major difference between Atomic H and Molecular H2 you may ask (after all of the discussion not about this subject) I would put forth that the reason that Molecular H2 does not carry a charge as heavy as H+ Atomic Hydrogen and so does not react the same to the magnetic eddies that cause the initial star formation anyhow. The charge also attracts heavier, --charge ions and so be able to trigger the attraction of heavier materials towards the building of the dust cloud and then internal accretion discs from which the stars and then planets themselves form.

Sounds reasonable to me, and since the magnetic fields within any galaxy has such vortices, one can expect that it is the gases charge that makes such a difference! One might argue that even galaxies are essentially formed the same way along the magnetic intergalactic gas lanes that we have already identified amongst the Superstructures found.

Nov 14, 2015
What does "life most important in life" mean specifically?
I am seriously asking. Please break it down further and explain.

Nov 14, 2015
Burned by the water
@davey gravey-for-brains
wtf ?
truthful thing that you ignore
you haven't clearly defined anything for me to ignore, so how can i be ignoring it?
The personal attacks are clear evidence that the truth is being opposed
so... since you started this with your own personal attack against me, saying i don't accept truth as YOU define it, without defining it so people can understand... then you are saying that your posts are "clear evidence that the truth is being opposed"??
GOTCHA... now i understand!
but you don't get to define the truth
why not?
you are doing it with absolutely no logical train of thought whatsoever! (which is the tactic of all religions) so why can't anyone else do the same?

is your deity whispering in your ear?
do you have special permission from god?
or are you the next god?
does this mean i have to sacrifice a sheep or something?
or is that out and politically taboo in your world?
what color is the sky there?

Nov 14, 2015
@davey-gravey-brains cont'd
You have no foundation for any of your comments because blah blah looney rant
ok, since you still can't actually specifically explain yourself and define "life most important in life"...

and you can't actually validate this "ultimate truth" with anything like a logical argument...

and you can't actually provide empirical evidence for said "truth"

and since you can't actually provide a step-by-step logical argument showing at least a tenuous grasp of reality...

how is it, really, that this is evidence of a "5 gallon bucket of truth tossed" on me?

just curious... is that canvas sweater that ties in the back a little too tight and cutting off the circulation to your jugular?

I would appreciate at least some reasonable clear concise argument WRT this "truth" before you start bashing again...

produce some empirical evidence so that the world can see your "truth"

if you can

(& if your day pass hasn't expired, or they up your meds)

Nov 15, 2015
You don't really want me to get a few thousand people posting the same thing here, do you? I have been at this a very long time and it would take work, but it is possible. Don't push your luck.

What we want is clear definitions and specific explanations of what you are trying to say.
May I ask where you are from? It seems to me like English isn'tyour first language. If you can't or won't help us understand what you mean and your circular arguments and thought patterns I have no choice but to assume you are just trolling for fun.

Lastly, I must be honest, I am rather skeptical you could do so. Also, even if you could, I don't see phys.orh allowing you and a few thousand friends to flood and choke the site with your so far unclear and unexplained sayings and claims.

So please explain what "life most important in life" means exactly. We can go from there.

Nov 15, 2015
my2cts,
Is, or is not, life most important in life the most important truth in life?

Truth is most important part of truth as without it there would be no truth.
If you do not agree, you will be thrown in a "lake of fire" (nice idea I snatched from viko_mx who took it from Asterix and the Helvetians).

Nov 15, 2015
Isn't there a possible confound here in that atomic hydrogen may only be a marker that indicates that a region of space is not being influenced by forces which could be disruptive to stellar formation? I mean, finding regions of atomic hydrogen seem much like finding a wild flower that indicates virgin prarie. It says, "undisturbed".

Of course to turn this into an experiment we'll have to find a nice suitable, undisturbed region of space, populate it with molecular hydrogen, select another randomly equal area and populate it with atomic hydrogen and we'll see. :-)

Nov 15, 2015
DavidW

When you guys stop insulting the people here at the rate you do then this will be a much better comment board.

Until that time, I may continue to point out to everyone that you kill for fun and refuse to have a conversion based in truthful reality and that the reason you behave the way that you do is because you don't really care about truth and life.


Wrong, & wrong. This isn't a natural environment. PO is paid to let right wing trolls stand, and they're often tinfoil jobs as well. The rest are sadistic little bastards that are about as much about truth and life as a pimp and his whore is about love and relationships. PO refuse to moderate and leave it to us to take it or dish it back. I'd rather people be smart enough to just ignore them, but since the mental illness cases seem to extend to left, right and center equally, no such luck. This is not a comment board for anyone that cares about a) integrity, b) transparency, or c) civility.

