Interplay of magnetic fields and gravitation in the Orion Nebula leads to star development

May 16, 2016, Max Planck Society
Interplay of magnetic fields and gravitation in the Orion Nebula leads to star development
Birthplace of the suns: The integral-shaped filament, the two star clusters above the filament, and cloud L1641 in the south can be seen on these images of the Orion A star formation region. The picture on the left shows a density map compiled with data from the Herschel space telescope, the one on the right an infrared image taken by the WISE space telescope. The photo in the centre is a combination of both images. Credit: A. M. Stutz / MPIA

Space bears witness to a constant stream of star births. And whole star clusters are often formed at the same time – and within a comparatively short period. Amelia Stutz and Andrew Gould from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg have proposed a new mechanism to explain this quick formation. The researchers have investigated a filament of gas and dust which also includes the well-known Orion nebula.

Star formation is basically a simple process: You take a very cold cloud consisting of hydrogen gas and a sprinkling of dust and leave the system to get on with it. Then, within the space of a few million years, the sufficiently cold regions will collapse under their own gravity and form .

Reality is a bit more complicated. A particular feature is that there seem to be two types of . In conventional, smaller molecular clouds, only one or a few stars form – until the gas has dispersed over a period of three million years or so. Larger clouds survive around ten times longer. Whole star clusters are born simultaneously in these clouds and very massive suns are formed.

Why is it that so many stars are created during these approximately 30 million years? In astronomical terms, this period is quite short. Most attempts at an explanation are based on a kind of chain reaction in which the formation of the first stars in the cloud triggers the formation of further stars. Supernova explosions of the most massive (and therefore shortest-lived) stars which have just formed could be one explanation, as their shock waves compress the cloud material and thus create the seeds for new stars.

Amelia Stutz and Andrew Gould from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg are pursuing a different approach and bringing gravity and magnetic fields into play. To test their idea, they undertook a detailed investigation of the Orion nebula, 1300 light years away. The bright red gas cloud with the complex pattern is one of the best-known celestial objects.

The starting point for Stutz and Gould's considerations are maps of the mass distribution in a structure known as an "integral-shaped " because of its form – it resembles that of a curved integral sign – and which includes the Orion nebula in the central section of the filament. The Heidelberg-based researchers also drew on studies of the magnetic fields in and around this object.

The data show that magnetic fields and gravitation have approximately the same effect on the filament. Taking this as their basis, the two astronomers developed a scenario in which the filament is a flexible structure undulating to and fro. The usual models of star formation, on the other hand, are based on gas clouds which collapse under their own gravitation.

Important proof for the new idea is the distribution of protostars and infant suns in and around the filament. Protostars are the precursors of suns: they contract even further until their nuclei have reached densities and temperatures which are high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to start in a big way. This is the point at which a star is born.

Protostars are light enough to be dragged along when the filament undulates backwards and forwards. Infant stars, in contrast, are much more compact and are simply left behind by the filament or launched into the surrounding space as if fired from a slingshot. The model can thus explain what the observation data actually show: protostars are to be found only along the dense spine of the filament; infant stars, on the other hand, are found mainly outside the filament.

This scenario has the potential for a new mechanism which could explain the formation of whole star clusters on (in astronomical terms) short timescales. The observed positions of the star clusters suggest that the integral-shaped filament originally extended much further towards the north than it does today. Over millions of years, one after another seems to have formed, starting from the north. And each finished star cluster has scattered the gas-dust mixture surrounding it as time has passed.

This is why we now see three star clusters in and around the filament: the oldest cluster is furthest away from the northern tip of the filament; the second one is closer and is still surrounded by filament remnants; the third one, in the centre of the integral-shaped filament, is just in the process of growing.

The interaction of magnetic fields and gravity allows certain types of instabilities, some of which are familiar from plasma physics, and which could lead to the formation of one star cluster after another. This hypothesis is based on observational data for the integral-shaped filament. It is not a mature model for a new mode of star formation, however. Theoreticians have first to carry out appropriate simulations and astronomers have to make further observations.

Only when this preparatory work is complete will it be clear whether the molecular cloud in Orion represents a special case. Or whether the birth of star clusters in a medley of magnetically trapped filaments is the usual route to forming whole clusters of new stars in space within a short period.

Explore further: Herschel reveals a ribbon of future stars

More information: Slingshot Mechanism in Orion: Kinematic Evidence For Ejection of Protostars by Filaments. Astronomy & Astrophysics (May 2016) arxiv.org/abs/1512.04944

Related Stories

Herschel reveals a ribbon of future stars

March 30, 2016

Star formation is taking place all around us. The Milky Way is laced with clouds of dust and gas that could become the nursery of the next generation of stars. Thanks to ESA's Herschel space observatory, we can now look inside ...

How do massive young star clusters form?

April 8, 2016

Young massive star clusters are systems of stars with more than about ten thousand solar-masses of material and ages less than about one hundred million years that are gravitationally bound together. In these clusters the ...

Most stars are born in clusters, some leave 'home'

September 24, 2014

New modeling studies from Carnegie's Alan Boss demonstrate that most of the stars we see were formed when unstable clusters of newly formed protostars broke up. These protostars are born out of rotating clouds of dust and ...

Image: Hubble sees a youthful cluster

August 31, 2015

Shown here in a new image taken with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on board the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope is the globular cluster NGC 1783. This is one of the biggest globular clusters in the Large Magellanic ...

Journey to the center of our galaxy

March 31, 2016

Peering deep into the heart of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope reveals a rich tapestry of more than half a million stars. Apart from a few, blue, foreground stars, almost all of the stars ...

The turbulent interstellar medium

May 9, 2016

The gas in galaxies is typically seen to be moving at very rapid, even supersonic velocities, providing clear evidence that the medium is highly turbulent. Looking more closely at gas clouds in our own Milky Way, astronomers ...

Recommended for you

After a reset, Сuriosity is operating normally

February 23, 2019

NASA's Curiosity rover is busy making new discoveries on Mars. The rover has been climbing Mount Sharp since 2014 and recently reached a clay region that may offer new clues about the ancient Martian environment's potential ...

Study: With Twitter, race of the messenger matters

February 23, 2019

When NFL player Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice, the ensuing debate took traditional and social media by storm. University of Kansas researchers have ...

Researchers engineer a tougher fiber

February 22, 2019

North Carolina State University researchers have developed a fiber that combines the elasticity of rubber with the strength of a metal, resulting in a tougher material that could be incorporated into soft robotics, packaging ...

171 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

katesisco
2 / 5 (21) May 16, 2016
The crack in the dam of gravity star formation.
Benni
2 / 5 (21) May 16, 2016
Something is wrong here, no discussion of Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust.
gculpex
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2016
Of course there's something wrong, we haven't reached the end of everything, to know everything.
Who is going to be the next genius to stand on the shoulders of giants?
panurg3
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2016
Something is wrong here, no discussion of Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust.

all is good. yet castles crumble and old men die.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (17) May 16, 2016
The article states ...

"Infant stars, in contrast, are much more compact and are simply left behind by the filament or launched into the surrounding space as if fired from a slingshot."

It once again appears that the astrophysicists are not aware that there exists an explanation in this observation in laboratory plasma experiments. From http://www.holosc...tronomy/

"As a z-pinch subsides, experiment shows that a number of consolidated objects that formed along the pinch scatter like buckshot. So stars born in the plasmoid will initially have random eccentric orbits."

Hey, why even bother to consult plasma experiments, right? It's not as thought we are talking about plasmas or anything. Let's just invent our own gravitational theories that duplicate these laboratory observations ...
barakn
4.2 / 5 (20) May 16, 2016
The crack in the dam of gravity star formation.

Astrophysics has considered the role of magnetism in star formation as early as 1956, perhaps earlier, see Mestel, L. and Spitzer, L., Jr (1956). Star formation in magnetic dust clouds, Mon. Notes Roy. Astron. Soc. 116, 503-14

There is no dam for there to be a crack in. Please stop wasting our time.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (15) May 16, 2016
Re: "Not a buck shot. A sling shot: "Protostellar "ejection" (i.e., the "slingshot") occurs because the gas accelerates away from the protostars, not the other way around."

Is buck shot not simply the plural form of the sling shot metaphor? Are we really arguing over metaphors?
physman
4.5 / 5 (17) May 16, 2016
As has constantly been said: the scientific community openly accepts any peer reviewed articles, especially those that challenge common consensus.

Unfortunately for many here, they don't spend much time scouring the phys.org comments section for wacky suggestions and gut feelings. These scientists didn't just sit there screaming plasma plasma plasma! They looked at some theory, did some modelling, found some results, and published it.

No one has anything against magnetic fields / plasma playing a role in our models, we do have a problem with mindless babbling about plasma with no evidence!!
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 16, 2016
Re: "No one has anything against magnetic fields / plasma playing a role in our models"

LOL.

But, how? MHD does not permit E-fields. It asserts that the plasma is superconducting. And it treats magnetic fields as frozen-in fossils rather than the result of electric currents.

The observations plainly exhibit two separate "operating modes" for the plasma -- a quiescent state where gravity retains an ability to dominate and a "bursty" transient state where the plasma plainly dominates.

It is very similar to when lightning strikes; nobody gives f*cks about gravity in the midst of a lightning strike. It's irrelevant.

When we scale up to interstellar discharges, it's akin to a slow-motion terrestrial lightning strike. In fact, we could be learning quite a bit about how stars form by simply studying the phenomenon of ball lightning. The two base upon the same z-pinch premise.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 16, 2016
Re: "Astrophysics has considered the role of magnetism in star formation as early as 1956, perhaps earlier"

You're misleading people. Up until we sent the first rockets into space, in 1958, it was widely believed by the scientific community that space was an EMPTY vacuum. In fact, there is a 1963 Popular Science interview with James Van Allen which explains the entire situation here ...

https://books.goo...;f=false
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2016
Hannes Alfven's 1937 suggestion of galactic magnetic fields was met with "widespread resistance (if not scorn)".

"... as it directly contradicted the prevailing wisdom that a vacuum filled interstellar space."

Citation here ...

https://books.goo...;f=false

One of the advantages to admitting to a mistake is that you can then learn something from it. if you simply assert that no mistake was made, then nobody should be fooled that you've learned anything at all -- and we'd all be wise to assume that you will continue to make additional similar mistakes.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2016
Re: "since the medium out there is very cold so a plasma can only form by impact ionisation."

It's called critical ionization velocity (CIV), and radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has been publishing papers showing them in interstellar space for decades now, sometimes with Anthony Peratt. He does his analysis mostly by hand, which is currently the only way to track down CIV's. Most conventional theorists today simply feed the data into algorithms which are not programmed to identify these CIV's -- so of course they never see them.

Astrophysicists continue to pretend as though CIV's have not been observed. Most are not even aware of Verschuur's work, or simply ignore it.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) May 16, 2016
Re: "So you are saying that Alfven guessed right in 1937 so everything else he said is true or are you saying you haven't learned anything since 1958?"

More denial. The Popular Science article plainly states the problem at the top of page 76 in big bold letters:

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

Apparently, we have regressed since this crucial realization, as the mistake is still very much with us, and could take another century of astrophysicists losing additional credibility to finally shake.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (19) May 16, 2016
It once again appears that the astrophysicists are not aware that there exists an explanation in this observation in laboratory plasma experiments. From "pseudo-site"/
There is no explanation there Alfieclone. There is a lot of howling about how every other scientist on the planet is wrong, and there is a lot of space dedicated to word salads and non-specific, unseen, "must be's", but nothing that actually explains anything.

