Peering into building blocks of galaxies

Peering into building blocks of galaxies
An image of Camargo 791, one of the newly found embedded clusters. Credit: Camargo et al.

(Phys.org)—When a giant cloud of molecular gas condenses, star clusters are born. It may sound simple but the formation of star clusters is a very complex process, not yet completely understood by scientists. By peering into this process we could get valuable information on the evolution of galaxies and improve our knowledge about large cosmic structures in the universe.

"Star clusters are often considered as building blocks of galaxies. Understanding how these objects form and evolve is vital to our comprehension of the structure, formation and evolution of galaxies," Denilso Camargo of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and Colégio Militar de Porto Alegre, Brazil, told Phys.org.

Camargo and his colleagues Eduardo Bica and Charles Bonatto, also from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, have recently discovered a multitude of using NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. In a paper published online on Nov. 9 on ArXiv, they announced the finding of 652 star clusters, stellar groups and candidates in the Milky Way galaxy.

The researchers targeted 862 objects for observations by WISE. They were looking for dust emission nebulae followed by a search for stellar overdensities within them. What they found is a variety of interesting objects classified as open clusters (OCs), open cluster candidates (OCCs), embedded clusters (ECs), embedded cluster candidates (ECCs), and embedded stellar groups (EGrs).

There are two main groups of star clusters: OCs and (GCs). OCs are generally young objects, up to a few tens of millions of years old. They are much less densely populated and much less tightly gravitationally bound than GCs. In contrast to OCs, globular clusters are tight groups of very old stars, distributed roughly spherically in the galactic halo, around the galactic center. They have highly elliptical orbits around the , while OCs are usually located in the galactic plane, almost always within spiral arms.

ECs are also intriguing and peculiar . They are partially or fully encased in interstellar dust or gas. They consist of extremely young, recently formed or forming stars. For scientists, they are important laboratories for the study of star formation and early stellar evolution.

Camargo noted that the diversity of star clusters comes in handy when dealing with questions still baffling astronomers.

"The open cluster system has been used to analyze the structure, dynamics, composition and evolution of the Milky Way's disk. Old open clusters are excellent probes of disk formation and early evolution. Young have been used as tracers of the spiral pattern in galactic disks," Camargo said.

He added that his team recently used embedded clusters to trace the spiral structure of our Galaxy. The results favor a four-armed spiral pattern for the Milky Way.

Studying star clusters is a fundamental task for researchers when it comes to unlock the secrets of star formation process, as most stars, if not all, form in star clusters. Moreover, the chemical evolution of the universe is directly related to stellar evolution in the sense that metals currently observed are synthesized in the interior of the stars, which are born within star clusters.

The research team led by Camargo has a stunning record of 1098 star clusters found so far. The newest list is a follow-up of the 446 previous discoveries detailed in three other papers.


Explore further

More evidence that the Milky Way has four spiral arms

More information: Characterizing star cluster formation with WISE: 652 newly found star clusters and candidates, arXiv:1511.01978 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1511.01978

Abstract
We report the discovery of 652 star clusters, stellar groups and candidates in the Milky Way with WISE. Most of the objects are projected close to Galactic Plane and are embedded clusters. The present sample complements a similar study (Paper I) which provided 437 star clusters and alike. We find evidence that star formation processes span a wide range of sizes, from populous dense clusters to small compact embedded ones, sparse stellar groups or in relative isolation. The present list indicates multiple stellar generations during the embedded phase, with giant molecular clouds collapsing into several clumps composing an embedded cluster aggregate. We investigate the field star decontaminated Colour Magnitude Diagrams and Radial Density Profiles of 9 cluster candidates in the list, and derive their parameters, confirming them as embedded clusters.

Journal information: arXiv

© 2015 Phys.org

Citation: Peering into building blocks of galaxies (2015, November 16) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-peering-blocks-galaxies.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.
866 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 16, 2015
For those who might be new to SAFIRE, here's a collection of original sources which point to the historical argument for why we should question the thermonuclear model for the Sun ...

https://plus.goog...N6Miph3x

In short, most of our popular space sciences theories today originated at a time when space was thought to be an empty vacuum. The realization that charged particles permeated space did not solidify until around 1960 -- long after our ideas about the Sun had already solidified. It should be clear that without charged particles BETWEEN the stars, there is no reason at all to consider that stars might be powered by charged particles. SAFIRE is the first rigorous test for the idea.

Snapshots of original documents for the skeptics at link. This graphic does not cover recent SAFIRE findings; that will go into a second graphic.

Nov 16, 2015
In short, most of our popular space sciences theories today originated at a time when...
@plasma
stopped there:
ASSuming that nothing has changed in a century in science is like saying:
"i saw you ten years ago, so if i see you again, you MUST be wearing the exact same pair of unwashed underwear"

if you're not even going to take the time to read the basics (oh, like: the scientific method and how it works - https://en.wikipe...c_method ) then why should anyone actually pay attention to your pseudoscience?

epic fail

Nov 16, 2015
Re: "ASSuming that nothing has changed in a century in science is like saying ..."

Actually, if you read the graphic, it provides numerous snapshots of quotes from modern plasma physics and astrophysical textbooks, as well as quotes from two very modern critiques of MHD by non-EU researcher, George Parks. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at here at all.

Also, whatever has happened between now and then is irrelevant to the origin of these ideas. That is the point of the graphic: It shows that the electrical model for the Sun was initially ruled out based upon a false conception of space as an EMPTY vacuum. We definitively learned around 1959 that space is not at all empty, but by that point, ideas about the Sun had solidified.

I've gone through the trouble to snapshot original sources, so there is not much sense in arguing against the fact that there used to be a false consensus that space was an EMPTY vacuum. The 1963 interview with Van Allen is 100% clear no this.

Nov 16, 2015
if you read the graphic
@plasma
1- it is not a graphic, it is a link to a personal google plus post by "ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken" - this is called a false claim, as the evidence doesn't support his conclusions (about discourse being broken)
it is also pseudoscience as he also links electric universe at the bottom of the post

2- there are 52 points ending with a link to electric universe, therefore, by definition and historical debunking, this is called PSEUDOSCIENCE
until the eu pull their heads out of their buttocks and actually conform to the scientific method they're no better than creationists

3- RE: the graphic at the bottom of the post: when you mix science with opinion/religion/belief and pseudoscience, it is by definition PSEUDOSCIENCE as it doesn't conform to the constraints of the scientific method
I'm not sure what you're getting at here at all
yeah... i figured as much
re-read the last two points i made about your link


Nov 16, 2015
@plasma cont'd
Also, whatever has happened between now and then is irrelevant to the origin of these ideas
1- the origin is actually irrelevant in the scientific method:
if it is testable, viable, proven validated or experimentally demonstrated, and it conforms to the scientific method, etc it is viable knowledge ... the "origin" is a historical point really, not a scientific one (either for labeling or to honour the originator, like Einsteins GR/SR)

2- the scientific method is all about adapting and adding new information (or scrapping what doesn't work, like aether)... so what happened between now and then is relevant as it demonstrates the steps taken
This is not just historical knowledge, but this is how you determine what is relevant and not relevant... this is the steps taken to get to the point we are at

This might be a relevant argument if you want to talk history or steps, but it is irrelevant when you want to argue that nothing has changed in time


Nov 16, 2015
@plasma cont'd
there is not much sense in arguing against the fact that there used to be a false consensus that space was an EMPTY vacuum
this is like arguing that there once was a belief that the world was flat
what's the point? it isn't relevant that you argue this point... it IS relevant that you ASSumed nothing has changed since then... which was why i quoted you (here it is again)
In short, most of our popular space sciences theories today originated at a time when
this alluded to an argument that since the origin was A, then the current knowledge hasn't changed and todays knowledge is simply A as well

this is directly refuted by modern Solar studies... as you noted
long after our ideas about the Sun had already solidified
this means that modern Solar studies are stuck pre-1960 at best... except you can see by PPPL and Helioseismology that this is absolutely not the case

therefore, you are making what is called a FALSE CLAIM

Nov 16, 2015
@plasma
lastly, you reinforce this false claim with the following
I've gone through the trouble to snapshot original sources, so there is not much sense in arguing against the fact that there used to be a false consensus that space was an EMPTY vacuum. The 1963 interview with Van Allen is 100% clear no this
this is reinforcing your inferred argument that nothing has changed, and it is absolutely wrong
there is a difference in a fact and a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

just because you want to believe in something doesn't make it true
this is the basis of a religion, not science

so saying "ideas about the Sun had solidified" while ignoring all the ongoing research into not only our Sun, but stars in general, is nothing more than a fanatical religious like belief in something regardless of what the evidence presents

might as well start a cult with that attitude
'cause it aint science

Nov 16, 2015
You're becoming defensive.

You formerly stated ...

"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"

FACT: Scientists initially thought that space was an empty vacuum.

PROOF: 1963 Interview with Van Allen in Popular Science.

CLAIM: The idea of an Electric Sun was initially discarded BECAUSE of this FACT.

And this is the motivation for SAFIRE, hopefully in a language which you can understand.

Just a few days ago, you stated in another thread ...

"there is only evidence - and the past is just as much a learning tool as the evidence, be they mistakes or successes"

Okay, show us that you believe this.

You also stated ...

"the community evolves and learns from their mistakes"

Ok, but the empty vacuum idea was a mistake, no?

Nov 16, 2015
1963 Popular Science Journalist:

"Most people still think of space as a cold, black vacuum," I said. "Is it true that scientists shared this misconception until very recently?"

James Van Allen:

"Most scientists did think of space as a barren waste," he said. "When we started getting real information, it was quite a revelation."

1963 Popular Science Journalist:

"Can the conditions of space be compared to anything we're more familiar with on earth?"

James Van Allen:

"Yes, I think so," said Dr. Van Allen. "You see, in inventing electron tubes and other devices involving vacuums and plasmas, in exploring ionization and various magnetic effects in the laboratory, we've accidentally stumbled on many of the conditions that exist naturally in space ... To me, the closest thing would be the beam of accelerated particles in a cyclotron."

Nov 16, 2015
1963 Popular Science Journalist:

"Now that we know that space is not empty, is it fair to say that plasma is what space is full of?"

James Van Allen:

"It's not full in the sense that it couldn't hold some more," said Dr. Van Allen. "But plasma IS what largely occupies solar space."

The article is headed across a couple of pages with big bold words:

"'Space' was invented on earth before we knew what was out there"

So, a question:

What changes were ever made to the textbooks as a reaction to this mistake?

Nov 16, 2015
@Plasmanohope,
How much of this stuff do you actually understand? Hmm? Perhaps you could start by listing the predictions of the electric loonyverse that have actually come true. Tell us how you are getting on with the decidedly non-electric, non-rocky comet?
You might furnish that further by quoting the qualifications of the woo meisters-in-chief. That is the idiot Thornhill, and the idiot Talbott. Point us to their contribution to science over the years.
Should be a laugh.
Pseudoscience. Always was, always will be. An evidence-free zone.

Nov 16, 2015
I find these responses to be plainly evasive. There has to be a better response than this. Can anybody supply an answer that doesn't so obviously change the subject?

When it was discovered that space was not an empty vacuum, what changes were made to the textbook theories to reflect that discovery? Best I can tell, the implications were completely ignored. No observable attempts were made to revisit any of the existing theories as a reaction to this profound discovery that a significant mistake had been made.

