The role of magnetic fields in star formation

July 29, 2016
A false-color far-infrared image of the star forming region W43; the contours are for molecular gas density. The subregion MM1 located just left of center in not conspicuous in the image but is the site of massive star formation and fragmentation. A new study has mapped the magnetic fields in this region, and found they are not strong enough to prevent further gravitational collapse. Credit: ESA/Herschel and L.Q. Nguyen et al

The star forming molecular clump W43-MM1 is very massive and dense, containing about 2100 solar masses of material in a region only one-third of a light year across (for comparison, the nearest star to the Sun is a bit over four light years away).

Previous observations of this clump found evidence for infalling motions (signaling that material is still accumulating onto a new star) and weak magnetic fields. These fields are detected by looking for polarized , which is produced when radiation scatters off of elongated dust grains aligned by magnetic fields. The Submillimeter Array recently probed this source with high spatial resolutions and found evidence for even stronger magnetic fields in places. One of the outstanding issues in star formation is the extent to which magnetic fields inhibit the collapse of material onto , and this source seems to offer a particularly useful example.

CfA astronomers Josep Girart and TK Sridharan and their colleagues have used the ALMA submillimeter facility to obtain images with spatial scales as small as 0.03 light years. Their detailed polarization maps show that the magnetic field is well ordered all across the clump, which itself is actually fifteen smaller fragments, one of which (at 312 ) appears to be the most massive fragment known.

The scientists analyze the magnetic field strengths and show that, even in the least massive fragment the field is not strong enough to inhibit gravitational collapse. In fact, they find indications that gravity, as it pulls material inward, drags the lines along. They are, however, unable to rule out possible further fragmentation. The research is the most precise study of magnetic fields in star forming massive clumps yet undertaken, and provides a new reference point for theoretical models.

Explore further: As stars form, magnetic fields influence regions big and small

More information: Paulo C. Cortes et al. INTERFEROMETRIC MAPPING OF MAGNETIC FIELDS: THE ALMA VIEW OF THE MASSIVE STAR-FORMING CLUMP W43-MM1, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/1/L15

Related Stories

Twisted magnetic fields give new insights on star formation

December 21, 2015

Using new images that show unprecedented detail, scientists have found that material rotating around a very young protostar probably has dragged in and twisted magnetic fields from the larger area surrounding the star. The ...

Mysterious, massive, magnetic stars

September 11, 2015

A Canadian PhD student has discovered a unique object – two massive stars with magnetic fields in a binary system. Matt Shultz of Queen's University, Ontario, Canada found the system – Epsilon Lupi – and will publish ...

Video: Towering magnetic arches seen by NASA's SDO

April 18, 2016

Arches of magnetic field lines towered over the sun's edge as a pair of active regions began to rotate into view in this video captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory on April 5-6, 2016. Active regions are areas of ...

Magnetic field around young star captured

October 27, 2014

For the first time astronomers, including SRON astronomer Woojin Kwon, have been able to capture the magnetic field in the accretion disk around a young star. The shape of the field was a big surprise. The discovery suggests ...

Recommended for you

Solar minimum surprisingly constant

November 17, 2017

Using more than a half-century of observations, Japanese astronomers have discovered that the microwaves coming from the sun at the minimums of the past five solar cycles have been the same each time, despite large differences ...

83 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2016
Circular reasoning at its best!
We speculate and instantiate the truth that stars MUST be forming in that region despite the lack of concrete observational evidence.
Then we blithely apply our measuring techniques to determine the magnetic fields and voila! we conclude that SINCE stars are forming in that region, the magnetic fields are not strong enough to prevent them from forming....!
Magnetic field problem solved. All in one small, easy step.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2016
More cold water poured upon various silly 'electric sun' models.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
Circular reasoning at its best!
We speculate and instantiate the truth that stars MUST be forming in that region despite the lack of concrete observational evidence.
Then we blithely apply our measuring techniques to determine the magnetic fields and voila! we conclude that SINCE stars are forming in that region, the magnetic fields are not strong enough to prevent them from forming....!
Magnetic field problem solved. All in one small, easy step.


Not to mention that 2 weeks ago this site posted an article in which they DID observe a star forming region(with actual protostars) where the OBSERVED magnetic effect HELPED stars form to the point where they stated that the fields "acted like gravity". The statement that gravity must overcome magnetic fields in star formation is contradictory (when put politely), or pseudoscientific bullshit when stated matter of factly.
Be interesting to see who ignores the observed in favor of the unsupported theory.
Gigel
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2016
I wonder what is the magnetic field of a troll. Is it quantized, is it random?
bschott
2 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
I wonder what is the magnetic field of a troll. Is it quantized, is it random?

Stick a Teslameter against your head and see what it registers....should give you a good baseline.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2016
Circular reasoning at its best!
We speculate and instantiate the truth that stars MUST be forming in that region despite the lack of concrete observational evidence.......


"There are at least two locations in the 'W43 Chimney' containing OB stars or associations....."

