Astronomers observe mysterious dimming of a young nearby star

December 16, 2016 by Tomasz Nowakowski, Phys.org report

Flattened and median filtered K2 light curve of RIK-210. The data are phase-wrapped on the dip period of 5.6685 days. A grouping of shallow dips preceding the main dip is prominent for the first four rotation periods of the campaign, then largely disappears. Variability fit B was used to make this figure. Credit: David et al., 2016.
(Phys.org)—Astronomers have spotted transient, transit-like dimming events of a young star named RIK-210 located some 472 light years away in the Upper Scorpius OB association. However, what puzzles the scientists is the mystery behind this dimming as it can not be caused by an eclipsing stellar or brown dwarf companion. They describe their search for plausible explanations in a paper published Dec. 12 on the arXiv pre-print server.

RIK-210 is around five to 10 million years old, about half as massive as the sun and has a radius of approximately 1.24 solar radii. The star has been recently observed by NASA's prolonged Kepler mission, known as K2, during its Campaign 2, lasting from Aug. 22 to Nov. 11, 2014. A team of researchers led by Trevor David of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has analyzed the data provided by K2.

"We find transient, transit-like dimming events within the K2 time series photometry of the young star RIK-210 in the Upper Scorpius OB association. These dimming events are variable in depth, duration, and morphology," the scientists wrote in the paper.

The team found that these dimming events occur approximately every 5.67 days, in phase with the stellar rotation, noting that they are deep (sometimes greater than 15 percent) and short in duration relative to the rotational period. Moreover, the morphology of the dimmings is variable throughout the whole observational campaign, while the starspot modulation pattern remains stable over this period of time.

While such variable dimmings have been documented around mature stars and stellar remnants, it has not been previously observed around a young star lacking a protoplanetary disk, as in the case of RIK-210.

In the search for possible explanations of the observed transient, transit-like dimming events, the researchers at first excluded the possibility that they can be caused by an eclipsing stellar or . This hypothesis was ruled out as it is inconsistent with radial velocity measurements as well as with archival and follow-up photometry data.

The researchers emphasized that the dimmings cannot be due to a single spherical body because of the variable morphology of these events. They added that based on the observed depths and durations, it is also unlikely that the dimmings could be explained by features on the stellar surface.

According to the team, the most plausible explanation of the nature of the obscuring material is that it could be a magnetospheric cloud. They assume that a cloud of plasma analogous to those observed in high-mass stars, or a dusty accretion column, could naturally explain the synchronicity between the rotation period and the dimming events.

"Since the accretion timescale is ... much shorter than the orbital period, this model might explain the variable depths and morphologies of dimming events," the paper reads.

Other explanations taken into account by the researchers are: an accretion flow from residual gas and dust, remnants of the late stages of planet formation, the product of a giant-impact type collision, an enshrouded protoplanet with an extended tail, or one or more eccentric bodies undergoing periodic tidal disruption upon each periastron passage.

In order to finally confirm which of the proposed hypotheses is true, the team calls for continued photometric and spectroscopic monitoring.

"Multi-band photometric monitoring can be used to test whether the dip depths are wavelength-dependent; solid-body transits are achromatic, while extinction by dust is less severe at redder wavelengths. Finally, spectroscopic monitoring while the star is known to be dimming can test whether there is enhanced absorption by a gaseous cloud transiting the star," the scientists concluded.

Explore further: Irregular dimming of a young stellar object investigated by astronomers

More information: A Transient Transit Signature Associated with the Young Star RIK-210, arXiv:1612.03907 [astro-ph.SR] arxiv.org/abs/1612.03907

Abstract
We find transient, transit-like dimming events within the K2 time series photometry of the young star RIK-210 in the Upper Scorpius OB association. These dimming events are variable in depth, duration, and morphology. High spatial resolution imaging revealed the star is single, and radial velocity monitoring indicated that the dimming events can not be due to an eclipsing stellar or brown dwarf companion. Archival and follow-up photometry suggest the dimming events are transient in nature. The variable morphology of the dimming events suggests they are not due to a single, spherical body. The ingress of each dimming event is always shallower than egress, as one would expect for an orbiting body with a leading tail. The dimming events are periodic and synchronous with the stellar rotation. However, we argue it is unlikely the dimming events could be attributed to anything on the stellar surface based on the observed depths and durations. Variable obscuration by a protoplanetary disk is unlikely on the basis that the star is not actively accreting and lacks the infrared excess associated with an inner disk. Rather, we explore the possibilities that the dimming events are due to magnetospheric clouds, a transiting protoplanet surrounded by circumplanetary dust and debris, eccentric orbiting bodies undergoing periodic tidal disruption, or an extended field of dust or debris near the corotation radius.

Related Stories

Evaporating exoplanet stirs up dust

August 28, 2012

Dutch astronomers have found clear evidence that a faraway exoplanet is falling apart. New analysis of data from NASA's Kepler satellite shows that this exoplanet, which orbits its host star every 16 hours, has a massive ...

Image: Hubble Investigates Stellar Shrapnel

August 22, 2016

Several thousand years ago, a star some 160,000 light-years away from us exploded, scattering stellar shrapnel across the sky. The aftermath of this energetic detonation is shown here in this striking image from the NASA/ESA ...

Recommended for you

Giant flare detected on a pre-main sequence M star

November 13, 2018

Using the Next Generation Transit Survey (NGTS), astronomers have identified an energetic flare displaying quasi-periodic pulsations on the pre-main sequence M star NGTS J121939.5-355557. The newly detected flare is one of ...

Galaxies like Russian dolls

November 13, 2018

Jairo Méndez Abreu and Adriana de Lorenzo-Cáceres, researchers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), have discovered a peanut-shaped structure in the inner bar of a double-barred galaxy close to the Milky ...

Scientists capture the sound of sunrise on Mars

November 9, 2018

Scientists have created the soundtrack of the 5,000th Mars sunrise captured by the robotic exploration rover, Opportunity, using data sonification techniques to create a two-minute piece of music.

157 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Dec 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rogerdallas
1 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2016
The number of stars with peculiar dimming events are starting to add up. We have different ages and spectral types, but similarities in the light curves. Surely, these events can't have the same explanations. If we wanted to go all ET on this, we could suggest that all of these stars are hosts to Fermi probes that are multiplying exponentially around these stars and busily constructing bio-spheres. That would be fun. Alas, that is also a bit far-fetched. If only!
Gigel
2 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2016
Why would some probes build biospheres? Why not robospheres? Maybe they are looking our way now. That could happen to our Sun too.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2016
The number of stars with peculiar dimming events are starting to add up. We have different ages and spectral types, but similarities in the light curves. Surely, these events can't have the same explanations. If we wanted to go all ET on this, we could suggest that all of these stars are hosts to Fermi probes that are multiplying exponentially around these stars and busily constructing bio-spheres. That would be fun. Alas, **that is also a bit far-fetched**. If only!


Not as far fetched as the comment above yours!
Chris_Reeve
Dec 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2016
Im sure they considered one of these?

"... changes in the brightness of the two images occurred simultaneously on four separate occasions. Schild and his team believe that the only explanation for this observation is that a cosmic string passed between the Earth and the quasar during that time period traveling at very high speed and oscillating with a period of about 100 days."
Chris_Reeve
Dec 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2016
You can suggest ad hoc mass transfer events, but that is of course conjecture. Nobody has seen it. What we know, for certain, is that these stars did not "age" in the manner predicted.


And nobody has detected any evidence whatsoever for the EUs electric Sun nonsense. Furthermore, we would, were it real. However, it can't possibly be real, due to the blindingly obvious failures of its proponents to come up with a valid, scientifically literate mechanism. It is a non-hypothesis, with zero evidence, dreamed up by people who haven't got a clue about the science involved.

That particular problem doesn't seem to have affected you're faith-based belief in it, though.