Nov 16, 2015
Jonesdave: You and the persecutors of Galileo would have gotten along great. A TRUE Scientist is ready to toss his Learned Notions out the window if something comes along to better explain what they are seeing. Anyone calling PseudoScience, these days, appear to not know what they are talking about and are about as ignorant as those ridiculing Galileo.

The Electric Universe Theory has been greatly refined, and, if you will look at the advances made concerning the discoveries of Superstructure Scale Magnetic Fields and Flows, (shown here in these publications, do some RESEARCH) can actually have the effect of creating galaxies and would HAVE to be dependent on a charged gaseous or plasma field. No matter how many little things they have gotten wrong, they Have actually predicted most of the stuff I just iterated as having been printed thru this site alone.

Pseudoscience is what ye get from just Book Learning and not thinking for yourself!

Nov 17, 2015
FACT: Scientists initially thought that space was an empty vacuum
@plasma
FACT: you also argued that this was still the case when you posted "...our popular space sciences theories today originated at a time when..."
this means, by definition, your argument is FALSE, thus it is pseudoscience
CLAIM: The idea of an Electric Sun
this may have been true way-y back when, but the electric sun is debunked now due to known physics, which is FACT
here is one of my favorite debunkings: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

You're becoming defensive
nope. i just don't like liars and pseudoscience... and considering your personal arguments that are under the assumption that you're educated in plasma physics enough to argue the physics with the pro's... that makes you both
Just a few days ago, you stated in another thread
this is the foundation of the scientific method
and one thing we did learn is that the electric sun is a bunch of crap

2Bcont'd

Nov 17, 2015
@plasma cont'd
my point is that we learned from past mistakes, and we still do (except, perhaps, for yourself)
I am not arguing that the past is perfect, nor that mistakes weren't made
I'm not even arguing about the assertions about space...
I am stating that just because it WAS a belief doesn't mean it STILL IS, which is your inference in your post
which is a FALSE CLAIM
but the empty vacuum idea blah blah blah What changes were ever made to the textbooks as a reaction to this mistake?
1- you are arguing about high school textbooks?
a textbook is NOT the same thing as a study
2- PPPL.gov, studies, research... get it yet?
3- i can't speak for the publishers of textbooks, so your argument is irrelevant
I find these responses to be plainly evasive
i am being very specific... it is YOU who is concentrating on irrelevant dialogue... and trying to create a strawman argument as well as red herring

a typo or mistake doesn't justify PSEUDOSCIENCE or the belief therein

Nov 17, 2015
@plasma cont'd
Can anybody supply an answer that doesn't so obviously change the subject?
YOU are the one changing the subject and attempting to interject PSEUDOSCIENCE as though it held the same equivalence to factual or validated science!
Best I can tell, the implications were completely ignored
so tell everyone what you think space is full of!

since we already know what you are full of
The Electric Universe Theory has been greatly refined
@steelwool for brains
the electric universe is called PSEUDOSCIENCE

there is no "theory"
there isn't even a viable "hypothesis"
it is purely speculations of some ENGINEER's that don't known squat about astrophysics

if you want to believe, then by all means, show where the grand canyon/moon/martian craters were formed by discharge as claimed

also see link above debunking electric sun

then learn real physics
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "I am not arguing that the past is perfect, nor that mistakes weren't made
I'm not even arguing about the assertions about space...
I am stating that just because it WAS a belief doesn't mean it STILL IS, which is your inference in your post"

Okay, now I'm not sure you are actually understanding what happened -- a consequence of your refusal to read the graphic (https://plus.goog...6Miph3x)

1. Eddington ruled out an external power source.

2. He did that because the prevailing belief at that time was that space was an empty vacuum.

3. We did not definitively learn that space was permeated by charged particles until we sent rockets there, around the 1960 timeframe.

4. Thus, Eddington had little reason to look for an external power source.

5. When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to re-evaluate the solar model.

6. We are only now doing this with SAFIRE.

Nov 17, 2015
now I'm not sure you are actually understanding what happened
@plasma
WTF? really?
(https://plus.goog...6Miph3x)
"This post could not be found.
This URL may be incorrect, the post may have been deleted, or the post may not have been shared with this account

why do i want to read your diatribe on modern science?
it isn't a study, and you're not a scientist, nor is it a logical discourse in the topic, let alone reality, especially considering the eu link that i saw with it
1.
TL;DR
but i have to talk about 5
When space was recognized as a plasma

space isn't recognized as "being plasma"... space "contains" plasma, and so does our sun... but you can't define space "as plasma"

where is your empirical evidence that all of space is plasma?
link that study and then we can talk further
(and don't link any of that eu crap, either! if you can't find a reputable science journal then you are talking BS)

Nov 17, 2015
@plasma cont'd
5. When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to re-evaluate the solar model
this is also called a FALSE CLAIM
like all things, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... all you have given is a personal anti-science rant with eu links and a broken link to an infographic that is posted on your page

first, address the actual subject you're trying to make the claim about: SPACE
https://en.wikipe...ki/Space

now prove your point with empirical evidence (studies that have been validated)

because linking an eu claim and making a statement that "space is plasma" is like saying:
"my living room has a valencia orange in it, thus my living room is filled with oranges"

yep
Nov 17, 2015
"Where dogmatic assumptions inhibit inquiry"
http://youtu.be/zamrs3nE9ys
Trying to reason with the logic of a historical perspective is a lost cause with these guys just as it would be with a person of a religios faith as they both believe in miracles. Quite ironic really.

Nov 17, 2015
Link to graphic is here:

https://plus.goog...N6Miph3x

Re: "space isn't recognized as "being plasma"... space "contains" plasma, and so does our sun... but you can't define space "as plasma""

"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."

Plasma Physics: Proceedings of the 1997 Latin American Workshop : VII LAWPP 97, by Julio Puerta, Pablo Martín, Published 1999

"It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."

Analytical and Numerical Methods for Wave Propagation in Fluid Media By Krzysztof. Murawski, Published 2002 World Scientific

"..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"

Plasma Physics: Basic Theory with Fusion Applications, by Masashiro Wakatani, Kyōji Nishikawa, Published 1994 Springer

[...]

Nov 17, 2015
"plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"

Basic Space Plasma Physics, by Wolfgang Baumjohann, Rudolf A. Treumann, Published 1996 World Scientific

"It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"

Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space and Laboratory Applications, by Donald A. Gurnett, Published 2005 Cambridge University Press

"Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."

Quantum Statistics of Nonideal Plasmas By Manfred Schlanges, Dietrich Kremp, Wolf-Dietrich Kraeft, Published 2005 Springer

"The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"

Spacecraft Power Technologies by Anthony K. Hyder, Published 2000 Imperial College Press

Nov 17, 2015
"It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"

Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth by National Research Council (U.S.), Published 2004 National Academies Press

"It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"

Plasma Spectroscopy by Takashi Fujimoto, Published 2004 Oxford University Press

"about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"

Space Physics: An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the Heliosphere and Magnetospheres by May-Britt Kallenrode, Published 2004 Springer

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center"

Dr. Dennis Gallagher, "Plasma, Plasma, Everywhere", NASA Space Science News

Nov 17, 2015
"How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."

NASA's Cosmicopia

"It has often been said that 99% of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state."

Francis F. Chen, "Introduction to plasma physics", Publisher Plenum Press, 1974

"And yet these radio-frequency links must survive the complexities of the plasma which comprises well over 99.9 percent of the universe"

Banios, E. W., "Plasma Considerations in Space Communications", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Nov. 1966, Volume: AES-2, Issue: 6

"This fourth state of matter probably comprises more than 99.9 per cent of the matter in our Universe."

Bachynski, M.P., "Plasma Physics - An Elementary Review"

yep
Nov 17, 2015
All the empirical evidence in the world peer reviewed and validated to the nth degree based on an assumption is still garbage. The fact you rail about evidence and belive in a reality where 93% is dark matter is hilarious. The drivel that is multi universes and black holes of warping time and space is science fiction garbage. Mind boggling what seemingly rational people believe.

Nov 17, 2015
Again, every single quote is on the graphic that you refuse to read.

Nov 17, 2015
Link to graphic is here
@p
why would i want to read your pseudoscience rant?
"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."
having plasma IN space doesn't mean you can call SPACE plasma- nor is it am empirical argument that justifies calling all of space plasma
again, it is like trying to say:
my living room has a Valencia orange in it, thus my living room is filled with oranges

Again, every single quote is on the graphic that you refuse to read.
it all says the same thing: you can't read or you're illiterate
again, i will use small words for you

stating that the bulk of what we see (matter) in space is plasma (stars) doesn't mean that all of space is plasma any more than owning a bowl of oranges means your house is filled with oranges

Nov 17, 2015
@plasma
ok... lets read something important... you posted
"This fourth state of matter probably comprises more than 99.9 per cent of the matter in our Universe."
so... what is the universe?
where is all that matter contained?
what is the void that contains all that plasma?

these are rhetorical...
the point i made above is demonstrated best by simply saying:
Plasma IN space
or just say it like you posted it
99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma
it doesn't matter HOW you say it... the plasma, per your post, still exists IN SPACE, surrounded BY SPACE

thus, your claim is still a FALSE claim (and proves you're illiterate and have comprehension problems, like yep and cd)

it's still not oranges all the way down

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "stating that the bulk of what we see (matter) in space is plasma (stars) doesn't mean that all of space is plasma any more than owning a bowl of oranges means your house is filled with oranges"

Let's be clear:

1. Those quote above are not quoting me.

2. The quotes plainly refer to the observable matter; anything beyond that observable matter is inferred as the framework at hand requires.

3. In the context of what we can see, if A is 99.9% made up of B, then it is quite customary to simply say that A is B.

4. The real problem here which should bother people is that it stands to reason that the models which represent 99% of the observable universe should be questioned as a matter of routine. Yet, that is the very act which invites so much ridicule here on physorg ... Questioning the cosmic plasma models, which represent 99% of the observable matter. Your debate over the meaning of "in" or "is" is a distraction from this more important problem.

Nov 17, 2015
Those quote above are not quoting me
@plasmameltedyourbrain
didn't say they were you... but still doesn't change the FACTS
The quotes plainly refer to the observable matter
no sh*t sherlock... but you stated
When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to re-evaluate the solar model
that part was all YOU... no science help there, and not a single factual argument, and NOT supported by your whiney rant either!
(and BTW, my text books DID reflect this in high school)
In the context of what we can see
and in the context of what you SAID/posted... space is NOT plasma!
The real problem here which should bother people is that...
TL;DR
the real problem is that you are making ASSumptions and you can support the claims with factual evidence, as i noted above (Your quote bubba, not mine)

this is what pseudoscience do... take a random quote, misinterpret it, add techno-jargon to sound "smart" and then post it as gospel
epic fail

Nov 17, 2015
Your debate over the meaning of "in" or "is" is a distraction from this more important problem.
@lyingPOSplasmaeucrank
no- it's not a distraction nor is it irrelevant
you made a blatantly false claim - and i will show you again
i will quote you
you started with a strawman history argument
space sciences theories today originated
then you advanced to linking your post that contained eu links (WTF for?) and continued with the strawman
then you used this
there is not much sense in arguing against the fact that there used to be a false consensus that space was an EMPTY vacuum
and capped it off with
When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to re-evaluate the solar model
space without matter (or plasma) is an empty vacuum (ignoring QM for the moment) and unless you can prove otherwise...
get it yet?

you are the one confused by what you posted
not i

i am pointing out your false claims

Nov 17, 2015
1) Short article version: "When a giant cloud of molecular gas condenses, star clusters are born."