Herschel Observations of the W43 "mini-starburst"
Bally, J., et al

https://arxiv.org...92v1.pdf
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2016
Some people believe in electric sun models that have no observational or any other type of evidence. That are ruled out by many and various measurements around this and other stars. They don't even have models that make any scientific sense to those that actually understand science.
Circular reasoning? Or just an inability to do any sort of scientific reasoning due to not understanding it?
I'll leave the reader to decide.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2016
Should have also linked this:

The Stellar Content of Obscured Galactic Giant H II Regions: I. W43
Blum, R.D., et al
https://arxiv.org...70v1.pdf

It would appear that some people are so taken in by various con artists, that they have lost the ability to even do a bit of scientific research, using an internet search engine, before spouting off!
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2016
In fact, they find indications that gravity, as it pulls material inward, drags the magnetic field lines along.

So now gravity drags "magnetic field lines", when will the madness of this pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo end? And when will it's cheerleaders pull their head out of their ass, jonesdumb?

wduckss
1 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2016
Good tools, methods and smart scientists in the wrong platform.
312 mass Sun is not enough for the collapse of gas and dust.
Over 75% of the star (M typ) are small red of stars.
As they were sufficient of gas for collapse when here, not collapsing 1,000 times more of gas?
It looks that each nebula has its own laws of physics.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2016
@cd,
And when are you and your fellow nutjobs actually going to address the evidence? Or show us some of your own? Failing that, show us the peer reviewed "theory" (lol).

You can make all the drive by comments you like on here; it's an irrelevance. It isn't changing the scientific observations and results. Meanwhile, whilst there are mountains of publicly accessible data out there for anyone to access, the EU fruit loops still can't be bothered to use it to try and construct some sort of hypothesis that might make even a tiny bit of scientific sense.
Sorry, but you, and your kind, are, have been and will continue to be, an irrelevance.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
That are ruled out by many and various measurements around this and other stars.
I'll leave the reader to decide.

Only by stupid people flailing their arms about. You'll let the reader decide, after you vomit some lies and misrepresentation.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2016
That are ruled out by many and various measurements around this and other stars.
I'll leave the reader to decide.

Only by stupid people flailing their arms about. You'll let the reader decide, after you vomit some lies and misrepresentation.


So come on, where are your currents powering this star? Evidence, please. Where would we see the evidence? How would it present itself? Have we looked at that evidence? What does it say?
Links please.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2016
@cd,
And when are you and your fellow nutjobs actually going to address the evidence?

Oh, you mean addressing how gravity drags "magnetic field lines"? Rube!
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2016
So come on, where are your currents powering this star? Evidence, please. Where would we see the evidence? How would it present itself? Have we looked at that evidence? What does it say?

Well, being there are magnetic fields that is one piece of evidence. Unless of course, you believe that they are just magically there as you propose. But the evidence doesn't stop there, from the abstract;
"We found a smooth, ordered, and detailed polarization pattern throughout the filament"
The "smooth, ordered, and detailed pattern" is the result of said currents, and not magic as you'd propose.

They go on;
"finding that all the fragments are in a super-critical state that is consistent with previously detected infalling motions"
There you go, previously detected "infalling motions". Being we are discussing plasma, bulk motions are electric currents and they are flowing into the stars. Powering them...
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2016
Only by stupid people flailing their arms about. You'll let the reader decide, after you vomit some lies and misrepresentation.
Cantthink supports a theory that has no observational or physical evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and can give no mathematical support. Talk about arm flailing!

He claims that astronomers ignore electric fields and free charges in space, yet a simple Google search reveals that there have been studies dating back as far as the 1920's. He waves that away by saying they are doing it wrong, but he has no examples of those who are doing it right. Talk about arm flailing!

He claims that all our models of the solar interior are wrong, and that it is somehow powered by giant, unseen electrical currents that enter the Sun by the poles, When Ulysses passed over first the S then the N poles of the sun and saw nothing, they flailed their arms and ignored it,

I can give example after example. The only 'arm flailing" here is from cantthink
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2016
that it is somehow powered by giant, unseen electrical currents that enter the Sun by the poles, When Ulysses passed over first the S then the N poles of the sun and saw nothing

As usual, magnutts resorts to lies and deception to "prove" his arm flailing.

http://solarviews...sses.htm

"Scientists were surprised by observations of how cosmic rays make their way into the solar system from galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The magnetic field of the Sun over its poles turned out to be very different from previous expectations using ground-based observations. In addition, Ulysses found a beam of particles from interstellar space that was penetrating the solar system at a velocity of close to 80,000 kilometers per hour (50,000 miles per hour)."

As beam of particles? That's an electric current to you and me. Got any more lies or examples of you ignoring observations?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
I note the massive [sic] fail of EU. As a pseudoscience it was already never alive (no quantifiable theory), this will be its burial.

@bschott: "they DID observe a star forming region(with actual protostars) where the OBSERVED magnetic effect HELPED stars form to the point where they stated that the fields "acted like gravity"."

No one, especially this work, has proposed that B fields doesn't help. But that they are not essential, since they do much less action (are less powerful.) Gravity rules on these scales too, apparently. (EM first becomes dominant in liquid/solid bodies, re attractive and resisting forces, i.e. in substellar bodies. It is electromentary, my dear Watt son.)