So, whatever is going on here, it does nothing to help the failed EU electric star nonsense, eh?

http://www.imageb...21252416

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2016
but that is of course conjecture. Nobody has seen it
@reeve/hannes
well, then by your own argument we can completely dismiss the eu arguments for the exact same reason
because it's conjecture and nobody has seen it

and by that i mean: if it had been "seen" it would be observed data in a peer reviewed study that could be then validated, building a model that makes accurate predictions that exceeds modern astrophysics knowledge

guess what?
-you don't have a model
-it's not peer reviewed
-you've deleted all your failed predictions from the eu site which far, far exceed all the MS astrophysics fails
-you have no ability to present peer reviewed source material to support your claims for eu
-you ignore empirical evidence that's validated

and that's just the beginning!
Apologies for thinking
but you're not thinking
you're regurgitating eu propaganda

in essence, your above argument with 4 stars is the god of the gaps argument

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
these stars did not "age" in the manner predicted
so... because the model can't explain 4 stars of the billion or so stars that it does explain, then the whole theory is wrong and there can't be something special about the 4 stars?

where is the logic /or/ the thinking in that comment?

more to the point: your making an argument but you're not presenting any actual physics or evidence that supports the argument!

i mean... the study takes the time to present it's evidence and a reliable case for argument for their conclusions, based upon known physics and other known science... so where is your equivalent argument?

other than denigration of mainstream because they won't call the eu crap scientific, you're not making an argument from evidence

you're making an argument from faith or belief
why should we "believe" what you say when you can't prove it?
that is how religion works, not science
Solon
1 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2016
"you're making an argument from faith or belief
why should we "believe" what you say when you can't prove it?
that is how religion works, not science"

There is no scientific proof that any of what are called stars by astronomers are stars at all, not even Proxima, and all of astronomy and astrophysics is a religion based on a lack of real science. There are no photographs taken with an ordinary camera, from 'clear' space that show even our own Sun, only the Apollo lunar astronauts could have done so, and they never did. From the Lunar surface,they did, by utilising the light creating properties of the fine lunar dust, but not from cislunar space. I'd like a peer reviewed astronomer to prove me wrong, but they can't.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2016
There is no scientific proof that any of what are called stars by astronomers are stars at all, not even Proxima, and all of astronomy and astrophysics is a religion based on a lack of real science. There are no photographs taken with an ordinary camera, from 'clear' space that show even our own Sun


Oh Christ, not this puerile, brain dead crap again! Grow up, get a life, bugger off, do something, anything other than coming on here with your inane nonsense.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2016
There is no scientific proof that any of what are called stars by astronomers are stars at all, not even Proxima, and all of astronomy and astrophysics is a religion based on a lack of real science. There are no photographs taken with an ordinary camera, from 'clear' space that show even our own Sun


No, that's why the Rosetta star tracker instrument didn't work from day one, and the probe crashed into the comet back in August 2014. Or....it worked, except when there was too much dust, right through until Sep 2016.
https://naif.jpl....R_V11.TI

Wavelength: 500 - 850 nm (visible w/l, for the hard of thinking)
FOV: 16.47 deg.
Pixels: 1024 x 1024
Pixel size: 13 micro m.
Aperture: 29 mm
F/Number: F/1.5
Effective Focal length: 46 mm

IOW, a regular f***ing camera.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
TheGhostofOtto ...

You will be very interested to see this:

http://astroobser...-100-was

We already see the filaments. They are not "cosmic strings". It's just electricity over plasma ... stuff we've been studying in the lab for many decades now.
Ignore
Do not engage with EU nutters. This is a recording thankyou.
Solon
1 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2016
Less of the insults and more science please. All I want to see is a photo of the Sun from deep space. NASA can't show me one, Goddard can't find one, nobody can find me one, certainly not anyone here. Pseudo-scientists all.
Oh, and here is an Apollo photo of the stars from cislunar space, military spec. film, long exposure. Enjoy. (60 meg TIFF)
https://archive.o...9932.tif

Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
What they might not immediately appreciate are the numerous forms it can take when it does so. An electron drift powering the Sun would not be apparent without spacecraft designed specifically to observe it.


Rubbish. Spacecraft (plenty of them) would detect it. And it has more problems than that. It has been debunked as debunked can be. An evidence free zone, with no valid mechanism.

Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2016
Less of the insults and more science please. All I want to see is a photo of the Sun from deep space. NASA can't show me one, Goddard can't find one, nobody can find me one, certainly not anyone here. Pseudo-scientists all.
Oh, and here is an Apollo photo of the stars from cislunar space, military spec. film, long exposure. Enjoy. (60 meg TIFF)
https://archive.o...9932.tif


Time for your medication, methinks. Whatever rubbish you believe in has nothing to do with science. Not sure why you're here.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2016
What you might consider asking is -- if stars are powered by a process akin to thermonuclear bombs -- then why are they so stable?


And there, people, is the EU scientific illiteracy writ large. Judas Priest! How about actually spending a bit of time understanding the (multiply verified) science? Instead of dreaming up science-free, content-free prose?
Stick to Velikovsky, science really is not your thing. Nor anybody else at EU. Which is why it has never got anything right. Ever wondered why that is?

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2016
You've not apparently thought much about the problem, for the algebra of the geometry gives no reason at all to believe that any of our current spacecraft would be able to detect an electron drift into the Sun.


You've just put words on a string there. What are you on about?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2016
I think what Chris is on about, is that the idiots Thornhill & Scott realised that incoming electrons, travelling at relativistic speeds would be bleeding obvious, It was pointed out to them that it doesn't work. So, they came up with this 'electron drift' bobbins. Failing to realise that said electrons still need to get past the outflowing solar wind, and its associated magnetic field. And also failing to realise that it doesn't matter that the electrons are travelling at half-rat power, it is the impact velocity with the spacecraft instruments that matters. What speed are the s/c travelling at?
Not to mention that if you slow down the speed of the electrons, you must increase their number. A whole electron soup out there, that would most definitely be detected.
Tim Thompson debunked this nonsense 12 years ago, at least:
https://forum.cos...st476153
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
Don't forget that the electrons are on random walks.


And as I've said, and far more qualified people than me have said, it is rubbish. It WOULD be detected, and hasn't been. If the incoming electron density is a half-rat power, and is so diffuse, what do you think the solar wind and magnetic field would do to it? It is kindergarten 'science', dreamed up by woo merchants.
Why don't you work out the incoming flux, based on the velocity, that would be needed to power the Sun? Send your results off to any half decent plasma astrophysicist (given that EU don't have one), and ask them for a quick thought on what would happen to these non-existent incoming electrons? Trust me, you will not like the answer. I might have seen a post on it somewhere, I'll try to find it, but it doesn't help this woo one little bit.

As I keep saying, zero mechanism, zero evidence. It makes no sense to those that understand the subject area, which is why it is only believed by those that don't.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
By your own logic, this should be impossible ...

"Artists depiction of Birkeland currents flowing into and out of the earth's atmosphere at high latitude. These currents, once the subject of intense debate, are routinely measured by today's satellites and have total magnitudes of millions of amperes (megaamperes). Courtesy of S. G. Smith, Applied Physics Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University."

See image at http://www.eixdel...ult.jpg.


Which has absolutely sod all to do with the inane, debunked, evidence-free, science-free nonsense of the 'electric sun'. How many years have they been working on this woo? It has gone nowhere. Nobody takes it seriously, except a bunch of neo-Velikovskian woo merchants, who have no influence whatever on scientific thinking. It is dead.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2016
No, what you are ignoring is that if you reduce the velocity of the electrons, you need a shed load more of them! The energy imparted to the Sun of an electron travelling a half-rat power is magnitudes less than one travelling at relativistic speeds! Get it? The densities would be bloody obvious to any number of spacecraft that WOULD detect them. The spacecraft are NOT stationary with respect to the electrons. Do the bloody maths. The incoming power of the electrons at 1 AU MUST be equal to the power recieved at 1AU. Otherwise you have less power going in than you have coming out!
Work out the electron density required. And then explain why it isn't observed.
Here is the maths:
https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.fr/2009/04/electric-cosmos-solar-capacitor-model.html
See also the comments section.
Like I keep saying, it's rubbish, and doesn't even come close to matching observation.
Solon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2016
@Solon
I'd like a peer reviewed astronomer to prove me wrong
Well, the only one I know of who might fit the bill is Lord Rees, who's an astronomer, an English peer of the realm, and who's received a lot of rave reviews.

Write to him (care of the House of Lords, London) and tell him of your dilemma - he's a super chap and I'm sure he'd be delighted to help.


Worth a try, I see he has an E-Mail address at Cambridge, I'll try that. Maybe he can send me a photo, or maybe just an insulting comment?
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
^^^^Dear God, and how many more times are they going to refine the model every time it is pointed out that it is horribly wrong?
So, what proportion is provided by fusion? To get your maths to even come close to working, might I suggest 99.999%? Otherwise you are still up sh*t creek without a paddle! Reducing the electrons by 50% still leaves you wildly out in the observed fluxes. It's rubbish. Give up. It's not as if there is any indication that we even need this stupid, ill thought out nonsense, anyway.
If the fusion were all occurring at the surface, you wouldn't be here writing this. Gamma rays would have meant that life would likely never have arisen on this planet!
It is utter rubbish from whichever angle one looks at it. It could only have been invented by people who haven't got a clue about the subject.
And the neutrino data is just fine, and matches prediction extremely well. Things have moved on. EU haven't.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
Hi Chris_Reeve, jonesdave. :)

REMINDER: Astro/cosmic scale phenomena are HYBRID features; resulting from interactions/feedbacks involving Gravity, E-M and QM processes/states.

With that REMINDER in mind...

@ Chris-Reeve: The gravitational 'containment/concentration' effects on solar materials/processes create the temporarily stable stellar-lifetime evolutionary stages we observe across populations of stars across epochal distances/regions of space. So please avoid sounding like you ignore gravitational effects when pointing out the other effects. Ok?

