Chaotically magnetized cloud is no place to build a star, or is it?

June 14, 2017
Artist impression of chaotic magnetic field lines very near a newly emerging protostar. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; D. Berry

For decades, scientists thought that the magnetic field lines coursing around newly forming stars were both powerful and unyielding, working like jail bars to corral star-forming material. More recently, astronomers have found tantalizing evidence that large-scale turbulence far from a nascent star can drag magnetic fields around at will.

Now, a team of astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has discovered a surprisingly weak and wildly disorganized very near a newly emerging protostar. These observations suggest that the impact of magnetic fields on star formation is more complex than previously thought.

The researchers used ALMA to map the magnetic field surrounding a young protostar dubbed Ser-emb 8, which resides about 1,400 light-years away in the Serpens star-forming region. These new observations are the most sensitive ever made of the small-scale magnetic field surrounding a young protostar. They also provide important insights into the formation of low-mass like our own sun.

Previous observations with other telescopes found that magnetic fields surrounding some young protostars form a classic "hourglass" shape - a hallmark of a strong magnetic field - that starts near the protostar and extends many light-years into the surrounding cloud of dust and gas.

"Before now, we didn't know if all stars formed in regions that were controlled by . Using ALMA, we found our answer," said Charles L. H. "Chat" Hull, an astronomer and NRAO Jansky Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass., and lead author on a paper appearing in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "We can now study magnetic fields in star-forming clouds from the broadest of scales all the way down to the forming star itself. This is exciting because it may mean stars can emerge from a wider range of conditions than we once thought."

Texture represents the magnetic field orientation in the region surrounding the Ser-emb 8 protostar, as measured by ALMA. The gray region is the millimeter wavelength dust emission. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); P. Mocz, C. Hull, CfA

ALMA is able to study magnetic fields at the small scales inside star-forming clumps by mapping the polarization of light emitted by dust grains that have aligned themselves with the magnetic field.

By comparing the structure of the magnetic field in the observations with cutting-edge supercomputer simulations on multiple size scales, the astronomers gained important insights into the earliest stages of magnetized star formation. The simulations - which extend from a relatively nearby 140 astronomical units (an astronomical unit is the average distance from the Earth to the sun) from the protostar to as far out as 17 light-years - were performed by CfA astronomers Philip Mocz and Blakesley Burkhart, who are co-authors on the paper.

In the case of Ser-emb 8, the astronomers think they have captured the original magnetic field around the protostar "red handed," before outflowing material from the star could erase the pristine signature of the magnetic field in the surrounding molecular cloud, noted Mocz.

"Our observations show that the importance of the magnetic field in can vary widely from star to star," concluded Hull. "This protostar seems to have formed in a weakly magnetized environment dominated by turbulence, while previous observations show sources that clearly formed in strongly magnetized environments. Future studies will reveal how common each scenario is."

Explore further: Twisted magnetic fields give new insights on star formation

More information: Charles L. H. Hull et al. Unveiling the Role of the Magnetic Field at the Smallest Scales of Star Formation, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71b7

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 ...

The role of magnetic fields in star formation

July 29, 2016

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 ...

ALMA hears birth cry of a massive baby star

June 12, 2017

Stars form from gas and dust floating in interstellar space. But, astronomers do not yet fully understand how it is possible to form the massive stars seen in space. One key issue is gas rotation. The parent cloud rotates ...

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 ...

Protostar growth spurts

November 4, 2015

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have discovered an adolescent protostar that is undergoing a rapid-fire succession of growth spurts. Evidence for this fitful youth is seen in a pair ...

Protostar blazes bright, reshaping its stellar nursery

March 15, 2017

A massive protostar, deeply nestled in its dust-filled stellar nursery, recently roared to life, shining nearly 100 times brighter than before. This outburst, apparently triggered by an avalanche of star-forming gas crashing ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

90 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2017
Where there is plasma there are electric fields and, therefore, magnetic fields. Not only are magnetic fields important to star formation, a star cannot be created without them. It will never happen.

Even if gravity is the initial mover of loose material, as soon as the gas and dust is ionized the magnetic fields must take over.

Scientists will continue to uncover complexities involving electromagnetic forces throughout the cosmos because the current dogma is foundationally flawed.
Chris_Reeve
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2017
Re: "Previous observations with other telescopes found that magnetic fields surrounding some young protostars form a classic "hourglass" shape - a hallmark of a strong magnetic field - that starts near the protostar and extends many light-years into the surrounding cloud of dust and gas."

Of course, in the plasma laboratory, this is known as a "pinch". And to be clear, that observation is -- without a doubt -- a vindication for Don Scott's and Wal Thornhill's Electric Sun hypothesis because common sense dictates that the force produced by a plasma pinch would be a FIRST-ORDER force, many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Textbooks aside, the most modern observations of star formation consistently suggest that the process is initially a transient electrical process, and it is only when it subsides that gravity starts to dominate. This has not, of course, stopped theorists from applying the textbook theory to every single observation.
Steelwolf
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
I notice the negative science crowd is keeping their selves away from this article as they would have to admit, publicly, that they are WRONG.
Chris_Reeve
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
Indeed, they are their own worst enemy. The answers to the biggest questions in astrophysics and cosmology are staring them right in the face, and they refuse to become a part of elaborating these newer models because it's not the answer they have been prepared to expect.