@wduckss: "312 mass Sun is not enough for the collapse of gas and dust."

Meaning? Relevance? References?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2016
@cd
As beam of particles? That's an electric current to you and me. Got any more lies or examples of you ignoring observations?


Snipped usual nonsense.

So, instead of your science free posts, and calling people idiots, why don't you actually compute the energy supplied from these sources?
Here is a link where somebody has done it for you. Please get back to us and tell us where he has got the maths wrong. With examples:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/electric-sun-energy-budget-from-known.html
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
@windbag: You didn't see the "In addition", did you? Meaning no connection between the magnetic field and the interstellar wind.

Transcript of the referenced ESA report to 30th COSPAR:

"Of particular note are the highly successful observations of so-called pickup ions. which originate as interstellar neutral atoms that are swept into the heliosphere by the motion of the solar system through the interstellar medium and which become singly ionized by solar UV and charge-exchange processes. These ions mainly H, He, ..."

"Ulysses also carries a new instrument that has made the first in-situ measurements of the neutral interstellar medium reference above. ... The value for the flow speed of 26 km/s [ ~90,ooo km/h] (corresponding to the relative motion of the solar system through the interstellar medium) derived from the Ulysses data, agrees well with recent analyses of absorption lines in the emission of nearby stars."

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
[ctd]

[ http://articles.a...000.html ]

Of course these data from 1996 has been mooted and complicated by more recent data.

But the result is that you have claimed that a purely gravitational effect, the solar system orbiting the Milky Way and picking up interstellar atoms, as an effect of a solar current (which is neither seen nor expected in interstellar space).

Windcan'tbag, you can pick up another dunce hat at the exit of this thread. And you cam leave your flattened into the ground integrity where it you trampled all over it again.

@DaShneib [crosspost]: Good point!
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
One of the outstanding issues in star formation is the extent to which magnetic fields inhibit the collapse of material onto stars, and this source seems to offer a particularly useful example.
Note, "inhibit." In this study we seem to be observing that magnetic fields, far from being essential to star formation, actually act against it.
wduckss
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2016
torbjorn_b_g_larsson "Meaning? Relevance? References?"

Stars are formed as a result of the collapse of gas, they say. M stars (2.400 to 3.700 M K red light orange red Sun 0:08 to 0:45 M ≤ 0.7 ≤ R Wed 0:08 L Sun Very weak https://en.wikipe...fication 76.45%) have a mass of 0.08 to 0.45 mass Sun. When the cloud begins to go into a collapse? 0.08 mass Sun is enough for the formation of stars from the cloud here is not enough 312 mass Sun. The composition of nebulae and clouds is virtually the same (mostly hydrogen and something He the rest trace), why would then Colapse have different values? The same elements and everything else the same but Colapse completely different.
You that does not matter?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2016
But the result is that you have claimed that a purely gravitational effect, the solar system orbiting the Milky Way and picking up interstellar atoms, as an effect of a solar current (which is neither seen nor expected in interstellar space).

So now particle beams are a purely gravitational effect?
And I'm a crank?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2016
@cd,

And I'm a crank?


Yep. Sorted out Tom's maths yet? Or the total lack of any evidence whatsoever that our star, or any other, is powered by electric woo? Didn't think so.
FineStructureConstant
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2016
@cd - OK, let's look at "beams", shall we? Where does the idea of a "beam" of particles as observed by Ulysses come from? As @torbjorn has noted, the ESA report makes no mention of beams: only a flow "corresponding to the relative motion of the solar system through the interstellar medium" is noted. It's like driving a car in the rain: raindrops impinge on the car at a rate and speed of impact corresponding to the speed of the car relative to the rainstorm.

Your "beam" first makes it's appearance in the quote you give from solarviews.com
Ulysses found a beam of particles from interstellar space that was penetrating the solar system at a velocity of ...
. If the original report from ESA makes no mention of beams, and solarviews does, why would the latter do such a thing?

[continued]
FineStructureConstant
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2016
Well, it takes but a moment to click the link to "Calvin J. Hamilton" at the bottom of the page you referenced: we discover that Mr. Hamilton is an electrical engineer whose area of expertise is in image processing, and who
became intrigued with astronomy and images of the solar system
and
determined to make ... high quality photographs of the planets and satellites available to the public
He also runs a couple of websites dedicated to puzzles and his own computer art.

Not exactly the qualifications one would expect of a person making claims that "flows" are to be interpreted as "beams". This electrical engineer is obviously aligning himself with the EU who contend that the Sun, and other stars, receive their energy from external current flows - beams of charged matter - coming from... somewhere.