@ jonsedave: Consider ALSO, that our Sun's Mag fields in the CORONA will AFFECT BOTH 'incoming' AND 'outgoing' electrons! So even the sun's electron/proton 'wind' content will be stripped of some of its plasmic material, which will be trapped/amplified/re-directed back onto the Sun itself (which may also, in part, explain some of the source/process for unexpectedly high heat energy of coronal region?).

Discuss nicely. :)

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
@CR/HA,
This unfortunately significantly complicates your quest to disprove the idea -- for nobody knows what the ratio of these two sources are.


A) Neither I, nor anyone else, has to disprove this woo. It is up to EU to prove it. So far you are batting zero.

B) Yes, we do know the ratio; 100:0. As per observation, coupled with lack thereof for the right hand side of that ratio.

Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2016
I'll repeat this, just in case it passed anyone by:

So, what proportion is provided by fusion? To get your maths to even come close to working, might I suggest 99.999%? Otherwise you are still up sh*t creek without a paddle! Reducing the electrons by 50% still leaves you wildly out in the observed fluxes. It's rubbish. Give up. It's not as if there is any indication that we even need this stupid, ill thought out nonsense, anyway.
If the fusion were all occurring at the surface, you wouldn't be here writing this. Gamma rays would have meant that life would likely never have arisen on this planet!
It is utter rubbish from whichever angle one looks at it. It could only have been invented by people who haven't got a clue about the subject.
And the neutrino data is just fine, and matches prediction extremely well. Things have moved on. EU haven't.


RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Hi Chris_Reeve, jonesdave. :)

@ jonesdave:
^^^^Dear God, and how many more times are they going to refine the model every time it is pointed out that it is horribly wrong?
Please pause for a moment to humbly consider your own words and how they may apply to BB/Inflation/Expansion/exotic DM/DE etc 'models' being increasingly demonstrated by observation to have been "horribly wrong" all along (did you catch Prof Paul Steinhardt's video-lecture to his peers? He finally admits/shows where/why Inflation etc BB-related hypotheses were "horribly wrong", scientifically/logically unsupportable all along).

@ Chris-Reeve:
Each solar model will of course explain the stability using its own mechanisms. There is no obligation to mix the claims of two separate models.
You missed the import of my REMINDER. When it comes to what creates/sustains astro/cosmic scale features/structures, it's ALL 'connected' via feedback, involving ALL those 'forces'. :)

Consider everything. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
@idiot eu nutjob fanatics

solon-g to science says
There are no photographs taken with an ordinary camera, from 'clear' space that show even our own Sun
false claim/ argument from stupidity - https://sohowww.n...gallery/

I'd like a peer reviewed astronomer to prove me wrong
you'd have to learn how to read, then you can see that almost every peer reviewed astro studies in journals proves you wrong
Less of the insults and more science please
1- it's not an insult, it's a warning to those who aren't familiar with your brand of insanity

2- you are ignoring all the science and posting pseudoscience

why is it ok for you to be an illiterate idiot refusing to post science but you say it's insulting when someone points this out to you?
the current Standard Solar Model was constructed on a false assumption...
"settled" science
@reeve/hannes fanatic
repeating your lie doesn't make it more true

i'll get to the other stuff in a minute
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
@RC,
Don't be lecturing me. I am saying nothing that other people, who are far more qualified than Chris, Thornhill, Scott etc, haven't already said.

If you'd like to lecture a couple of them, then try here:
http://www.tim-th...dex.html
https://www.blogg...80314165
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
@idiot pseudoscience sam
Please pause for a moment to humbly consider your own words
please pause for a moment to STFU and recognize that you've posted 6034 times and you still haven't been able to validate your own claims

Science is built on evidence, not claims

.

@eu fanatic chris/hannes
One way to interpret that is to realize that whatever the process is, it is inherently stable
& one way you can interpret that is there are a thousand naked faeries shining unicorn turds if that is what you want... it still doesn't make it true, factual or based in reality

science isn't about random interpreting

what you are failing to understand: the study isn't "interpreting", it's making a physics based argument based upon evidence, observation and known physics
it is unlikely the dimming events could be attributed to anything on the stellar surface based on the observed depths and durations
where is your falsification?
any science?
anything peer reviewed?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
@hannes/reeve eu cult fanatic cont'd
There's no doubt that there is fusion occurring on the Sun -- but it's just one of the Sun's two sources for energy
1- there is the exact same amount of evidence for your eu 2 energy sources as there is for the biblical resurection

2- it's nice that you believe in something, but until you can produce a reputable peer reviewed journal study (not vixra or some similar pseudoscience crap) then it's no different than any other religion
A key falsifiable differentiator for the EU is that this fusion is occurring near the surface of the star -- not the core
no, that isn't the key "falsifiable differentiator" [sic]

there is no other evidence to support any other claims the eu have for their delusional beliefs on the sun

period

and that is the point i've tried to make for a while now but you refuse to accept: the eu doesn't have evidence, it has claims

just because you can publish a website/book doesn't mean it's science
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Hi jonesdave (and Chris-Reeve if you're reading). :)From jonesdave:
@RC,
Don't be lecturing me. I am saying nothing that other people, who are far more qualified than Chris, Thornhill, Scott etc, haven't already said.

If you'd like to lecture a couple of them, then try here:
http://www.tim-th...dex.html
Mate, I was REMINDING you of things YOU should be considering, irrespective of who else said what that you are merely repeating without considering what I have reminded everyone of over the years (and now again above) for YOUR BENEFIT.

Those 'professionals' can look to their own enlightenment if they are as objective and scientific as they claim to be. :)

My concern here/now is for you/Chris repeating/saying stuff without considering ALL the important factors I keep reminding of.

Consider: Prof Paul Steinhardt has made a start at (finally) admitting/pointing out where HE and his PEERS have been "horribly wrong" all along).

Rethink ALL for YOURSELVES. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Hi Stumpy. :)

Please cease with your personal vendettas; it is making you miss the fact that recent astro/cosmic discoveries/reviews by mainstream are increasingly confirming me correct all along on many fronts. So the more you keep this personal/denial stuff up, the sillier you demonstrate yourself to be. Your choice, mate. Try ditching personal ego/vendettas, Stumpy; then maybe your posts might be worth reading. Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
Hi idiot Dunning-Kruger lying POS idiot pseudoscience sam :P

Please cease with your personal stupidity and pseudoscience lies; it is making you miss the fact that recent astro/cosmic discoveries by mainstream are increasingly confirming you've been a f*cking idiot illiterate troll all along on many fronts. :)

So the more you keep this personal/denial stuff up, the sillier you demonstrate yourself to be. Especially since you've posted 6035+ times with absolutely no evidence or ability to validate your claims

Your choice, mate. Try ditching personal ego/vendettas, sam-you-am; then maybe you would be worth reading. Good luck. :)

PS - not going to continue to point this out and derail this thread further because i know you need to have the last word, so i will simply report any and all further posts that don't include links, references or evidence for your claims
goodnight irene, and FOAD
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
@RC,
Chris has nothing to consider. As I've continually pointed out, he has no valid mechanism, and the claims fail to match the obvious observations that should be there, and would easily be seen.
The rest is just pointing out that the observations WOULD be made, and that the idea (it isn't a hypothesis) has been shown to be horribly flawed by some pretty basic maths, based on observations that have been made.
It is why, after decades of prattling on about this electric sun nonsense, it still only exists on crank science websites. Practically no maths or equations to back it up. No fluxes. Nothing.
It is, at its heart, just an attempt to reconcile the idiocy of Velikovsky with 'science' as they see it. And we all know that Wal is a big fan of Immanuel. Which pretty much disqualifies him from being scientifically literate.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Hi Stumpy. :)

You're in denial mode again about me and my work/insights etc, mate. Not a good place to be for you when recent mainstream discovery/review is confirming me correct all along.

For example: Did you understand what Prof Paul Steinhardt had to admit/explain where he and his peers have been horribly wrong all along?

If not, then take time out now to try and get your head around that example of recent mainstream review which confirms me correct all along. If you can 'get' it, then maybe you will cease with your personal vendettas and denials, hey? We can but hope.

Good luck, Stumpy; take care. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
Hi jonesdave (& Chris-Reeve). :)
Chris has nothing to consider. As I've continually pointed out, he has no valid mechanism, and the claims fail to match the obvious observations that should be there, and would easily be seen.
The rest is just pointing out that the observations WOULD be made, and that the idea (it isn't a hypothesis) has been shown to be horribly flawed by some pretty basic maths, based on observations that have been made.
It is why, after decades of prattling on about this electric sun nonsense, it still only exists on crank science websites. Practically no maths or equations to back it up. No fluxes. Nothing.
It is, at its heart, just an attempt to reconcile the idiocy of Velikovsky with 'science' as they see it. And we all know that Wal is a big fan of Immanuel. Which pretty much disqualifies him from being scientifically literate.
I only remind/encourage 'new' conversations informed by ALL the factors; 'old' misunderstandings are moot now. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy and still helping out the humans and scientists.

Consider: Prof Paul Steinhardt
Well I consider him Cher. And I consider him so much I wrote him an email letter. You remember when you was claiming the Carrol-Skippy was getting his act together because of your helping him? And I wrote him an email letter too.