Full version: "When a giant cloud of molecular gas, which is expanding in the vacuum of space with the speed significant part of the speed of light condenses thanks to the gravity which can not stop the expansion of the universe, star clusters are born.

2)" It may sound simple but the formation of star clusters is a very complex process, not yet completely understood by scientists."

How so? Main stream scientists denied the Creator, but at the same time they do not know how galaxies and large cosmic structures were formed without Him?

Nov 17, 2015
might as well start a cult with that attitude
'cause it aint science


I am going to use this quip constantly for the rest of my life.

Main stream scientists denied the Creator, but at the same time they do not know how galaxies and large cosmic structures were formed without Him?


It really is their own fault for not knowing that Nyx gave birth to the Cosmic Egg by mating with Chaos, which then hatched Eros who made the universe out of the egg shell. As is well known, anyone who doesn't believe in creation is delusional. Hail Eros, creator of the universe!

Nov 17, 2015
Captain Stumpy, your debate over the meaning of "in" has not at all undermined the point which was made that a dramatic change occurred in our perception of space: The idea of an electric sun was ruled out by the scientific community based upon a false premise that space is an empty vacuum.

As the 1963 Popular Science article plainly stated: Space was invented on Earth before we knew what was out there.

When it was discovered that space was not an empty vacuum, there was no observable effort to reconsider the earlier decision to rule out an electric sun. And what happened instead is quite remarkable:

Rather than model the cosmic plasma as an electrodynamic phenomenon, as Van Allen plainly labeled it in his 1963 Popular Science interview, theorists latched onto one of Alfven's thought experiments.

Nov 17, 2015
From Importance of electric fields in modeling space plasmas by George K Parks (2006):

"The ideal MHD theory was introduced by Alfven when he was studying the behavior of MHD waves. He formulated the wave equation for finite conductivity fluid, incorporating Ohm's law which allowed currents to flow (Alfven and Falthammer, 1963). After he derived the wave equation which included the dissipative term, he studied the behavior of the waves imagining the fluid had infinite conductivity. This led to the concept of the frozen-in magnetic field but only as a limiting case. However, since Alfven's work, space theorists have ignored the small electric field from the outset."

In other words, the astrophysical community took a mathematical simplification which only applies in very specific cases, and they applied it to ALL observed phenomena.

Alfven then complained that the nearest plasma we observe -- the ionosphere -- violates this condition.

Nov 17, 2015
Astrophysicists so thoroughly enjoyed the use of Alfven's magnetohydrodyamics (MHD) equations that they gave him a Nobel. Yet, he decided to use the occasion of his Nobel lecture to warn the astrophysical community ...

Nobel lecture here ...

http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is ... to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.

I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back."

Nov 17, 2015
The motivation for the SAFIRE experiment is rooted in this rich history which, to be clear, is not today taught to physics graduate students. If these students learn of this longstanding debate over how to model cosmic plasmas between The Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science, it is not through their university.

What sense does it make to ridicule people who actually HAVE been taught this history, and who are motivated by it to question the cosmic plasma models?

What is the justification, in light of this controversy, for refusing to question the cosmic plasma models that represent 99% of the observable matter? Can there be any with a deeper meaning than calling somebody a pseudoscientist?

How is it possible that today, pointing to laboratory observations of plasmas as a basis for explaining observations of astronomical plasmas is considered absurd?

These are the types of questions which act as motivation for the SAFIRE experiment.

Nov 17, 2015
your debate over the meaning of "in"
@plamaCRANK
my debate isn't about "in", it's about your false claims
The idea of an electric sun was ruled out by the scientific community based upon a false premise that space is an empty vacuum
No, it was ruled out because it was physically impossible, there were no mechanisms measured to create said electric sun, and the physics proved this: read Thompson and learn - http://www.tim-th...sun.html

it's not brand new physics debunking you, & it isn't based upon a new perspective or an old false premise
he decided to use the occasion of his Nobel lecture to warn the astrophysical community
and i will say this again: just because you want to believe in something doesn't mean it is true: this is cult fodder and you eu cranks lap it up
this comment ALSO ASSumes that nothing has changed in 30+ years
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics


Nov 17, 2015
@plasmaCRACKPOT cont'd
What sense does it make to ridicule people who actually HAVE been taught this history
because you are ASSuming that this "history" is accurate today
If these students learn of this longstanding debate over how to model cosmic plasmas between The Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science, it is not through their university
first off: this is a FALSE CLAIM
secondly: try going thru the astrophysics courses (linked in last post) before you make such a far reaching statement because you don't know squat about universities and their astrophysics programs
What is the justification, in light of this controversy, for refusing to question the cosmic plasma models that represent 99% of the observable matter?
the justification is simple: YOU are making a claim based upon a history that is different than what is known and taught TODAY
and as for science: it is ALWAYS changing and evolving with new knowledge

Nov 17, 2015
@plasmaTROLL cont'd
so as science has evolved, it left you behind, and because you're too lazy (or some other inhibiting issue) to actually research this topic with an unbiased perspective, then you seek confirmation of your pseudoscience and beliefs, which is the antithesis of the scientific method and how things work IRL

this goes to your personal intent to prove a pseudoscience
the eu is NOT science, and it doesn't conform to the scientific method... that part isn't debatable
so trying to justify it or in any way support its fringe ideas is called RELIGION

until you actually take the linked courses and graduate with a degree (and actually LEARN what is to offer) you will continue to promote this false claim

you put a lot of work into an infographic that is confirmation bias and an attempt to justify your religious beliefs... if you put the same effort into learning REAL science, you would be arguing against the eu and it's pseudoscience

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "No, it was ruled out because it was physically impossible, there were no mechanisms measured to create said electric sun, and the physics proved this: read Thompson and learn - http://www.tim-th...sun.html"

You are quoting somebody who, incidentally, refuses to read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science, and publicly encourages his colleagues to join him in culturing this ignorance of the controversy.

See here:

http://www.intern...EF%BB%BF

Tim states at this link you've sent ...

"Electrons are not magic, and if there are interstellar electrons coming towards the sun, they cannot escape the attention of a small fleet of spacecraft which have measured electrons & protons in the solar system for the past few decades. The electrons are quite simply not there. And we know that they are not there, and that knowledge destroys the foundation of the electric sun hypothesis."

...

Nov 17, 2015
... which outright ignores the basis for the model, observations of the glow discharge ...

"in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun."

Part of the point of SAFIRE will be to demonstrate that there exists consistency in characteristics like E-field and -- if possible -- electron drift between the Electric Sun model and NASA's Solar Probe Plus observations.

Nov 17, 2015
The Electric Sun model very plainly adapts laboratory observations of the glow discharge to a radial geometry. Thus, when you seek to "debunk" it, you should ALWAYS first check as a sanity test that your argument does not ALSO debunk the laboratory-observed behavior of the glow discharge.

Although I am sure that Captain Stumpy will ignore this recommendation, it's still good advice for others who are trying in earnest to size up the debate and this experiment ...

You will see arguments that the solar wind is quasi-neutral, therefore the solar wind does not conduct. But, the large majority of the glow discharge is just the same, quasi-neutral.

You will see arguments that the electrons must be relativistic, and hence we should see evidence for them at coronal holes. Yet, that's not the behavior of an electron drift and a weak E-field in a glow discharge.

The Electric Sun model follows from the glow discharge, so start by understanding the glow discharge.

Nov 17, 2015
refuses to read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science
@plasmaDELUSIONAL
except that would mean he couldn't directly refute the specifics of the electric sun model... which he does (imagine that, you didn't read the real physics), and then refutes/debunks thornhill as well
and publicly encourages his colleagues to join him in culturing this ignorance of the controversy
so now you want to redirect, red herring and strawman the topic to this?

simple refute:
the scientific method is evidence based... if you had evidence supporting the eu claims that were provable, repeatable and validated, you wouldn't be trying to proselytize your beliefs here, would you?
The Electric Sun model very plainly adapts laboratory observations of the glow discharge to a radial geometry
and also completely ignores source, charge, radiation as well as a few other really important aspects
EVIDENCE is the keyword here... ya got none, sparky

Nov 17, 2015
@plasmaCRANK cont'd
it's still good advice for others who are trying in earnest to size up the debate and this experiment
there is only evidence, and you've not been able to demonstrate that your eu sun is even feasible, let alone anything else... so what you are saying here is that, so long as you can make an argument that conforms to your beliefs and follows it, then it must be true

except that in the real world, that isn't the case: see RELIGION for more on that
The Electric Sun model follows from the glow discharge, so start by understanding the glow discharge
ok, so then tell us all about the radiation discharge of the "glow discharge".... then scale it up to solar size (notice i said size and not mass)
Then explain not only the known and measured radiation from Sol as opposed to your glow...

and should i remind you about source or the measurable forensics we would see WRT your theory?
(which we DON'T see)


Nov 17, 2015
@plasmaFRIEDyour brains
last
The Electric Sun model
before you can discuss the physics and what we know about the eu sun model, you also have to be aware of reality WRT physics and plasma physics...

one thing re: your posts above
You are quoting somebody who, incidentally, refuses to read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science
this is a FALSE CLAIM... as an astrophysicist and planetary atmospheric physicist he would be well aware of plasma physics... however, your eu crowd is primarily electrical engineers and NOT trained or even aware of known measured factual information validated and proven in astrophysics, so they ignore such data
(gravity comes to mind)

the failure of the eu is NOT about "us ignoring their IEEE" anything... it is about the physically impossible anti-physics issues you post

what it boils down to is: just because it has wings doesn't mean it's a raptor (looks like attitude)
EVIDENCE is the key

Nov 17, 2015
Tim Thompson on IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science ...

"AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, ANY PAPER PUBLISHED ON THIS TOPIC IN IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE SHOULD BE IGNORED ..."

"If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that NOBODY HAS EVER READ THEM, AT LEAST NOBODY INVOLVED SERIOUSLY IN THE GALAXY BUSINESS, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend ..."

"My last position at JPL before retiring was with the Evolution of Galaxies Group. Based on my experience with those astronomers & astrophysicists and their collaborators, I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT MOST OF THEM DO NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE IEEE JOURNAL EXISTS AT ALL"

So, not only does Tim recommend that his colleagues ignore IEEE, one of the world's largest scientific institutions, he also freely admits that none of the astrophysicists "in the galaxy business" has ever read it.

So, what does this say about the scientific community's ability to judge these ideas?

Nov 17, 2015
So, what does this say about the scientific community's ability to judge these ideas?
better question: WHY is the eu hiding their papers on an engineering site with not only NO impact in astrophysics but also no peer review from astrophysicists?

that was his point WRT IEEE and the eu publications of astrophysics papers, or didn't you get that point when he said (and i'll quote YOUR post)
Well, the answer is that NOBODY HAS EVER READ THEM, AT LEAST NOBODY INVOLVED SERIOUSLY IN THE GALAXY BUSINESS, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend
the entire reason those eu cranks publish in an engineering magazine is because (wait for it) they're ENGINEERS, not astrophysicists

this was Thmopsons point, and still IS a valid point

it is like jvk and his posts... when he claims that creationists have linked whatever science to whatever physics, etc...

anyone can make a claim... you do it here all the time
doesn't make it TRUE, or even FACTUAL

Nov 17, 2015
Stumpy, you are the biggest troll on here. Plasmasrevenge, if you have actually READ what he has been posting is pointing out that No, some of the old ideas that YOU keep bringing up (I never brought up Electric Sun,Electric Universe, yes, and there are major electric and magnetic events all the time of the sun (Corona, sunspots, flares, microflares amd even CME and their resulting SINGLE POLARITY PLASMA WAVES) that carry clear out to the Heliopause (remember, that point at which the Solar Plasma meets Interstellar gas and magnetic fields? Or dont you study that part?