So, "beams" is a perfect example of confirmation bias - "flow" becomes "beam" just to support the EU view. And you have the gall to reference this crap on a science site!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2016
@FSC,
Indeed. This is a favourite tactic of theirs; reference pop-sci articles, often written by people who aren't experts in the subject matter, and claim that as somehow being support for their nonsense.
I had a to and fro with an idiot on the Rosetta blog, (where have you gone, Thomas?) who was fond of such things. Regarding the detection of x-rays at comets in 1996, he quote mined a much later article saying, "scientists were surprised" etc. What he didn't quote was the following paragraph, where it said, "However, the latest results resolve this finding...", or words to that effect.
Why do this? Do they think it's like an election, or referendum? The more people that they convince means they'll be taken seriously? Sorry guys, but science isn't a democracy. Get some evidence, or at least an hypothesis that isn't intellectually bankrupt, and then we can talk.
Gigel
5 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2016
When the cloud begins to go into a collapse? 0.08 mass Sun is enough for the formation of stars from the cloud here is not enough 312 mass Sun. The composition of nebulae and clouds is virtually the same (mostly hydrogen and something He the rest trace), why would then Colapse have different values? The same elements and everything else the same but Colapse completely different.
You that does not matter?

Collapse depends also on the extent of the cloud and its temperature. Also, collapse takes time; a very large cloud may not collapse completely in the time since the Universe appeared. If a cloud of H is very massive but it has very low density it may not end up forming stars. The same with very hot clouds.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
Do they think it's like an election, or referendum?
Most of them do. They think that a vote on the truth matters. It's a common affliction among the stupids. They want to think that their intuitive opinion matters against settled facts, and when someone tries to tell them it doesn't they blurt and blather about "freedumb" and being "oppressed," and make up conspiracy theories about science. Many of them are libertardians who think they get to vote on whether global warming exists, religionists who think they get to vote on whether evolution exists, and the dumber sort of electronics engineers who think they get to vote on whether the Sun is powered by electricity.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
I note that none of the Eclectic Wooniverse acolytes have had any comment on the observation that magnetism, far from creating stars, actually inhibits their creation. Dumb da dumb dumb.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2016
Do they think it's like an election, or referendum?
Most of them do. They think that a vote on the truth matters. It's a common affliction among the stupids. They want to think that their intuitive opinion matters against settled facts, and when someone tries to tell them it doesn't they blurt and blather about "freedumb" and being "oppressed," and make up conspiracy theories about science. Many of them are libertardians who think they get to vote on whether global warming exists, religionists who think they get to vote on whether evolution exists, and the dumber sort of electronics engineers who think they get to vote on whether the Sun is powered by electricity.


Aye. Totally failing to realise that two of the worlds most followed pseudosciences, namely homeopathy and astrology, are still not taken the least bit seriously by scientists. Both of those are similar to EU; no valid mechanism to explain them, and no evidence to support them.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2016
Both of those are similar to EU; no valid mechanism to explain them, and no evidence to support them.
@jonesdave
wait... what?
astrology ain't real????

REALLY?

i always found this particular astrological chart of predictions to be insanely accurate: http://www.politi...oday.png

LMFAO

jk, in case anyone was wondering... just read the graphic linked above
for those who are nervous, here is a free on-line proxy: http://proxy2974....oxy.php?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2016
wait... what?
astrology ain't real????

REALLY?


Lol. Yep, sorry to break it to you :) In other shocking news; Earth has never orbited Saturn!!!!

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
As usual, magnutts resorts to lies and deception to "prove" his arm flailing.

As beam of particles? That's an electric current to you and me. Got any more lies or examples of you ignoring observations?
Talk about lies and deception! Seriously Acolyte, when I said they found nothing, were you really so dense, so stupid, as to think I meant this 3 billion dollar instrument found literally nothing? Any reasonable person reading what I said would understand that I meant that nothing was found relating to the garbage spouted by the the Church of Unseen Bolts. That you chose this to spew your bile at is pretty telling.

A beam of particles? FSC and Torb covered this LIE better than I would have - I bow to their excellent dissection of this particular LIE you told.

And calling an inflow of cosmic rays an "electrical current" is a laughable display of your usual DECEPTIVE twisting of the scientific wording.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
But the result is that you have claimed that a purely gravitational effect, the solar system orbiting the Milky Way and picking up interstellar atoms, as an effect of a solar current (which is neither seen nor expected in interstellar space).

So now particle beams are a purely gravitational effect?
And I'm a crank?

Can you not read? There are no "particle beams" Acolyte, at least not in the deceptive manner that you present here, except in your imaginary parallel universe!

Gawd damned right you are a crank! A lying, deceptive, insulting, childish prick of a crank to boot!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
My thanks to jonesdave, torb, DaS, Stumpy, FSC and Gigel for your excellent comments, links, and insights!

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2016
@Maggnus,
It's also quite amusing that the implication is that these Sun powering "beams" were flown through by Ulysses. According to Tom Bridgman's maths (and I have no reason to doubt him), the implied particle flux would have meant that Ulysses wouldn't have survived to detect anything!

It's always the same when the question is asked of EU acolytes; "where is the incoming current? Why don't we detect it?" They can never answer it. "Why aren't they hurtling into the night side of every planet?" "Give us some numbers." All these questions, and more, go totally unanswered.

Putting a squillion volts through a metallic sphere (SAFIRE) is, of course, going to make it perfectly clear what happens when.....................you put a squillion volts through a metallic sphere. I'm not sure that it'll add to the sum of human knowledge.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Mostly reading again today. Brief observing/reminding re above phenomena.