They've been trained to have all sorts of unwarranted expectations about what the answers SHOULD look like ... highly mathematical, supported by the established experts in the field, doesn't require any corrections to the original starting-point hypothesis or foundational assumptions ...

What is happening is actually extraordinary: The scientific community puts all of its efforts into establishing proofs for their preferred answers, and yet time and time again, what they produce instead is support for the electrical version of star formation.

The mainstream advocates here on physorg seem to think that if they just "wait it out", some sort of evidence will pop up which vindicates them.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
The list just grows bigger and bigger ...

(1) Stars form in groups all at once, along branching filaments. Completely unexpected. What in the world does this have to do with gravity?

(2) We see stars which shouldn't be able to cycle doing just that -- and to boot, these cycles resemble our own Sun's! What is it about a thermonuclear power source within each star which creates a resonating cycle shared by lots of stars?

(3) We see our own Sun's surface responding to the external magnetic field, as if the tail is wagging the dog.

(4) The filaments which precede star formation themselves are accreting. I mean, how much thought is really required to understand that this accretion is related to the ambient magnetic field lines seen in the above image? How in the world does gravity, a radial force, cause this?

(5) Now add to that the observation of pinching at protostellar cores -- a term which the mainstream still resists using.
barakn
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2017
The previous commenters all get a failing grade in reading comprehension for having missed this:
This protostar seems to have formed in a weakly magnetized environment dominated by turbulence.

No strong magnetic fields, nothing organized enough to be called a pinch, just a trio of EU nutters babbling to each other.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2017
No strong magnetic fields, nothing organized enough to be called a pinch, just a trio of EU nutters babbling to each other.


Correct. And as for this piece of crap from the scientifically challenged Reeve:

Of course, in the plasma laboratory, this is known as a "pinch". And to be clear, that observation is -- without a doubt -- a vindication for Don Scott's... blah, blah


Dear me. A pinch sees the field travelling in one direction, which is then pinched:
http://atomictoas...machine/
With a star, the fields are heading out FROM the star in opposite directions! Scott made the same schoolboy error when he claimed in a paper in a non-event journal, that the M2-9 Butterfly nebula was a z-pinch! A quick look at the Doppler data shows him to be talking out of his arse. As usual.
https://briankobe...nknowns/
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "This protostar seems to have formed in a weakly magnetized environment dominated by turbulence."

Thank you for bringing it up.

Juan Calsiano explains:

"With respect to cosmic magnetic fields, if the electrical currents are truly vast, then the magnetic fields should be also truly vast. The measurements are not showing this. Not only the detected magnitudes tend to be very small (for what one may expect for cosmic objects), but also there is a lack of an azimuthal magnetic field around the filament.

Again, the solution is to analyze the Physics behind appearances. The Lundquist-Scott model of Birkeland Currents provides great insight into the Physics behind BCs. And it was Jim Weninger who first understood what may be going on here. Let me paste here an extract from my summary of his break-room presentation during the EU2016 Conference ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Jim stressed a most significant consequence of the Lundquist-Scott model that finally explains one of the main criticisms that mainstream astronomers have against Plasma Cosmology & the Electric Universe

'If all these monstrous currents are indeed out there, where are all the required equally monstrous azimuthal magnetic fields? Wherever we look, Faraday rotation measurements always demonstrate that such magnetic fields are not there. No significant azimuthal component of magnetic fields around a filamentary structure, no currents.' Q.E.D., gravity wins ..."

(cont'd)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2017
What happened at the EU lunatic fringe conference is a total irrelevance! Please show me how you get a z-pinch to head in opposite bloody directions FROM the star! The rest is of no consequence. I assume the idiot Scott has written this up somewhere. I'd love to see his diagram!
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2017
(cont'd)

"... For example, in a patently obvious electromagnetic filament like the Double Helix Nebula, if astronomers had measured a magnetic field which wrapped around it in one azimuthal direction, maybe it would have been much harder for them to ignore its electrical nature. But that's not how electric currents in a minimum energy configuration behave in a plasma.

As the Lundquist-Scott model demands, a Birkeland Current has a tight radial structure of alternate winding and unwinding magnetic fields. If you visualize for a moment how the magnetic field vectors continually rotate with increasing radial distance, you will realize that, no matter the angle from which you observe the filament, the azimuthal component of the magnetic field always gets almost completely cancelled out, leaving only the background magnetic field in which the field-aligned filament flows.'"
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2017
^^^^^This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a gish gallop!
http://rationalwi...h_Gallop
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
What is rather remarkable about the Koberlein critique which is being pointed to is that any person can see from the image itself that the object -- enigmatically -- contains at least two distinct layers.

The morphology here is more complex than is assumed from a simple analogy with explosion. Those who work in the plasma laboratory will be familiar with the notion of double layers -- where charge of opposite polarities can be sandwiched together. What Don argues is that the layers are in fact counter-rotating ...

http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

"The physical properties of the resulting intricate magnetic field structure are described. The cause of its characteristic counter-rotation and counter-flows are identified."

In fact, the paper specifically mentions M2-9 at the very end.
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
"The M2-9 Hourglass planetary nebula in Figure 10 is a prime case in point. We suggest that the narrowing of the plasma FAC channel due to the z-pinch creates an increased current density which causes a transition of the plasma from the dark mode into the visible glow and arc modes. The observed dual, concentric cylinders of excited plasma are consistent with the counter-rotation, matter scavenging, and reversing flows described in this paper"

From the figure ...