Some parts of the early EU theory have been debunked, but other portions, just as Plasmas' has pointed out, and You, Stumpy, seem to be like them persecutors of Galileo. Who are you to think I have no degree? Plasma came from JPL, where they Intentionally covered up the truth of the EU theory, WHY? Because it makes spaceflight so very much easier if all you have to do is push against an electromagnetic field.

Nov 17, 2015
JPL and NASA have gone to great lengths to not only mislead people as to the electric nature of this universe, they have done so out of greed and desire for power over others. Being able to keep us in a fossil fuel economy, where the "PetroDollar" was the basis for trade, essentially calling energy money, they refused to let any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction tech out, not the tech that takes the backwash pulse, usually wasted as a radio-wave pulse from electric motors and by utilizing that getting overunity devices.

And no, it is not "pseudoscience' or myth or fairytales. It is a matter of the Big Monied Interest who got their money from energy, were not about to allow people to have energy, all the electricity you need, for free, like Tesla could have set up.

Do you REALLY think that we have to be stuck on 150 year old gasoline/kerosene tech? We have been kept here artificially, folks like Stumpy squashing all convo. Plasmas came from JPL and is blowin the whistle.

Nov 17, 2015
and You, Stumpy, seem to be like them persecutors of Galileo
@steelTROLL
no, Galileo was persecuted because of religious beliefs... i don't like pseudoscience because:
1- it doesn't conform to the scientific method
2- it is NOT evidence based, it is OPINION based
3- it can't actually validate it's claims or support it's conclusions
Who are you to think I have no degree?
1- i don't know if you have a degree... but i DO know it isn't in a science field!
it goes to the evidence: IF you had a degree and were capable of critical thinking, and were scientifically literate then you wouldn't support eu and it's non-evidence based approach to science

if you DO have a degree, it it likely in Art, History, poli-sci, philosophy or some field where subjectivity or perspective is important far more than evidence
you are the biggest troll on here
for wanting SCIENCE on a SCIENCE SITE?

ROTFLMFAO

ok then!

Nov 17, 2015
@all rusted shut mind cont'd
AAAaaand down the rabbit hole with conspiracist ideation! LMFAO
Plasma came from JPL, where they Intentionally covered up the truth of the EU theory, WHY?
this is specifically called consporacist ideation, you know
JPL and NASA have gone to great lengths to not only mislead people as to the electric nature of this universe, they have done so out of greed and desire for power over others
so, you can't find evidence and prove the eu claims, so it's NASA and JPL's fault?
ROTFLMFAO
gotcha!
And no, it is not "pseudoscience' or myth or fairytales. It is a matter of the Big Monied Interest who got their money from energy, were not about to allow people to have energy, all the electricity you need, for free, like Tesla could have set up
you forgot to mention Area 51!

you are actually validating my claims WRT the eu and its adherents, by the way
no evidence = pseudoscience
period

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "better question: WHY is the eu hiding their papers on an engineering site with not only NO impact in astrophysics but also no peer review from astrophysicists?"

Because it's a controversy. The Astrophysical Journal strictly adheres to its insistence that it need not look to laboratory observations of plasmas in order to formulate the cosmic plasma models. Their refusal to question the models which explain 99% of the universe's observable matter can plainly be implicated in their result: A paradigm which does not work without the addition of huge amounts of dark matter.

The culture plainly observable here is the very reason why dark matter is not today solved. Dark matter is the astrophysical crisis that Alfven compared to the thermonuclear crisis. For him, during that time, it was looming. For us, it's here now.

Re: "Some parts of the early EU theory have been debunked"

Please clarify.

Nov 17, 2015
@steelwool-for-brains
We have been kept here artificially, folks like Stumpy squashing all convo. Plasmas came from JPL and is blowin the whistle.
yep! it must be true, because an anonymous idiot who believes in fairy tales said it on the interwebz!

just because you can find thousands of "hits" on a web and find links in google doesn't mean something is real... there is a difference between what is evidence and what is not
here are two articles from PO that address this point: http://phys.org/n...nce.html

http://phys.org/n...nce.html

it uses smaller words and they are not techno-jargon heavy, so even you can understand it, steel...


Nov 17, 2015
Because it's a controversy
@plasmaFAIL
so, you're going down the rabbit hole too? this is called conspiracist ideation... you ASSume it is controversy because you want to believe in it, therefore you use this as justification for it's publication on IEEE
you can read more about this tactic here: http://phys.org/n...lls.html

The Astrophysical Journal strictly adheres to its insistence that it need not look to laboratory observations of plasmas in order to formulate the cosmic plasma models
FALSE CLAIM
PPPL publishes in astrophysics journals, or didn't you know that?
you would if you actually knew WTF you were talking about
Their refusal to question the models which explain 99% of the universe's observable matter can plainly be implicated in their result
FALSE CLAIM
see PPPL
Please clarify
ask steel, not me
i didn't say it...
eu is DEBUNKED
period
see links i left to steel for more info


Nov 17, 2015
In earlier post I was asking Capt Stumpy to go back and actually Read Plasma' statements, not for Plasma to read, he obviously has. Pardon,Cpt. Stump, but you seem to either be misunderstanding Plasmas' OR Intentionally conflating subjects and studies so as to try to drown out Plasmas' very valid statements and observations (based on the scientific method, most rigorously I might add, with many results showing in the Phys.Org files) and working to make sure that his very good information is not heard.

People like you drowned out Fleishman and those with the "Cold Fusion", which is what we have found to be Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Fusion on the level that a leaf converts Nitrogen, Hydrogen and sunlight into Oxygen, and have found ways do a sustained reaction and harvest the heat from it.

There are MANY, some 6000 patents that have to do with LENR's as just a starting point, that were kept by corporations for greed and power.

Did they pay you to troll, Capt Stumpy?

Nov 17, 2015
Pardon,Cpt. Stump, but you seem to either be misunderstanding Plasmas
@steelTROLL
pardon, but i am not misunderstanding them
if you would have read the links i left you, you would understand that there is a huge difference between science and pseudoscience, and most of that rests upon evidence and validation... this is something that pseudoscience (like eu) can't do
drown out Plasmas' very valid statements and observations
if they were "very valid" then it shouldn't be a problem to get them published in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in the subject...they're NOT for a reason
There are MANY, some 6000 patents that have to do with LENR's
there are also patents for self-cooling fans that attach to a rocking chair...
SO what?

having a patent doesn't mean anything, and some of them were removed because of known pseudoscience, like perpetual motion (hydrino theory)

just because you WANT to believe doesn't mean it is real
read those links!

Nov 17, 2015
A lot of the reason there are paid trolls out here trying to debunk their ideas of "Pseudoscience" is mostly because people like Capt Stumpy KNOWS that they are right, but his job depends on saying we are wrong. There are billions of dollars in the "Search for Dark Matter/Energy", HUGE Money, and it would be really easy t hand an undergraduate a degree and oh, 40K/yr just to maliciously troll people posting material that is too close to the truth for the Big Monied Interests to bear. Seen it a lot of times before, and it even seems like a right wing Only The Old Science Is Good Science BS, even though a Lot of the Old Science that many of Stumps arguments rely on are outdated, outmoded and disproven by multiple various means.

Has Capt Stumpy reconciled the fact that the sun is actually a ball of liquid, metallic Hydrogen, yes, on boil due to a fusion core, but beyond that core it is all either plasma, electric flow or magnetic influences seen. That was here in Phys.Org.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "... so as to try to drown out ..."

My understanding is that the technical term is "crowding out." It's a common public relations tactic when there is content which is problematic for a message. This is why I post quotes of original sources: The point of crowding out is to make following along burdensome. The proper response is always to refuse to engage the emotion and keep your own content as concise as possible, in order to minimize the amount of reading required, and to keep people engaged.

Nov 17, 2015
@steel... i left this for last
based on the scientific method, most rigorously I might add, with many results showing in the Phys.Org files
and again, you don't know evidence
here is a starter link: https://en.wikipe...evidence

there is a difference between an ARTICLE and a STUDY
there is even a difference between a singular study and a validated study
knowing that is important... but you must also be able to comprehend what is IN the studies in order to use them effectively

this is ONE failing above... but the worst part, and worst failing...
the inclusion of PSEUDOSCIENCE as if it were legitimate and conforming to the scientific method
(the JVK tactic)

including the argument that Faeries are real because you saw lights you can't explain doesn't mean they're real any more than standing in a church makes you the pope
Capt Stumpy KNOWS that they are right, but his job depends on saying we are wrong
EVIDENCE
read it and weep

Nov 17, 2015
My understanding is that the technical term is "crowding out." It's a common public relations tactic when there is content which is problematic for a message
@plasmaTROLL
well that would explain why you eu pseudoscience posters are so prolific
thanks for validating that for me!
The point of crowding out is to make following along burdensome
i've PROVEN your claims are false... show me where even one of mine are false
i can admit to mistakes... a pseudoscience crackpot can't... that is why they justify everything like they do, with circular nonsense arguments (see: http://phys.org/n...lls.html )
that link explains your above tactics perfectly, BTW
A lot of the reason there are paid trolls out here ...because people like Capt Stumpy KNOWS that they are right, but his job depends on saying we are wrong
@steel wool for brains
1- retired
2- you posted pseudoscience, not science
3- you can't PROVE any of your claims or eu BS

Nov 17, 2015
So funny watching Stumpy dig himself deeper and deeper. I DO hope that you realize that a large number of people put you on Ignore, Captain Stumpy, because all you are is a paid junkyard dog attacking people who have done valid research showing that energy need not be so expensive as it is. You attack any of the basis of science that might affect such and always make disparaging comments when someone is actually on the right track. Certain cosmic properties,particularly the plasma universe, makes spaceflight ridiculously easy by flexing magnetic fields. Magnetics is enough to keep even high energy cosmic rays from a spacecraft cabin area, easily.

If anybody is paying attention to your ranting it is only as a matter of studying the true, anti-science culture, where you have replaced your religion with your scientific dogma, and dare anybody to challenge it, throwing out spurious and old, outdated in the light of new research, ideas and theories and refusing to update.


Nov 17, 2015
It's also important to reduce the information consumer's research burden. That is the point of the graphics showing snapshots of original documents. The Thunderbolts Group rarely provides the referencing that is necessary for a reporter to validate the claim. What I try to do is to fill in this void. Sometimes, I'm unable to find the originals, and in those cases, I avoid using the quote.

I was tipped off to this empty vacuum history of science issue by Wal Thornhill, but Wal simply stated it as fact. I had to then seek to find resources which could validate it. These were rather easy to find, and I'm quite sure that there are many more I missed.

But, once I found the Van Allen interview, then that essentially trumped all of the other quotes. Van Allen was crystal clear on the change that had been made in the 1963 interview.

We really do live in an information age. If you know what to search for, you can dig up extraordinary, controversial sources using Google.