Steinhardt-Skippy told me the same thing Carrol-Skippy told me. He never did hear of you. And he also said your Earthman-toes-stuffs was worse than regular crankpot gobbledygook. So instead of saying you was correct all along, he said you was (his words not mine) the "demented person who can't even pretend to have a science background, I suggest he is a mere troll".

That's twice we caught you lying about famous scientists backing up your silly gobbledygook. Not good matey, do better diligence.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Ira. :)

Isn't bot-voting against a correct post enough kicks for you? Do you also have to misrepresent/concoct your own versions of what has been happening?

Your Ira-bot 'emails' are like 'surveys'; 'responses' can be made to 'say' what you want them to.

The disease which affects you has been the same disease which has affected much of cosmology/theoretical physics and the people pretending to be scientists while they have been horribly wrong for decades now; as Prof Paul Steinhardt has finally admitted/explained to his peers.

What PROMPTED his soul searching and revelation that he was wrong all that time?

Right. It was 'in the air' as discourse on cosmology/physic has been going on in many venues NOT directly associated with the 'professional' venues, but nevertheless eventually having 'critical mass' effect on the thinking of the professionals; otherwise they would all still be blithely unaware they HAD been incorrect all along and me correct.

Give it up, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2016
Your Ira-bot 'emails' are like surveys; 'responses' can be made to 'say' what you want them to say.
I do not know anything about surveying. I walked around with the Skippy who surveyed my place when we first bought it and he did not have anything to say about gobbledygook, all he talked about was metes and bounds, and more or lesses, and thence and thens.

I just wrote the Steinhardt-Skippy a nice email, showed him some of your stuffs and asked him what he thought. And that is what he thought (or at least that is what he claimed he thought),,,, "demented person who can't even pretend to have a science background, I suggest he is a mere troll"

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The bot vote is no trouble. It is a service I provide for humans and scientists here on the physorg who might not want to be distracted by your gobbledygook. Choot, I don't even make any money from it, I do it as a volunteer.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2016
Ira. :)

The obvious question indicated is: Can a nasty bot-voting ignoramus be trusted to understand and present all the salient facts to anyone when asking his opinion? Obviously not. Nice try, Ira. But your bot-voting ignoramus nasty troll status makes any truly fair, informed and balanced 'opinion survey' result most unlikely....as has proven to be the case in your sad nasty case, Ira, from your own lying bot-lips. QED.

You've been wrong, horribly wrong, mate. Give it up, Ira. Learn your lesson and do better with your life and intellect, mate. Good luck. :)

PS: Have you any on topic comments re the above article's science subject matter, Ira? Try it. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2016
The obvious question indicated is: Can a nasty bot-voting ignoramus be trusted to understand and present all the salient facts to anyone when asking his opinion?
The obvious answer to your obvious question is: I did not need to understand, nobody understands your stuffs. I did not even understand it enough to try to explain what your gobbledygook was about.

I use the snip and glue feature on my computer to ask Steinhardt-Skippy what he thought about your Earthman-Playhouse stuffs. A couple of paragraphs worth and the link to your playhouse place.

You got any more obvious questions that need an obvious answer?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Let us put it like this for our hard of thinking EU acolytes:
You have the output of the Sun. Well measured, not in dispute, yes?
Now, that is either created by fusion in the core (saving you from horrid gamma ray fluxes at the surface), or you have the electric woo Sun.
Which one would you like? The one that says that all the Sun's energy comes from fusion in the core, or the one that says it is electrical woo?
Now, according to CR/HA, some of the neutrinos are due to fusion at the surface! Ok. How much? Given the obvious mathematical and observational failings of the 'electrons heading in to the Sun' nonsense, how much do they need to scale it back to make electric woo a goer? That is, to make it undetectable (which it wouldn't be)?
Well, check the maths. They would need to scale it back so far, that it is no longer relevant. Idiots.

Why oh why do people believe this crap? Do you not think that if they had something to say that they would have said it by now?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2016
Damn, I was expecting CR/HA to come back with some maths, and plasma equations, to show that his electric Sun woo was still viable.
Guess that isn't going to happen, given whom he is reliant upon......
The same people who brought you .....the non-existent Electric Comet!!!! Oh yes people, let's hear it for the idiot Wal, and his sidekick.... thingy, as they fleece people based on their scientific ineptitude!!! Yaayyy, way to go guys.
Imagine what could have happened if you'd actually bothered to take a relevant science degree! Wan*ers.
Chris_Reeve
Dec 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2016
No, I am laughing at the barrage of pointless commentary. It's VERY effective, but only on a site like this.

It works for folks like Cap'n Stoopid, there are a lot of them.

Oh, and regarding jonesdumb's claims about the missing electrons, NASA likely found them. Using a spacecraft mission as described by CR above.
http://www.scienc...plain-it

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
No, I am laughing at the barrage of pointless commentary. It's VERY effective, but only on a site like this.


So still not done the maths yet? Trust me, you don't want to.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
No, I am laughing at the barrage of pointless commentary. It's VERY effective, but only on a site like this.

It works for folks like Cap'n Stoopid, there are a lot of them.

Oh, and regarding jonesdumb's claims about the missing electrons, NASA likely found them. Using a spacecraft mission as described by CR above.
http://www.scienc...plain-it


Nope, doesn't help you one little bit. Do the maths. How many do you need? It's easy enough to work out, all the figures are easy enough to find. No calculus. The only variable is the velocity that you ascribe to the non-existent electrons. That will depend on the potential drop that EU claims to exist between the heliosphere and the Sun. Has to be exceedingly small if they are only drifting at half-rat power at 1 AU.
It's totally junk 'science'. Laughably bad.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
No, I am laughing at the barrage of pointless commentary. It's VERY effective, but only on a site like this.


So show us where these idiots have actually accounted for these things. You know, how much gamma ray flux would x% of fusion on the surface produce? What is the electron density at 1 AU if electric woo is proving x% of the power of the Sun? What does the velocity of the imagined electrons at 1 AU tell us about the potential drop over ~100 AU?
This is all pretty easy to do, so I assume someone has done it. Where?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2016
No, I am laughing at the barrage of pointless commentary. It's VERY effective, but only on a site like this.


Where else would I put it? EU rubbish doesn't exist in the realm of real science. It's not as if anyone can respond to their lunacy in the latest edition of ApJ or A & A, as this crap would never get past the editor, let alone a half decent peer reviewer.
Your rubbish only exists in places like this, where people like you keep spamming it, in the hope of finding new converts to mythology based woo.
In case you haven't noticed, your cult has gone nowhere in decades, and is having no effect whatsoever on scientific thinking.
It's all a little bit pointless, don't you think? Why not just own up, and confess that what you believe has nothing whatever to do with science, and is all about a neo-Velikovskian faith based cult?
Chris_Reeve
Dec 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
@reeve/hannes
We've got the SDO mission coming up
no, mainstream science and NASA has the SDO mission coming up
- the only thing you will be able to do as an eu cult member is misinterpret the science or completely f*ck it up like cantdrive does
That situation potentially sets the Standard Solar Model up for some embarrassing moments in the coming years
not unless they adopted the eu model and started a religion around it

the thing you don't get about science is that it follows the evidence

yes, it also predicts things and looks for those predictions, but unlike your eu, it provides a means to falsify

your eu cult doesn't - when the eu prediction is proven wrong it's either:
-everyone else fault for misinterpreting the evidence
-deleted from the site like it never existed

it's simple: because the eu doesn't abide by the scientific method, it is *not science*
period
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
jonesdumb;
Your maths can be found here;
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
It would seem there are plenty of electrons (20,000 times more than needed) to power the Electric Sun. And lest we not overlook the ions....
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)

Forget past EU related claims/feuds (on both 'sides'). They are moot now. :)

It's HYBRID phenomena, involving many 'forces' in concert/feedback etc processes over time and space distances which create 'structural' and 'flow' features. No 'model' will ever explain it properly UNLESS ALL factors thoroughly identified/understood as to dominance/phases across time/space over its evolutionary stages range.

Also, on large scales (distance/time), 'equilibration' of charge via electron movement is limited; and may result in large Differentiation/Sorting into charge streamlines/sheets/shocks etc along/across a plasmic feature/process; while the plasma-flow-generated magnetic/electric field pattern 'interplay' produces all sorts of excursions/transient phenomena/potentials and turbulence/perturbation/chaotic etc phenomena within 'neutral' OR 'partial charge' plasmic 'feature' (gravity conributes 'confinement' for longer term 'stability range'.

[continued...]
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
@ jonesdave [...cont]:

Recall, I pointed out that Sun's OWN mag field pattern redirecting BACK onto Sun a lot of its OWN 'outgoing' electrons ejected into coronal regions?

This 'flowback' ADDS to whatever externally-sourced 'incoming' electron flux may be trapped and redirected by the sun's outermost mag field pattern. Much of these electrons will be transported/redirected by the sun's own mag field pattern back onto the polar regions and thence onto the sun plasma content in corona/surface etc.