"The Hourglass (or Butterfly) planetary nebula, M2-9. In this image the separate hollow, cylindrical tubes of matter are clearly visible. The cross-sectional area of the structure diminishes near the center of the pinch. Since the total current is the same at every cross section, this means regions near the central pinch have increased current density (A/m2) and corresponding greater visual brightness."
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
^^^^ And the bloody outflows are heading in OPPOSITE directions from the star. You can dream up all the BS arrangements you like - it would show up in the Doppler measurements! It doesn't. It isn't anything like a bloody z-pinch. As any idiot could see from said Doppler data. End of discussion.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "You can dream up all the BS arrangements you like - it would show up in the Doppler measurements!"

The Doppler measurement is only going to show you the movement of the outer layer, no?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "You can dream up all the BS arrangements you like - it would show up in the Doppler measurements!"

The Doppler measurement is only going to show you the movement of the outer layer, no?


No. Do you think all these objects are face on to our field of view?
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "No. Do you think all these objects are face on to our field of view?"

No, what we plainly see is that there are multiple layers to M2-9. Are you pretending to not see them?
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
You know, you wouldn't have to subsequently be embarrassed or save face if you didn't use so many insults.

Just sayin ...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "No. Do you think all these objects are face on to our field of view?"

No, what we plainly see is that there are multiple layers to M2-9. Are you pretending to not see them?


What multiple layers? Why don't you read a paper by someone who actually understands what they are talking about? In a non-crackpot journal?
http://adsabs.har...97..476B

If one of the sodding jets is heading almost directly towards us, we would see a cross-section through it, wouldn't we? So, if these imagined layers were heading in the other direction, we would see that in the Doppler, wouldn't we? Jesus.
There is a reason that nobody takes this stuff seriously, you know. I'll let you figure out why that is. Remember his 'drift' electrons? And the excuse why we couldn't detect them? Totally failing to appreciate that the bloody spacecraft are moving at some km/s in respect to them? The guy is clueless.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
Dear me. A pinch sees the field travelling in one direction, which is then pinched:

Which field? According to your link is says the Z-pinch is;

"Z-pinch is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it."

Doesn't say anything about current direction. If the protons are going one way which way should the electrons go? Also keep in mind that the presence of the instability in the pinch (stars on that scale) greatly complicate the physics beyond your ignorance based surmises.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
^^^Did you not bother looking at the diagram? http://atomictoas...2-15.png
Please explain how you are getting two lobes, both heading out from the central star, given that? The protons and electrons are what make up the molecules in the gas, yes? Which direction are they heading? Think Doppler.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2017
Oh, I see. The cartoon is the end all be all of Z-pinch plasma physics for you. Wiley Coyote of plasma physics...
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "So, if these imagined layers were heading in the other direction, we would see that in the Doppler, wouldn't we?"

Doppler is just giving you a flat-plane (2D) view of the motion. It's going to report back on the motion of the outermost layer.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2017
Oh, I see. The cartoon is the end all be all of Z-pinch plasma physics for you. Wiley Coyote of plasma physics...


So come on Einstein. Explain it. You wouldn't have a clue, would you? The plasma in a z-pinch flows in one direction, through the pinch. So what do we see when we look at the plasma? i.e. the ionized and non-ionized gas? It goes in opposite directions, out from the central star. Sorry, but Scott is an idiot if he didn't know this. If he did, where is the paper setting out why the plasma isn't all going in one direction through the pinch?
Do you think that this gas is so optically thick that we are only seeing a few meters into it? Ye Gods.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "So, if these imagined layers were heading in the other direction, we would see that in the Doppler, wouldn't we?"

Doppler is just giving you a flat-plane (2D) view of the motion. It's going to report back on the motion of the outermost layer.


Wrong. And, quite frankly, it is not worth wasting time here to explain this. Nobody takes this EU nonsense seriously. It is built on crap 'science', and does not agree with observation, and evidence shows it to be wrong, whenever we look at it. It is a fringe cult, that has zero impact on real science, so why bother with it? It's only fanboys like you and cantthink, who keep bringing the rubbish up on here, that believe in it. It is a waste of time and pixels.
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "So come on Einstein. Explain it."

Sheesh, not really sure how this diagram suddenly became the Z-Pinch Holy Grail. It's rather crude, no?
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "Do you think that this gas is so optically thick that we are only seeing a few meters into it?"

What I think is that you did not actually understand Don Scott's model when you pointed to Koberlein's "analysis" (who also does not understand Scott's model). If we removed all of the insults from your posts, there'd not really be much left to what you are saying here.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "So come on Einstein. Explain it."

Sheesh, not really sure how this diagram suddenly became the Z-Pinch Holy Grail. It's rather crude, no?


So answer the question. Where is the diagram (preferably in a peer reviewed paper) that explains this evidence-free crackpottery of Scott's? Why is the gas travelling outward in opposite directions from a central point? Not sure how many times I've asked this now. Any answers?
And you might want to have a read of this: https://arxiv.org...6564.pdf
It'll explain how they can measure velocity using different gases through the width of the jet; "We also measure R through the width of the jet (perpendicular to the direction of propagation,......"
If you can find just one instance of where they've done this and seen anomalous velocities (i.e. going the other way!), you might have something. Trust me, you won't find it.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "Do you think that this gas is so optically thick that we are only seeing a few meters into it?"

