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

June 14, 2017, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
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

89 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
Jun 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
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
Jun 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.