"As a z-pinch subsides, experiment shows that a number of consolidated objects that formed along the pinch scatter like buckshot. So stars born in the plasmoid will initially have random eccentric orbits."
See?

Hey, why even bother to consult plasma experiments, right? It's not as thought we are talking about plasmas or anything. Let's just invent our own gravitational theories that duplicate these laboratory observations ...
Or, you know, look at what is actually happening.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (23) May 16, 2016
But, how? MHD does not permit E-fields. It asserts that the plasma is superconducting. And it treats magnetic fields as frozen-in fossils rather than the result of electric currents.
You know hannes, you should spend a little bit of time actually reading about this subject. Not what Thornhill et al blabber about, but actual text books on the subject, by people that actually study it. James Calvert comes to mind, or perhaps David Stern. At least make an attempt at understanding that which you are trying to counter.

You can find texbooks on the fundamentals of MHD at several sites. You need to have something beyond highschool physics to truly understand much of it, but you can begin to get an understanding of how far we have come since Alfven's 1942 work.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) May 16, 2016
You need to have something beyond highschool physics to truly understand much of it, but you can begin to get an understanding of how far we have come since Alfven's 1942 work.

LOL, something beyond high school meaning pseudoscientific BS? This from the apparent authority of all things (according to fails1/nocnts) wiki; (regarding MHD)
"Effects which are essentially kinetic and not captured by fluid models (MHD) include double layers, Landau damping, a wide range of instabilities, chemical separation in space plasmas and electron runaway."

Those are significant omissions! Science that actually accounts for such phenomena lead to wildly different results. The obvious being the existence of Plasma Cosmology. Compare 'Cosmic Plasma' by Alfven or 'Physics of the Plasma Universe' by Tony Peratt to a standard theory based astrophysical text, it's night and day. And guess what, the Plasma Universe has no magic fairy dust or scary monster holes required, just real physics.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) May 16, 2016
but you can begin to get an understanding of how far we have come since Alfven's 1942 work.

The irony here is rich beyond compare. Much of our knowledge of modern plasma physics is due to Alfvén alone. We are so far past 1942 that Alfvén, who received his Nobel for MHD gave a lecture at that very ceremony saying that MHD was wrong and explained just how wrong it is, stopped advocating MHD some 50+ years ago. We are so far past 1942 that MHD itself is already known to be inadequate at describing the physics of real plasmas. This is a fact, there is no debate there. Still, astrophysicists demand on using the erroneous pseudoscience.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) May 16, 2016
Re: "You can find texbooks on the fundamentals of MHD at several sites. You need to have something beyond highschool physics to truly understand much of it"

Here's what I know ...

(1) The MHD models do not apply under many circumstances in which they continue to be applied. The critics are clear on this.

(2) Graduate students going into astrophysics today are not told this, and if they were, we'd see a very different situation evolving.

(3) The history of science is very clear on the mistake which was discovered in 1958. I did not just copy Wal Thornhill's claims; I did my own background research sufficient to confirm for myself personally that they are right. It's very easy to identify the decisions which were made on the basis of the mistaken assumption that space was EMPTY.

(4) I've also been around the forums enough to understand the reaction of the "experts" -- hence LOL above.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) May 16, 2016
"[HSO] was capable of seeing the coldest and dustiest objects in space".
I read that on wikipedia, dumbo. You should go there more often.
55-672 micrometer, that is something like 5 to 60 K.
I assure you, clown, that that is quite cold. Too cold for a thermally excited plasma which would require 10s of thousands of K.
Your buffoonish ignorance is staggering.

Actually, plasmas exist in the full energy spectrum, from absolute zero to cosmic rays at 3 × 10^20 eV. Oh, they also explain how cosmic rays are plasma.... How does it feel to call someone out as ignorant but then have the tables turned so succinctly? Twice with one link.

http://www.plasma...sics.htm
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2016
I guess the whole world consists of idiots then, with one shining exception.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo Galilei

Although I don't think magic bowl guy is the single humble individual.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2016

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

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that space is still a vacuum and reading an article from 1963 is not my idea of learning.

You're wrong! Space is filled with plasma, in fact there are few places in the Universe that are not dominated by plasma processes. Including Earth and it's atmosphere (i.e. climate, geology, etc...)
cantdrive85
May 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
3.9 / 5 (18) May 17, 2016
Re: "Astrophysics has considered the role of magnetism in star formation as early as 1956, perhaps earlier"

You're misleading people. Up until we sent the first rockets into space, in 1958, it was widely believed by the scientific community that space was an EMPTY vacuum. In fact, there is a 1963 Popular Science interview with James Van Allen which explains the entire situation here ...

https://books.goo...;f=false -HannesAlfven
No. Unlike you I have a good understanding of the state of science in that era and am not spinning my own perverted interpretation of a Pop Sci author's garbled understanding of Van Allen's attempt to dumb down the science for a general audience.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (17) May 17, 2016
Hannes, first and foremost is your unwarranted insertion of the word 'EMPTY' in the phrase "EMPTY vacuum." It was well known in 1958 that space isn't a perfect vacuum. A stream of particles from the sun, now referred to as solar wind, was first postulated by Carrington in 1859. The gaseous nature of certain nebulae was recognized by Huggins in 1864. Cosmic rays were discovered between 1909 and 1912. The story of the discovery of interstellar dust is murkier, but by 1946 we have Lyman Spitzer with a beautiful little gem of a letter to the editor stating "the differential rotation of the dust grains produces an electrical current circling the galactic center." He then conjectures a galactic magnetic field, estimating its strength, noting his 10^-12 gauss "value agrees with the 10^-11 to 10^-13 gauss which Alfven has assumed to confine most of the observed cosmic rays within the galaxy." Lyman Spitzer, Jr. (1946) Phys. Rev. 70, 777
barakn
3.8 / 5 (17) May 17, 2016
Spitzer continues "The rotation of the galaxy in this magnetic field would produce a slight separation of electrical charges, with a resultant radial electrical field of about 10^9 volts per 1000 parsec.... The rotation of interstellar clouds containing ionized gas would tend to be slowed down by the eddy currents generated, thus facilitating the formation of stars. While these effects require further study, there is little question but that the possible presence of a galactic magnetic field must be taken into account in discussions of interstellar phenomena."

And there we have it: a mainstream astronomer discussing currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, Alfven, and magnetic fields augmenting star formation in 1946. Hopefully the ip-only link works: http://31.184.194...v.70.777
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) May 17, 2016
Re: "Hannes, first and foremost is your unwarranted insertion of the word 'EMPTY' in the phrase "EMPTY vacuum." It was well known in 1958 that space isn't a perfect vacuum. A stream of particles from the sun, now referred to as solar wind, was first postulated by Carrington in 1859."

The presentation of these rare cases says nothing about the fact that this assumption is the basis for all of our space sciences theories today.

Exhibit 1: Einstein

"During the nineteenth century the commonest conception of the universe was that there are groups of material bodies like our Milky Way, and outside this region is 'empty' space, which extends infinitely far. This view had, however, already aroused doubts among some scientists around the end of the century. For in this case the stars would behave like a cloud of vapor and there was nothing to prevent them from dispersing into the surrounding empty space." (Einstein: His Life and Times, Philipp Frank)
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 17, 2016
Exhibit 2: Eddington

"Since we are limited to energy liberated in the deep interior of the star, extraneous sources of supply are ruled out, and it is scarcely possible to escape the conclusion that the supply of energy for future expenditure is already hidden in the star. Energy, however, cannot be successfully hidden; it betrays itself by its manifestation as mass. Energy and mass are equivalent, and we know the masses of the stars."(The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Arthur Eddington)
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 17, 2016
Exhibit 3: The Positivists

"The matter-motion term, space-time, came along just in time to set the stage for the similarly indeterministic interpretation that Hubble's redshifts were evidence for universal expansion. Be aware that Hubble, himself, never believed that the redshifts of faraway galaxies meant the universe was expanding. He always thought it was a measure of distance rather than recessional velocity -- more of a 'tired light' effect. For positivists who actually believed in perfectly empty space, there was no reason to entertain such a heresy. Why would light lose energy traveling through perfectly empty space?" (Glenn Borchardt)
john berry_hobbes
3.3 / 5 (19) May 17, 2016

Phys1 5 /5 (3) 18 hours ago
Let me rephrase. I would appreciate an intelligent response.


People in hell would like some ice water. They have a better chance than intelligence from CD or HA.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 17, 2016
Exhibit 4: Hannes Alfven

"In 1937, his proposal of a galactic magnetic field met with widespread resistance (if not scorn), as it directly contradicted the prevailing wisdom that a vacuum filled interstellar space"

Exhibit 5: James Van Allen

"I found Dr. Van Allen in Boston, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was conferring with other space scientists. That evening, over dinner, I asked him about newly discovered phenomena of 'empty' space. 'Most people still think of space as a cold, black vacuum,' I said. 'Is it true that scientists shared this misconception until very recently?'

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

Every one of these quotes can be found online by simply searching on the text. The last quote dates to 1963.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (13) May 17, 2016
There was also the very famous debate between Kristian Birkeland and Sydney Chapman over the source for the aurora. Chapman's theory, again, held to the tradition of asserting that space was an empty vacuum, and when Hannes Alfven created a terrella to show that charged particles from the Sun could cause the aurora, Chapman refused to even observe the replicated experiment.

There are likely numerous other instances which I've yet to find. It's probably the biggest mistake in science that was never admitted to, and the price for that refusal is counted in decades of lost time. Lucy Jago estimated in her "Northern Lights" biography of Birkeland that ...

"rejection of his theories probably slowed the advance of geomagnetic and auroral physics for nearly half a century."
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) May 17, 2016
And there we have it: a mainstream astronomer discussing currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, Alfven, and magnetic fields augmenting star formation in 1946. Hopefully the ip-only link works: http://31.184.194...v.70.777

Which led to the above article, 70 years later....
Excellent point there barakn. Further confirmation of HA's point.
barakn
3.8 / 5 (17) May 17, 2016
Exhibit 4: Hannes Alfven

"In 1937, his proposal of a galactic magnetic field met with widespread resistance (if not scorn), as it directly contradicted the prevailing wisdom that a vacuum filled interstellar space"
An unattributed quote supplied with no supporting evidence.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) May 17, 2016
Re: "An unattributed quote supplied with no supporting evidence."

Let me help you.

Go to http://www.google.com.

In the big box at the center of your screen type:

"In 1937, his proposal of a galactic magnetic field met with widespread resistance"

Then, hit the big button that says "Google Search".

If you need help beyond this, try calling customer support.

Let's not forget, folks, that we are talking about some of the most complex questions man has ever asked. When somebody is so obviously pretending to not understand how to find information online, those who are observing this behavior learn something important about that person.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (16) May 17, 2016
Phys1, it's also customary that people who take the time to broadcast an opinion online should also be willing to take the time to do a Google search -- preferably before they broadcast their opinion. We all appreciate your cooperation on this matter, as it keeps the signal-to-noise ratio here at a reasonable level.

I've done the real meat of the research for you. Let's not be babies about having to type a few more words. You're already doing it.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) May 17, 2016
Re: "With no evidence it is simply a guess"

He clearly knew enough to take a courageous stand against the consensus on it. What I can see is that you will simply assume it was a guess until somebody rams evidence to the contrary down your throat.