What I think is that you did not actually understand Don Scott's model when you pointed to Koberlein's "analysis" (who also does not understand Scott's model). If we removed all of the insults from your posts, there'd not really be much left to what you are saying here.


So still can't answer the question. Time for more delay and diversion, yes? Your plasma is going the wrong way(s). Get it? How many frigging times? No z-pinch behaves like that, and you have consistently refused to answer how this might happen. I seem to be the only one posting anything of substance. You have posted nothing, and cannot explain the data. As usual.
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "Where is the diagram (preferably in a peer reviewed paper) that explains this evidence-free crackpottery of Scott's?"

You might try looking up Birkeland Current on wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipe..._current

Look at the first diagram there. Do you see how the current layers in concentric cylinders? Do you also see how each concentric cylinder can have a counter-flowing current? The whole system is of course rotating as well.

Do you now see why it is so silly to point to the z-pinch cartoon? What is so ridiculous about asserting that the Birkeland current for M2-9 probably behaves much like the one we see for the Earth?

There is of course additional complexity. It's a circuit, you know. And these are just simplified models. Diagrams.

The map is not the territory.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "Where is the diagram (preferably in a peer reviewed paper) that explains this evidence-free crackpottery of Scott's?"

You might try looking up Birkeland Current on wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipe..._current



What Birkeland current in M2-9? The idiot Scott is calling it a z-pinch. There is zero evidence that M2-9, or any other bipolar outflow, has anything whatsoever to do with bloody z-pinch! None. All the evidence we have, including Doppler measurements throughout the width of the outflow, show that is nothing like a z-pinch. Or a Birkeland current. The plasma is (for the squillionth time) flowing out from the star. There are no counter rotating currents. They would show in the data. They don't. It is an idiotic, evidence-free idea. That is why nobody takes it seriously.
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "What Birkeland current in M2-9? The idiot Scott is calling it a z-pinch."

This should not be news for you at this point, but in plasma physics, a "pinch" is just a pinching Birkeland current.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
Re: "What Birkeland current in M2-9? The idiot Scott is calling it a z-pinch."


This should not be news for you at this point, but in plasma physics, a "pinch" is just a pinching Birkeland current.

He doesn't get it, and likely never will.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
Oh FFS. Please show me where there is a Birkeland current in M2-9? Yes, I know that the imaginary Birkeland current is what is getting pinched in this idiotic idea! It goes in one direction, through the pinch. Nothing, absolutely zero evidence, says that this is happening in M2-9, or any other bipolar outflow. Please show me where there is. There is only one idiot claiming this, and that is Scott. Nobody else. It is all imaginary. It is a non-hypothesis. The plasma is heading out from the poles of the stars. Nothing is flowing through this non-existent pinch! It doesn't exist.
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Sheesh, now he's hyperventilating. I'm worried for his keyboard.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2017
Sheesh, now he's hyperventilating. I'm worried for his keyboard.


And you still can't answer some very basic questions. Can you? Where is this Birkeland current? Where is the evidence? Why does the pinch not behave like a pinch? Why is it an evidence-free hypothesis? Why is nobody taking it seriously? Sorry, but your silly cult are the only ones pushing this drivel. It has zero impact on real science. It's no skin off my nose if you want to carry on believing in this scientifically illiterate rubbish. Prattling on about it on here, or Thunderdolts, is not going to accomplish anything.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2017
Raghavendra Sahai, an astronomer at JPL in Pasadena, California on M2-9:

"What we thought we understood of planetary nebulae we no longer do. Something different and dramatic is going on ... It is very hard to see how you get it."
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2017
Raghavendra Sahai, an astronomer at JPL in Pasadena, California on M2-9:

"What we thought we understood of planetary nebulae we no longer do. Something different and dramatic is going on ... It is very hard to see how you get it."


And did he say it was a frigging Birkeland current undergoing a z-pinch? No, he didn't. Nor has anybody else. Because there is zero evidence that it is, and evidence that says that it isn't. So, a pointless post.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2017
Scott's 'hypothesis' can be summed up so:

6 year old child (aka Scott): "Mummy, that cloud looks like a bunny wabbit!"
Mum: "Yes, it does a bit. But it isn't really a bunny rabbit."
6 year old child (aka Scott): "I bet it is, Mum!"
cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
It's no skin off my nose if you want to carry on believing in this scientifically illiterate rubbish.

That's why you get so emotional.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
It's no skin off my nose if you want to carry on believing in this scientifically illiterate rubbish.

That's why you get so emotional.


I don't. I just don't suffer fools gladly. And you and Reeve, among others, fall into that category. No point beating around the bush with people who believe in utter crap, that bears no resemblance to real science.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Please use the full quote instead of just cherry picking the parts you like batakn:

"Our observations show that the importance of the magnetic field in star formation can vary widely from star to star," concluded Hull. "This protostar seems to have formed in a weakly magnetized environment dominated by turbulence, while previous observations show sources that clearly formed in strongly magnetized environments. Future studies will reveal how common each scenario is."

What this shows is that you Really have no idea the processes, all you are here to do is troll others.