Nov 17, 2015
@ steel rusted brain
the only people who put me on ignore are the ones who know i am right and can't argue their point and produce evidence proving their comments... like you, plasma, etc...

and i don't attack a legitimate claim, even if i don't like the person: i've uprated zeph, jvk, dung as well as even plasma...

it boils down to EVIDENCE
ya got none

I was tipped off ... by Wal Thornhill
@plasma
thank you for validating me AGAIN
http://www.biblio...ds_c.htm

engineer
absolutely NO experience, knowledge or training in astrophysics
attached to pseudoscience AND velikovski (his pseudoscience)

you just proved my point!
THANKS

Nov 17, 2015
While I do read the articles, I will often times pull up the study too, and I see the wider implications because I am not stuck to just one science. You see, I am a trained radiation worker, high-end metals fabricationist/engineer, worked with laser and plasma technology myself and have 30 years in the field. I personally have seen overunity devices in action, ran the tests that showed that not only could the LENR (so called cold fusion) could actually be done with several different metal/reactant/catalyst reactions and not only produced a consistent amount of heat, the reaction is much more easily controlled than that of a conventional nuclear reactor and can actually put out as much Usable energy specifically as thermal without the radioactive byproducts, and the metal used is actually mostly as a catalyst.

I am not some hick that knows nothing, OK, and the studies undertaken in the last decade leave little doubt that the plasma character of our universe needs a better look.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "i don't attack a legitimate claim"

And yet, you never even attempted to counter my own premise that the scientific community's conception of space fundamentally altered without any significant subsequent reconsideration of former decisions about how the Sun works.

You just changed the subject each time it was convenient -- to petty arguments about space not being a plasma, or to modern, non-historical claims by Tim Thompson, which make no comment on the historical argument I was making. It's like throwing up flak.

What is crazy is that when I first started talking about the EU online, I used to change the subject like this myself. I was eventually informed that it's just inappropriate behavior that the large majority of people notice. That was like 7 or 8 years ago. I've come a long way since then in understanding how people think about these issues, but the challenge of convincing people to actually use their minds is very significant, even minus the ranting.

Nov 17, 2015
I'm pretty sure that I'll be formulating this thread into a graphic at some point, as a demonstration of crowding out -- but I'll be altering the format a bit so that people can better observe the technique.

Nov 17, 2015
Thank You bshott, I dont always go pointing out paid trolls on blogs, but when I do I do try to use unassailable logic, and they usually bury themselves as they dig their own holes so deep they can only see a tiny portion of the entire sky and the wide variety of phenomena actually happening. The fact that atomic Hydrogen seems to be required to start the reaction that leads to star formation sounds very much like a plasma cooling to the point that it re-ionizes, condensing from the plasma, and thus will carry a charge that will attract, en mass, the dust and gas around it due to the magnetic effect of such a charge, which, as the article points out, is effected by Magnetic Eddies in the field allowing dust to form the clouds that then further condense into the dust rings from which stars and planets will later form. And do you not think that such a spinning disk, in that magnetic field, however weak it Was, would be strengthened by such a rotor in a magnetic field. Basic Physics.

Nov 17, 2015
Source on "crowding out" at https://en.wikipe...pulation ...

"MEDIA MANIPULATION is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.[1] Such tactics may include the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of information or points of view BY CROWDING THEM OUT, BY INDUCING OTHER PEOPLE OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO STOP LISTENING TO CERTAIN ARGUMENTS, OR BY SIMPLY DIVERTING ATTENTION ELSEWHERE."

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "The fact that atomic Hydrogen seems to be required to start the reaction that leads to star formation sounds very much like a plasma cooling to the point that it re-ionizes, condensing from the plasma, and thus will carry a charge that will attract, en mass, the dust and gas around it due to the magnetic effect of such a charge"

There is a term for this in laboratory plasma physics called Marklund convection. Probably the best source here ...

http://www.plasma...nvection

Herschel's observations suggest that the James Webb Telescope will reveal the nature of this process when it goes up, and this will not go well for gravitational accretion, for gravity's force on atomic hydrogen is miniscule compared with the EM effect ...

http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

This is important ...

http://www.holosc...ents.jpg

Nov 17, 2015
The first link is great, although I think it incomplete as it describes almost a monopole magnetic effect, spatially, whereas if it were to be extended upwards as a torus and tun circulating about the single line which the author considers an 'ion pump', we have the basic magnetic particle, writ large, In a previous discussion I tried to point out a fully emerged full shell magnetic field surrounding an elliptical galaxy, and the magnetic lines of the shell had been formed of stars, all lines up along the magnetic field lines, in a full torus around this galaxy. The galaxy itself orbits near the outside of the Perseus Cluster, so gathers up the colder gasses stripped from the majority of the galaxies in the cluster, so by orbiting at the edge it has been able to continually grow not only it's central black hole (which that area glows very bright even in visual) but since the GBH is active, it keeps the magnetic field in place so that it is now self-sustaining.

Nov 17, 2015
The other pic, to me, looks like the active electron paths within a folded protein matrix, compete with a hydroxyl in the middle there, and on the left a folded, nearly prion type of, apparently, protein, because that superstructure is not crystalline, not amorphous, but has the look of protein ribbons that have been folded.

Personally, I see galactic scale as essentially quark level physics and galactic clusters as either atoms themselves or protomatter. On a fractal scale, what went on at the quantum scale or us would be trillons of years ahead for us, while in the sky we may be looking at, on that scale of the fractal, the first couple of minutes after AN Expansion of Locality.

Many will disbelieve at the mere thought, however, I see more and more articles and papers that point it out in hard terms and so it is not an easy idea to shake. I know one gent that identified some 85 (at the time) different cosmic events directly correlated,math and all, to atomic level events!

Nov 17, 2015
You attack any of the basis of science that might affect such and always make disparaging comments when someone is actually on the right track.

No, he attacks people who peddle invalidated nonsense. I have yet to see anybody that Stumpy argues with be on the right track.

The people he argues with fall into two categories, people who assert things without evidence, and people who assert theories that have been discredited by available evidence.

Now, from what I can see, plasma is making claims have been FALSIFIED. Space is not filled with plasma, as we would have detected it by now. We have been able to produce fusion on earth in the form of nuclear bombs, have measured the sun's mass, and spectrum, and understand that the laws of GR and nuclear physics would force the sun to undergo the gravitational collapse required for sustained fusion. There is no reason to assume that the sun's energy production has do do with some other mechanism besides this.

Nov 17, 2015
If anybody is paying attention to your ranting it is only as a matter of studying the true, anti-science culture, where you have replaced your religion with your scientific dogma

See, the problem with crackpots is that they often fall victims to this kind of thinking. People who argue with them can't possibly think for themselves. Hence, they must simply be parrots.

The problem, of course, is that you haven't considered the possibility that there are people smarter than you, who understand physics a whole lot better than you do.

Take it from Sturgeon's law. Ninety percent of everything, including probably your amazing, groundbreaking, hypothesis, is crap.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "Now, from what I can see, plasma is making claims have been FALSIFIED. Space is not filled with plasma, as we would have detected it by now."

You're disagreeing with NASA on this, as well as Van Allen and more recently, the introductory chapters to a number of plasma physics and astrophysical textbooks. I am quite certain that, in fact, you just made this falsification claim up. By contrast, readers can check for themselves the original sources by following the hyperlinks to the original sources at ...

http://www.plasma...5_plasma

It's also important to emphasize that a gas can behave as a plasma with less than 1% ionization. We know this based upon observations of the ionosphere. This significantly lowers the threshold for the claim that plasma is the dominant state of matter.

That we are having these discussions at all is really quite stunning. These are all facts that have been both referenced and sourced to their URL's in my graphic.

Nov 17, 2015
I'm btw really cracking up, because I just noticed that Stumpy's response to ...

> 5. When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to
> re-evaluate the solar model

was to send people to a link ...

"first, address the actual subject you're trying to make the claim about: SPACE
https://en.wikipe...ki/Space"

... whose first sentence reads:

"This article is about the general framework of distance and direction. For the space beyond Earth's atmosphere, see Outer space."

Talk about distraction!

What makes it rather funny is that apparently 4 people clicked 5 stars for this!

Nov 17, 2015
"You're disagreeing with NASA on this, as well as Van Allen and more recently, the introductory chapters to a number of plasma physics and astrophysical textbooks. I am quite certain that, in fact, you just made this falsification claim up. By contrast, readers can check for themselves the original sources by following the hyperlinks to the original sources at ..."

Wow. It's been explained to you crystal clearly by several people now, and you still don't get it. Just because they say space is 99% plasma does NOT mean space = plasma. That's literally all they're saying. All your quotes from 1963 are irrelevant.


Nov 17, 2015
Re: "Just because they say space is 99% plasma does NOT mean space = plasma."

And yet, who cares?

This is semantics, and making that point has no consequence for the point made at all -- that the reason that an electrical power source was initially discarded was that the scientific community initially believed that space was an empty vacuum.

If that's literally all that people are saying, then that is a distraction, because it does not at all undermine the fact that MODERN plasma and astrophysical textbooks agree that the dominant state of matter is plasma.

Who cares if we say "space IS a plasma" or "99% of the observable matter in space is in the plasma state"?

If you have latched onto this as important, then you've been completely distracted from the historical mistake which was made. That mistake was the birthplace for our modern solar ideas, and it is only now that we will determine through experiment what features of the Sun we can recreate in the lab.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "Just because they say space is 99% plasma does NOT mean space = plasma."

And yet, who cares?

This is semantics,

No, it isn't. You are misreading what NASA says. They are referring to the MATTER in the universe, not both the matter, and the surrounding space, and there is a lot more space than matter in terms of volume:
http://science.ho...n221.htm

Who cares if we say "space IS a plasma" or "99% of the observable matter in space is in the plasma state"?

But, that's exactly the problem. Space is different from matter. 99% of matter is plasma because 99% of matter exists in conditions that are conducive to being in that state, not because 99% of space is filled with plasma. Most of space is a vacuum with too low a density of matter to be plasma.

And the problem with saying that space is 99% plasma is that we can easily detect plasma, through spectroscopy, especially nearby plamsa. You are wrong.

Nov 17, 2015
One of the mysteries of the thermonuclear model for the Sun is why it appears to cycle. There's no obvious explanation, past pure speculation, which extends from the original idea.

The SAFIRE group claims that it was able to produce AC cycling WITH NOTHING MORE THAN A DC ELECTRICAL INPUT. What they are claiming is that cycling appears to be a natural consequence of DC input.

It's a stunning observation, and really only just a bell jar setup to check the challenges they'll face with the actual experiment. The actual experiment is currently under construction.

They are also pointing to observations of H3 as a result of the bell jar setup, but there's no word yet if this indicates fusion.

Now is a great time to do this experiment because it is only recently that many of the necessary components can be purchased at a reasonable price off-the-shelf.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "Space is different from matter."

Yes, and it's time to move on. Let me be clear: The phrase "space is a plasma" is not meant to be taken literally. And it's completely irrelevant nitpicking.

Re: "And the problem with saying that space is 99% plasma is that we can easily detect plasma, through spectroscopy, especially nearby plamsa. You are wrong."

Good one. You appear to not realize that plasma is a state of matter which can conduct a current without any light emissions whatsoever. This is called plasma's dark mode (in contrast to the glow and arc modes).

It's a serious problem that you seem to think that conduction must involve a photon emission. If your electrical household wires are typically glowing, you should call the fire department; it's not typical. Plasma is no different.

We seem to be hitting on every single misconception. Quasi-neutrality is surely coming, right?

Nov 17, 2015
It always amuses me to hear people fail to understand what the dark mode is. It's extraordinarily common, yet one has to imagine that these same people are convinced of the existence of dark matter. This will be enormously confusing for future generations. They're going to ask how it is possible that people did not think to consider dark mode plasma -- which can exert an enormous force many orders of magnitude greater than gravity -- as a candidate for dark matter.