We owe all of the great achievements in science to people who have taken similar stands. If these people can be so easily dismissed, then we are ALL lesser people, by comparison.
barakn
3.9 / 5 (18) May 17, 2016
Re: "An unattributed quote supplied with no supporting evidence."

Let me help you.

Go to http://www.google.com.

In the big box at the center of your screen type:

"In 1937, his proposal of a galactic magnetic field met with widespread resistance"

Then, hit the big button that says "Google Search".

If you need help beyond this, try calling customer support.

Let's not forget, folks, that we are talking about some of the most complex questions man has ever asked. When somebody is so obviously pretending to not understand how to find information online, those who are observing this behavior learn something important about that person. -HA
By not attributing the quote, something you could have done in seconds, you have potentially forced the dozens of people that read your quote to do the search on their own. So what you are implying is that 10 seconds of your time is more valuable than 240 seconds of other people's time. That makes you an arrogant ass.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) May 17, 2016
Hi guys. :)

For how long now have I been pointing out to everybody, on all 'sides', that the phenomena is always a HYBRID RESULTANT of BOTH Gravitational AND Plasma/E-M forces in FEEDBACK loop interaction over time/space scales involved?

It's good to see this latest confirmation of my longstanding observation based on KNOWN science (the known science apparently ignored by BOTH 'sides' in preference for 'their' particular favorite force, ie, either gravitation OR plasma/E-M).

So can we all at last drop the EITHER/OR approach to interpreting the observed phenomena from now on?

If we could, then maybe we can all settle down and actually advance the science discourse instead of fighting 'old years feuds' based on the old either/or mentalities and animosities.

Good luck, everyone; try to stick to ALL the reality/physics involved; and drop old personality animosities/feuds, hey? Cheers. :)
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (11) May 17, 2016
@HannesA
Somehow, wrt the filaments, there must be an electrical field in addition to the magnetic = electromagnetic field. A purely magnetic field might not allow the protostars to be kicked out of the filament, since the attraction would be too strong, wouldn't it? IMO these filaments are "seeding" the Cosmos with new protostars. The undulations of the filaments/ribbons must have a significance related to nurturing the protostars, almost like babies taking nourishment of some sort. These protostars are clinging onto and growing on the filaments. Is there any part of my post that you agree with?
This is awesome. So much to learn.

@Pissypants
Thanks for providing the arXiv paper. In just a few minutes, I have gleaned information from it to form a "musing" of my own of which the mention of "current" took me by surprise. I will read it further and add to my newfound knowledge.
ChiefFartingDog
May 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
that the phenomena is always a HYBRID RESULTANT of BOTH Gravitational AND Plasma/E-M forces in FEEDBACK loop interaction over time/space scales involved?

You mention that like it's some sort of epiphany of which you are responsible. Both Alfvén and Peratt fully consider gravity in the Plasma Cosmology, only in the proper context of what it can do given that EM forces are 10^39 orders of magnitude stronger.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Re: "Once again I am not dismissing the greatness of your hero. The fact that he guessed right is truly remarkable but it is still a guess and if it was such a great stand against authority then why does it take someone like you to publicize it. It sounds as though you are saying listen to me I could be just like him."

If every time somebody posts something which runs contrary to the media message and textbooks of the day, you decide to invoke a narrative that dismisses this claim, then there is nothing at all that anybody can do to get through to you.

If you actually took the time to learn about this HALF-CENTURY debate between papers published in the Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science, you'd come to see that this is not about me having a hero at all.

But, none of this information stands a chance of making it past your grade school narratives about how science works in the real world.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Phys1 does not seem to get that I spent an entire afternoon digging those links up, and is crying that he has to now plug the quotes into Google.

Nevermind the controversial CONTENT -- that a mistake has been made in the sciences which might very well upend a full CENTURY of work by the brightest minds of the world.

At all costs, whatever you do, do not talk about the fact that a massive mistake might have been made in the sciences. We must never speak of this subject.

I've interacted with many hundreds of people online on these exact subjects over the past decade. I frequently see people express similar misgivings ...

"if it was such a great [insert stuff here] then why does it take someone like you to publicize it."

Each person uses the same logic to ignore the claim, and they all appear to be unaware that each other is thinking the exact same thing. They are all on a quest to avoid thinking.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Some months ago, I pointed to this ESA Herschel press release as a vindication of plasma-based cosmology ...

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

Quotes like these ...

"Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale."

Vindication of plasma scaling and the laboratory-observed tendency of plasmas to conduct currents through filamentation.

"While most filaments are dotted with compact cores, suggesting that stars are readily taking shape in these dense 'fibres' of the interstellar medium, there are also regions that exhibit complex tangles of filaments but no signs of on-going star formation."

Vindication of the work of radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur and the laboratory-observed tendency of plasma filaments for long-range attraction, short-range repulsion.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
"astronomers have detected what appear to be accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter from their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments."

Vindication of the fractal-like structure of plasmas (in the plasma laboratory called heteromacs), as well as Marklund convection. These are all topics which are time and time again discussed on holoscience.com by Wal Thornhill.

When I pointed these things out, the response here was that there was no indication that these filaments were plasmas conducting currents -- the implication being that we should not look to possible claims of mistakes in the textbooks, nor to the universe's most common state for matter as an explanation.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
In numerous astrophysical and even some plasma textbooks, we see an admission in the introduction that plasmas dominate the observable matter -- yet, a refusal to adhere to that admission in the chapters which follow, with equations which treat the plasma as fluids.

"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 [is] ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."

NASA's Cosmicopia - Ask Us: Cosmic Rays, Energetic Particles, and Plasma
http://helios.gsf...l#plasma

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

https://books.goo...;f=false
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
There are too many examples of this to quote. Ian Tresman keeps the master list here:

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

What is remarkable about the current paper which this article is about is that it is trying to tell people that a mistake has been made.

http://arxiv.org/...44v3.pdf

From the article, speaking of the filamentary nature of star formation:

"However, given that circular (or more generally, helical) fields, which would be generated primarily by currents moving along the filaments, are the form that is necessary to confine filaments of approximately uniform thickness, the Heiles (1997) observations constituted a 'smoking gun'."
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Another quote from the original paper ...

"Such high field strengths are naturally explained by magnetic compression of gas due to currents. That is, the material gets to its current position not by crossing field lines but by compressing them. It may be objected that this process would lead to pinching instabilities. Our answer: yes, pinching instabilities are expected and this is exactly what leads to cluster formation."

Is it really possible for the authors of this paper to be any clearer? They are reasoning through the data, and their conclusion is that a mistake has been made: The plasmas are not behaving as fluids; they are conducting electrical currents, as plasmas tend to do in the laboratory, and "pinching instabilities" (oftentimes called z-pinches) are the consequence of those interstellar electric discharges.

So, when we speak of Herschel's filaments, let's be clear: These are PLASMA FILAMENTS. And they are ELECTRIC CURRENTS.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Let's be clear -- to those who are perhaps new to this controversy and are struggling to understand despite so much effort to create confusion -- that the 1997 Heiles reference involved in the quote points to a 44-page paper ...

"A Holistic View of the Magnetic Field in the Eridanus/Orion Region"
Heiles, C. 1997, ApJS, 111, 245
http://iopscience...3010/pdf

... which has no discussion of electric currents in relation to those magnetic fields at all. The possibility is never even considered, yet the paper is "A Holistic View".

Is it the fault of those who notice?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
The great Carl Heiles, 1997, in a Review of earlier work. Heiles is one of those main stream astrophysicists that is constantly being disrespected by the trolls on this site.

Now I don't think anyone has singled him out, but the disrespect is deserved due to his use of pseudoscience. Examples below;

"Fortunately for us who study magnetic fields, the neutral medium isn't really neutral and, as a consequence, flux freezing applies."

Unfortunately for him, field lines are NOT frozen-in into the plasma. Hence pseudoscience!

Oh and did you see this part?
"the neutral medium isn't really neutral"
Oops, more evidence of your ignorance.

And the statement you quoted above needs an addendum ;

One cannot hope to understand the magnetic fields of the ISM without understanding the electric currents that create the magnetic fields.

Your "great" astrophysicist is little more than a pseudoscientist himself.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
James Maxwell united electricity and magnetism in 1865. Who would have thought that by 2016, people would still be arguing over whether or not the two relate to one another? This is a 19th century debate, folks.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) May 18, 2016
You're again obfuscating.

The mainstream position today is that we live in a "magnetic universe" -- not an "electric universe". The magnetic fields are frequently referred to as "frozen-in" or "fossil fields". Neither terms should be confused with an electrodynamic plasma where the movement of electric charge -- typically observed along filaments in the plasma laboratory -- induces a magnetic field, in the spirit of an electric circuit.

It is only a stone's throw reasoning from that connection to realizing that if the current is high enough, then the charged particles surrounding this conducting filament will draw in towards the filament in the manner of an electric sump.

And the neutrals will be dragged along with those charged particle flows.

Even if it remains unacknowledged amongst astrophysicists today, this is all classical laboratory plasma physics. There is no dark matter or unobserved processes required.

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) May 18, 2016
Of course this implies frozen in or fossil currents.

I truly hope that this is an attempt at comedy, otherwise you have catapulted yourself into the same Stoopid category as Cap'n Stoopid.

On second thought, maybe that's why my lights stay on after I flick the switch off, due to "fossil" electric currents in the wires or "frozen-in" electric currents in the neon.

Bwaahahahahahahaha! A whole new level of Stoopid has been attained, believe it or not!
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) May 18, 2016
As there can be no magnetic fields without a current somewhere and as any astrophysicist is fully aware of this, I would not attach too much significance to this. In his 2005 review he certainly discusses current.

Why would he omit this consideration of primary importance prior to 2005? I would appreciate a link to this 2005 paper so I can get to know these "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents. How do these "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents generate "fossil" and "frozen-in" magnetic fields? At what point do "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents transition into regular electric currents (or vice versa)? I'm surprised he hasn't won like 3 Nobel prizes in a row for the discovery of these "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents. I'm sure there must at least be a wiki for these "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents, please leave a link to the "fossil" and "frozen-in" electric currents page of wisdom.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
Correct. No large scale interstellar or intergalactic electric fields have been observed.

There are electric fields surrounding and in direct proximity to the Earth that were never "observed" until the MMS mission flew directly through and measured the fields. These e-fields will be found in and around the filaments that are laced throughout the galaxy and universe.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) May 18, 2016
The well known Z-pinch so far (I stress: so far) can not explain the anomalous stellar rotation in spirals

Anthony Peratt's galaxy evolution model of two interacting Birkeland currents based on Bostick's plasmoids agrees very well with observation. But not only spirals, but the entire life cycle of quasar ejection to spiral plus much much more.

http://www.plasma...ormation

Of course the plasmoids are the Z-pinches from which the galaxy arises. Both experiment and simulation contradict your claims. As usual.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
@Phys1
If the paper is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, then how do these magnetic fields come about in such a cold gas?
Good question, I looked the paper over and didn't see that either. I think they're arguing that the evidence about the dynamics is inconsistent with gravity alone. At one point they talk about the B field being in equilibrium in certain places with the gravity field. I think one of the key points is that gravity alone can't make the "integral" shape of the masscon (the big shallow S shape labeled "integral shaped filament" in the first picture, for those who might not be big on calculus).
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) May 19, 2016
I looked a bit more and saw that they may be doing measurements of the magnetic field using polarization, probably B-mode polarization, scans of the area, which can detect magnetic effects on gas and dust. But again, this still doesn't talk about the origin of the magnetic field in the first place.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) May 19, 2016
He is an experimentalist and leaves the modeling to theorists

So he's only half a pseudoscientist.