Besides all of the z-pinch strawmen they try to introduce, the normal mainstream science crwod keep shooting themselves in the foot by looking like the Pope VS Galileo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
@steelwolf,
So, perhaps you'd like to spell out, clearly, what is the EU position on this? As elucidated (not) by the idiot Scott. Precisely. Is there a z-pinch? Because Scott says there is. Is there a Birkeland current? Where is it? After setting out the precise hypothesis, then we can move on to the evidence (or total lack of it).
Is it that the protostellar disc is magnetised? Is that what is getting EU types giddy? Care to know for how long this has been known? Here is a pretty random paper from 1990 setting this out:
http://adsabs.har....3..234C

So, the fact that stars form in strongly magnetized regions is nothing new. We've known for ages. We now also know that they can form in less magnetized regions. We know what the bipolar outflows are. And we know what they aren't - i.e. Birkeland currents, or any other EU nonsense. And the same goes for planetary nebulae, such as M2-9. No z-pinches, no Birkeland currents.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
Actually, to clarify the above; Scott's solar model, although nuts, and obviously evidence-free, doesn't involve a z-pinch. His is the one with the invisible incoming current. His z-pinch "bunny in the clouds" nonsense was only to do with the M2-9 planetary nebula. Equally nuts and evidence-free, of course.

It was the other loon, Thornhill, who came up with a solar model (there are so many of the damn things!) involving a z-pinch. I wonder if there is a nearby star we could look at to check that idea?

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2017
@Steelwolf,
Besides all of the z-pinch strawmen they try to introduce,........


Sorry, who brought up this strawman? Have a look at the 2nd post, above:

Re: "Previous observations with other telescopes found that magnetic fields surrounding some young protostars form a classic "hourglass" shape - a hallmark of a strong magnetic field - that starts near the protostar and extends many light-years into the surrounding cloud of dust and gas."

Of course, in the plasma laboratory, this is known as a "pinch". And to be clear, that observation is -- without a doubt -- a vindication for Don Scott's and Wal Thornhill's Electric Sun hypothesis because common sense dictates that the force produced by a plasma pinch would be a FIRST-ORDER force, many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.


^^^That was Reeve. I don't think he counts as mainstream!
Chris_Reeve
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2017
The name-calling is childish.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
There are two big problems with suggesting that protostellar filaments are purely ejecta:

(1) These filaments are frequently observed to be connected together in a branching Lichtenberg-like morphology. Why?

And (2) the filaments are observed to PRECEDE star formation.

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

"A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation."
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017


"A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation."


Whilst failing to mention:
"This pattern is very similar to that **predicted from numerical simulations that model the process of star formation in molecular clouds**. According to these simulations, interstellar material flows towards dense filaments along routes that are parallel to the direction of the local magnetic field, as was observed, so the new data indicate the importance of interstellar magnetic fields in shaping these structures.

I'm not sure what you are seeing here, that none of these well qualified scientists aren't seeing? Perhaps a link to a paper that explains it all might be better. All I've heard so far is that there is EM involved (wow, who'd have thunk it?) which has been known for decades. I see no coherent hypothesis of anything. Don't bother with Peratt. That is dead.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
Both "predicted" and "surprising" apparently ...

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

"The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds AND THEIR INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH STAR FORMATION," explains Philippe André from CEA/IRFU, France, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey.

The fact of the matter -- as is oftentimes the case in astrophysics today -- is that by "predicted", they really mean POST-dicted.

None of the textbooks expected that stars should form all at once along filaments, for the obvious reason that there is nothing about the radial phenomenon of gravitational collapse that suggests filaments preceding star formation.

I didn't "fail to mention". I saw them improperly use the word "predicted", and refused to accept their invitation to ignore the history of the idea.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
^^^^So what? What do you think these filaments are? And what has it to do with EU lunacy? They aren't Birkeland currents!!!!! If you think they are, then show me the study that has detected these currents. You know, radio, microwave and other wavelength skymaps that would see them plain as day. There aren't any! You just go round in circles. Show me a coherent, testable theory. You know the type; it says "we expect x to happen. The proof of this will be the detection of y." With figures, and maths, and predictions. That sort of stuff. You know; science?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
The fact of the matter -- as is oftentimes the case in astrophysics today -- is that by "predicted", they really mean POST-dicted.


Bollocks!
http://www.mpia.d...ndre.pdf

Recent studies of the nearest star-forming clouds of the Galaxy at submillimeter wavelengths with the Herschel Space Observatory have provided us with unprecedented images of the initial and boundary conditions of the star formation process. The Herschel results emphasize the role of interstellar filaments in the star formation process and connect remarkably well with nearly a decade's worth of numerical simulations and theory that have consistently shown that the ISM should be highly filamentary on all scales and star formation is intimately related to self-gravitating filaments.


Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
Did you actually do the algebra on these dates?

Both of these quotes come from the paper you linked to:

"The presence of parsec-scale filamentary structures in nearby interstellar clouds and their potential importance for star formation have been pointed out by many authors FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES."