Understand how electrons can be trapped/redirected onto the sun despite solar wind; because mag field pattern provides a 'shielded superhighway' for any trapped electrons being trapped/directed by mag field back/onto sun.

It's all messier/more complex than these 'feuding exchanges' would have everyone believe. It's HYBRID; involving ALL forces/effects (Gravitational, E-M, QM) working over time/space to evolve complex flows/structures 'features' observed.

Consider ALL factors. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2016
jonesdumb;
Your maths can be found here;
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
It would seem there are plenty of electrons (20,000 times more than needed) to power the Electric Sun. And lest we not overlook the ions....


Hey ,sh*t for brains, they need to be found close to the Sun, going IN. Get it? Jesus these people are thick. You linked to a non peer reviewed bunch of bollocks. Why do you think that the idiot Scott didn't publish that paper? Shall I tell you? BECAUSE HE IS LYING! Get it? It would not get past peer review. Why? Because it is sh*t. Link me to something that backs up his crap in a peer reviewed journal. Rather than crap that has been made up. Idiot.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
@ jonesdave [...cont]:)


Oh do f*ck off you sanctimonious prat.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2016
It would seem there are plenty of electrons (20,000 times more than needed) to power the Electric Sun. And lest we not overlook the ions....


Yes, and what you fail to understand, you burke, is that they would be detected by various spacecraft. And haven't been. Understand? Is this getting too technical for you? Jesus, I knew you were thick, but this takes the biscuit!
Shall I go through it again for the hard of thinking? You need the same power coming in at 1 AU as is being received at 1 AU. Got that? So where the f**k is it? Answers on a postcard to "we believe in any old woo", address unknown.
DO THE MATHS, idiot. Jesus.
Answer me this; what is the potential drop that the idiot Scott gives between the heliopause and the Sun? Do a simple calculation of what that would accelerate an electron to. What are the idiots at EU claiming to be the speed of these electrons? Veeerrrry simple maths. Get back to us on that, yes?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2016
We've got the SDO mission coming up, and I'm hoping & expecting that we'll see some very specific predictions....


Oh dear, Reeve. We've been hearing this crap for decades! Never going to happen is it love?
Please, specify a prediction of the EU woo that has ever come true. Don't waste your time searching...it has NEVER happened. EVER. Please give us a timeline for when you are going to write this neo-Velikovskian woo up in an actual paper. Again, don't bother, because we all know that that is never going to happen.
Woo is woo. Still, as long as you are fleecing enough idiots of their money per annum, then who gives a damn. Eh?

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2016
Oh, just in case anybody thinks that the idiot Scott isn't an idiot, here is something I posted elsewhere on this site, regarding the idiots inability to understand what Doppler shift means regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula:

Scott (2015): It's a Z-pinch! http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF (1989)

Err, whoops, or what? He only had 26 years to check that out. Does his computer not do Google Scholar? Mine does. Took me minutes to find that. I repeat - idiot.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2016
^^^Whoops, that obviously f***d up.

Scott: http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF (2015)

Balick: http://adsabs.har...97..476B (1989)

Showing that the idiot really is an idiot. Any of the EU woo merchants like to explain to us how this looks like a Z-pinch? Would love to hear it.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2016
Oh, one last one for the poster known as Reeve/ Alfven (christ, he'd turn in his grave!)
If the fusion (however much) is taking place on the surface, then you should be able to calculate (roughly) the amount of gamma radiation that it produces, yes? Given that we have a very good handle on that, what would you say is the amount of fusion actually happening there? (0 would be a good guess).
On the other hand, if it is zero, what does that say about the amount of your non-existent electrons that we should detect coming in?
So, you are back to where we were previously, yes? Can't find the buggers, eh?
Try thinking about it. Scientifically. Mathematically.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2016
Is it me, or does anybody else think that EU believers are particularly stupid? I mean, how can one go through life not understanding some very basic stuff? Is it that the people that are attracted to it are, by definition, scientifically illiterate? Is that the attraction? As in "I was crap at science at school, I'm going to believe in this woo, it's much easier." Is it as simple as that? Have they got a chip on their shoulder? Like the idiots Thornhill and Crothers?
Purely rhetorical. Just makes me wonder.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2016
Please, specify a prediction of the EU woo that has ever come true. Don't waste your time searching...it has NEVER happened.

Birkeland currents, proper mechanism describing aurora. Predicted galactic magnetic fields. There are many more...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
, regarding the idiots inability to understand what Doppler shift means regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula:

I am not going to try to figure out what your moronic ideas are, please explain.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
Please, specify a prediction of the EU woo that has ever come true. Don't waste your time searching...it has NEVER happened.

Birkeland currents, proper mechanism describing aurora. Predicted galactic magnetic fields. There are many more...


Sorry, please tell me which EU members came up with those predictions.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
, regarding the idiots inability to understand what Doppler shift means regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula:

I am not going to try to figure out what your moronic ideas are, please explain.


Do you know what a Z-pinch is? Which way does the current flow before becoming pinched? Let's say we have a location, call it X, at which a certain idiot is proposing that a Z-pinch is happening. Let's say in our co-ordinate system that X lies halfway along a line with origin W and ends at E. Does the Z-pinch run from W, get pinched at X, and then continue on to E? I'd say yes.
Whereas, if said idiot had checked the literature, he would have found that his "current" is coming FROM X, and heading in two directions simultaneously, to both W & E!
Like I said, the burke does not understand that Doppler rules out his silly claims.
Which is why he published it in the crackpot journal Progress in Physics!
https://en.wikipe..._Physics

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
Is it me, or does anybody else think that EU believers are particularly stupid?
......just substitute DM for EU & you'd be a lot closer to the truth.......at least the existence of ELECTRICITY is a well established fact of science, whereas you DM Enthusiasts have yet to produce a single atom of Dark Matter which you claim makes up 80-95% of the Universe.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
You've got this fixation on people, we prefer science. The mechanisms and processes studied/researched by those who made these discoveries are what's important, not what click to which they belong. The EU is about classical empirical science rather than the fanciful theoretical imaginings you worship upon. The EU adheres to the same science/physics that were developed in the lab by folks such as Maxwell, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfvén, et al. You prefer the thought "experiments" of those who oppose lab work, as Einstein so clearly was...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2016
The EU is about classical empirical science......


So, where is it? The authors you mention were not members of your cult. Their work stands alone. Please show me some 'classical, empirical science', as performed by EU members. And I'm not talking about Scott's 'regular' work. I mean stuff that relates specifically to EU crackpottery, such as electric stars, electric comets, electric craters. Has any of that actually been published in a respectable journal? And has any of it ever been seen to be true in retrospect?

It has nothing whatever to do with science, and is easily shown to be nonsense. Science does not start with an a priori assumption, such as 'Velikovsky was right', and then try, with laughably bad 'science', to force fit everything to satisfy that assumption. As has been shown with the electric sun nonsense, and the electric comet nonsense, etc.

Alfven and Birkeland would turn in their graves at the thought of being associated with EU.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2016
Do you know what a Z-pinch is? Which way does the current flow before becoming pinched? Let's say we have a location, call it X, at which a certain idiot is proposing that a Z-pinch is happening. Let's say in our co-ordinate system that X lies halfway along a line with origin W and ends at E. Does the Z-pinch run from W, get pinched at X, and then continue on to E? I'd say yes.

Oh, I see your problem, stop right there. You are insisting a belief based upon complete ignorance is valid to write off what would otherwise be obvious. What I'd say is you should at least grasp the basics before going on with that diarrhea spewing from your face. If you were aware of Alfven's heliospheric current cicuit;
https://www.plasm..._circuit
You would see the expected flow at the poles is just as observed. And coupled with the paper you linked, the return current loops around to the equitorial plane (fig. 2) to complete the circuit.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
You've got this fixation on people, we prefer science....


No, you'll find that I've been concentrating on the science, and you've been avoiding doing that science.
What would be the speed of an electron given a 10 gigavolt potential drop from 100 AU to to 0 Au?
What would the gamma ray flux be at the surface of the Sun, if nuclear fusion were happening there?
How are your electrons managing to be unaffected by the solar wind, and its associated magnetic field?
Why are they undetectable?
What is a Z-pinch, and why doesn't Scott know?
Etc.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016

Oh, I see your problem, stop right there. You are insisting a belief based upon complete ignorance is valid to write off what would otherwise be obvious. What I'd say is you should at least grasp the basics before going on with that diarrhea spewing from your face. If you were aware of Alfven's heliospheric current cicuit;
https://www.plasm..._circuit


Err, no.Lol. You've linked to a crank science site that has nothing to do with Z-pinches!
Here is a page on Z-pinches:
http://atomictoas...machine/
Has some nice piccies. Which way is the current going?

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
What is a Z-pinch, and why doesn't Scott know?