I already listed it several times. You are not a very attentive reader. Did you ever read a scientific paper at all?

I read the older one you linked, where he handily omitted any mention of these ghost currents you are describing. Besides is it that hard to copy/paste one more time?

Froze fields imply froze currents via the Maxwell equations. Are you familiar with these ?

LOL, Maxwell's equations yes, froze fields or currents no due to the fact it is pseudoscience. So now science is accomplished by implication?
What do you mean by "electric" currents? All currents in thare "electric" unless you want to discuss water or other than EM interaction.

I've learned to be specific in these threads as common sense is optional to most posters.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2016
You've also glossed over several points I made above, I think a better attempt at changing the subject is warranted.

DaShnied ;
ELECTRIC CURRENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAGNETIC FIELDS.

The all caps signify me screaming at your face this obvious answer.
SLOOHCox
3.3 / 5 (12) May 19, 2016
Good to see you can comprehend at least that.

GET THE HELL OFF PHYS.ORG!!!
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
Re: "Correct. No large scale interstellar or intergalactic electric fields have been observed."

But, this statement has no meaning. Of course not. The only way to measure this, without instrumentation in situ, is through observation of the effects.

Re: "This is consistent with larger scale charge neutrality, hence no electric field."

Based upon the ASSUMPTION of Debye screening. This sh*t is so tired by now. What effort have you actually put into tracking whether or not this assumption is valid? I can count 3 very embarrassing instances where it was obviously violated by many orders of magnitude.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
(1) Wikipedia reports that the theoretical Debye length should restrict electric fields to 1 millimeter. When one yet further considers that red sprites, a form of upper-atmospheric lightning which can connect to the lower ionosphere, can reach 50km in length, it would seem that the Debye length has failed to constrain the discharge by a factor of 50 million-to-1.

(2) The solar wind is theoretically limited to EM discharges of only 10 meters. Yet, when Cassini passed by Hyperion, it received a 200-volt electric shock at a distance of 2,000 km.

(3) http://science.na...ct_ftes/ - Earth connects with a "magnetic portal" to the Sun every 8 minutes. A 93 million mile fossil field as wide as the Earth that appears every 8 minutes!

The universe is not cooperating with your assumption.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) May 19, 2016
On second thought, maybe that's why my lights stay on after I flick the switch off, due to "fossil" electric currents in the wires or "frozen-in" electric currents in the neon.

No, it means you need to fix your light switch, it's broken.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2016
On second thought, maybe that's why my lights stay on after I flick the switch off, due to "fossil" electric currents in the wires or "frozen-in" electric currents in the neon.


No, it means you need to fix your light switch, it's broken.

Sure as hell are right about that situation. Now when do these morons (fellow posters and astrophysicists) realize that their fanciful guesses that don't EXPLICITLY account for the electric currents and e-fields are broken as well.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
More importantly, HA claims that Debye-Hückel screening applies in all directions, which is wrong; it only applies in directions normal to the current flow. Which is a pretty embarrassing instance in and of itself. Complete physics understanding fail.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Re: "More importantly, HA claims that Debye-Hückel screening applies in all directions, which is wrong; it only applies in directions normal to the current flow. Which is a pretty embarrassing instance in and of itself. Complete physics understanding fail."

Interesting, the contradictions continue to accumulate. Suddenly, the argument that has been used ad nauseum to undermine claims of large-scale discharges in space is explained to not really be true, after all. All of the diagrams online which show a circle of charge contained by a radius are all confused with me, it would seem.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Google "CERN".


Google "work done by magnetic fields" FTW. "Work" is defined as induced displacement ***in the direction of the force doing the work***. You left out half the definition so of course you get the wrong answer, duh ummm.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Re: "And these effects [of electric fields] are not observed"

We see double-lobed radio sources all over the place. They emit synchrotron radiation. What do you imagine is pushing them? Gravity?

Re: "The presence of currents does not require the presence of electric fields."

Please elaborate. I love a good story.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
HA, it's not my lack of understanding, or contradiction, if you can't figure out that things work differently in three dimensions than in two.

Basic geometric reasoning fail detected. And this also is duh ummm.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
The question is: What does it matter for this topic? Are you saying that people were completely wrong, in the first place, to point to Debye screening for conducting plasmas? Or, are you saying that this somehow saves the contradiction of a 50 km discharge in a region where the Debye length is 1 mm?

This is the contradiction ... That Debye screening is pointed to as a reason for why large-scale discharges cannot occur in space, and yet what you are saying is that actually, that's not true. In truth, you are arguing with your own cohort, because this Debye screening construct is not even relevant in a world of double layer plasmas.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Oh, and BTW there is a way to define work done by a magnet in picking up a magnetically charged object, for example an electromagnet picking up a car in a wrecking yard:

The electromagnet has charges moving in loops (i.e. electric currents, in this case AKA "eddy currents"); this induces eddy currents in the metal of the car. These eddy currents act on each other, and the work is therefore done by the eddy currents in the electromagnet and the car, not by the magnetic field.

See how that works (pun intended)?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
No mouthfoaming lowlife like cd45 can take his achievements away.

So now even great pseudoscientists can make "achievements" too. And I have no need to "take his achievements away", science will take care of removing this pseudoscience eventually.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2016
I simply pointed out the most prominent example in physics where magnetic fields "do work".
No, you didn't; "work" doesn't have meaning in directions other than the vector of the force.

You are totally ignorant of the definition of "work." Please learn some physics before bothering to post here. Thanks.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
And these effects are not observed. Whereas the effects of magnetic fields are observed,

The presence of these non-static magnetic fields is in and of itself and "effect" of the e-fields when one doesn't rely upon pseudoscientific fossil and frozen-in electric currents and magnetic fields for there magical explanation.
Phails and DaShnied, your holes are only getting deeper and you're looking ridiculously moronic with each passing post.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2016
I don't know what "fossil magnetic fields" means. Once charged particles are moving they have momentum and that guarantees they will keep moving unless acted upon by a force. See Newton's Laws. Moving charged particles are a current, and currents generate magnetic fields, see Maxwell's Equations. I have no idea why @cd doesn't know basic physics like Newton's Laws of Motion and Maxwell's Equations, or why someone who doesn't know these things would post on a physics site and expect not to be ridiculed and downvoted. That's the magic AFAIC.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
Both Alfvén and Peratt fully consider gravity in the Plasma Cosmology, only in the proper context of what it can do given that EM forces are 10^39 orders of magnitude stronger.
Can you elaborate on that, say using the simple example of a giant molecular gas cloud of hydrogen? Better yet, use 2 clouds, where 1 has about 0.07 solar mass and the other has about 0.09 solar mass. Assume they're isolated from each other but each has just experienced a passing shock wave from a nearby supernova. Predict what happens to both clouds, and don't forget to account for all 39 orders of magnitude. (hint – we already know what happens based on observation)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
I don't know what "fossil magnetic fields" means.

You and me both there bub. You'll have to ask phails1 or an astrophysicist, they are the ones using that pseudoscience. Ask them why they think they can ignore or trivialize the electric currents/fields in astrophysical plasmas.
Do yourself a favor and read a bit slower, it might help you comprehend things better.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Re: "HA, it's not my lack of understanding, or contradiction, if you can't figure out that things work differently in three dimensions than in two."

You seem to be casting this issue very differently than wikipedia. Wikipedia is clear that they are talking about ionic fluids, and yet more, the adjustment is characterized as a correction due to the failure of the original assumption.

I now see the reason why I was not aware of this: I look to plasma physics to understand astronomical observations. It's not clear to me why these electrostatic claims would apply to discharges involving long-range plasma filaments which measure 50km, 2,000km and 93 million miles. The reason why we infer scaling for plasmas is that plasmas are fractals. Can you point to any physical reason why these things happening within an ionic solution would relate to solar system phenomena?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
Can you elaborate on that, say using the simple example

I'll need a bit more info if you want me to include all 39 orders.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
@cd, the magnetic field is there because there are moving charges. That's an electric current. I don't see either @Phys1 or astrophysicists in general ignoring that or trivializing it as you claim. Anybody who knows anything about classical physics or electronics can immediately identify where you're wrong.

I have no idea who you think is ignoring or trivializing anything besides you. I note that you just ignored and attempted to trivialize 3/4 of my post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2016
@HA,
You seem to be casting this issue very differently than wikipedia.
Not particularly.

Wikipedia is clear that they are talking about ionic fluids,
Wikipedia says,
In reality, these long-range effects are suppressed by the ***flow of the fluid particles*** in response to electric fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-field_screening

Note that the flow is a current, if it's carrying charged particles.

Next.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
I think the most amusing part of all this is, here's all these individuals who keep claiming there's these flowing electric currents causing things to happen in space, and here's this article showing flowing electric currents in space, and they're denying that, too, because it's mainstream astrophysics.

I mean, look at that first picture, with a bright line in the gas all down the middle of it. And here they are talking about magnetic fields, which anyone who knows anything about electronics knows are always associated with currents.

The problem is obviously that you've been running around blathering about how astrophysicists don't pay attention to these currents, and here they are paying attention to these currents. It makes you look like idiots.

If you were smart, you'd be saying, "Look! See? We told you!" but you're not bright enough to see it.

Pitiful.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
I actually did just that, comments was;

Oh right, I forgot to mention. I TOLD YOU SO, BITCHES.

And the moderators seemed to think that was more offensive than blotto'so continuous stream of vulgarities.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2016
I think the most amusing part of all this is,

...how you like to obfuscate and change the subject.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2016
@cd, only problem is, you have failed to understand that the reason the astrophysicists keep talking about magnetic fields instead of electric fields is that making the calculations in that domain is easier in their discipline; and they count on anyone who's interested enough to be reading their stuff to be aware that the existence of a magnetic field is a sure tip-off that there are moving charges, i.e. currents. You don't know enough to understand that, as demonstrated by your comments pretending that currents don't generate magnetic fields.

Meanwhile you have utterly failed to acknowledge this well-known fact of electronic engineering, after ignoring and trivializing the part of my post where I stated it outright.

And it doesn't replace gravity. That's just dumb.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2016
@cd
how you like to obfuscate and change the subject.
Pointing out that magnetic fields imply moving charges, i.e. currents, and vice versa, is not "changing the subject," and your attempt to make it seem so is typical of your verbal gymnastics which you engage in to avoid admitting you're wrong.

It's also symptomatic of your general lack of understanding of basic physics.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
Can you elaborate on that, say using the simple example...
I'll need a bit more info if you want me to include all 39 orders.
You shouldn't. So all your plasma knowledge has availed you nothing and is worth that much. Both clouds will undergo gravitational collapse. Over the course of several million years, one will become a main sequence star, the other a brown dwarf. Here's some background you need to know to be able to make predictions like that – notes from Lecture 14: Star Formation

From clouds to stars to supermassive black holes to galaxy clusters, CD85, it's not how many positively charged protons there are that determines what forms, how long it takes, and how long it lasts – all such determinations are based on how much mass there is.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) May 20, 2016
I actually did just that, comments was;

Oh right, I forgot to mention. I TOLD YOU SO, BITCHES.