Dark mode plasma is classical science. It's observed in the laboratory. It's a non-controversial feature of the universe's dominant state for matter.

Yet, we are told that there must be all of this dark matter because gravity, without it, is too weak to do what we see happening.

It's absolutely stunning that people skip over this core feature of the dominant state for matter, and go straight to dark matter as an explanation -- and especially in light of the extremely filamentary nature of interstellar hydrogen.

Nov 17, 2015
Note all of the continued distraction. Still not a single person has addressed the original claim in the very first post. It's amazing.

Nov 17, 2015
"space is a plasma" is not...And it's completely irrelevant nitpicking.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, for your claim is that NASA agrees with you about space being filled with plasma, which it isn't. When I point this out, you call it nitpicking. But, now, we're back to square 1, with you making a claim not supported by evidence.

You appear to not realize that plasma is a state of matter which can conduct a current without any light emissions whatsoever. This is called plasma's dark mode

Well, I don't know about dark mode. That sounds dubious to me, but that's besides the point. See below.
It's a serious problem that you seem to think that conduction must involve a photon emission.

I wasn't talking about conduction. I was talking about spectroscopy. Baryonic matter EMITS and REFLECTS radiation, regardless of whether a current flows. We would know whether nearby plasma exists, because we would detect radiation from it.

Nov 17, 2015
Thank you for interjecting some sanity and coherence to the thread Steelwolf. Whenever the paid troll gets into it with anyone of intelligence, his lack of it becomes evident by the contradictions in his comments as they progress and the increasingly aggressive tone of the posts.


So funny watching Stumpy dig himself deeper and deeper.


It's the only reason I haven't hit that ignore button yet.


........and if you really want to drive Stumpo over the edge, tell him you know how to do Differential Equations.

Nov 17, 2015
15 downvotes, Captain Stumpy? There aren't 15 unique posters on this website. The sockpuppet army is out in force.

Realize, trolls are people who grind levels in MMORPGs for 38 hours a day, mass signing up to websites and spam posting use the same mindless reflexes. You're not going to win a war with the Daleks.

The best method is still nuke the comments section from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Nov 17, 2015
Re: "We would know whether nearby plasma exists, because we would detect radiation from it."

But, the problem here is the model involves a drift current which is spread out over the volume of the heliosphere ...

At the heliopause, if we approximate it as a sphere, there is a very low density of electrons that, in this model, would be the virtual cathode of a glow discharge. These electrons would arrive by plasma filament from interstellar space.

What matters for the Sun as a glow discharge is the charge density at the Sun. But, the heliosphere is incomprehensibly large. What this means is that we should actually expect that the electron density would be incredibly small for any cubic meter that would be in the vicinity of the Earth. There's no expectation at all that we would be able to measure this, because it is spread out over this enormous volume of the heliosphere.

But, at the "surface" of the Sun, the density would be 653 million times that at the heliopause.

Nov 17, 2015
If you are authentically understanding this, then you will see the value of SAFIRE: What the Thunderbolts Group is doing is brilliant. They have learned from the critique they endured for the Deep Impact prediction. The problem with that mission is that they were unable to quantify anything because there were just too many unknowns.

The Solar Probe Plus mission will be a very different situation, and we should all applaud their approach. What they are trying to do is tricky, but they should be commended for it, because they listened to the criticisms and are attempting to do something about it. By reproducing the Solar Probe Plus mission trajectory within the laboratory, the mission managers will be in the awkward position of proposing explanations for their data which the Thunderbolts Group will be able to cross-check with their laboratory experiment.

It is very worth trying to understand what is happening here, because it is very clever.

Nov 17, 2015
People who are just sticking to this narrative about the EU as pseudoscience will ignore what is coming.

The Solar Probe Plus theorists are predictably going to try to suggest inferences for their observations which adhere to the conventional thermonuclear model. The Thunderbolts Group will be able to explain parts of the Solar Probe Plus dataset as a function of the SAFIRE laboratory experiment, using this terrella apparatus.

This means that NASA will not be in full control of the inference situation, and they will no longer be able to completely dismiss the Thunderbolts Group. They will be forced to respond because there is predictably going to be a situation where solar physicists will want to suggest an inference bound to the thermonuclear model which can be replicated in the terrella. The public will then have reason to question the thermonuclear model, based upon a laboratory experiment.

I recommend that people tune into the drama of the situation.

Nov 17, 2015

But, the problem here is the model involves a drift current which is spread out over the volume of the heliosphere ...

At the heliopause, if we approximate it as a sphere, there is a very low density of electrons that, in this model, would be the virtual cathode of a glow discharge. These electrons would arrive by plasma filament from interstellar space.

You just completely ignored what I just said.

It doesn't matter what currents exist. If there is baryonic matter nearby in the form of plasma, then we will be able to detect radiation (likely radiowaves and microwaves) emitted and reflected from it. Synchotron radiation has nothing to do with it. What we're interested in is radiation from electrons transitioning from excited energy states to lower states, whether from emission or from previously absorbed photons. If we analyze the spectrum from the plasma's part of the sky, we should be able to detect its spectral signature pretty strongly.

Nov 17, 2015
You just completely ignored what I just said
Yeah, well I just reread the blunderous statement you made below which I corrected & you wonder why you get ignored:

except for that which would be emitted from excited electrons falling into lower energy levels.
........."excited electrons" do not fall into lower energy orbits, they move into higher energy orbits because they are absorbing energy (excitation). They move into lower energy orbits when they give up energy, just the opposite of "excitation".

You misquote Special Relativity & misquote General Relativity over there on that other thread, now you come here to a different one & still fumble around pretending to lecture us about even more nuclear physics & once again getting caught making ludicrous statements.


Nov 17, 2015
Yeah, well I just reread the blunderous statement you made below which I corrected & you wonder why you get ignored:

There are many things that I wonder. That is not one of them. For example, I wonder how get through every day without inadvertently catching your head in things.
........."excited electrons" do not fall into lower energy orbits, they move into higher energy orbits because they are absorbing energy (excitation).

Haha, oh Benni, don't hurt yourself. What do you think happens after electrons get excited? That they remain that way until the end of time? You know what? Don't answer that. It can only get worse from here.
You misquote Special Relativity & misquote General Relativity over there on that other thread, now you come here to a different one & still fumble around pretending to lecture us about even more nuclear physics & once again getting caught making ludicrous statements.

Nobody cares.

Nov 17, 2015
I stopped reading the comments on this site for more than a year, and the plasma people are still making the same basic mistakes that they made before.

You can't teach advanced concepts to people who don't have a grasp of the basics, or even worse, people who dispute basic concepts like the laws of thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations. It's like trying to discuss literature with someone who can quote lines from famous works, but who can't really read, and when you point this out to them, they tell you that they've made up their own language which is superior to English.

BTW, Hey there to everyone who might remember me!

Nov 17, 2015
It's like trying to discuss literature with someone who can quote lines from famous works, but who can't really read, and when you point this out to them, they tell you that they've made up their own language which is superior to English.


Haha. Nailed it.

What gets me is that they don't learn at all. Their brains have developed mechanisms for whatever reason, which make them resistant to understanding any argument, which might discredit their point of view.

BTW, Hey there to everyone who might remember me!

I don't remember you, but welcome back.

Nov 17, 2015
I stopped reading the comments on this site for more than a year, and the plasma people are still making the same basic mistakes that they made before.

You can't teach advanced concepts to people who don't have a grasp of the basics, or even worse, people who dispute basic concepts like the laws of thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations. It's like trying to discuss literature with someone who can quote lines from famous works, but who can't really read, and when you point this out to them, they tell you that they've made up their own language which is superior to English.

BTW, Hey there to everyone who might remember me!

Yep, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Bohm, Carl Fälthammar, Gerrit Verschuur, Per Carlqvist, Peratt, etc... They were all unaware and ignorant of thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations....Oh, and their experiments are of no consequence, just people playing with fire under glass.

Nov 17, 2015
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that, as Forest Gump would say regarding the whole plasma discussion here.

I did have a comment that actually has something to do with the article itself, if I may divert the conversation back to something resembling the original topic of the article. Sorry if I'm interrupting your little black plasma party.

The article starts out with a statement about star clusters being "building blocks" of galaxies, and I'm not sure that is in agreement with the latest and greatest data, is it?

All of our deepest surveys are showing fully formed galaxies and SM BH's way too close to the BB for them to have formed by build-up of smaller parts. Also, most clusters aren't showing signs of black holes, so I personally question the article's premise that cluster formation is analogous to galaxy formation. Everything I have heard says that they are not related. Anybody here care to talk about that a bit?

Nov 18, 2015
you never even attempted to counter my own premise that the scientific community's conception of space
@plas
science changes constantly... but, since you are illiterate or stupid (or both)... lets do this again

you started with a strawman history argument
space sciences theories today originated
then you advanced to linking your post that contained eu links (WTF for?) and continued with the strawman
then you used this
there is not much sense in arguing against the fact that there used to be a false consensus that space was an EMPTY vacuum
and capped it off with a blatantly FALSE CLAIM
When space was recognized as a plasma, there was no observable effort to re-evaluate the solar model
space without matter (or plasma) is an empty vacuum (ignoring QM for the moment)

i never changed the subject
and you never proved YOUR point that space was "recognized as a plasma", as you claimed in the quote above (your words, not mine, sparkTROLL)

Nov 18, 2015
your quotes from 1963 are irrelevant
@Matt
yeah, she doesn't get it
but this is how pseudoscience works as well! simply hand wave, call it semantics, and never produce a study proving anything

furlong says
...from what I can see, plasma is making claims have been FALSIFIED. Space is not filled with plasma...
plasma
You're disagreeing with NASA on this, as well as Van Allen and blah blah blah
1- queried NASA for direct feedback, will post when i get it
2- They are referring to the MATTER in the universe (see orange analogy above)
This is semantics
no, it isn't
it's about clear concise communication as well as accurate portrayal of physics/etc... something that the eu hand waves away because they can't comprehend the problem!

furlong said it best
You are misreading what NASA says. They are referring to the MATTER in the universe, not both the matter, and the surrounding space, and there is a lot more space than matter in terms of volume

Nov 18, 2015
The phrase "space is a plasma" is not meant to be taken literally
@plasmaTROLL
then why did you keep repeating it until furlong pointed out you were an idiot...
Still not addressed the original claim
because you're illiterate, i will make it simple for you
original claim
here's a collection of original sources which point to the historical argument for why we should question the thermonuclear model for the Sun
REFUTE
-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Also
FALSE CLAIM
and
2- the scientific method is all about adapting and adding new information
and
the electric sun is debunked ...http://www.tim-th...sun.html
to shorten this further than pointing out everything:
the Nuke argument for the sun stands because there is NO other argument that can be justified, and the eu model can't explain MOST of what we observe

so it WAS addressed
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

Nov 18, 2015
15 downvotes, Captain Stumpy? There aren't 15 unique posters on this website. The sockpuppet army is out in force
@SuperT
also note that the site will not let people look at their voting anymore
you can't look at your own OR anyone else... but i know who the socks are: zephir

plus the eu clan joined in - the only way they perceive a "win" is simply to flood with bullsh*t like plasma, and then get their girlfriends to downrate with socks

this is because there is NO evidence they can bring to actually validate their claims... so instead they target specific people (Me... but i am used to stupid people like cd)

this is demonstrated by the fact that both furlong and i essentially have the same arguments but only i've been downrated and they've flooded trollsh*t trying to drown out the science after all my posts... and that is validated by plasma herself!