REMINDER: The phenomena ia always a HYBRID one, involving many processes (gravitational/e-magnetic and flow-turbulence/vortex features in both).

OBSERVATION: In dust/gas/plasma 'cloud (nebulae) there may be 'shock waves' from 'recent' supernovae near and far, which may transiently concentrate sufficient mass to 'seed' further aggregation; and swirls and vortex turbulence which also may transiently/persistently aggregate critical 'seed mass' for further aggregation; and also plasma processes/flows/currents etc which have their own aggregative/explosive behaviors sufficient to bring together sufficient 'seed mass'.

The above ensures that a hybrid phenomena initiates/evolves at various stages/scales, sometimes reinforcing/sometimes working against each other as to aggregative/dissipative effects. When reinforcing, it may result in further concentrations at various scales.

Cheers. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2016
@RC,
I doubt too many people have a problem with what you say regarding the processes leading up to the collapse of the cloud, before the star 'turns on' due to nuclear fusion. We cannot travel back in time to watch the formation of our own star, so these type of observations help to refine the existing models. It's the assertion that all stars, including ours, are powered by some ill defined electric woo, despite no coherent model, nor any evidence, that gets on peoples nerves. Hence my comparison to homeopathy and astrology, which have the same problems, and even greater numbers of followers who cannot be dissuaded from the nonsense that they believe in.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2016
Gawd damned right you are a crank! A lying, deceptive, insulting, childish prick of a crank to boot!


..............and why does this NOT make you a "crank"?
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
@Benni
One word: rat.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2016
@Benni
One word: rat.

.....or you?
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2016
Why theoreticaly expanding universe not collapsed immediately after the big bang when the concentration of mass per unit volume and intensity of gravity was greatest according to massively promoted theory by the phylosophers of big bang and their supporters?
But later when intensity of gravity gradually deluted in the vast volume of the universe?
How gravity which loose the buttle with the expansion of the universe in the begining when was strong, win this buttle latter in the model of fast expanding universe?

Why if the gravity wins, galaxies does not collapse in the single ball of mass?

The truth is that from the beginning highly ordered universe designed to be the home of created by the God creatures, there is precisely tuned equilibrium that supporting life.
epoxy
Jul 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016


The truth is that from the beginning highly ordered universe designed to be the home of created by the God creatures, there is precisely tuned equilibrium that supporting life.


So, this all loving god decides he wants creatures? Did he keep getting bored with these creatures on this planet? Kept wiping them out in mass extinctions, so that another lot could evolve?
You'd think that any self respecting god might have got it right first time round, and wouldn't have inflicted this needless cruelty upon them.
Sorry, but whatever you are prattling on about has nothing to do with science, so why are you on a science site? I would agree that the psychology of why people believe in non-existent supernatural beings (or Wallace Thornhill) is a worthy scientific pursuit; but not the nonsense that they believe in.
It's Sunday, bugger off to church, or something.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016
These journalists don't even bother to study the text, which they're publishing and they just cite the experts in the field - so that who writes the presentation for their newsroom are these experts itself.


Not sure what you are saying there. When there are primary sources (i.e. scientific papers), why would the cult of the invisible lightning bolts not refer to them, rather than a press release? If you follow their claims over the years, you will see that this is an ongoing tactic. It was particularly apparent in Thornhill's lie about there being an electric flash at comet Tempel 1, for instance. Plenty of scientific papers on this that showed it not to be such, yet his only "evidence" was a reference to a press release.
Not sure what they are doing, but it most certainly cannot be classified as science.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016
These journalists don't even bother to study the text, which they're publishing and they just cite the experts in the field - so that who writes the presentation for their newsroom are these experts itself.


If you are saying that the experts themselves prepare the press releases - wrong. I would suggest contacting, for instance, Emily Baldwin, who runs the Rosetta blog for ESA. Not that I'm suggesting that Emily gets things wrong, or exaggerates - she's well qualified to deal with the majority of material she receives.
What happens is that when a paper is published the organisation responsible will notify the press. It is then up to the journalists to read the paper and condense it into an article suitable for the layman. Sometimes they might hunt down an interview to get a few quotes.
Either way, it is not a primary source, nor will it contain all of the data necessary to make an informed judgement. You need to read the full paper to do that. EU cultists never do this.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2016
These journalists don't even bother to study the text, which they're publishing and they just cite the experts in the field - so that who writes the presentation for their newsroom are these experts itself.


Not sure what you are saying there.
.....that there are consensus OPINIONS about what is SETTLED SCIENCE.