And the moderators seemed to think that was more offensive than blotto'so continuous stream of vulgarities.

interesting that you are still here and just the comment was removed....
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
I thought I was on permanent ignore anyway.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
@cd, only problem is, you have failed to understand that the reason the astrophysicists keep talking about magnetic fields instead of electric fields is that making the calculations in that domain is easier in their discipline.

As phails1 has claimed there are "no large scale electric fields" it would seem the two of you aren't on to same page. Although I would believe that electricity fields are ignored because it's "too hard".
they count on anyone who's interested enough to be reading their stuff to be aware that the existence of a magnetic field is a sure tip-off that there are moving charges, i.e. currents.

This is a false claim, MHD models in use by astrophysicists treat the plasma as a perfect conductor and assume the magnetic "field lines" are "frozen-in" to the plasma.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
demonstrated by your comments pretending that currents don't generate magnetic fields.
Meanwhile you have utterly failed to acknowledge this well-known fact of electronic engineering,

This is what I mean about obfuscating. I have been on these threads for over four years advocating the description of the plasma by use of well known principles of electric engineering, only to be met with ridicule all along the way. I've been told how electric engineers are incapable of understanding astrophysical problems because this plasma is "different" than laboratory plasmas from which their theories are based. There wouldn't be Plasma Cosmology by Alfvén or The Plasma Universe by Peratt if astrophysicists treated the plasma correctly.
after ignoring and trivializing the part of my post where I stated it outright.
And it doesn't replace gravity. That's just dumb

I ignored due to the fact your preaching to the choir, I agree EE concepts should be used.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
The following papers written by an EE professor show where you are just wrong in your assumption the astrophysicists use these well understood concepts. If you were correct, pseudoscience such as magnetic reconnection and frozen-in fields would not exist in the scientific lexicon.

http://electric-c...OAAJ.pdf

http://electric-c...2007.pdf
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
Can you elaborate on that, say using the simple example...
I'll need a bit more info if you want me to include all 39 orders.
You shouldn't. So all your plasma knowledge has availed you nothing and is worth that much. Both clouds will undergo gravitational collapse. Over the course of several million years, one will become a main sequence star, the other a brown dwarf. Here's some background you need to know to be able to make predictions like that – notes from http://www.astron...orm.html

From clouds to stars to supermassive black holes to galaxy clusters, CD85, it's not how many positively charged protons there are that determines what forms, how long it takes, and how long it lasts – all such determinations are based on how much mass there is.

The plasma processes which created these phenomena don't care how much the "clouds" weighed.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
Re: "@cd, the magnetic field is there because there are moving charges. That's an electric current. I don't see either @Phys1 or astrophysicists in general ignoring that or trivializing it as you claim. Anybody who knows anything about classical physics or electronics can immediately identify where you're wrong."

This is unfortunately misinformed. There has been a debate over the application of MHD to astronomical phenomena since its inception.

See "Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD box"
http://link.sprin...b#page-1

Also this: "Importance of electric fields in modeling space plasmas"
http://www.scienc...06002276

Combined, they leave no detail out. Parks has of course authored a plasma physics textbook, and he's not affiliated with the Thunderbolts Group in any manner. He's an independent laboratory investigator.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
Re: "The problem is obviously that you've been running around blathering about how astrophysicists don't pay attention to these currents, and here they are paying attention to these currents. It makes you look like idiots."

It seems that you've failed to identify the problem with the MHD models. Take a close look at the two papers above. Most of the people involved in this conversation are already aware of these claims. Get up to speed. It will decrease the S/N.

Do not be surprised -- if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of this half-century debate -- if you are cast as favoring the mainstream view. This problem should have been resolved in 1958, and here we are still talking about it. People have a right to be upset and speak up when they see a glaring mistake in theory which is adhered to as fact.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2016
The plasma processes which created these phenomena don't care how much the "clouds" weighed.

But they do care about cloud 'density', making for easier conductance.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
Re: "and they count on anyone who's interested enough to be reading their stuff to be aware that the existence of a magnetic field is a sure tip-off that there are moving charges, i.e. currents"

This is not the nature of the debate. You're misleading people. The problem is that plasmas are being modeled as fluids which, according to the details of the MHD models, are not actually permitted to behave as laboratory plasmas.

These MHD models suppose that the plasma has zero electrical resistance like a superconductor. Therefore, it cannot hold an E-field, since it instantly charge-neutralizes. Further, the MHD models suggest that magnetic fields are frozen in place. This is accurate if/when the plasma behaves as a fluid.

The lesson of Herschel and star formation more generally is that it does not always hold. And everything we see about star formation suggests electrodynamic plasmas, not fluids.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
The plasma processes which created these phenomena don't care how much the "clouds" weighed.

But they do care about cloud 'density', making for easier conductance.

And one reason why Proto's example needed further info to deduce any predictions.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) May 20, 2016
From clouds to stars to supermassive black holes to galaxy clusters, CD85, it's not how many positively charged protons there are that determines what forms, how long it takes, and how long it lasts – all such determinations are based on how much mass there is.
Yep. All the electric charges do is delay it a bit over here, speed it up a bit over there. Gravity always wins because there isn't any antigravity, and there is antielectricity.

I decided is wrong to talk to lowlifes that call such people as the decorated discoverer of millisecond pulsars a pseudoscientist.
It's worthwhile every so often to see if they've learned anything. Usually they haven't, but you never know until you check.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
From clouds to stars to supermassive black holes to galaxy clusters, CD85, it's not how many positively charged protons there are that determines what forms, how long it takes, and how long it lasts – all such determinations are based on how much mass there is.
Yep. All the electric charges do is delay it a bit over here, speed it up a bit over there. Gravity always wins because there isn't any antigravity, and there is antielectricity.

I decided is wrong to talk to lowlifes that call such people as the decorated discoverer of millisecond pulsars a pseudoscientist.
It's worthwhile every so often to see if they've learned anything. Usually they haven't, but you never know until you check.

Obviously you haven't as you completely missed the point of the entire discussion.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2016
@cd
they count on anyone who's interested enough to be reading their stuff to be aware that the existence of a magnetic field is a sure tip-off that there are moving charges, i.e. currents.
This is a false claim, MHD models in use by astrophysicists treat the plasma as a perfect conductor and assume the magnetic "field lines" are "frozen-in" to the plasma.
First of all, MHD was essentially initiated by Hannes Alfven. I thought he was your hero.

Second, it's the study of the magnetic fields created by flowing charged fluids- and in case you hadn't noticed, "fluids" includes plasmas, and it includes plasmas in space.

Third, models using MHD are resistive, something you could have found out along with the above two facts had you ever bothered to even read the Wikipedia article on MHD.

So basically it turns out you don't know anything about MHD either.

This is pointless; you just keep making stuff up.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) May 20, 2016
@HA, MHD was invented by the real Hannes Alfven. You now appear to be saying he was wrong. Watching you twist yourself into a pretzel over this is amusing, but not particularly informative.

Do not be surprised -- if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of this half-century debate -- if you are cast as favoring the mainstream view. This problem should have been resolved in 1958, and here we are still talking about it. People have a right to be upset and speak up when they see a glaring mistake in theory which is adhered to as fact.
Yeah, only problem is here's an article about it, and instead of saying, "Well, finally they're paying attention to it," settling down, and discussing it, all you can do is whine about "mainstream astrophysics."

Get over it.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
Re: "@HA, MHD was invented by the real Hannes Alfven. You now appear to be saying he was wrong. Watching you twist yourself into a pretzel over this is amusing, but not particularly informative."

It seems that we are present for your learning of the story, some of which is explained in the papers above you now appear to be ignoring. From "Importance of electric fields in modeling space plasmas" ...

"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."
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
Eventually, Alfven came to believe that MHD was his greatest mistake, and if you take the time to read his 1970 Nobel acceptance speech for MHD, you'll see clearly the pure irony of this historical situation: Alfven used the occasion of his Nobel award to lecture the astrophysical community on their so-far-incorrect application of this tool.

THIS PART OF THE STORY IS NOT TODAY TAUGHT TO ASTROPHYSICS GRADUATE STUDENTS.

Yet, it is the most important part of all. The real Space Age will not truly begin until Alfven's warnings about MHD are finally recognized.

The full recounting of the story is here ...

http://coincider....e-09.pdf
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
First of all, MHD was essentially initiated by Hannes Alfven. I thought he was your hero.

Here is his Nobel lecture where he states how wrong using MHD for space plasmas.

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

I've linked this many times. So yes I am aware my "hero" was wrong. He knew it too, and tried to let astrophysicists in on his secret but they chose not to listen, apparently you didn't either.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2016
@HA
It seems that we are present for your learning of the story
Wrong again, and like the rest of your ilk, still trying to seem superior instead of discussing the technical issues at hand.

Like @cd, more interested in self-aggrandizement than in science. Complete waste of time.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy for people who invest a huge amount of their personal time and effort into an idea, only to find out at some later point that they weren't given all of the relevant facts necessary to formulate a meaningful opinion on it.

I understand that the people who are arguing for MHD probably know quite a lot about it, and I'm even willing to bet that in some situations, the equations are in fact accurate.

The situation of star formation is simply not one of these cases. Any attempt to apply MHD models to these observations will predictably fail. Those of us who have studied this debate already know this. The trick is in conveying this information to others who have over time formed thick skin as a reaction to many ridiculous online claims.

This situation should not be binned with whatever other nonsense you've been exposed to. This is a very rich debate which is so fascinating that it honestly could be made into a movie.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
I'm sorry, @HA, I don't see the point in you arguing against the very discipline invented by the guy you respect so much you use his name as your handle. Like I said above, you're contorting yourself into a pretzel in order to try to claim you're "right." I'm not gonna watch any more.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
Of course you don't, it's easier to turn a blind eye than to listen to the guy who invented the discipline tell you he, and you, was dreadfully wrong.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2016
Re: "Like I said above, you're contorting yourself into a pretzel in order to try to claim you're "right." I'm not gonna watch any more."

Please realize that your narrative is extraordinarily simple: You're trying to tell us that since Hannes Alfven invented MHD that he must have supported the way in which the astrophysical community has put these equations to use.

But, the very argument which has been put forth in great detail by the Thunderbolts Group -- and which the universities have so far refused to respond to in any meaningful manner -- is that Alfven realized his "mistake". This is very well documented in his 1970 Nobel acceptance speech, in his own words. The Edge Science article adds additional crucial context. All of these claims fit perfectly into the bigger picture of the empty vacuum of space mistake. And for those who might question the level of detail, there are the two George K Parks papers.

They all corroborate one another.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2016
In light of the quote I've posted earlier, from one of the papers you refuse to read ...

"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."

... this claim that I am somehow twisting myself into a pretzel is bizarre. I've provided you with sufficient detail that you should be able to plainly discern that this is a classic Frankenstein situation: Alfven created a monster, but once it was unleashed, he could not take it back.

That is his "mistake".
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 20, 2016
@HA,
"However, since Alfven's work, space theorists have ignored the small electric field from the outset."
Ummm, if there's no electric current where's the magnetic field coming from?

Basic physics fail.

If there's magnetism, there's a moving charge. If there's a moving charge, there's magnetism. Only if the charge doesn't move do you have a pure electric field. You can't talk about a magnetic field and pretend there aren't any moving charges. It's just that simple. If you're talking about magnetism, you can't be "ignor[ing] the small [or otherwise] electric field from the outset." It's ridiculous statements like this that make everyone dismiss your quotes.