Nov 18, 2015
It's like trying to discuss literature with someone who can quote lines from famous works, but who can't really read, and when you point this out to them, they tell you that they've made up their own language which is superior to English.
@GSwift7
if i could give you 1000 stars, i would!
ROTFLMFAO

hey back at ya... missed your comments here... but alas nothing has changed except that (as you can see above) the trolls have taken over the site

it's hard to fight that level of stupid when you're honest and not a sock
here is another one for the eu socks that i thought you would like G
http://media-cach...f521.jpg

considering the ease of access to information, i thought it very relevant WRT the eu cult, eh?
LOL

Nov 18, 2015
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that, as Forest Gump would say regarding the whole plasma discussion here.

That's about right! Avoiding the "plasma discussion" is easy, it's the same thing that has been going on since the 60's when it was finally proven that space is filled with plasma. The thing is, if the plasma is modeled more correctly as the plasma physicists do, then all your pseudoscientific metaphysical pontification about BH's and BB's are meaningless. Which they are.

Nov 18, 2015
The thing is, if the plasma is modeled more correctly as the plasma physicists do, then all your pseudoscientific metaphysical pontification about BH's and BB's are meaningless
@cd
to date, your best and most prolific argument is that astro's don't know plasma physics... that is debunked with this link: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

it has also been repeatedly debunked by various studies i linked to you in several threads
like here: http://phys.org/n...een.html

so, when you call modern astrophysics "pseudoscience" it is the height of stupidity as you have, to date, not been able to actually prove that the eu is anything but a pseudoscience CULT

if you eu preachers spent HALF as much time reading actual science as you did posting the BS that you do, you would never go near eu again

evidence is the key: and the eu has no reputable legit evidence

Nov 18, 2015
lol, yeah Captain. That's like the one from Churchill about being sober tomorrow.

Hey, with me back, you won't be the only one cantdrive targets with personal attacks and baited comments. I'm not going to answer the nonsensical arguments though. It's clearly just trolling. He doesn't really believe any of that, he just wants to argue.

At least the plasma guy really believes what he's saying, and is trying to have a serious (though misguided) discussion about what he's read on counter-culture sites that support the plasma cosmology ideas.

I would be a little more willing to talk about plasma cosmology if it were a cohesive theory, but it's actually a mess of different overlapping theories that contradict one another in different ways. If you attempt to discuss one of them, the proponents usually just switch to another flavor of the theory to avoid problems with the one you were talking about. Rinse and repeat with the new flavor.

Nov 18, 2015
At least the plasma guy really believes what he's saying, and is trying to have a serious (though misguided) discussion about what he's read on counter-culture sites that support the plasma cosmology ideas
@GSwift
he isn't the only one, either...there is another called carlos_P
I would be a little more willing to talk about plasma cosmology if it were a cohesive theory...Rinse and repeat with the new flavor
yeah, that is one problem they have, but i don't see that changing either, even with the links to free education i've left (the MIT open course ware... awesome site!)
but isn't that also what makes it a pseudoscience?
like it or not, they are classified as such because no one adheres to the scientific method... evidence is king: if they could prove anything, they'd be rich and famous
LMFAO
That's like the one from Churchill
LMFAO
always thought that was W.C.Fields, but regardless of the origin, it is AWESOME (and relevant)
LOL

Nov 18, 2015
And there are 5-6 different types of BH's, and several different BB theories. Rinse, repeat....

Nov 18, 2015
I agree. The MIT open course site is really cool. I haven't looked at it in a long time. Have they continued to add material?

As for why PC is pseudoscience, the sad part is that plasma dynamics is an important and interesting field, at the cutting edge of a lot of current research, but you can't talk about it in a public forum without getting derailed by people with an agenda.

I really did want to chime in regarding the idea in the original post that formation of star clusters is somehow similar to formation of galaxies. I really don't see how that follows from evidence, an I don't think that's in line with current theory about galaxy formation, is it?

Nov 18, 2015
........."excited electrons" do not fall into lower energy orbits, they move into higher energy orbits because they are absorbing energy (excitation). They move into lower energy orbits when they give up energy, just the opposite of "excitation".

The misunderstandsing is due to your poor English, or to your poor communication in general. "Excited" means that electrons are already in the higher orbital.

You misquote Special Relativity & misquote General Relativity over there on that other thread, now you come here to a different one & still fumble around pretending to lecture us about even more nuclear physics & once again getting caught making ludicrous statements.

Subjects on which you make any number of foolish statements, day in day out.

Nov 18, 2015
1963 Popular Science Journalist:

"Most people still think of space as a cold, black vacuum," I said. "Is it true that scientists shared this misconception until very recently?"

James Van Allen:

"Most scientists did think of space as a barren waste," he said. "When we started getting real information, it was quite a revelation."

1963 Popular Science Journalist:

"Can the conditions of space be compared to anything we're more familiar with on earth?"

James Van Allen:

"Yes, I think so," said Dr. Van Allen. "You see, in inventing electron tubes and other devices involving vacuums and plasmas, in exploring ionization and various magnetic effects in the laboratory, we've accidentally stumbled on many of the conditions that exist naturally in space ... To me, the closest thing would be the beam of accelerated particles in a cyclotron."

True, there are high energy particles out there. So what ?

Nov 18, 2015
........and if you really want to drive Stumpo over the edge, tell him you know how to do Differential Equations.

Benni, I think you have a mental illness.

yep
Nov 18, 2015
"actual science" "evidence" that 93% of reality is dark matter based on the premise of the Big Bang Miracle... that's reputable? What a joke, fairy tales for children with a black hole boogeyman. Your science is is weak sauce decided before we had instruments to see. It's as misguided as the worlds major religions entrenched in its own dogmatic faith. Choosing to remain ignorant of history does not change that fact.
"G" here we are a year later and apparently I still have to remind you plasma does not necessarily follow Maxwells laws hence the term non-maxwelian. It was not a matter of disputing equations but understanding math is not an accurate representation of reality. Just because Einstein eliminated the ether Maxwells equations are based on does not preclude there being a medium that space and non space is composed of.
Capitain nothing has been debunked except for astrophysics based in the gaslight era and one of these days you will catch up.

Nov 18, 2015
The order can not emerge willfully from the chaos. Neither the information in system can grow thanks to random events. These are fundamental barriers to evolutionary mythology. Еverything else is nonsense that waste time. Only intelligent being can create and increase order in one physical system according to his ideas and needs. Something more. There is no sense of the existence of a physical systems if does not exist intelligent beings to control these system and these systems to serve them.

Nov 18, 2015
The order can not emerge willfully from the chaos. Neither the information in system can grow thanks to random events. These are fundamental barriers to evolutionary mythology.

Moron, go away.

Nov 18, 2015
You misquote Special Relativity & misquote General Relativity over there on that other thread, now you come here to a different one & still fumble around pretending to lecture us about even more nuclear physics & once again getting caught making ludicrous statements.


Nobody cares.
You said it........and neither does Stumpo, VV, <2cts, etc because none of you have ever come to this site as true science aficionados, you're only here to get peer approved acceptance clicking 5 Star votes for one another while dismissing one another's misstatements within the contents of your posts.

You can no longer watch those 5 Star name calling & profanity laced votes of acceptance as followers of one another pile up in a voting log, and that is really gonna tick off Axemaster who just loves 5 Star voters who are unable comprehend a single line of GR & SR, and especially the Differential Equations associated with those theses.

Nov 18, 2015
who are unable comprehend a single line of GR & SR, and especially the Differential Equations associated with those theses.

It was already evident that you are a lunatic. Why stress it again?

Nov 18, 2015
who are unable comprehend a single line of GR & SR, and especially the Differential Equations associated with those theses.


It was already evident that you are a lunatic. Why stress it again?
.....now if I were to give you a 5 Star for this name calling post, would you be impressed? Or if I gave you a 1 Star, is that what you would expect? Instead I gave you a zero vote, because as usual you've posted nothing worth voting for or against.

Why don't you simply try fumbling around a bit more looking for a cogent thought about the subject material, in the process try hard not to misquote Einstein's GR or SR.

Nov 18, 2015
I guess those stars are important to you to promote your narcissistic ego.
I always rate you 1 star Benni. Because there is no lower rating.

Nov 18, 2015
you're only here to get peer approved acceptance clicking 5 Star votes for one another while dismissing one another's misstatements within the contents of your posts.

Well, no. I originally became a poster to this site because I noticed that it was flooded with crackpots who needed to be corrected by somebody who'd actually been trained in physics.
You can no longer watch those 5 Star name calling & profanity laced votes of acceptance as followers of one another pile up in a voting log

Oh, I see what this is all about. Low star votes hurt your feelings. Frankly, if it were up to me, I'd get rid of the entire voting system, but then again, if it were up to me, I would implement a system closer to Stack Exchange's, where you aren't allowed to post freely until you've demonstrated some kind of competence.

But if it means so much to you, there's an easy solution. Stop being so mouth foamy.

Nov 18, 2015
The MIT open course site is really cool. I haven't looked at it in a long time. Have they continued to add material?
@GSwift
yes, they've added post grad material on a lot of things and Quantum Mechanics courses (post grad) etc, along with some new/newer vid's (removed some) in physics... they're working on some other stuff as we speak as well, but i can't comment further
I don't think that's in line with current theory about galaxy formation, is it?
not sure what you mean... can you clarify or be more specific? (or send me a PM on e-mail/sapo's joint)

this might be a good topic to open up on Sapo's joint or SciForums, where moderation will weed out the idiots

I'd get rid of the entire voting system
@furlong
might be a better idea if the site would just adhere to it's posting rules/guidelines... and actually moderate
i suggested a way to do that for free enlisting known graduates here already-
PO ignored it


Nov 18, 2015

Funny, I became a poster at this site due to the amount of crackpottery that is entrenched in mainstream theoretical physics and how militant it's supporters are here.


I wrote an entirely too long, meandering, response here:

http://mostbadass...org.html

Enjoy :)

Nov 18, 2015
@furlong
might be a better idea if the site would just adhere to it's posting rules/guidelines... and actually moderate
i suggested a way to do that for free enlisting known graduates here already-
PO ignored it


........then you wouldn't be allowed to post & the entertainment entertainment factor for coming here would be gone.......sheesh, you do want to hear from me more than once a year don't you? And all we would do is discuss science? What a travesty that would be, a site with the language of Special or General Relativity absent the foul mouthed name calling choristers of the Stumpy crowd, a site filled with discussions of slogging through some of Einstein's Partial Differential Equations.

Nov 18, 2015
to Captain:

not sure what you mean... can you clarify or be more specific?


Regarding galaxy formation, the slow accumulation model, where dense star clusters combine and compact to form galaxies would indicate that if you look 13 billion years out, you should see immature galaxies. What we actually see are signs of galaxies already far too mature. There just isn't enough time for that process to have happened so early in the history of the universe. Additional evidence comes in the form of supermassive black holes already possessing too much mass at that same time period. Galaxies and SMBH's seem to be related due to their strong mass correlation.

As I understand it, we are currently looking for some other means of galaxy formation originating from inflation or some other process from the earliest times of the Universe. Same goes for SMBH's, by the same reasoning.

Nov 18, 2015
@furlong
might be a better idea if the site would just adhere to it's posting rules/guidelines... and actually moderate
i suggested a way to do that for free enlisting known graduates here already-
PO ignored it


........then you wouldn't be allowed to post & the entertainment entertainment factor for coming here would be gone.......sheesh, you do want to hear from me more than once a year don't you? And all we would do is discuss science? What a travesty that would be, a site with the language of Special or General Relativity absent the foul mouthed name calling choristers of the Stumpy crowd, a site filled with discussions of slogging through some of Einstein's Partial Differential Equations.