"The new observational results connect remarkably well with NEARLY A DECADE's worth of numerical simulations"

The word POST-diction is not used (it never is ...), but the authors are not being evasive about the sequence of events here. Only you are.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
http://www.aanda....9-15.pdf

"The discovery by Heiles (1997) that the Orion A filament (the largest nearby star-forming structure of this kind) is enveloped in a helical magnetic field greatly clarified the nature of these filaments. The observations (their Fig. 24) show magnetic field lines changing direction as they cross the filament, first into then out of the plane of the sky. Since these are one-dimensional (1D) projections of an intrinsically 3D field structure, they cannot be uniquely interpreted by themselves. However, given that circular (or more generally, helical) fields, which would be generated primarily by currents moving along the filaments, are the form that is necessary to confine filaments of approximately uniform thickness, the Heiles (1997) observations constituted a 'smoking gun' ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Moreover, polarization measurements by Matthews & Wilson (2000) provide information in a second dimension that confirms this picture. That is, under the assumption that this polarization arises from dust grains aligned by either paramagnetic inclusions or radiative torques, the field lines pass over the filament perpendicular to its axis. See their Fig. 1. Subsequent observations confirm these results (Poidevin et al. 2010, 2011). See also Pillai et al. (2015) for dust polarization examples in more distant and massive clouds ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"... It is possible to counter that if there were strong toroidal fields, then these would have prevented formation of the filament in the first place by blocking infall. Our answer: subcritical magnetic fields are there. Heiles (1997) measured their amplitude 20 yr ago and we have now shown they are subcritical by measuring the potential. Such high field strengths are naturally explained by magnetic compression of gas due to currents. That is, the material gets to its current position not by crossing field lines but by compressing them. It may be objected that this process would lead to pinching instabilities. Our answer: yes, pinching instabilities are expected and this is exactly what leads to cluster formation."

(Answer to your request to "show me the study that has detected these currents". Note that the paper is not written by anybody affiliated with the Thunderbolts Group.)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
Did you actually do the algebra on these dates?

Both of these quotes come from the paper you linked to:

"The presence of parsec-scale filamentary structures in nearby interstellar clouds and their potential importance for star formation have been pointed out by many authors FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES."

"The new observational results connect remarkably well with NEARLY A DECADE's worth of numerical simulations"

The word POST-diction is not used (it never is ...), but the authors are not being evasive about the sequence of events here. Only you are.


No, the first suggestion of some stars being formed in filaments was made in 1979, as referenced in the paper. That is the 3 decades. The numerical simulations only go back a decade. So there was a suggestion that it may happen 3 decades ago, and the simulations actually show that they should be pervasive. Further observation by Herschel a decade after the simulations confirms that they are pervasive. Understand now?
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
"No?" Which part of post-diction are you not getting here?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
"No?" Which part of post-diction are you not getting here?


Jesus. You have never done science, have you? Just a guess. Previous studies had shown and/ or hinted that filaments may be a place where star formation was happening. These previous observations could not resolve at anything like the scales that Herschel can. Scientists were obviously intrigued by this, so they ran sims based on theory. These sims suggested that these filaments should be pervasive. Interesting prediction, but we didn't have the ability to test the prediction. Until Herschel. When Herschel looked, it confirmed that they were indeed pervasive. As per the sims. So, they've gone from a few intriguing observations, to a full blown model, to confirmation of that model. That is how science works.
As for the paper you referenced above, it has nothing whatever to do with EU nonsense. No electric stars, no megaparsec, galaxy spanning currents, as per Peratt, Thornhill, Scott.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Your behavior in this thread has been deplorable.

Rather than addressing the points I raised about the mainstream's growing list of protostellar problems, you launched into an unrelated attack which you copied from Koberlein, seeking to disprove a pinch explanation for M2-9. You made these claims apparently unaware that a z-pinch is a pinching Birkeland current, and unaware that the Birkeland current associated with the Earth is observed to exhibit layers of counter-flowing currents (similar to Scott's own claim).

You subsequently pointed me to a paper which you claimed to show that filamentation was predicted by the mainstream, but the authors actually admitted that the "prediction" followed the observations by more than two decades.

You then demanded that proof of filaments as Birkeland currents be produced (which was provided).

All along, you called everybody you disagreed with a name, and each time you were shown to be wrong, you never admitted it.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
^^^^Utter crap. YOU brought up this z-pinch garbage. Look at post 2. I pointed out that the EU track record on this was crap. Nobody, in any paper on star formation, has ever mentioned seeing Birkeland currents. Peratt hypothesised them. He was shown to be wrong. YOU still have not given a coherent hypothesis of star formation as per EU lunacy. Or any evidence that it is viable. Which model are we talking about, anyway? The one with the invisible electrons heading into the Sun, or the one where our own star is powered by an invisible z-pinch in an invisible Birkeland current?
Get a hypothesis; write it down; include maths; make predictions; make it testable and falsifiable; get it peer reviewed.
Until then EU will continue to be a scientifically illiterate cult, with zero impact on scientific thinking. In other words; an irrelevance. As they say in my part of the world; all mouth and no trousers.
Whatever it is, it isn't science.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
Re: "Get a hypothesis; write it down; include maths; make predictions; make it testable and falsifiable; get it peer reviewed."

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model
Don Scott
PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 11 (2015)

http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Moan, moan, whine.... Birkeland current associated with the Earth is observed to exhibit layers of counter-flowing currents (similar to Scott's own claim).


Crap. It would show up in the Doppler data. And doesn't. As I showed you.

You subsequently pointed me to a paper which you claimed to show that filamentation was predicted......whinge, whinge....


Crap, again. It had been seen, but not well. The model predicted it to be pervasive. Likely those models were not available when it was first seen. When Herschel looked, it confirmed the model.