Nov 15, 2015
Is life most important in life or is it not?
Well yeah. Life is what everything eats.

Nov 15, 2015
You see what happened when we learned how to hunt those creatures that were hunting us? Our populations exploded and perpetual tribal war over resources ensued.

But this conflict is what made us human.

A new revelation is that once we got rid of the predators, the populations of other species began to grow as well.

This could explain why primitive man used to drive whole herds off cliffs with fire, not out of bloodlust or convenience but as an early effort at environmental management.
https://www.youtu...YWKX3YXE

It would be 100s of 1000s of years before we would learn how to dose them with contraception.

Nov 15, 2015
When you guys stop insulting the people here

Then do not act like a fool.

Nov 15, 2015
This is not a comment board for anyone that cares about a) integrity, b) transparency, or c) civility.

Too bad if you do not like it here, but religious nuts are not welcome. This is about physics.

Nov 15, 2015
Of course to turn this into an experiment we'll have to find a nice suitable, undisturbed region of space, populate it with molecular hydrogen,


Haven't the astro-Skippys already find those places and look at them?

select another randomly equal area and populate it with atomic hydrogen and we'll see. :-)


How you going to make your atomic hydrogen stay atomic? I might be wrong because I am not a scientist like you are not either, but I thought that hydrogen will join up into H2 whenever you get two H's near each other, on their own. I seem to remember that all pure diatonic stuffs do that. N2 and O2 and maybe some other 2's too.l

Nov 15, 2015
That was humor, Ome Henk. The first paragraph was serious. The only serious point was to remember that these are studies, not experiments. Too bad there's not a unique smiley for "whole paragraph".

Nov 15, 2015
DavidW

1 / 5 (5) 21 hours ago
Now without the personal attack, please state whether life is most important in life or not.


Well, since you ask, it's a dirty rotten trick and I curse my mother for the day I was born. When I can discharge my responsibilites, I'm cashing out. Funny I predicted that as Boomers entered their 50s and 60s that that would become a common sentiment and it seems to be happening. Not.worth.it. That's where gen X/Y and our parents are alike. Prolong pointless existence to the expense of anything. Suck everything dry. We have more perspective than that. You can google it. It's been popping up in the data for a few years now. I think it could go as high as 1 in 2 deaths among that age group. Celebrate gen X/Y! We're actually going to give you a chance to use our "stuff" while you still have a life. We're all like Prince Charles. Dutifully wasting our lives waiting for our parents to never die.

Nov 15, 2015
@jenkins
If you plan write something ludicrous here, remember the competition is strong.

Nov 15, 2015
David, I've been nothing but polite so far.

Who here kills for fun? None of us posting here now. We've all expressed our hatred of killing for no reason or fun many times before.

Again, what is "truthful reality" and all that other stuff mean to you? Please explain what you are trying to say.

Why do you keep implying others are cruel heartless killers and all that stuff? Such broad sweeping statements are probably a big reason you get such a poor reception here. The rest most likely stems from your lack of clear definitions and meanings in your posts.

Nov 15, 2015
@ Davie-Skippy. I do believe you got the most serious mental condition that I have seen so far on the physorg Cher. Maybe this place is not good for your mental health, eh?

Not that you will take that advice non. So how peoples argue with you about the truth? You don't ever answer anything anybody asks you. It's kind hard to argue with a person if you can't get him to explain what it is he trying to say. But now that I think about it. that is probably what you are after,,,,, do you get points based on how many times to can get somebody to say they don't understand you?

Laissez les bons temps rouler (That is Louisiana French for: "That is the Trut, hooyeei")

Nov 15, 2015
@ Davie-Skippy. Well gee whiz Cher. Why you did not just say that to start off.? No wonder we were all confused.

Nov 15, 2015
I ask if someone agrees life is most important in life.


Why I got to ask somebody? You already asked everybody that has passed by for years. You think I will get a different answer than you got?

Now my question is MOST important


Yeah, I know what you mean Cher. I've heard that all my life.

So I get my answer first.


You get plenty of answers Cher. You just don't like them, eh?

If you want to ask a question that you say is more important than mine and is different, then please do so without life.


Well since you put it that way, I'll take my question back if it is all the same to you.

The most important truth in life trumps all.


I hear you Cher. Good for you, you have found some meaning for your life.