When there are primary sources
....with their consensus OPINIONS, Pop-Sci of the day

(i.e. scientific papers)
.....that comply with the Pop-Sci OPINION of the day......Translation: Consensus belief for the existence of something something that is tantamount to Perpetual Motion.

why would the cult of the invisible lightning bolts not refer to them, rather than a press release? If you follow their claims over the years, you will see that this is an ongoing tactic.
So why does Pop-Sci culture continue claiming that Einstein in his GR predicted the existence of Black Holes when there is not one scintilla of reference for it in GR?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016
@Benni,
Sorry but as usual you have been reading too much anti-science propaganda. Got any proof of what you are saying? You haven't addressed a single point I made in those posts. Care to try?
I'll further suggest that the reason these people don't bother to read the primary sources is that they are neither qualified, nor intellectually capable, of understanding them.
Like to clue us in to what are the primary sources, and who we should be reading? Links please, so that they can be critically assessed.
Or is it all just hot air from science wannabes, who want to garner some attention, without ever having the hope of being taken seriously?
Blowhards, in other words.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2016
@Benni,
Sorry but as usual you have been reading too much anti-science propaganda. Got any proof of what you are saying?
Sure, failure to make direct quotes from theses from which you claim you are making your opinions, like claiming Einstein in GR predicted the existence of Black Holes. Maybe you can quote it?


I'll further suggest that the reason these people don't bother to read the primary sources is that they are neither qualified, nor intellectually capable, of understanding them.


Well then how about you come up with the quote from GR in which Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes.

Like to clue us in to what are the primary sources, and who we should be reading? Links please, so that they can be critically assessed


Sure, GR. Quote the section for Black Holes?

Or is it all just hot air from science wannabes, who want to garner some attention, without ever having the hope of being taken seriously?
Then quote GR for BHs.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2016
^^^^Mate, no offence, but do one, eh? You are a classic pseudoscience 101 case. "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!"
And what are you prattling on about Einstein for? Have a look at the article above. That is what we are talking about.
If you have a problem with science, then sort it out in the normal way. Prepare your paper, pointing out all the errors and inconsistencies in a previous paper, and submit it. It happens all the time. It is how science works. NOT by coming on a site such as this and claiming persecution, conspiracy etc.
Do something about it or STFU with your moaning. You are achieving precisely the square root of sod all, and making yourself look a tit in the process.
vidyunmaya
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2016
Sob; limited perception- Dogma prevails
how to help ? Cosmos quest-Cosmology Digest- origins cosmology vedas Interlinks
Plasma Regulated Electro-magnetic phenomena in magnetic Field Environment.
there les no gravity-super-imposition here
http://archive.or...osmology
15 Books at LULU. http://www.lulu.c...jnani108
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016
Sob; limited perception- Dogma prevails
how to help ? Cosmos quest-Cosmology Digest- origins cosmology vedas Interlinks
Plasma Regulated Electro-magnetic phenomena in magnetic Field Environment.
there les no gravity-super-imposition here
http://archive.or...osmology


If by "dogma" you mean ACTUAL OBSERVATION and actual RESULTS, that match, or lend support to FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES, then yes, it does rule.
Nothing you linked does that, so you are no further along in changing real scientific thinking. Fine if you want to start a cult, but no use otherwise. As many of the pseudoscience groupies on here fail to understand. Which is why what they are doing has nothing to do with science.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2016
@jonesdave

You do not read the Bible, do not know the character of the living God and the reasons for His always fair actions.
The world was created perfect without suffering and death in joy and harmony according to God's highest criteria. But after original sin, sin entered the world, and the world was cursed by God. And from thi smoment the honest and observant people who are looking for the truth rather the convenience, have the possibility to realize the deadly nature of the sin. Parallel with this God offers salvation through sincerely faith, repentance from sin and sanctification according to His will.

Now can you answer to my questions about massively promoted mythology of the big bang and cosmic evolution? From where could come controling information for this fictional process?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2016
You are a classic pseudoscience ......If you have a problem with science


It is not pseudo-science to demand the proof of claims for statements made that cannot be verified within the text of a document over 100 years old.

then sort it out in the normal way
Sure, read the text of the document.

Prepare your paper
Einstein already did that in GR & BHs don't appear, you need to prove otherwise.

pointing out all the errors and inconsistencies in a previous paper
The "inconsistencies" are claims of pseudo-science that contained within the text of GR Einstein predicted the existence of BHs, he didn't, but to you that is pseudo-science.

It happens all the time. It is how science works. NOT by coming on a site such as this and claiming persecution, conspiracy etc.
....then why are you doing so much "moaning" of demands for proofs about claims made for text which you, Schneibo, etc, can't provide texts directly from the document?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2016
Give up, FFS. This article IS NOT about black holes. Read it again. If you want to argue about whether or not Einstein predicted x, y or z, then take it up in a science forum, not in the comments section of a site such as this. I would recommend International Skeptics Forum, Cosmoquest or even the forum attached to this site.
You are like a stuck record. Go argue with people who know the subject. And be prepared, they will not suffer fools gladly. Maybe that's why you prefer to do it here?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2016
@jonesdave

You do not read the Bible, do not know the character of the living God and the reasons for His always fair actions.
The world was created perfect without suffering and death in joy and harmony according to God's highest criteria. But after original sin, sin entered the world, and the world was cursed by God. And from thi smoment the honest and observant people who are looking for the truth rather the convenience, have the possibility to realize the deadly nature of the sin. Parallel with this God offers salvation through sincerely faith, repentance from sin and sanctification according to His will.