Please point out the amazing predictive power of EU. What has it ever got right? Not Alfven. Not Birkeland. I am specifically talking about the idiotic triumvirate of Talbott, Thornhill & Scott. Anything to report? Nah, didn't think so. You have fallen into crankery 101; point out that current science doesn't have an answer for everything, and that somehow legitimises your crankery. Wrong.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Re: "Get a hypothesis; write it down; include maths; make predictions; make it testable and falsifiable; get it peer reviewed."

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model
Don Scott
PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 11 (2015)

http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF


In a crank journal? Hahahaha. Laughable. Progress in Physics! Jesus. And please tell us the predictions from this hypothesis. Indeed, what is the hypothesis? And what is the supporting evidence? We're back to bunnies in the clouds, aren't we!
cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2017
Likely those models were not available when it was first seen.

The definition of post-diction.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
We're back to bunnies in the clouds, aren't we!

Only the plasma ignoramuses choose to pontificate about bunnies in clouds, dark matter, or other fanciful imaginings of thought experiments. Plasma Cosmology actually relies on well founded laboratory based physics, contrary to the standard theory.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Likely those models were not available when it was first seen.

The definition of post-diction.


Nope. The difference between a few isolated observations, and a model, using that as a starting point, and then also using theory, based on the known and hypothesised conditions within the universe, to actually come out with a prediction that these observations would turn out to be pervasive (look up the word). And then, when they have the instrument capable of seeing in sufficient resolution, they find that the models were correct. That is science. As opposed to the scientifically illiterate crap that we see from EU. With no predictions, no models, and no evidence.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
We're back to bunnies in the clouds, aren't we!

Only the plasma ignoramuses choose to pontificate about bunnies in clouds, dark matter, or other fanciful imaginings of thought experiments. Plasma Cosmology actually relies on well founded laboratory based physics, contrary to the standard theory.


And has zero evidence to back it up. And I've never come across people more ignorant of plasma than EU followers. Perhaps you could point out some of the contributions to plasma astrophysics of EU supporters. And no, that does not include Alfven. He'd turn in his grave if he knew you morons were idolising him!
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Re: "And no, that does not include Alfven. He'd turn in his grave if he knew you morons were idolising him!"

Hannes Alfven:

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

(https://books.goo...f=false)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
1950: Hannes Alfven Proposes that the Universe is Filamentary

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

"Among the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe that differed significantly from the common astrophysical assumption is that the universe be filamentary (Alfven, 1950, 1981, 1990)."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Cosmical Electrodynamics (1950)
Hannes Alfven

"Most theoretical investigations of cosmical plasmas have been devoted to the study of homogeneous plasmas. However, observations indicate that most cosmical plasmas are strongly inhomogeneous. In the ionosphere a small-scale structure is often observed, most pronounced in connexion with aurorae. Auroral rays are often very thin, and the degree of ionization and hence the conductivity may vary by two or three powers of ten within a few kilometres or less. Also the magnetosphere has probably a filamentary structure as indicated by the study of whistler propagation. Similarly, the solar atmosphere has a ray structure. On good eclipse photographs the ray structure of the corona is often very pronounced, and radio observations indicate that the rays continue at least out to 10 or 20 solar radii ('supercorona') ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"Closer to the surface of the sun we observe prominences, which very often have a threadlike structure. The chromosphere is often regarded as a filamentary network of miniature prominences. In gas nebulae filamentary structures are often conspicuous.

Hence medium-density plasmas (and perhaps also low-density plasmas) seem very often to be strongly inhomogeneous, exhibiting a filamentary structure which often may be parallel to the magnetic field."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Hannes Alfven on Specialization
"Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics" (1986)

"The Roederer Syndrome

In his article 'Tearing Down Disciplinary Barriers' [58], Roederer points out the conflict between the demand for 'increased specialization on one hand and the pursuit of an increasingly interdisciplinary approach on the other.'

This is important. Indeed, in the present state of science, specialization is favored to such an extent that science is split up into a number of increasingly small specialties. We lack the global view ...

We should remember that there once was a discipline called 'Natural Philosophy' ('reine Naturwissenschaft'). Unfortunately this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed 'science' but science of today is in danger of loosing much of the Natural Philosophy aspect ..."

[Wal Thornhill is one of the world's most vocal advocates for Natural Philosophy]

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Roederer further discusses the psychological and structural causes for the loss of the global view, and points out that one syndrome of causes is the 'territorial dominance, greed, and fear of the unknown.' Scientists tend to 'resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory ... In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunities for research.'

B. Microscale Example

All this agrees with my own experience ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"... When running a lab, I found that one of my most important activities was to go from room to room and discuss in depth the problems that a certain scientist or a group of scientists was trying to understand. It often happened that one group reported that in their field they had a special problem which they could not possibly understand. I told them that if they cared to open the door to the next room -- it was not locked! -- just this special problem had been solved half a year ago, and if they injected the solution into their own field, it would take a great leap forward. Often they were not at all happy for this suggestion ..."