There is no way out of this, but by the truth and life.


Mrs-Ira-Skippette has some chores for me to do, so there seems to be another way out for me.

Skippy you are non challenge, so I have to put you on the Ignore.

Nov 15, 2015
We are asking you to clarify what you say means to you.

Show us what you mean if you can't explain it.yes.

I'm not arguing with you. You haven't been clear and specific enough for me to do that yet.

Nov 15, 2015
life is most important in life is the the most important truth in life. <----

recursion (n) see under 'recursion'

Nov 15, 2015
Truthfully i don't know what you are talking about or trying to talk about


Truthfully I do not know either. Truthfully I do not think I would get it even if he answered any questions.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Truthfully he has to be the sorriest example of a troll that I never did see yet. You know he has to be a pretty bad troll if ol Ira-Skippy don't think he is any fun after only four or three postums from him and puts him on the Ignore. The last time we had a troll that sad around here was when I got tired of rufus-Skippy after five postums.

Nov 15, 2015
del2, that is called a self-evident truth.

What is — your statement or my response? My post was an attempt to inject a little humour; sorry if it offended. But your statement "life is most important in life is the the most important truth in life." just doesn't make sense to me (nor to several other posters here, it seems).
And please don't make assumptions about what I accept, or whether I was loved. You know nothing about me. Just tell me in clear, plain English what you mean, then I can decide whether or not I agree with you.

Nov 16, 2015
When you guys stop insulting the people here
@davey-the-darwin-award-winner
1- this is a science site: if you couldn't figure that out, you deserve ridicule
2- if you posted science or at least legible, sensible or logical thought provoking content that could be verified, you wouldn't be ridiculed
I may continue to point out to everyone
the only thing you've pointed out is that you don't make and sense and you are too mentally disturbed to know just how stupid you sound
http://media-cach...f521.jpg

You want to see some truthful evidence? Really? Because I will show you the blood, complete with screams and suffering, that I have to see
so you watch too much tv... so what?
you still don't make sense
I don't have to admit publicly that I eat pigs that didn't need to die
WTF???

so... you think truth is being kosher or just refusing bacon?
what?

you really need to get back on your meds

Nov 16, 2015
@david-the-darwin-award winner cont'd
Seriously, I have grown tired of your evil choices
well... this sounds really radical but... you could always go away!
maybe find a religious site that will accept your circular nonsensical rhetoric and allow you to proselytize in that site
I ask if someone agrees life is most important in life
The most important truth in life trumps all
until you can be more clear or specific, this is nonsense

it's like saying "fecal matter is the most important discharge of the rectal orifice when taking a crap"

-
as JSDark has noted... you're not being clear or concise enough for anyone to actually agree or disagree (or understand, for that matter)
because a circular nonsense repeating comment like yours is about as logical or clear as a circumcision with a weed-eater done by a blind epileptic during seizures with no anesthetic

Nov 16, 2015
@dav-guy-the-nonsense-cry cont'd
Now as life, I can participate with the truth, in creating truth
unless, of course, you're in a vegetative state, and then you're nothing but "technically" alive, and there is no truth OR life, nor can you create anything but waste material as your biological processes continue under forced mechanical assistance
...you live in Colorado, don't you?

i have never seen a more disjointed and disconnected rant in my life
it's bad enough that the religious nutters post here, but to have someone making it up as they go in a manner that is completely incomprehensible to anyone that is sane

this is just one more demonstration as to why you shouldn't post while stoned to the bejeebus!
wow
This isn't a game
tell ya what, D
why don't you pray for people to stop ridiculing you?

if you're the chosen harbinger of truth, then you would think you would be capable of actually explaining WTF you are talking about...

come at me bro!
i'm game

Nov 16, 2015
The researchers are now grasping at the last straw:
1. Previously it was thought that stars form out of molecular clouds of gas - all by themselves.
2. Then it was discovered that there wasn't enough or in fact so little molecular clouds of gas around that that idea won't fly. Therefore star self-formation was impossible.
3. ON closer examination of the surrounding galactic atmosphere, they found some evidence of atomic clouds of gas. Hence, ergo!, stars MUST of necessity self-form from these clouds since there isn't anything else!
They still have the intractable problem of explaining how stars would form from these clouds of gas, no matter which one they choose - molecular or atomic. The last time I looked, a gas resists compression, especially when it's temperature rises. Furthermore, in space the magnetic fields play a major role in obstructing the formation of a gravity-compressed ball of gas. And just where do they propose the initiation of ignition is going start?