Now can you answer to my questions about massively promoted mythology of the big bang and cosmic evolution? From where could come controling information for this fictional process?


Religious BS. Take it to a religious discussion site. Nothing to do with science.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2016
Go argue with people who know the subject.


I see, you admit you don't "know the subject"......So why are you here commenting anything at all about GR, Black Holes, Magnetism, etc, when you admit you know nothing about the pertinent subject matter?

And be prepared, they will not suffer fools gladly. Maybe that's why you prefer to do it here?


Actually, yes, because it is so entertaining to watch foul mouthed neophytes like you go off on rants & get all tied up into knots & backed into corners struggling to find your way out of & can't. You know, like trying to get Schneibo to pony up those pictures of Black Holes he's claimed to have seen.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2016
Go argue with people who know the subject.


I see, you admit you don't "know the subject"......So why are you here commenting anything at all about GR, Black Holes, Magnetism, etc, when you admit you know nothing about the pertinent subject matter?

And be prepared, they will not suffer fools gladly. Maybe that's why you prefer to do it here?


Actually, yes, because it is so entertaining to watch foul mouthed neophytes like you go off on rants & get all tied up into knots & backed into corners struggling to find your way out of & can't. You know, like trying to get Schneibo to pony up those pictures of Black Holes he's claimed to have seen.


Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about, that's why I come here, and post irrelevant nonsense on the same old subject, even though it makes not a jot of difference to scientific opinion. I just like the attention."
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2016
@Benni
You have been pointed out where to find the proof that BHs result from GRT.
Your incompetence to comprehend these proofs is obvious but no excuse to keep on nagging and nagging and nagging. Your posts do not contribute anything here, never have and never will. Contribute to science and have your head examined.
You are a lying rat as well.
Gigel
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
An ancient saying goes: "If you are having an argument under a bridge, then you are probably discussing with a troll. Keep talking. That will keep him from eating you."
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
@Benni
You have been pointed out where to find the proof that BHs result from GRT.
Your incompetence to comprehend these proofs is obvious but no excuse to keep on nagging and nagging and nagging. Your posts do not contribute anything here, never have and never will. Contribute to science and have your head examined.
You are a lying rat as well.


I suspect he is another wannabe Stephen Crothers (Rational Wiki, if you don't know him). His mathematical "proofs" were dissected by some of the world's leading mathematicians, including a Nobel prize winner. Outcome? He was told he'd fuxxed up, and didn't know what he was talking about. On the other hand, at least he had the cojones to engage with the scientists themselves, rather than coming on a site like this, which is not conducive to posting complicated mathematical equations etc., and boring the hell out of people with the same, evidence-free bald assertions.
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2016
@jd
I have not seen as much as simple calculus from B.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2016
According to Tom Bridgman's maths (and I have no reason to doubt him),

LOL, you mean the guy who can't seem to grasp we're discussing a three dimensional sphere? Obviously you are incapable of thinking for yourself, and here is a guy who will resort to lies and deception to "prove" the EU wrong. Of course you wouldn't doubt him.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
According to Tom Bridgman's maths (and I have no reason to doubt him),

LOL, you mean the guy who can't seem to grasp we're discussing a three dimensional sphere? Obviously you are incapable of thinking for yourself, and here is a guy who will resort to lies and deception to "prove" the EU wrong. Of course you wouldn't doubt him.


What are you talking about? Look at the maths again. The bit that involves Pi is where he converts the incoming energy onto a sphere. It's not rocket science.

"Using the radius of the Earth's orbit as 1 Astronomical Unit (149e9 meters) and the area of the sphere as 4*pi*r^2, we find:
Area of surface = 4*pi*(149e9 m)^2 = 2.79e23 m^2"

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/electric-sun-energy-budget-from-known.html

You guys really need to stay away from maths, if something that simple is beyond your grasp.
FineStructureConstant
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2016
@cd - what a snotrag you are. DS is a decent, honorable, well-educated man and, by everything you have ever posted on this site, it is perfectly obvious that you and your miserable candle-powered EU shite can't even reach up to the level of his ankles.

You're an impertinent, useless scumbag.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
@cd,
^^^^Here, I've designed a recruiting poster for your next conference. Feel free to use it:

http://www.imageb...97879586
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
@cd - what a snotrag you are. DS is a decent, honorable, well-educated man and, by everything you have ever posted on this site, it is perfectly obvious that you and your miserable candle-powered EU shite can't even reach up to the level of his ankles.

You're an impertinent, useless scumbag.


Harsh, but fair.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
@cd,
^^^^Here, I've designed a recruiting poster for your next conference. Feel free to use it:
@jones
if only i could give you 100 stars like zeph or the trolls could... ROTFLMFAO

.

.

and why does this NOT make you a "crank"?
@benji
because a crank posts statements that are either delusional or based upon religion or pseudoscience, whereas your quoted reference is factual and proven by your own posts

.

.