"... Dr. Roederer's prescription for curing this serious disease is 'tearing down disciplinary barriers,' indeed 'interdisciplinarification' of science. This seems to be wise. However, we must suspect that to many astrophysicists this is bitter medicine. Can we find ways to sweeten it?"
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfven
David Talbott

http://coincider....e-09.pdf

"In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén's magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too 'complicated and awkward' for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject 'not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.' It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became 'the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong.' ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today 'are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.'"
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
https://www.thund...oras.htm

"One of the conflicts in early 20th Century astronomy was between Sydney Chapman and Hannés Alfvén. Alfvén, following Birkeland's lead, believed the auroras to be powered by charged particles from the Sun. Chapman developed a mathematically elegant theory showing that the auroras were generated entirely in the Earth's magnetosphere by buffeting of the solar wind. Chapman refused to give Alfvén's ideas a hearing. At conferences, rather than address particular points of the theory, Chapman would state that he and his colleagues disagreed with Alfvén and that a paper explaining it all was in process. On one occasion, when Chapman was a guest of Alfvén's in Sweden, Alfvén built a replica of Birkeland's terrella experiment, which produced auroras on a magnetized sphere suspended in a vacuum ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"Alfvén hoped that if Chapman could see how plasma behaves in the laboratory, he would be more amenable to discussing it. Chapman refused to look at the experiment."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
https://www.plasm..._current
(Ian Tresman's site)

"The history of Birkeland Currents appears to mired in politics. [17]

After Kristian Birkeland suggested 'currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space,' (1908), his ideas were generally ignored in favour of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman.

In 1939, the Swedish Engineer and plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén promoted Birkeland's ideas in a paper published on the generation of the current from the Solar Wind. [18] One of Alfvén's colleagues, Rolf Boström, also used field-aligned currents in a new model of auroral electrojets (1964). [19]"

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"In 1966 Alfred Zmuda, J.H. Martin, and F.T.Heuring reported their findings of magnetic disturbance in the aurora, using a satellite magnetometer, but did not mention Alfvén, Birkeland, or field-aligned currents, even after it was brought to their attention by editor of the space physics section of the journal, Alex Dressler. [20]

In 1967 Alex Dessler and one of his graduates students, David Cummings, wrote an article arguing that Zmuda et al had indeed detected field align-currents. [21] Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler 'discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted' and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents. [22]"

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"In 1969 Milo Schield, Alex Dessler and John Freeman, used the name 'Birkeland currents' for the first time. [23] In 1970, Zmuda, Armstrong and Heuring wrote another paper agreeing that their observations were compatible with field-aligned currents as suggested by Cummings and Dessler, and by Bostrom, but again made no mention of Alfvén and Birkeland. [24]

In 1970, a group from Rice University also suggested that the results of an earlier rocket experiment was consistent with field-aligned currents, and credited the idea to Boström, and Dessler and his colleagues, rather than Alfvén and Birkeland. [25] In the same year, Zmudu and Amstrong did credit Alfvén and Birkeland, but felt that they '...cannot definitely identify the particles constituting the field-aligned currents.' [26]"

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
(cont'd)

"It wasn't until 1973 that the navy satellite Triad, carrying equipment from Zmuda and James Armstrong, detected the magnetic signatures of two large sheets of electric current. Their papers (1973, 1974) reported 'more conclusive evidence' of field-aligned currents, citing Cummings and Dessler but not mentioning Birkeland or Alfven. [27]

It had taken 65 years to confirm Birkeland's original predictions."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
http://coincider....e-09.pdf

"But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically -- and to his credit -- Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Re: "And no, that does not include Alfven. He'd turn in his grave if he knew you morons were idolising him!"

Like I said, your behavior here has been deplorable. You now speak for the dead in a manner which completely misrepresents their intended legacy.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Re: "And no, that does not include Alfven. He'd turn in his grave if he knew you morons were idolising him!"

Like I said, your behavior here has been deplorable. You now speak for the dead in a manner which completely misrepresents their intended legacy.

Obfuscation is jonesdumb's most used tool.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
Dr. Scott will be presenting on this exact subject of counter-rotation at the August EU conference. He'll be reviewing the former observations which have been made for counter-rotation at the poles of Saturn and Jupiter, but he'll also be presenting some newer evidence for counter-rotation of stars within galaxies.
Hat1208
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2017
@Chris_Reeve 45 Comments and says nothing. Keep on trolling!
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
In discussions with various theorists, it's been pointed out that the apparent flow of MATTER out of M2-9 should not be conflated with electrical processes (movements of ions / electrons). Put another way, what would be the Doppler shift for the copper cable feeding your home? Well, the matter is fixed in that case, but this provides us with only very limited information about the electrical processes that are happening THROUGH that material.

This is a subtle mistake in the argument put forward by Koberlein (and repeated by jonesdave) which I should have caught earlier on. As usual, Koberlein has another gross error in one of his articles, and doesn't seem to realize it. This is not the first time this has happened. I'll point it out to him, but if the past is any indicator, he will either delete the comment or just refuse to issue a correction.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
Re: "@Chris_Reeve 45 Comments and says nothing. Keep on trolling!"

To the contrary, it is indeed important that we defend the rights of scientists to establish their own legacy. Hannes Alfven's intended legacy is that electricity flows through space, and creates the magnetic fields we see (even at the galactic scale). The record is clear on that, and it is indeed important that when somebody (jonesdave) makes a claim about a dead scientist which is so easy to disprove, we should indeed take the time to defend the dead.

If nothing else, it teaches us something very important about jonesdave that he would make such a statement.

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.