I'll amend that, as I'm sure Scott does know. I'll rephrase it as:
Why does Scott think that an ageing star, shooting out material in opposite directions, is a Z-pinch?
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
Figure 10.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
http://atomictoas...machine/
Has some nice piccies. Which way is the current going?

Good question, I can't tell you since you can't seem to figure out how to copy/paste a link.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
http://atomictoas...machine/
Has some nice piccies. Which way is the current going?

Good question, I can't tell you since you can't seem to figure out how to copy/paste a link.


And you have lost the ability to use Google Image search?
I'll try again:
http://atomictoas...machine/
If not, then try this quick lecture:
http://slideplaye...6840571/
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
What is a Z-pinch?

This is it, a diagram of a Z-pinch;
http://atomictoas...2-15.png

Note the hourglass shape similar to the nebula in question.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
@nazi sympathizer idiot eu cult preacher
we prefer science
no, you don't, and i can prove that by simply re-posting any of your repeated lies regarding magnetic reconnection - validated by plasma physicists and electrical engineers in multiple labs, nations and cultures around the world
The EU is about classical empirical science
bullsh*t - see magnetic reconnection

not only is it "classical empirical science" (as you call it) validated over and over, with more than 100K experiments in just the PPPL lab alone done by electrical engineers and plasma physicists specialising in (you guessed it) plasma physics

but it is also completely ignored by your cult of stupidity - and i can prove that with multiple links on PO alone, in your own words

you have just proven yourself to be a chronic liar and debunked your own eu cult with your own words and historical ignoring of empirical evidence

eu is pseudoscience
period

and you just proved it
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
What is a Z-pinch?

This is it, a diagram of a Z-pinch;
http://atomictoas...2-15.png

Note the hourglass shape similar to the nebula in question.


So we're back to you (along with Scott) failing to understand that the Doppler shift shows that the imagined current is coming FROM the imagined pinch, and heading out in OPPOSITE directions. A Z-pinch, as the linked diagram shows, flows in one direction. Doppler would show it as being either all blue shifted, if it were coming towards us, or all red shifted if it were heading away.
It is shown as red shifted on one side of the star, and blue on the other. The star is blowing material off in opposite directions. You and Scott are suffering from what is known as pareidolia.
https://briankobe...nknowns/
gkam
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
"@nazi sympathizer idiot eu cult preacher"

"bullsh*t "

"chronic liar"
---------------------------------

Can't we get rid of this nasty stuff? This regards science, not the inability of others to discuss topics rationally without personal attack.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
@nazi sympathizer idiot eu cult preacher cont'd
Note the hourglass shape similar to the nebula in question.
looks like isn't always empirical evidence proving "it is"

lots of things can "look like" something else, but not *be* said something else
case in point:
http://cache1.ass...kTmvNdUe

http://image.shut...7837.jpg

both of those look similar, or "looks like" they could be the same thing...one looks like it could be a closer high res pic of the other, and in fact, you can see there are a lot of similarities

but they're not the same thing

this is where you fail - just because it looks similar doesn't mean it *is* the same thing

.

and that is why you promote pseudoscience, not science
epic fail for the eu cult
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
Here, I've provided a diagram for our lovers of pareidolia:
http://www.imageb...21784741
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-bully
Can't we get rid of this nasty stuff? This regards science, not the inability of others to discuss topics rationally without personal attack
you mean i should post like you?
like this?
We are entering Trumpistan
When we send the Trump kids to war
Thang kew, RC.
The Pope speaks Portuguese

Most vehicles do not run 24/7, and can be charged when not running in their parking place.
Ours gets charged at night

Ours is charged with our PV panels
you are worse than the eu cult
Can we clean up the forum and get rid of these offensive snipers?
yes
we can report you till you're banned for promoting pseudoscience and chronic lies
all of which i've proven more than once

so, per your request....
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
So, I'll return to my theme. How can anybody take EU seriously, when simple science, and a bit of research, seems to be beyond even their most 'qualified' practitioners?
As with the example of Scott's non-existent Z-pinch.
And as with a multitude by Thornhill. Such as solar wind H+, travelling at ~400 km/s, combining with O-, to form OH. A little bit of knowledge, mathematics and research would have shown two things: the H+ is too energetic at that speed to combine with anything, and the amount of OH/ H2O possible from this impossible mechanism, was orders of magnitude too few to match observation at comets.

And these are the people telling scientists in a variety of fields, that they've got it all wrong! Laughable.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
So, I'll return to my theme. How can anybody take EU seriously
.....it's real simple Jonesy, ELECTRICITY has been PROVEN to exist by what we now take for granted to be "simple science".

On the other hand, why do you continue living within the TinFoil Hat crowd which which has established itself in the belief of something composing 80-95% of the universe for which you have no evidence of it's existence.

For Example this: http://phys.org/n...und.html

I'd say Jonesy that you're a slave to your own facts.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2016
So, I'll return to my theme. How can anybody take EU seriously
.....it's real simple Jonesy, ELECTRICITY has been PROVEN to exist by what we now take for granted to be "simple science".

On the other hand, why do you continue living within the TinFoil Hat crowd which which has established itself in the belief of something composing 80-95% of the universe for which you have no evidence of it's existence.

For Example this: http://phys.org/n...und.html

I'd say Jonesy that you're a slave to your own facts.



I know electricity exists, you burke. However, it is not involved in certain phenomena in the way the the EU idiots believe. Unless you'd like to answer the numerous questions I've posed over time regarding the debunked electric comet woo, or the debunked electric sun woo. Feel free.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2016
I know electricity exists, you burke. However, it is not involved in certain phenomena in the way the the EU idiots believe. Unless you'd like to answer the numerous questions I've posed over time regarding the debunked electric comet woo, or the debunked electric sun woo. Feel free.


Just to add that those questions can be answered without any reference to dark matter, or dark energy. Just physics. What do you think powers the Sun? Or makes a comet shed loads of dust and gas?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
For all you lovers of pareidolia, here is an image of jonesdumb and Cap'n Stoopid for that matter...
https://www.googl...;bih=652

BTW, nice scribbles jonesdumb. Your dementia is obvious...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2016
For all you lovers of pareidolia, here is an image of jonesdumb and Cap'n Stoopid for that matter...
https://www.googl...;bih=652

BTW, nice scribbles jonesdumb. Your dementia is obvious...


So you still don't understand Doppler shift? Oh well, we'll just have to add that to the list of things that EU cultists don't understand. Becoming a very long list, is that.
And definitely no dementia; you, on the other hand, seem to be suffering greatly from not only pareidolia, but, like most EU acolytes, a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger effect.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
I understand Doppler shift just fine, you apparently do not appreciate the complexity of plasmas and that all is needed is dementia revealing scribbles to "prove" your imaginings are valid.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
@nazi sympathizer idiot eu cult preacher with coprolalia
here is an image of jonesdumb and Cap'n
thank you for validating my point and demonstrating that you are incapable of providing science to argue your point

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)
@ jonesdave [...cont]:)
Oh do f*ck off you sanctimonious prat.
Now now, mate; is that any way to react to someone pointing out known science for you which your responses to cantdrive seem to be ignoring?

This sort of reaction keeps you in denial mode; makes you miss obvious things; while you sound so 'certain' about processes you apparently do not fully consider/understand yourself.

Eg, I take time/trouble to remind (for your benefit!) that:

- magnetic field patterns around astronomical bodies (eg our sun) also traps/redirects/accelerates electrons and ionized/charged atoms/molecules coming from ANY direction (out of OR into, our sun's, vicinity);

- regardless of flow direction of ionized atoms/molecules, ELECTRON currents may flow in ANY direction because they are the least massive and most easily REDIRECTED by MAGNETIC FIELDs which accelerate them to greater velocities along 'least force/action' paths.

Don't react with bias/denial. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2016
I know electricity exists, you burke.
.....Oh, it's nice that you know that. So, do you know if Dark Matter exists?

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2016
I know electricity exists, you burke.
.....Oh, it's nice that you know that. So, do you know if Dark Matter exists?

amiabledunce
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2016
CD,Chris Reeves,RC-Did you gents happen to catch this article :
http://www.space....tta.html

Full paper can be found at https://mnras.oxf...tw2112v1
Some surprising admissions from the Rosetta team concerning what they term as "bizarre brightening" of the comet.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
I know electricity exists, you burke.
.....Oh, it's nice that you know that. So, do you know if Dark Matter exists?



You seriously are a pratt, aren't you? Please, do show us your mathematical proofs for all the crap that you believe. Do it. Now. I am sick to death of tosspots like you, claiming that they have proved this, that or the other. So come on, sh*t for brains. let's see it. Post it, or f*ck off. Tosser.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)
@ jonesdave [...cont]:)
Oh do f*ck off you sanctimonious prat.
Now now, mate; is that any way to react to someone pointing out known science for you which...


Again, bugger of you burke.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
I understand Doppler shift just fine, you apparently do not appreciate the complexity of plasmas and that all is needed is dementia revealing scribbles to "prove" your imaginings are valid.