This isn't even electronics; it's electrical engineering. And it's also basic physics. They teach this in high school.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
Re: "Ummm, if there's no electric current where's the magnetic field coming from? ... Basic physics fail."

You're starting to get the problem. But, I get the sense that you still don't believe me.

Let's review some quotes ...

"Alfvén's interest in magnetic fields laid the foundations of today's magnetohydrodynamic theory, a theory widely employed by astrophysicists. In the original formulations of the theory, Alfvén spoke of magnetic fields being "frozen" into neutral plasma, and the magnetohydrodynamic equations he formulated implied that the electric currents that create magnetic fields could be effectively ignored. Hence, the plasma activity on the Sun and in more remote space could be analyzed without reference to any larger domain of electric currents or electric circuits."

[...]
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
[...]

"To this notion astronomers were readily attracted, and for a time they thought they had an ally in the brilliant electrical engineer. Although his "fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics" led to his Nobel Prize in 1970, the background to this occasion is paradoxical.

Through much of the 19th and 20th century, most astronomers and cosmologists had assumed the "vacuum" of space would not permit electric currents. Later, when it was discovered that all of space is a sea of electrically conductive plasma, the theorists reversed their position, asserting that any charge separation would be immediately neutralized. Here they found what they were looking for in Alfvén's frozen-in magnetic fields and in his magnetohydrodynamic equations. Electric currents could then be viewed as strictly localized and temporary phenomena — needed just long enough to create a magnetic field, to magnetize plasma, a virtually "perfect" conductor."

[...]
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
[...]

"The underlying idea was that space could have been magnetized in primordial times or in early stages of stellar and galactic evolution, all under the control of higher-order kinetics and gravitational dynamics. All large scale events in space could still be explained in terms of disconnected islands, and it would only be necessary to look inside the "islands" to discover localized electromagnetic events—no larger electric currents or circuitry required. In this view, popularly held today, we live in a 'magnetic universe' (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, '... No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference of the moving plasma.'

[...]
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
[...]

"But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically—and to his credit -- Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said.

In accord with Alvén's observations, American physicist, professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, notes that he himself had originally fallen in with an academic crowd that believed electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space."

[...]
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
[...]

"'My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described.'

In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén's magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too 'complicated and awkward' for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject 'not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.' It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became '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.'"

[...]
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
[...]

"Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today 'are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.'"

---

I've studied this debate for the past decade, and have of course personally validated every step of the logic. This is not a joke. There is no simple misunderstanding here. And what that means is that this story will in due time become known and blow up.

We live in a unique time right now: The Internet is very new. People are struggling to understand what to pay attention to. We're all inundated with information, and nobody has the time to validate claims -- or even, oftentimes, just read what those claims are.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
What most people have yet to realize is that specialization undermines science's ability to self-correct. Not only does it make the product of academic work impossible to understand by the large bulk of laypeople, but it also makes the work of specialists impossible to understand for other specialists. The net effect is that it dramatically reduces the number of eyeballs keeping watch over the process. To pretend as though the hyper-specialization which has occurred over the past century has had no discernible effect in this regard would be a complete denial of reality, at this point.

All of these factors dramatically slow the spread of information. But, on top of that, you have the rise of the narrative in science reasoning: Since science is too big for any particular individual to deeply understand it all, people place faith in authority. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel for his work in this area, and he fills Yale auditoriums, telling them that scientists make the same mistake.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
When I discovered this controversy, my interest in scientific controversies more broadly spiked. And I suddenly wanted to become the world's expert in scientific controversies. This might be the most important controversy in all of the sciences, but don't be fooled into thinking that it's the ONLY one. Careful research will reveal that there are controversies occurring in most scientific disciplines today.

Once a person takes that more broad view on controversies; once a person actually reads the books by academic whistleblowers; once a person learns the history of science journalism (most people don't know this exists), then the larger patterns become discernible. Most people today simply let the flood of press releases flow over them, with the belief that each new fact is proof of progress.

The fact is that to turn those facts into progress, people have to actually THINK about them. Their mere existence is NOT progress.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) May 21, 2016
Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too 'complicated and awkward' for the tastes of mathematicians.
Translation: Alfven failed to acknowledge that he, himself, lacked the proper skills and knowledge of mathematics for the task at hand.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too 'complicated and awkward' for the tastes of mathematicians.

Translation: Alfven failed to acknowledge that he, himself, lacked the proper skills and knowledge of mathematics for the task at hand.

The irony of this troll statement being that the pseudoscience promoting astrophysicists use the simplistic MHD models of plasma because they admittedly acknowledge the complexity of more correct particle/circuit models used by Alfvén. It is the pseudoscientists who fail at the math Alfvén was largely responsible from developing.

Phails1, you're right, magical fairy dust and the other dark sciences are above my head. But so too are the physics of unicorns and leprechauns.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) May 21, 2016
CD85, the plasma cosmology model of Alfven-Klein doesn't work. It neither matches nor predicts a variety of phenomena we're now able to observe with much greater accuracy and precision, most especially with respect to the WMAP and Planck observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies... give it up CD85. It. Does. Not. Work.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
The disdain for theoretical physics ("mathematics") exhibited by these trolls is also a veiled acknowledgement that this is above them. Admittedly, plasma physics is really challenging.
It is, but the basic principles that underpin it are pretty simple.

Anybody who's not thinking "moving charges" whenever they see "magnetism" hasn't been paying attention in Physics 101.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2016
Plasma regulated electromagnetic Phenomena in Magnetic Field Environment-what it implies is control-Regulate - Horizontal mode magnetic fields orient in steps to Vertical mode- that helps stability.
this is why Paradigm shift- cosmic consciousness-cosmology Revision- big-bang absurdity and black-hole psychology get filtered out automatically. Question of gravity at orion does not arise -wrong end logic.concept
The region between Orion nebulae to Red-rectangle -helps confirmatory index. see Plasma vision of the universe-1993, the vision of Cosmic to PREM [Plasma regulated EM] Universe-1995 and Space vision-OM -cosmological Index-2010. All books at LULU availablehttp://www.lulu.c...jnani108
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2016
Plasma regulated electromagnetic Phenomena in Magnetic Field Environment-what it implies is control-Regulate - Horizontal mode magnetic fields orient in steps to Vertical mode- that helps stability.
this is why Paradigm shift- cosmic consciousness-cosmology Revision- big-bang absurdity and black-hole psychology get filtered out automatically. Question of gravity at orion does not arise -wrong end logic.concept
The region between Orion nebulae to Red-rectangle -helps confirmatory index. see Plasma vision of the universe-1993, the vision of Cosmic to PREM [Plasma regulated EM] Universe-1995 and Space vision-OM -cosmological Index-2010. All books at LULU availablehttp://www.lulu.c...jnani108
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2016
Plasma regulated electromagnetic Phenomena in Magnetic Field Environment-what it implies is control-Regulate - Horizontal mode magnetic fields orient in steps to Vertical mode- that helps stability.
this is why Paradigm shift- cosmic consciousness-cosmology Revision- big-bang absurdity and black-hole psychology get filtered out automatically. Question of gravity at orion does not arise -wrong end logic.concept
The region between Orion nebulae to Red-rectangle -helps confirmatory index. see Plasma vision of the universe-1993, the vision of Cosmic to PREM [Plasma regulated EM] Universe-1995 and Space vision-OM -cosmological Index-2010. All books at LULU availablehttp://www.lulu.c...jnani108
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
@ Da Schneib
Deceptively simple.

So phails1, is it really difficult or simple? Your last two posts are as contradictory as your logic. Is it electric currents, or are these electric currents frozen-in too? What exactly is your position? It's difficult to grasp since it would seem that it has changed several times in this thread alone.

BTW, without specifically addressing the electric currents which created the magnetic fields in the first place one is only getting half the story. Even giving astrophysicists the benefit of the doubt that they don't assume these fields to be frozen-in (which sadly they do) , by omitting the description of the currents they will miss out on the fundamentals of the plasma.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
Hi cantdrive. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Been very busy. :)
that the phenomena is always a HYBRID RESULTANT of BOTH Gravitational AND Plasma/E-M forces in FEEDBACK loop interaction over time/space scales involved?
You mention that like it's some sort of epiphany of which you are responsible. Both Alfvén and Peratt fully consider gravity in the Plasma Cosmology, only in the proper context of what it can do given that EM forces are 10^39 orders of magnitude stronger
No great 'revelation', just longstanding knownn science observation. The point was that I kept REMINDING all 'sides' about that hybrid/feedback/complex issue; because everyone seemed to 'prefer' one or the other 'force' in their 'explanations/interpretations of the phenomena.

Sure, while E-M is dominant in may scales/processes, Gravity has sway when those E-M forces are in BALANCE, and the 'tweaks' from Gravity sets the whole dynamics onto a changed 'evolutionary' state/direction.

cont
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
...cont

@cantdrive: Say, has this thread fallen into "The Twilight Zone" or something? I read Da Schneib's posts effectively agreeing with what you and Hans Alfven have been pointing out about electric fields/currents and magnetic phenomena; but he seems to be attacking you for being correct all along! How is that possible? He agrees with you, disagrees with your erstwhile detractors, and yet he is attacking YOU instead of correcting your detractors! Only on PO and in "The Twilight Zone", hey! :)

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
Hi ChiefFD. Sorry for being tardy in reply to yours. Been very busy. :)
Good luck, everyone; try to stick to ALL the reality/physics involved; and drop old personality animosities/feuds, hey? Cheers. :)
I vote you down because I don't like your attitude or what you have to say. No feud involved...
I have always fought against trolls of all persuasions and thried to get everyone to discuss the science/logics not the source.person. That is what the Scientific Method dictates and expects from all serious and genuine discoursers on-science and on-topic.

And the record proves me again and again correct on the KNOWN science correctly applied to consistently interpret the phenomena observe.

And I have kept impartial and independent and reasonable, even against the most egregious provocations from certain troll/downvoting bot-gangs.

And you can see I do NOT indulge in 'ratings/trolls' (eg, I do NOT 'play' in the ratings pages at all).

So, mate, what's not to like? :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good and fit but really busy lately, thanks for asking.

So, mate, what's not to like? :)


I really like it when peoples have to tell you why they are likable Especially the peoples who if you asked 10,000 peoples "what's not to like" about the Really-Skippy, 9,999 of them would have a list of things, and the other one happened to be the Skippy's mother.

Anyhoo, I am glad to see you wasting your time trying to tell Bennie-Skippy something about math stuffs. But you know he is going to tell you that you have never seen a different equation or read about the semi-hemi-spherical universe. Don't let that bother you none though because that is what he always says when he doesn't know what you are talking about (even the smart Skippys.)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016
Hi Ira-Skippy. :)

Mate, your Schtick is full of holes. What trolls "don't like" about me is irrelevant in the scheme of things. You are even more irrelevant than the usual troll, since you have a bot-voting program hooked up to your account and have admitted to being so haplessly dumb that you "don't know how to disconnect it"!

As for Benni, his thrust is OK even though he misspoke about the math term 'value' equivalence of frequency and wavelength used in the equation. I merely corrected his misspeak there; his thrust was OK overall.

Not that you understand either way, hey? Still you post and make yourself look even stupider than the last time you posted; all because you bot-voted and said nothing of value to anyone or anything: something which your fellow bot-voting trolls will "like" with a "5", no doubt.

Never mind, your missus-Ira-Skippy will "like" you more sincerely than your fellow bot-voting trolls do!

