Scientists uncover origins of the Sun's swirling spicules

June 22, 2017, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
A graphic describing results from Martínez-Sykora et al. Credit: Carla Schaffer / AAAS

At any given moment, as many as 10 million wild jets of solar material burst from the sun's surface. They erupt as fast as 60 miles per second, and can reach lengths of 6,000 miles before collapsing. These are spicules, and despite their grass-like abundance, scientists didn't understand how they form. Now, for the first time, a computer simulation—so detailed it took a full year to run—shows how spicules form, helping scientists understand how spicules can break free of the sun's surface and surge upward so quickly.

This work relied upon high-cadence observations from NASA's Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, or IRIS, and the Swedish 1-meter Solar Telescope in La Palma, in the Canary Islands. Together, the spacecraft and telescope peer into the lower layers of the sun's atmosphere, known as the interface region, where spicules form. The results of this NASA-funded study were published in Science on June 22, 2017—a special time of the year for the IRIS mission, which celebrates its fourth anniversary in space on June 26.

"Numerical models and observations go hand in hand in our research," said Bart De Pontieu, an author of the study and IRIS science lead at Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, in Palo Alto, California. "We compare observations and models to figure out how well our models are performing, and to improve the models when we see major discrepancies."

Observing spicules has been a thorny problem for scientists who want to understand how solar material and energy move through and away from the sun. Spicules are transient, forming and collapsing over the course of just five to 10 minutes. These tenuous structures are also difficult to study from Earth, where the atmosphere often blurs our telescopes' vision.

At the limb of the Sun, many jets shoot from the surface, as shown in the top image taken with the NASA IRIS spectrograph. In the middle panel, a numerical model is shown able to simulate these jets. In the bottom image taken with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain), the jets are observed in the disc center of the Sun look like shortlived thin filament structures with seen at the blue shifted position in the spectrum since they are coming towards us. Credit: NASA IRIS spectrograph, Bifrost code developed at the University of Oslo, and Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain)

A team of scientists has been working on this particular model for nearly a decade, trying again and again to create a version that would create spicules. Earlier versions of the model treated the interface region, the lower solar atmosphere, as a hot gas of electrically charged —or more technically, a fully ionized plasma. But the scientists knew something was missing because they never saw spicules in the simulations.

The key, the scientists realized, was . They were inspired by Earth's own ionosphere, a region of the upper atmosphere where interactions between neutral and charged particles are responsible for many dynamic processes.

The research team knew that in cooler regions of the sun, such as the , not all gas particles are electrically charged. Some particles are neutral, and neutral particles aren't subject to magnetic fields like charged particles are. Scientists had based previous models on a fully ionized plasma in order to simplify the problem. Indeed, including the necessary neutral particles was very computationally expensive, and the final model took roughly a year to run on the Pleiades supercomputer located at NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, and which supports hundreds of science and engineering projects for NASA missions.

At the limb of the Sun, many jets shoot from the surface, as shown with the NASA IRIS spectrograph. Credit: NASA IRIS spectrograph

The model began with a basic understanding of how plasma moves in the sun's atmosphere. Constant convection, or boiling, of material throughout the sun generates islands of tangled magnetic fields. When boiling carries them up to the surface and farther into the sun's lower atmosphere, lines rapidly snap back into place to resolve the tension, expelling plasma and energy. Out of this violence, a spicule is born. But explaining how these complex magnetic knots rise and snap was the tricky part.

"Usually magnetic fields are tightly coupled to charged particles," said Juan Martínez-Sykora, lead author of the study and a solar physicist at Lockheed Martin and the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Sonoma, California. "With only charged particles in the model, the magnetic fields were stuck, and couldn't rise beyond the sun's surface. When we added neutrals, the magnetic fields could move more freely."

Neutral particles provide the buoyancy the gnarled knots of magnetic energy need to rise through the sun's boiling plasma and reach the chromosphere. There, they snap into spicules, releasing both plasma and energy. Friction between ions and neutral particles heats the plasma even more, both in and around the spicules.

At the limb of the Sun, many jets shoot from the surface, as shown in the top image taken with the NASA IRIS spectrograph. In the middle panel, a numerical model is shown able to simulate these jets. In the bottom image taken with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain), the jets are observed in the disc center of the Sun look like shortlived thin filament structures with seen at the blue shifted position in the spectrum since they are coming towards us. Credit: NASA IRIS spectrograph, Bifrost code developed at the University of Oslo, and Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain)

With the new model, the simulations at last matched observations from IRIS and the Swedish Solar Telescope; spicules occurred naturally and frequently. The 10 years of work that went into developing this numerical model earned scientists Mats Carlsson and Viggo H. Hansteen, both authors of the study from the University of Oslo in Norway, the 2017 Arctowski Medal from the National Academy of Sciences. Martínez-Sykora led the expansion of the model to include the effects of neutral particles.