And you are obviously as thick as the idiot Scott. Why do you think that he published in that crap journal? Because, for the hard of thinking, he would never have got that garbage published in a proper scientific journal. A proper peer reviewer would have seen his obvious error, and pointed it out. The fact that it was published in that crap journal tells you all you need to know about EU.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
CD,Chris Reeves,RC-Did you gents happen to catch this article :
http://www.space....tta.html
Some surprising admissions from the Rosetta team concerning what they term as "bizarre brightening" of the comet.


No, you idiot, it 'brightened' in various wavelengths that were not visual. Read the bloody paper, you idiot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
I understand Doppler shift just fine, you apparently do not appreciate the complexity of plasmas and that all is needed is dementia revealing scribbles to "prove" your imaginings are valid.


And you can't explain it, can you, sh*t for brains? Let's hear it. What is the standard EU excuse for Scott being a total f*ckwit? Please, do tell us. How did he manage to fuxx this up? Where, in that paper, does he explain it?
Trust me, he doesn't. He is as stupid as you. He screwed up. End of story.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
Can anyone imagine going to an EU conference? Jesus, it must be grim, eh?

"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one of the biggest liars on the planet......Wal Thornhill...(much applause from an audience with an accumulated IQ of a brain damaged hedgehog)..." Gidday, blokes and sheilas, I'm here mainly to lie to you. Don't take it personal like, but I've got a living to make, and you guys are so thick that I can get away with pretty much anything....."
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
I know electricity exists, you burke.
.....Oh, it's nice that you know that. So, do you know if Dark Matter exists?



Where has this eejit gone? I have yet to see his 'proof' of jack sh*t. When will we be seeing it? Come on tosspot in chief, let's see it. Or are you all mouth and no trousers? (yes)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
Why do you think that he published in that crap journal? Because, for the hard of thinking, he would never have got that garbage published in a proper scientific journal.

Why? Two reasons, ignorance of real plasma physics by the "peer review" and censorship.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2016
By the way, I don't have any iron in the fire of dark matter/ dark energy. I couldn't give a tuppeny f*ck how it turns out. It won't be electrical woo though. that I guarantee you.
So come on Benni the burke, show us how it is all wrong. Do not reference the idiot Crothers. Or I shall laugh. A lot. Might need a change of underwear. So, come on genius, let's hear it, you idiot.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
Why do you think that he published in that crap journal? Because, for the hard of thinking, he would never have got that garbage published in a proper scientific journal.

Why? Two reasons, ignorance of real plasma physics by the "peer review" and censorship.


No, idiot, two reasons; lack of research, and lack of ability. End of story. The (total lack of) current is going the wrong way! What a dick!
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
Tell you what, cantthink, why don't you email the idiot Scott, and ask how he managed to fuxx up something that took me all of two minutes to research? Eh? Seriously, you guys are thick.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
Take it down a notch there jonesdumb, you're quite emotional right now. Don't forget your meds.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2016
Take it down a notch there jonesdumb, you're quite emotional right now. Don't forget your meds.


Doesn't alter the fact that you are thick as p*gsh*t, does it? Or that Scott hasn't got a bloody clue about stuff that happens outside of a lab. How can one possibly get something like that wrong? You'd have thought the idiot might have done some research, eh?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
OK, cantthink, would you like me to start listing the idiot Thornhill's scientific illiteracy as well? Prepared to answer for that? Or is that well known, and nobody expects any different from that eejit?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2016
OK, cantthink, would you like me to start listing the idiot Thornhill's scientific illiteracy as well? Prepared to answer for that? Or is that well known, and nobody expects any different from that eejit?


Give me the word, I'll be here all night. Shall we start with his turning H+ ions into water?.Lol. Anywhere you'd like to go,. The guy, and his idiot followers, are complete pratts. However, you are quite welcome to make a case for the defence. Given that all the questions I asked about the electric sun woo have gone unanswered, I'll take it that you no longer believe in that particular woo, yes?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
CD,Chris Reeves,RC-Did you gents happen to catch this article :
http://www.space....tta.html

Full paper can be found at https://mnras.oxf...tw2112v1
Some surprising admissions from the Rosetta team concerning what they term as "bizarre brightening" of the comet.

I found it interesting they mentioned the Birkeland current in the abstract. Indicates a connection with the Sun. I'll read the paper when I have time.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2016
@nazi sympathizer eu cult peon
Why? Two reasons, ignorance of real plasma physics by the "peer review" and censorship
1- this would mean, by definition then, that your own electrical engineers are idiots and don't know plasma physics, ya moron! LMFAO

2- we've already established that the eu doesn't comprehend validated plasma physics
(you know, like this: http://www.pppl.gov/node/857 )

So the only people we can prove are ignorant of plasma physics, with actual evidence and not just a claim, is the eu crowd
- something you repeatedly validate

3- conspiracist ideation - there is only one reason possible that the eu papers aren't published in reputable science journals: they're pseudoscience sh*t papers attempting to distribute a blatantly false claim and call it science

that is the *only* thing that can possibly keep out your claims from the worlds journals

and it really has to be blatantly obvious for all of them to oust it as crap

consider that a moment...
yep
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
Jones, math is not empirical proof of anything.
You and Stump are consensus stooges and do not have the capacity to question authority or the humility to admit when you are wrong. The irony of it all is that the science you believe in is based in miracles and defies rational sense.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2016
Jones, math is not empirical proof of anything.
You and Stump are consensus stooges and do not have the capacity to question authority or the humility to admit when you are wrong. The irony of it all is that the science you believe in is based in miracles and defies rational sense.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain


So show us where we're wrong, you idiot. All we get from you burkes is prose. "It's all a cover up, a conspiracy, maths doesn't prove anything", et boring cetera. Ad nauseam.
So how about doing some science? As shown in this thread, and others, and in many other places, you are simply incapable of it. It's all fairy tales based on Velikovskian woo.

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
Carl Sagan.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
math is not empirical proof of anything.

Math is the language of logic. If you can make a good hypothesis then you can use math to decsribe it and to work on from there to see what your hypothesis predicts. It also lets _others_ evaluate your hypothesis independent of your own emotional bias.

If you can't even formulate your hypothesis in the language of math then you don't have one (much less a theory). All you have in that case is a brainfart.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2016
Jones, math is not empirical proof of anything.


Err, yes, it is. Take Thornhill's crap about solar wind H+ combining with O- (not sure where he gets that from) to form OH and/or water at comets. Now, ignoring the fact that this is impossible (further showing his scientific illiteracy), all he had to do was some very basic maths to show that it cannot possibly account for all the H2O seen at comets. You know, stuff like Googling how many molecules are in a litre of water, the average density and velocity of the solar wind, the size of the comet. Simple stuff like that. So tell me, why would anybody take an idiot like him seriously? Or the other idiot, Scott? Both of them are demonstrably inept outside of their own areas of knowledge. In Scott's case, that would be as an EE in a lab. Thornhill, as a purveyor of Velikovskian woo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
CD,Chris Reeves,RC-Did you gents happen to catch this article :
http://www.space....tta.html
Some surprising admissions from the Rosetta team concerning what they term as "bizarre brightening" of the comet.


But, but, but....Wal told us that the H2O was caused by the solar wind interacting with O- from the comet! But the report says that the solar wind had been getting nowhere near the comet for months!
And yet they had still been detecting H2O for all that time! Another perfect illustration that Thornhill is an idiot. Thanks for that.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2016
Some surprising admissions from the Rosetta team concerning what they term as "bizarre brightening" of the comet.


Oh dear, science via press release, yet again. Did you learn that from Wal?
Your reading skills are obviously lacking, as the term 'bizarre' is used by the author of the article, and is NOT attributed to the Rosetta team.
You may also be interested in another abstract from that meeting, of which Noonan was also a co-author:
"Icy outbursts from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by the Alice FUV spectrograph."
"However, a subset of the dust outbursts show a markedly different character with dust that is bright--in some cases brighter than the sunlit nucleus itself-- and displaying a strong absorption feature around 1700Å, characteristic of water ice. In such outbursts, the observed "dust" is likely to consist primarily of icy grains."

These are the EUs 'electric arc discharges.' Oh dear. I'd forget about comets, if I were you lot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
Why do you think that he published in that crap journal? Because, for the hard of thinking, he would never have got that garbage published in a proper scientific journal.

Why? Two reasons, ignorance of real plasma physics by the "peer review" and censorship.


https://itinerant...-hat.png
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2016
Why do you think that he published in that crap journal? Because, for the hard of thinking, he would never have got that garbage published in a proper scientific journal.

Why? Two reasons, ignorance of real plasma physics by the "peer review" and censorship.


https://itinerant...-hat.png


Plus 40 points gained from item 34 on the crackpot index!

"40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike."

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
LOL, the Russians hacked us....Conspiracy!

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals."
[Referring to the trouble he had with the peer reviewers of Anglo-American astrophysical journals because his ideas often conflicted with the generally accepted or "standard"" theories.]
— Hannes Alfvén
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
Plus 40 points gained from item 34 on the crackpot index!