Anyhow, there's NO "like/dislike" in Scientific Method. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) May 22, 2016
Hi Ira-Skippy. :)
How you are again?

You are even more irrelevant than the usual troll,
And I thank you for that too.

As for Benni, his thrust is OK even though he misspoke about the
He does that a lot, if you are going to help when he does, you are going to be very busy.

Still you post and make yourself look even stupider than the last time you posted; all because you bot-voted and said nothing of value to anyone or anything: something which your fellow bot-voting trolls will "like" with a "5", no doubt.
I understand the stupider part, but the rest I don't. This is not another apology is it?

Anyhow, there's NO "like/dislike" in Scientific Method. :)
Wow, here is a first, that is where I know something you don't. Everything that has humans involved in it will always have the "like/dislike" component in it. There is just no way around that Cher.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2016

@cantdrive: Say, has this thread fallen into "The Twilight Zone" or something? I read Da Schneib's posts effectively agreeing with what you and Hans Alfven have been pointing out about electric fields/currents and magnetic phenomena; but he seems to be attacking you for being correct all along! How is that possible? He agrees with you, disagrees with your erstwhile detractors, and yet he is attacking YOU instead of correcting your detractors! Only on PO and in "The Twilight Zone", hey! :)

Twilight Zone indeed!
But you can see here how this paradigm change will happen. When it finally does come about, the people who have been telling me how wrong I've been will do a 180 a claim they knew it all along. They'll change their id's, they'll ridicule people who can't get passed the dark sciences and everyone who doesn't fall in line will be trolls. They're predictable saps.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
Since @RC seems to think @Uncle Ira is somehow getting votes illegitimately, I think we should speak up and say we upvoted him fives because he is amusing and helps oppose the anti-science viewpoint of certain posters here who are subtle harassers, primarily by subtly harassing them and giving them a dose of their own medicine, and because when he chooses to weigh in technically he does so with manifest authority not requiring any supporting confirmation but providing his own thoughts with data to confirm them.

@RC, I don't see why you continue your quixotic quest to prove your toes are magical. As far as I'm concerned I see no reason I should ever respond to you again; you can deal with @Uncle Ira, or you can leave, but it's going to be a long, long time before I ever pay attention to anything you say again. Take your subtle harassment tactics, fold them up until they are all sharp corners, and stuff them in the orifice of your choice.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
Since @RC seems to think @Uncle Ira is somehow getting votes illegitimately, I think we should speak up and say we upvoted him fives because he is amusing and helps oppose the anti-science viewpoint of certain posters here who are subtle harassers

I upvote hime since he's one of the few who still have the patience to speak up against the Dunning-Kruger crowd (and not just put them on ignore).
Enthusiastic Fool
4.2 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
When I give Ira a 5 it's because he says something reasonable, amusing, or because he has the courage to admit when he's wrong. I myself aint that brave.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
@RC
Why does Uncle Ira have supporters? Simple, he takes useless, boring, and stupid comments like yours and turns them into a comedy show. So thanks RC, you give plenty of material to UI so we can enjoy his delightful art.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 23, 2016
The part that everybody seems to skip over -- but which I personally feel is perhaps the most important -- is that there is no effort today to inform graduate students going into astrophysics about this debate.

Thus, first contact with these issues tends to occur for most astrophysicists at a point where they have long ago committed to the textbook theories. After all, the programs dictate that they memorize stacks of problem sets. Academic whistleblower Jeff Schmidt likened this process to a bootcamp insofar as the problems require algebraic tricks in order to finish the qualifying exam on time -- thus intentionally weeding out the more creative individuals who might actually be THINKING through the problems on-the-fly. It's all about memorization.

Ethically speaking, first contact with this debate should occur long before that process begins.

THESE STUDENTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO KNOW THAT THIS ENTIRE DISCIPLINE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED, BEFORE THEY ENTER.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
@AnusAlfven
The part that everybody seems to skip over -- but which I personally feel is perhaps the most important -- is that there is no effort today to inform graduate students going into astrophysics about this debate.
If you think that any student who are aiming for a bacc. a master or a PhD would have any time to spare for amateur science convo, it must be because you never spent any time in higher education. It also explains why your sorry ass is so lame.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
that there is no effort today to inform graduate students going into astrophysics about this debate.
Oh c'mon. The papers from Alfven that you and CD85 are so fond of posting links to here have been cited by researchers literally hundreds of times. Have you followed up on them? There's been no "debate" in them; but there has been much progress...
THESE STUDENTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO KNOW THAT THIS ENTIRE DISCIPLINE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED, BEFORE THEY ENTER.
There! In all caps even, at Phys.org no less. That'll show'em! Thank you, HA, your work here is done.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Re: "The papers from Alfven that you and CD85 are so fond of posting links to here have been cited by researchers literally hundreds of times. Have you followed up on them? There's been no "debate" in them"

Graduate students have a right to know that the information they are learning is the subject of a half-century debate, and that these equations which have become so widely applied have been rejected by the very man who created them -- and received the Nobel for doing so.

Once a student has already spent a couple of years memorizing these problem sets, they are already invested in the matter and their inclination to participate in the debate in an unbiased manner will plainly be overcome by the desire to fit into the social dynamics of the astrophysical community.

Undergraduates considering entering this field should be informed of the risk that comes with entering a field which has been contested in such a manner.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Alfven's 1970 Nobel Lecture
http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It 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."

[...]
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
[...]

"The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are " generally accepted " by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not " understand " how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points."

[...]

"From what has been said it is obvious that astrophysics runs the risk of getting too speculative, unless it tries very hard to keep contact with laboratory physics"
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Graduate students have a right to know that the information they are learning is the subject of a half-century debate, ...
Not even the Alfven-Klein plasma cosmology has been "rejected," but it has been quite well refuted by various observations. You make it sound like the information is censored but that's obviously not the case.
Once a student has already spent a couple of years memorizing these problem sets, they are already invested in the matter and their inclination to participate in the debate in an unbiased manner will plainly be overcome by the desire to fit into the social dynamics of the astrophysical community.
Nonsense. That's like saying that after learning algebra students will have a bias against learning calculus.
Undergraduates considering entering this field should be informed of the risk that comes with entering a field which has been contested in such a manner.
That "risk" sure didn't seem to phase you. You rebel you.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Alfven's critique of MHD is in no way entangled with his proposal for a cosmology. The two claims -- one a critique and the other a hypothesis -- can (and should) obviously be considered separately.

Re: "Nonsense. That's like saying that after learning algebra students will have a bias against learning calculus."

This is what I call a grade school narrative. It completely ignores the numerous claims made by academic whistleblowers of our day. The patterns of the astrophysical discipline are not extraordinary; they follow the same patterns we see across ALL of the scientific disciplines.

The continued rejection of these controversies essentially ensures that certain big questions will never be answered, for the answers are locked away on the other side of these controversies.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
THESE STUDENTS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO KNOW
@ha
how can you definitively know what is being taught if:
1- you don't have a degree in the subject
or
2- you can't substantiate your claims with evidence (be it links to actual universities and sites like [url][url]http://ocw.mit.edu[/url][/url] or books/references)

you and cd both keep making claims about what the universities do and don't teach but you have yet to be able to prove anything with any evidence, whereas anyone taking the time to link to [url][url]http://ocw.mit.edu[/url][/url] will see almost everything you need to get various degree's in astrophysics
... and included in those courses are: plasma physics, high energy physics, etc
See for yourself (yet again) [url][url]http://ocw.mit.edu[/url][/url]

This is what I call a grade school narrative. It completely ignores the education and proven science we've built upon to get to the point we're at today... it's why the scientific method works so well

it is why the eu is considered pseudoscience
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
The continued rejection of these controversies essentially ensures that certain big questions will never be answered, for the answers are locked away on the other side of these controversies.
Bigger questions than "how did this universe get here, what's it made of, how does it work, and why do I see what I see in a mirror?" Or did you mean a big question about exploding double layers or something? Pretty sure most scientists are working on the former and they're increasing the bounds of comprehensibility on a daily basis when it comes to providing reliable, verifiable answers.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Hi Da Schneib, Phys1, TechnoCreed. :)

It is amusing, and somewhat disappointing at the same time, to see the kind of arrogant self-serving double standards which your behaviour/posts demonstrate. Can't you see you are making a mockery of the Scientific Method and Fairness in discussion whenever you encourage a BOT-VOTING idiot to skew a Science Site's metrics and to harass members even when they are CORRECT on the science/facts? Da Schneib especially should be sensitive to double standards accusation. He has called me liar and worse, despite my being correct and knowing/understanding more scientific reality fundamentals than he ever will. He has been shown incorrect, yet prefers to suck up to a self-confessed idiot bot-voter rather than give credit/respect to a CORRECT member he has called liar, troll etc for purely egotistical reasons. No wonder mainstream fiascoes keep occurring, if self serving double standards like this are 'the norm' in science literature/discourse. :(
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Re: "you and cd both keep making claims about what the universities do and don't teach but you have yet to be able to prove anything with any evidence"

Because universities do not yet teach scientific controversies as open-ended questions. This is hardly a secret.

Because none of the textbooks on these subjects make any mention of Alfven's change-of-heart.

Because I listen to whistleblowers, who have critiqued the physics graduate program in detail -- all the way down to how the qualifying exam problems are designed. These are critiques which probably most PhD's are unaware of, even after successful completion of the program.

It's not at all a secret what is happening. The graduate students are not in a position to question the materials they are struggling to memorize. Academic whistleblower, Jeff Schmidt, is clear that if they stop to ask questions, they will fall behind.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
Can't you see you are making a mockery of the Scientific Method...

For this, point your finger at Physorg. They are the one's who allow this place to be a circus.
... despite my being correct and knowing/understanding more scientific reality fundamentals than he ever will.
I have my own opinion on that and guess what? You are the one who's in the trash can (on ignore).

So let me give you a reason to be thankful for Uncle Ira's good care; if you would not be one of his useful monkeys, I would not read any of your comments. Fair enough?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2016
Graduate students have a right to know that the information they are learning is the subject of a half-century debate,

Pretty sure that is a given...
and that these equations which have become so widely applied have been rejected by the very man who created them -- and received the Nobel for doing so.

Tut, tut, tut, HA.. Hu rcvd the Nobel for CREATING them, not rejecting them....

Once a student has already spent a couple of years memorizing these problem sets, they are already invested in the matter and their inclination to participate in the debate in an unbiased manner will plainly be overcome by the desire to fit into the social dynamics of the astrophysical community.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Hi TechnoCreed. :)

Mate, your rationalizing, for denying you are part of the problem, is steeped in self serving double standards...
Can't you see you are making a mockery of the Scientific Method..
point your finger at Physorg. They are the one's who allow this place to be a circus.
No, your unconsionable upvoting 5 to such bot-voting idiots is the problem.
despite my being correct and knowing/understanding more scientific reality fundamentals than he ever will.
I have my own opinion... You are...on ignore.
How can you be informed of the facts if you ignore reality as it happens? If you had been paying attention you would have seen where I corrected/informed Da Schneib more than once. Your opinion is therefore UNinformed.
...be thankful for Uncle Ira's good care; if you would not be one of his useful monkeys, I would not read any of your comments.
WTF! You now 'outsource' your reading/information 'filtering' to bot-voting idiots?
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Well I can see you are grumpy like usual, hope it passes soon. I am good, thanks for asking.

You wrote a couple of things there I want to get straight with you, but since I don't want to spoil Techno-Skippy's dinner I am not going to do the quote thing like I usually do.