The only thing that becomes clear from your writings is that you are insane.

Nov 18, 2015
"I always rate you 1 star Benni. Because there is no lower rating."

And this gives meaning to your life and heel yout enjured ego? Its not for beleaving what makes atheism with people. They losе all sense of direction in their lives.

Nov 18, 2015
to Captain again:

To further elaborate on what I was saying, there's another current story here that briefly talks about what I was saying. The story makes it sound like it's new information, but I've been seeing talk about this for a while now. The new observation they're talking about just confirms what has already been assumed, since we knew that our observations were only powerful enough to pick up a small percentage of what was probably out there.

Here's a link to the story:

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

As I was saying above, there's just too much organization too early in history for the old model of accumulation to work.

Nov 18, 2015
"I always rate you 1 star Benni. Because there is no lower rating."

And this gives meaning to your life and heel yout enjured ego? Its not for beleaving what makes atheism with people. They losе all sense of direction in their lives.

Get lost and take your "lake of fire" and your "creator" with you. Your sort does not belong here.

Nov 18, 2015
As I was saying above, there's just too much organization too early in history for the old model of accumulation to work
@GSwift
I see what you mean now...
i think that is a good question, and to be honest, i don't think i can answer it without a lot of further study/research... so don't expect anything anytime soon...

However, if furlong, Axemaster, Q-Star or someone with considerable more experience in this would care to throw out some detail or link some relevant information, then i would be grateful

(those above mentioned are far more conversant in astrophysics than i... and i know that the last two also teach physics, so might be more aware of info)

yep
Nov 19, 2015
As I was saying above, there's just too much organization too early in history for the old model of accumulation to work
@GSwift
I see what you mean now...
i think that is a good question, and to be honest, i don't think i can answer it without a lot of further study/research... so don't expect anything anytime soon...

(those above mentioned are far more conversant in astrophysics than i... and i know that the last two also teach physics, so might be more aware of info)


The relevant information is the new data "falsifies" the old conceptions. Which to many of us is not a really big surprise. Have you notice this trend in astrophysics yet? It has been pointed out to you before. Maybe considering some ideas with real world experience from electrical engineers might me a good way forward? Or we could continue with more "false claims" based on assumptions the true definition of "pseudoscience" I know you will not see it this way as your faith is strong!

Nov 19, 2015
considering some ideas... from electrical engineers...
@yep
when they learn astrophysics and work with a team to cover lapses in knowledge, then i don't mind... this is evident here: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

but this excludes the eu clan for a few reasons:
1- the scientific method (the eu doesn't conform, therefore, by definition, is pseudoscience)
2- predictability (major fails to date- need i link those again?)
3- validation (there are ways of validating claims... especially like the grand canyon, moon craters, shoemaker-levy9 etc)
4- reality (when you assume something is real because of "argument from authority" without being able to comprehend the science, you will always get conned by anyone with a degree and no morals)

this means, by definition, you and the eu are the ones practicing a "faith"

because i don't care what the result is, as long as there is evidence and validation
i follow the evidence
period

Nov 19, 2015

Funny, I became a poster at this site due to the amount of crackpottery that is entrenched in mainstream theoretical physics and how militant it's supporters are here.


I wrote an entirely too long, meandering, response here:

Enjoy :)


Wow dude. You wrote all of that just for me? I'm flattered.

Now that you've got the attention that you are craving for, can you lay of the crackpottery ? Thanks.

Nov 19, 2015
this means, by definition, you and the eu are the ones practicing a "faith"
If I can't observe, touch, see, smell, weigh, or in some manner detect it's presence by some measurement of spectroscopy, then it must be "faith", you know, the GOD, ANGELS, DEMONS and stuff like that which also have no detectable substance or gravity within proximity of measurement devices. Perfect description of the ethereal DARK MATTER about which you like to banter. You, know Stumpo, you need to get off this "faith" stuff, changing the word GOD to DARK MATTER.

because i don't care what the result is, as long as there is evidence and validation
i follow the evidence period
......the evidence for the existence of electricity is plentiful, the problem here is that we're still searching for the "faith" you have in your GOD.

Nov 20, 2015
If I can't observe, touch, see, smell, weigh, or in some manner detect it's presence by some measurement of spectroscopy, then it must be "faith"
@benjiTROLL
but we CAN observe! the effects of DM are inferred from this observation (whoops to you)
https://en.wikipe...evidence

the evidence: our observations state there is something out there we haven't been able to measure/see
it has a placeholder name (DM) -a name that we give to OBSERVED effects that we have no way to currently measure ...which doesn't mean we never will be able to measure them
(this is proven by the measurement of the Neutrino- just because nay-sayers like you claim we will never do something doesn't mean we never will do it. see also: heavier than air flight, landing on the moon, faster than sound flight, etc)

considering this, you just proved you are preaching a faith, not following the evidence
your post is therefore a FALSE CLAIM
AKA- a lie

Nov 20, 2015
@benjiTROLL cont'd
and before you get all stupid about the word use of "inferred"... also note that we can also find planetary bodies by observing the host star and inferring their mass based upon perturbations of the star and it's orbit
we can infer their orbit as well as more info based upon visual cues taken from other sources...

this is exactly the same thing that we can do with wind speed when you don't have a device to measure it, and is regularly used by soldiers in the field

you CAN infer accurate data without direct observation and measurement... and any college graduate in a STEM field (especially an Engineer) would know this, which makes me question your claims WRT your education

that is also a demonstration of "inferring" based upon indirect measurement

Nov 20, 2015
a FALSE CLAIM

Benni making a correct claim, that would be a first.

Nov 20, 2015
Guys!...settle down, will ya! :)

I come in again for some quite read-only...and what do I see?...a rabid troll-fest!...nothing resembling polite science discourse!

OK, some brief observations before I go:

- anyone accusing others of pseudoscience/false claims etc should be called upon to actually argue the points based on info/facts presented rather than just personally insulting/attacking non-stop, and acknowledge any correct points.

- realize that the plasma content/features most are arguing about involve mainly plasma in space regions near massive/energetic features (planets/solar systems/galaxies/plasma bridges between them etc), and not the extremely rarified plasma content of 'deep space' far from major gravitational/electromagnetic dynamics/objects.

- radiation from said plasmas 'flows' may not be detectable for varied reasons: signal 'swamped' by other more energetic radiation/processes OR wavelengths/frequencies may be absorbed/diffused etc etc.

Grow up! :)

Nov 20, 2015
Guys!...settle down, will ya! :))


@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am just as fit as a Cajun fiddle me, thanks for asking.

OK, some brief observations before I go:


While you are doing the brief observing before you go, could you tell us when you might be finishing up on your toes? Is it going to be soon? Is he going to be published before we all perish?

Nov 21, 2015
anyone accusing others of pseudoscience/false claims etc should be called upon to actually argue the points
you should have read the freakin links and post ... i did argue the points, or are you now illiterate too?

the rest of what you wrote...TL;DR

if you aint gonna read the post, then we don't have to actually read yours to comment either

.

Is he going to be published before we all perish?
@Uncle Ira
And here all this time i thought he was saving the day at the climate conferences
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year...The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

i guess we will all just have to accept our fate to die, eh really-skippy?
i didn't see your name at ANY conference this year! (or paper, or...etc)

fanaticism is a strange beast


Nov 21, 2015
HI CapS. :)

Where above did you argue the science matter from your own knowledge, CapS?

By your own admissions, you/your 'sidekick' do not comprehend the more deep/subtle aspects of scientific matter involved; thus are unqualified to comment on the science matters.

So you spam personal insults, links to 'sources' (which may have been falsified/made obsolete by recent new evidence arising daily from more sophisticated mainstream observational efforts).

Your posting record is a litany of insults, generic 'pseudoscience/crank' accusations....even when your 'target' is CORRECT on some point confirmed by known science and/or recent mainstream developments in astronomical observations!

CapS, why do you/your sidekick keep doing it?

You both are SELF-ADMITTED incompetents when it comes to the actual science being discussed; so your 'contributions' usually depend blindly on your 'approved' sources/posters who in some cases have been proven wrong already!

Cool it, CapS. :)

Nov 21, 2015
@rc
TL;DR
OT as well

Nov 22, 2015
HI CapS. :)
@rc
TL;DR
OT as well


That's it? Why run away from facing the reality of your own admitted ignorance of the actual science/logics being discussed? Are you in denial so you can 'justify' perpetuating your personal vendettas based on old feuds and personal ego which are rooted in your own ignorance/malice/misrepresentations etc rather than any 'mainstream science' and 'scientific method' which you claim to defend/subscribe to? Not a good look, mate. Better to admit when you're wrong and move on to more genuine objective polite discourse for a change, hey? Go on, CapS, you can do it if your try. Good luck. :)

Nov 22, 2015
That's it?
@rc/sammieTROLL with the IQ of a brick, only less useful
TL;DR
stopped there because you are OT & you're not bothering to actually read anything yourself

besides, i thought you were away saving us all from climate change?
after all, you said
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year...The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue
you can read the keyboard diarrhea you spouted here: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

and lets not even go into your "club" of pseudoscience BS

so i'm not going to read your posts until you start producing links top reputable science validating your claims

OOPS- forgot to add
you have a pathological need to get the last word in... so just assume that if i downrate you, it is automatically followed by
"TL;DR
OT
reported"

then i don't have to post as much
THANKS

Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
you have a pathological need to get the last word in
Why is it a crime to get the last word in until YOU admit to being wrong on the occasions already discussed and referenced for all to see for themselves who is 'pathological' in all this?

Stop digging, mate. It's all there for all to see. Your denials don't wash anymore; nor do your childish tactics/accusations in denial of the relevant recorded facts.

Go on, CapS. Find the courage to admit you were wrong too. Da Schneib did. All credit to his honor and character. Do likewise and stop all this faffing about, mate. It's the only way to restore your honor and credibility in this forum, CapS. Try. I promise I won't crow or gloat etc. I'm not like that. Admit you were wrong just like Da Schneib, and we can forgive and forget and move on afresh in polite and genuine science and humanity discourse. Hey? :)

Nov 22, 2015
Why is it a crime to get the last word in until YOU admit to being wrong on the occasions already discussed
@rc
1- already answered here:
http://phys.org/n...ity.html

i did exactly as you said to do, so will you shut up now?

2- you aren't doing anything but baiting for a flame war, which got you PERMAbanned twice
as reality check and undefined (not counting the rest of your sock attempts)
http://www.scifor...?page=19

http://www.scifor...?page=13

3- TL;DR
OT
reported,

Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
Why is it a crime to get the last word in until YOU admit to being wrong on the occasions already discussed
@rc
1- already answered here:
http://phys.org/n...ity.html

3- TL;DR
OT
reported,
You call that an "answer"? Your "answer" therein was just more of the same childishly transparent evasive tactics in order to still keep denying the truth and running away from your adult/scientific responsibility to admit when your trolling lies and behavior has been demonstrated to be in serious error, while I was correct all along.

So CapS, drop the smokescreen which all can see though all too easily now; and just honestly admit you (CapS) were wrong and I (RealityCheck) was correct.

No more childish semantics and evasions, CapS; an honorable, straightforward, unequivocal admission of error on your part is the only way you can hold your head up high in here again. Try. You CAN do it, CapS. :)

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