You won a long time ago with all your CAP'N CAPSLOCK statements.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
LOL, the Russians hacked us....Conspiracy!

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals."
[Referring to the trouble he had with the peer reviewers of Anglo-American astrophysical journals because his ideas often conflicted with the generally accepted or "standard"" theories.]
— Hannes Alfvén


Oh dear. If in trouble, bring up another ancient quote from Alfven! It may surprise you to learn that although Alfven got a lot of stuff right, he also only got other things partially right. And he came up with some stuff that was just plain wrong.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2016
and censorship

Ya know - if someone employs censorship they employ it for a reason.
In all these debates I have yet to see someone come up with a non-insane reason why anyone should have any kind of mortive to do so.
(and of course it would have to a be a world-wide conspiracy with super effective secrecy. Something not even multi-trillion-funded agencies are capable of)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2016
LOL, the Russians hacked us....Conspiracy!

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals."
[Referring to the trouble he had with the peer reviewers of Anglo-American astrophysical journals because his ideas often conflicted with the generally accepted or "standard"" theories.]
— Hannes Alfvén


Do you think Alfven would have seen a Z-pinch in the same way Scott did? Or do you think he would have actually done sufficient research on the planetary nebula to see that it couldn't possibly be such a thing? What about his collaborators? Falthammer, Carlquist (?), and others who were still active in 1989? Did they see a Z-pinch at M2-9? Have they ever written about such a thing? Or any other plasma physicist? Nope, just the idiot Scott, based purely on looking at a pretty piccie.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
It may surprise you to learn that although Alfven got a lot of stuff right, he also only got other things partially right. And he came up with some stuff that was just plain wrong.

Example #1- MHD and the frozen-in condition. To his credit he has claimed it was his biggest mistake of his life, yet 40+ years later astrophysicists regard it as gospel as it conforms with their mathematically elegant guesses.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
Ya know - if someone employs censorship they employ it for a reason.
In all these debates I have yet to see someone come up with a non-insane reason why anyone should have any kind of mortive to do so.

Yep, to protect their own self-interests, or those who support them. How many astrophysical journals are there that it would require this giant conspiracy you insist on? Were talking about tens of individuals, with just a few "reputable" journals and all others being crankpot it's not a difficult task.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016
It may surprise you to learn that although Alfven got a lot of stuff right, he also only got other things partially right. And he came up with some stuff that was just plain wrong.

Example #1- MHD and the frozen-in condition. To his credit he has claimed it was his biggest mistake of his life, yet 40+ years later astrophysicists regard it as gospel as it conforms with their mathematically elegant guesses.


Wrong. As you would know if you knew anything about plasma physics. As Tim Thompson explained to you a long time ago. He only expressed reservations about how it was being used, by some, back in his day. A long time ago. It is now known that it is valid in more conditions than he realised back then, and the models used these days are far more sophisticated than used back in the days of yore. And include PIC 3D models. So you are decades behind the times. As usual.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016
Ya know - if someone employs censorship they employ it for a reason.
In all these debates I have yet to see someone come up with a non-insane reason why anyone should have any kind of mortive to do so.

Yep, to protect their own self-interests, or those who support them. How many astrophysical journals are there that it would require this giant conspiracy you insist on? Were talking about tens of individuals, with just a few "reputable" journals and all others being crankpot it's not a difficult task.



What self interests? Please tell me of a reputable plasma physicist who has complained of not being published in those journals, and point me to their work.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2016
How about Alfvén, the guy who practically invented plasma physics.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2016
How about Alfvén, the guy who practically invented plasma physics.


You are going back many decades - as usual. In case you haven't noticed, plasma physics has moved on a long way since the days of black & white TV, teddy boys and Elvis haircuts. A lot more is known, and has been observed since Alfvens day. He would have had many students working under him over the years. Many of them will still be active in the field. So why did certain of his claims about plasma fall by the wayside? Because they were wrong, either totally or partially.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2016
Here is a prime example of how science moves on for cd. Alfven, along with Falthammar wrote a paper in 1976 questioning the frozen in concept and magnetic reconnection. Now, I'm not sure how Falthammar continued to feel about the frozen in concept, but that it is pretty much irrelevant.
On reconnection, however, here he is just three years later, as a co-author of a paper, agreeing that data from an observation shows: "Both the large scale average electric field and the fine scale field observed during a magnetopause crossing show the existence of significant tangential electric field components on both sides of the magnetopause, ***in agreement with the requirements of reconnection theories***."

"Direct Observation of a Tangential Electric Field Component at the Magnetopause" (1979)
http://onlinelibr...305/full

My emphasis. Observation has a habit of changing minds. Except when those minds are fossilised in the past.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
It would be helpful to see the paper to get some further insight. As its written it only suggests that certains conditions are met, not that it has been validated. The reason why I ask is this paper;
https://www.googl...OcJKWGfw
He indicates that the frozen-in condition is not applicable to the magnetosphere, as such reconnection of the frozen-in field lines could not be valid.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2016
I'd also like to know your opinion on this research;
http://phys.org/n...rab.html
This silly guy seems to think, just as Alfvén did, that he can extrapolate physics of laboratory plasmas to cosmical dimensions. As I mentioned there, he has the temerity to suggest that plasmas should behave like plasmas. If this is the case, it pretty much thrusts Alfvén's/Peratt's Plasma Universe to the cutting edge of the space sciences. And the standard theory into the dust bin with epicycles and flat earth nonsense.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2016
It would be helpful to see the paper to get some further insight. As its written it only suggests that certains conditions are met, not that it has been validated. The reason why I ask is this paper;
https://www.googl...OcJKWGfw
He indicates that the frozen-in condition is not applicable to the magnetosphere, as such reconnection of the frozen-in field lines could not be valid.


Sorry, you are still talking ancient crap. Give it up. It died in the 80s/ 90s! Do you not understand that? No wonder no proper science has ever come out of EU! You are all living in the past. Get with it man. Alfven is yesterday's news. Yes he had some good ideas, but he also had some really silly ones. Get over it. Live with it. Yes?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2016
http://iopscience...19/2/L24

More reconnection seen. On top of all the other stuff that has been seen in lab and 'in the wild'. Get over it. Alfven was wrong. And has been shown to be so. So what. He did alright for his time, but his time has gone. We know far more now than he ever did. He was guessing at much of it. And he guessed wrong. So what?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2016
I'd also like to know your opinion on this research;
http://phys.org/n...rab.html


It's a supernova. That doesn't happen to electric stars, does it?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016
^^^^^ By the way, why are you linking to press releases? Surely you have read the full paper, n'est-ce pas? DO NOT LINK TO PRESS RELEASES. Just a word of advice, if you ever hope to do real science.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016

He indicates that the frozen-in condition is not applicable to the magnetosphere, as such reconnection of the frozen-in field lines could not be valid.


I don't know cantdrive. I'm not a plasma physicist. What I do know, from people that are in the know about such things, is that they took the best of Alfven, et al, and disregarded that which has been shown to be wrong. And that is the thing: it has been shown to be wrong. In particular, the frozen-in concept, and magnetic reconnection. He just got it wrong. No shame. It was early days. People believed all sorts of things back then. They didn't have the data back then that we have now.
I'll try to find the paper again, and upload it somewhere for you.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016
No password. Here is the paper, cd. Not much to see, other than them describing what was seen. And saying that it was consistent with reconnection. Which has since been seen in many places, from laboratory to Saturn.
So screw GPR: if they want to sue me, then figure out what my VPN is up to! For a 37 year old paper? Having a laugh.
http://www71.zipp...ile.html
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2016
^^^^^By the way, you will need 7-Zip or Winrar to open that file. I'm assuming that most people will have that.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2016
Actually, that should have been GRL, but no matter! Geophysical Research Letters. Thieving buggers.
Anyway, I'd like someone to tell me the velocity of an electron across a potential drop of say, 1 gigavolt?
Has anybody done that? It isn't rocket science.
On the other hand, rearrange the requisite equation, based on a claim of say ~1cm/s at 1 AU, and then tell us what the potential at ~100 AU must be. Not difficult. Unless one's name is Scott, Jurgens or Thornhill.

And then explain why spacecraft, travelling at say 10 km/s, can't detect them. After all, probes at Halley and 67P can easily detect electrons moving at <1 km/s. Why can't they see the EU electrons?
My 'guess'? Because they aren't there. Just a feeling :)
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2016
After all, probes at Halley and 67P can easily detect electrons moving at <1 km/s. Why can't they see the EU electrons?

Why again exactly are "EU electrons" different? Oh right, you seem to believe these electrons must be relativistic. Obviously not familiar with drift currents are you?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2016
Hey, jonesdumb, here are some fellows (associated with the Applied Science Dept) who describe the energy transfer between plasmas as an electric discharge, just as I have been mentioning for some time now. Recall, these claims are based upon years of laboratory plasma experiments. There is no reason to believe (as you do) that these plasma interactions should be anything other than what is observed with lab plasmas.
http://phys.org/n...ace.html

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.