Why you got to be so angry at me for using my right to vote? If you want to be mad because I say stuffs that make you mad, that is normal, but just like I tried to tell Noumemon-Skippy, the votes are not what you should care so much about.

Skippy, we have all seen you "corrected/informed" a lot of different peoples over the years. 99.99% of the time, EVERYBODY is still as uncorrected/uninformed as they was before you ever said anything. Cher all that correcting/informing is pretty much useless to anybody because nobody else ever understands what going on in that weird little mind of yours.

Now why you don't just try to calm your self. Do Some Better Diligence.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

What is it about it's not about me; but about your making a mockery of the science site's metrics and the scientific ethics which discussion is supposed to be conducted by, that you don't 'get'? Your idiotic antics detract/derail, not enhance, scientific discourse here.

And you don't have a "right" to act against scientific fact/discussion metrics. You taking an idiot's approach to making yourself irrelevant to both science and humanity discourse/advancement.

And ask Da Schneib if he is not more correct/informed since I have been correcting/informing him. So you are a presumptious twerp ignorant of the reality that has happened regarding that. Which makes you doubly idiotic; as if singly idiotic was not enough to already make all your antics "funs" for the easily gulled amongst the PO membership who still give you 5 for being a bot-voting idiot who admits to not being able to disconnect the bot-voting program he is using.

What a farce. What a "funs". :)

Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
What is it about it's not about me; but about your making a mockery of the science site's metrics and the scientific ethics which discussion is supposed to be conducted by, that you don't 'get'?
As long as I only vote once I think I am being pretty ethical. Why you don't track down some of the unethical Skippys who like to vote 15 or 14 times?

And you don't have a "right" to act against scientific fact/discussion metrics.
I do to have a "right" to vote. It says so right there where they put the star things by your name.

You taking an idiot's approach to making yourself irrelevant to both science and humanity discourse/advancement.
Well if you would quit being so impudent I would stop being so irreverent.

ask Da Schneib if he is not more correct/informed since I have been correcting/informing him.
Don't need to ask him, I already seen him answer that one.

Which makes you doubly idiotic;
I was trying for the trifecta.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2016
Re: "Hu rcvd the Nobel for CREATING them, not rejecting them...."

People need look no further than this forum to see evidence that the full story of Alfven's biography is never told. What is remarkable is that the people who seemingly refuse to learn the whole story continue to reveal their failure to understand it at every opportunity.
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) May 24, 2016
What is remarkable is that the people who seemingly refuse to learn the whole story continue to reveal their failure to understand it at every opportunity.
Even more remarkable is you disagreeing (above) with Alfven's (and Klein's) plasma cosmology, and you disagreeing (constantly) with magnetohydrodynamics, for which Alfven won a Nobel. The only part of the "whole story" you seem to agree with is Alfven's remarks that MHD by itself doesn't suffice for explaining all observations. It's obvious to everyone here (including any undergrads who happen to read the comments) that the "story" according to you is not by any stretch the "whole story."
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2016
Re: "Even more remarkable is you disagreeing (above) with Alfven's (and Klein's) plasma cosmology, and you disagreeing (constantly) with magnetohydrodynamics, for which Alfven won a Nobel."

Why is this unexpected? Alfven stated this plainly in his own words in his 1970 Nobel acceptance speech, which I've quoted above.

What is the logic of ignoring a man's own words, published in such a manner that they are fully beyond dispute -- and instead imposing your own simplistic narrative upon him?

You're involved in a form of denial. There is no true complexity here in Alfven's stance, because he expressed himself on numerous occasions on the subject of MHD.

Once the public learns the story, you'll find yourself alone. In the programming world, this false narrative on Alfven is what we call security through obscurity -- and it is known as the least effective of the available security options.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
As long as I only vote once I think I am being pretty ethical. Why you don't track down some of the unethical Skippys who like to vote 15 or 14 times?
You BOT-vote. That's unethical, anti-science while you pretend to respect "science-skippys".
I do to have a "right" to vote. It says so right there where they put the star things by your name.
A BOT-voting idiot's 'vote' is irrelevant, anti-science; as it's maliciously intended to skew the metrics.
You taking an idiot's approach to making yourself irrelevant to both science and humanity discourse/advancement.
Well if you would quit being so impudent I would stop being so irreverent.
"Irrelevant" was the word.
ask Da Schneib if he is not more correct/informed since I have been correcting/informing him.
Don't need to ask him, I already seen him answer that one.
His ego is in denial of the posting record.
I was trying for the trifecta.
You'll coast it in mindlessly, Bot-idiot
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Hi and how you are too? I am good me, and fit and good, thanks for asking.

Cher, are you always in a bad mood? Or just when you come here?

You BOT-vote. That's unethical,
Non it is not Skippy. As long as I vote the one time I get a vote like everybody else.

anti-science while you pretend to respect "science-skippys".
And the science-Skippys I give the good karma points to. How is me voting you down anti-science anyway? Maybe to me your gobbledygook is anti-science.

"Irrelevant" was the word.
That was YOUR word Skippy. I used a better one, "irreverent" because your preaching deserves it. I am irreverent before the Great-Really-Skippy.

You'll coast it in mindlessly, Bot-idiot
Thank you for your vote of confidence and support in that.

Next time you come around calling out my name, how about you try not to be so grumpy and foul tempered, eh? DO BETTER DILIGENCE WITH YOUR DEMEANOR SKIPPY.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Cher, are you always in a bad mood? Or just when you come here?
You are an idiotic every time you bot-vote/troll-post here. And it takes your very 'special idiot' industrial strength insensibility to miss the 'smileys' I preface/end my posts with.
You BOT-vote. That's unethical,
As long as I vote the one time I get a vote like everybody else.
A BOT-voter is NOT "like everybody else". And please quote the PO rule that invites BOT-voters/BOT-voting Mindless Idiots like you?
Maybe to me your gobbledygook is anti-science.
No surprise there; you BOT-vote without understanding; give 5s to incorrect posters, 1s to correct posters.
I used a better one, "irreverent" because your preaching deserves it.
You've been forced to admit to being uncomprehending of what is being discussed in depth, so your irrelevant idiot's opinion is eminently ignorable.
Thank you for your vote of confidence
All in awe of your 'special kind' of idiocy. Duh. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
it takes your very 'special idiot' industrial strength insensibility to miss the 'smileys' I preface/end my posts with
Excuse me but the smileys teamed up with your words look more the grimace to me.

please quote the PO rule that invites BOT-voters/BOT-voting Mindless Idiots like you?
Rules are not for inviting, rules are things not to do. And there is not one about Mindless Idiots like me voting anyway he wants to vote.

you BOT-vote without understanding
I give the 1 votes BECAUSE I don't understand you. Nobody understands you, should you get 5 for writing stuffs nobody understands?

give 5s to incorrect posters 1s to correct posters.
That is not for you to decide for me Cher.

your irrelevant idiot's opinion is eminently ignorable.
Well Skippy what you are waiting for? Why you don't take your self up on your offer and ignore me? I am not forcing you to knock your head against the wall trying to make me reverent and respectable.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
takes your very 'special idiot' industrial strength insensibility to miss the 'smileys'...
Excuse me but the smileys teamed up with your words look more the grimace to me.
In your BOT-voting-Mindless-Idiot's 'considered' opinion?
please quote the PO rule that invites .../BOT-voting Mindless Idiots
there is not one about Mindless Idiots like me..
You just admitted to being a "Mindless Idiot". Congratulations; you just achieved the "Trifecta"!
I give the 1 votes BECAUSE I don't understand you.
Your Idiot's Logic on display again? You don't understand what your 'preferred posters' post either, yet you give them 5 even when they incorrect and I correct.
That is not for you to decide for me Cher.
Who wants to decide for you? You are deciding to be an idiot-bot-voter-troll here.
Why you don't take your self up on your offer and ignore me?
Your Uncomprehending Idiot's Opinion is ignorable; your bot-voting/troll-posting is not. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Hi again Really-Skippy. How you are (again)?

In your BOT-voting-Mindless-Idiot's 'considered' opinion?
Yeah. In my BOT-voting-Mindless-Idiot's 'considered' opinion. Why do you care, why do you ask? You are getting ready to tell me it is ignorable.

Who wants to decide for you?
Seems like you do. You sure spend a lot of time telling me how I should and should not vote. You keep forgetting it is my vote not yours. Physorg gives you a vote too and it's not my fault if you can figure out how to use it.

You are deciding to be an idiot-bot-voter-troll here.
So what? It's my vote and I am allowed to decide to be "an idiot-bot-voter-troll" here if I want to do that.

Your Uncomprehending Idiot's Opinion is ignorable
You sure do spend a lot of lecturing me on something you say is ignorable.

your bot-voting/troll-posting is not
Do Better Matey. (And quit repeating everything every time you postum. Try to work up some new material.)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
In your BOT-voting-Mindless-Idiot's 'considered' opinion?
Yeah. In my BOT-voting-Mindless-Idiot's 'considered' opinion.
Thanks for confirming it's an BOT-Idiot's 'considered opinion'.
Who wants to decide for you?
Seems like you do. You sure spend a lot of time telling me how I should and should not vote.
Your 'Inner Idiot' is 'strong in you', Ira. I need only keep pointing out your anti-ethical/anti-science BOT-voting/posting behaviour. Any 'decision' is yours to make about you continuing that or not.
You are deciding to be an idiot-bot-voter-troll here.
I am allowed to decide to be "an idiot-bot-voter-troll" here if I want to do that.
And you patently have done just that. Hence this exchange.
Your Uncomprehending Idiot's Opinion is ignorable
You sure do spend a lot of lecturing me on something you say is ignorable.
Nah. Merely briefly remarking on the eminent ignorability of your self-confirmed Idiot's Opinion. :)
InterestedAmateur
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2016
@RealityCheck

So where's the TOE?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) May 31, 2016
Hi InterestedAmateur. :) Please refer to my post to TehDog today, over in thread: http://phys.org/n...les.html Also please refer to my posts to Fleetfoot at around the same time and earlier. Your concerns regarding my TOE 'tardiness' etc are addressed therein. Also in that thread, I reciprocate your 'concern' about me and my work. I addressed a polite post to you and similarly 'concerned' posters, asking about what you have done with your life for science, humanity and the greater good. Uncle Ira took a stab at replying, but again his inner idiot' was too strong to allow him to make any sense let alone actually answering honestly when asked to account for himself as he and some others have asked me and others to. Fair is fair, hey? I am 'concerned' about what you and certain others mentioned in that post have been up to that may put my own humble efforts 'in the shade'. I expect to hear about some great efforts from you all. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) May 31, 2016
I expect to hear about some great efforts from you all


Cher seems like everybody else is to busy to fool around with. Maybe they are working on their own toes.

Anyhoo, since you were not able to guess where I am and what I am doing I will go ahead and tell you now.

I am in Texas, shocking, eh? You know how I feel about Texans. Actually they are not so bad, as long as they stay in Texas and not Louisiana. But we are taking a vacation to California and stopped late this afternoon here in Stockton Texas. If I had my way we would have drove straight through without the stopping but Mrs-Ira-Skippette's sister and her kid are also with us and they get tired of being cooped up in the truck for so long.

We are going to spend 10 whole days in California. Everybody else wants to see Hollywood and Disney's Land, so they are going to do stuffs like that. I want to go see all the Museum Ships at Long Beach, San Diego and San Pedro. Even brought my radios too.

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

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