Nov 16, 2015
The researchers are now grasping at the last straw
@freddie-kruger-ing knowledge
it is not "grasping at straws"
it is called the scientific method, and as simply as possible, it is here:
https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

it is an ongoing process, for starters
for two- when new data comes in, than you adjust, test, refute, validate etc

please try to at least learn some of the basics

Nov 16, 2015
And yes, they do kill for fun. Perhaps good hard reality is too much understand
And perhaps your good hard reality is too stunted to understand that the most important activities in life are the most pleasurable.

There is a very good reason for this. If they weren't pleasurable they wouldn't get done.

Finally figuring out how to kill the predators which were carrying off our children must've been pure joy.

Outwitting an enemy tribe, killing all the males, and carrying off all the females would have been up there on the fun scale as well, for a number of obvious reasons.

This is perhaps why it is in the bible.

Nov 16, 2015
This is perhaps why it is in the bible
and (as Otto has noted so many times in the past) it would also explain why this is one of the most common things shared and found in ALL religions: protect the [religion, clan, tribe, culture, etc] to the exclusion of all others

Nov 16, 2015
The researchers are now grasping at the last straw:
1. Previously it was thought that stars form out of molecular clouds of gas - all by themselves.
2. Then it was discovered that there wasn't enough or in fact so little molecular clouds of gas around that that idea won't fly. Therefore star self-formation was impossible.
3. ON closer examination of the surrounding galactic atmosphere, they found some evidence of atomic clouds of gas. Hence, ergo!, stars MUST of necessity self-form from these clouds since there isn't anything else!
They still have the intractable problem of explaining ...

You are making a perfect fool of yourself.
Are you a new troll or are you a sock puppet ?

Nov 16, 2015
DavidW what on earth are you doing here ?
Are you really THAT ignorant?
Amazing, you probably worked very hard to get where you are.

Nov 16, 2015
@DavidW

You've written before that your wife and father thought you were nuts but came around to believe you were right. Did it ever occur to you that they just placating you, the eye rolls behind your back?

Nov 17, 2015
@davey-graveybrains
35 years worth at full throttle
you are still a PUP!
no wonder you are ranting on nonsensically about "life is..." and all that!
I have been involved with the saving of millions of lives, including humans
sorry. i am calling BS on this one for sure!
not only is this physically impossible, but even considering your work being in a place with a high rate of response in close proximity to you (like FDNY) then this is still physically impossible as you would be logging 100,000 plus runs a year for a single person (ignoring shift, vehicle and team)

considering that our typical 24on/off shift had a roughly 10-12K yearly shift run/response average and that kept our rescue truck out almost all the time with rare exception, then it is impossible that you saved "millions of lives, including humans"

are you counting insects? fleas you didn't kill on you?
Pediculosis pubis you decided to enjoy rather than kill?
LMFAO

What?

Nov 17, 2015
I have been involved with the saving of millions of lives, including humans
@dacey-has-gravey-brains
ok, i decided to show you some city-wide stats from FDNY in SEP
http://www.nyc.go...0915.pdf

these guys could say they save millions... here
http://www.nyc.go...cy14.pdf

but that is city wide (over 7 million population) with a Fire Department that numbers about 35,000 people!
and even there at FDNY, with some of the crusty oldies, there isn't likely to be a single person saving "millions" of lives!

care to join us back here in reality?
you know, where your parents roll their eyes at your claims?
ROTFLMFAO

Nov 17, 2015
but that is city wide (over 7 million population) with a Fire Department that numbers about 35,000 people!
sorry... old information

current population is over 8 million

and the FD is far smaller than previously at closer to 16 or 17,000 total employees (not just firefighters)

Nov 17, 2015
If I look back now at all the great conversation I have had with people on the importance of life,

That must have been extremely boring. You must be the local neighbourhood bore.
People pretend they are not home when they see you walking up to their doors. "Life is more important the QM! What good is GRT when you are dead !
But what is your connection with physics?

Nov 17, 2015
Ach you have no connection with physics.
Just a bore lost on the web.

Nov 21, 2015
how the value of PHYSICS matters for a purpose more important than life


Skippy, I might be wrong because I am not a scientist like you are not either. Physics were here working like they do before any kind of life came along to watch it. And I suspect that the physics will still be here doing what he does a long time after all the life is gone and nobody is around watching him.

So Cher, tell me. Which came first, the physics? Or the life? And which will outlast the other, the physics? Or the life?

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