You do not read the Bible, do not know the character ... the reasons for His always fair actions
@viko
maybe he doesn't like fiction

i study it & i know it far better than you
always fair?
you're loving "fair" god advocated genocide, selling women and anyone "not of the religion" as slaves, killing everyone who doesn't believe, plagiarized stories from other religions (including: rising from the dead; the ark) and f*cked up the basic science

that aint omniscient or omnipotent, it's impotent and ignorant
want to read the passages again?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2016
You guys really need to stay away from maths, if something that simple is beyond your grasp.
They already do that! According to the Thunderdolts site, math is an unnecessary burden and is used by "mainstream" to deny otherwise perfectly reasonable interpretations of pretty pictures.

Cause, you know, paintings on cave walls are way more important than math! Why do math when a Herbig-Haro object clearly looks sort of like it is similar to a z-pinch?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016
@Captain,
:) I think I missed my calling. Should have gone into PR; lots of money in that!

Something else to ponder:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus 341BCE - 270BCE
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
I think I missed my calling
@Jonesdave
you might have something there
LMFAO

something more, if you want to save it:
Violence cleanses evil PROV 20:30
enslave your neighbors who worship other gods LEV 25:44-46
you should kill people who work on the sabbath (SAT, not the modern SUN) NUM 15:32-36
Kill children who curse their parents EXO 21:15,17
selling your daughter is ok- the rules EXO 21:7-8
Rape is a crime against the husband. women are irrelevant to the topic DEUT 22:23-24
Women are not equivalent to men 1TIM 2:12
Jesus didn't bring peace, but came to pit family against each other LUK 12:51-53 & MAT 10:34
kill women and children for being born outside the religion 1SAM 15:3
all the old laws still apply MAT 5:17-19
they didn't have doubles in the ark, but entered by sevens (unclead by two's) GEN 7:2-3

much more, even telling folk not to proselytize in JER 31

the religious nutters are gonna pray us away - LOL
https://www.youtu...fLJVSdjg
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2016
@cd,
And when are you and your fellow nutjobs actually going to address the evidence?

Oh, you mean addressing how gravity drags "magnetic field lines"? Rube!

Let me give you an example of gravity dragging magnetic filed lines. It is so simple that even you should be able to understand. I'm an optimist.
Take a magnet. Drop it on the floor. See ?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2016

the religious nutters are gonna pray us away - LOL
https://www.youtu...fLJVSdjg


Lol. That's brilliant. Got to get one ;)
FineStructureConstant
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2016
@jd
Here, I've designed a recruiting poster for your next conference. Feel free to use it
I see the light! Thanks :)

So... how many EU acolytes does it take to change an electric sun lightbulb?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2016
@jd
Here, I've designed a recruiting poster for your next conference. Feel free to use it
I see the light! Thanks :)

So... how many EU acolytes does it take to change an electric sun lightbulb?


The question isn't 'how many', it is how soon it takes them to realise that they need to change it to a nuclear one, that actually works.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
@cd,
And when are you and your fellow nutjobs actually going to address the evidence?

Oh, you mean addressing how gravity drags "magnetic field lines"? Rube!

Let me give you an example of gravity dragging magnetic filed lines. It is so simple that even you should be able to understand. I'm an optimist.
Take a magnet. Drop it on the floor. See ?

He won't get it, because it is an observation and he does not believe in observations that don't agree with his preconceived ideas!
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
The question isn't 'how many', it is how soon it takes them to realise that they need to change it to a nuclear one, that actually works.

So you must be one of the few who powers the flux capacitor in his DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
The question isn't 'how many', it is how soon it takes them to realise that they need to change it to a nuclear one, that actually works.

So you must be one of the few who powers the flux capacitor in his DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion.

No dumdum, that is a fictional thing from a movie. I'm not surprised thus has to be explained to you, given you think that the interpretation of cave wall paintings is as important as an instrument on a space probe.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
@jd
Here, I've designed a recruiting poster for your next conference. Feel free to use it
I see the light! Thanks :)

So... how many EU acolytes does it take to change an electric sun lightbulb?

EU acolytes don't change light bulbs, they declare that they're operated by magnetism. Since there aren't any magnetic outlets, they never notice if they don't turn on.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2016
The question isn't 'how many', it is how soon it takes them to realise that they need to change it to a nuclear one, that actually works.

So you must be one of the few who powers the flux capacitor in his DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion.


Given that you have no workable model, nor a current to power it even if you found one, then, you know..........people in glasshouses, and all that.........

PS: Area of a sphere = 4πr^2
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2016
how many EU acolytes does it take to change an electric sun lightbulb?
there is only one true way to test this ...

launch them all into the sun on a one-way ride with monitoring devices, camera's and two way communication and see which one changes the electric sun lightbulb

we'll use modern astrophysicists and Helio-seismologists as controls watching from Earth

survivor that changes the bulb and designs a method to return home with the eu dogma and all that free energy they can collect using their "plasma" knowledge that apparently supercedes reality and modern knowledge from (snicker) modern EE's and Plasma physicists in places like PPPL.gov, wins the prize:

a million dollars @ a dollar a year for a million years, non-transferrable, first two dollars up front, using Luxury tax and making them responsible for all taxes

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.