The scientists' updated model revealed something else about how energy moves in the solar atmosphere. It turns out this whip-like process also naturally generates Alfvén waves, a strong kind of magnetic wave suspect is key to heating the sun's atmosphere and propelling the solar wind, which constantly bathes our solar system and planet with charged particles from the sun.

"This answers a lot of questions we've had for so many years," De Pontieu said. "We gradually increased the physical complexity of numerical models based on high-resolution observations, and it is really a success story for the approach we've taken with IRIS."

The jets observed in the disc center of the Sun like short-lived thin filament structures seen at the blue shifted position in the spectrum since they are coming toward us as seen with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain). Credit: Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain)

The simulations indicate spicules could play a big role in energizing the sun's atmosphere, by constantly forcing plasma out and generating so many Alfvén waves across the sun's entire surface.

"This is a major advance in our understanding of what processes can energize the , and lays the foundation for investigations with even more detail to determine how big of a role spicules play," said Adrian Daw, IRIS mission scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "A very nice result on the eve of our launch anniversary."

Explore further: IRIS spots plasma rain on sun's surface

More information: J. Martínez-Sykora at Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in Petaluma, CA el al., "On the generation of solar spicules and Alfvén waves," Science (2017). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aah5412

Related Stories

IRIS spots plasma rain on sun's surface

August 8, 2016

On July 24, 2016, NASA's Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, or IRIS, captured a mid-level solar flare: a sudden flash of bright light on the solar limb – the horizon of the sun – as seen at the beginning of this video. ...

NASA's Sun-observing IRIS mission

December 1, 2016

While it seems static from our vantage point on Earth 93 million miles away, the sun is constantly changing. Under the influence of complex magnetic forces, material moves throughout the solar atmosphere and can burst forth ...

Plasma jets are prime suspect in solar mystery

January 6, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the most enduring mysteries in solar physics is why the Sun's outer atmosphere, or corona, is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. Now scientists believe they have discovered a major source ...

Scientists Explain Mysterious Plasma Jets On The Sun

July 29, 2004

Scientists at the University of Sheffield and Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab have solved a 127-year-old problem about the origin of supersonic plasma jets (spicules) which continuously shoot up from the Sun. Their ...

Sun's eruptions might all have same trigger

April 26, 2017

Large and small scale solar eruptions might all be triggered by a single process, according to new research that leads to better understanding of the Sun's activity.

Space weather model simulates solar storms from nowhere

May 8, 2017

Our ever-changing sun continuously shoots solar material into space. The grandest such events are massive clouds that erupt from the sun, called coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. These solar storms often come first with some ...

Recommended for you

How massive can neutron stars be?

January 16, 2018

Astrophysicists at Goethe University Frankfurt set a new limit for the maximum mass of neutron stars: They cannot exceed 2.16 solar masses.

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

163 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rossim22
1 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
From article:
"When boiling carries them up to the surface and farther into the sun's lower atmosphere, magnetic field lines rapidly snap back into place to resolve the tension, expelling plasma and energy."

Why are magnetic field lines still being presented as tangible objects? They cannot recoil any more than the lines of lat. or long. on earth can. They're analogous to temporary flight paths of charged particles in a given magnetic field.

This misconception would be mere semantics if it weren't for the postulation of magnetic reconnection providing an imaginary source of energy for the events we observe.

jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2017
This misconception would be mere semantics if it weren't for the postulation of magnetic reconnection providing an imaginary source of energy for the events we observe.


"In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not
satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, ***magnetic field reconnection***, turbulence, shocks, and many wave modes." Falthammar & Mozer, 2007.

"This inference relies on established facts indicating that both types of disturbance (respectively, on the Earth and on the Sun) contain two main components; one driven, fed by **magnetic reconnection** on the outer boundary of the magnetosphere;....."
Mishin, Banin, Lunyushkin & Falthammar, 1996.

Maybe the reason they use this concept is because they know what they're talking about.If you think otherwise, then write it up, and give the above authors, including Falthammar a good kicking in the scientific literature, instead of talking crap on here.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2017
Ralph E. Juergens on solar convection:

...Minnaert once published an analysis of photospheric behavior in terms of the Reynolds number. He found the critical value to lie near 10^3. The actual Reynolds number of the photosphere, as calculated from observable characteristics of the plasma, turned out to be in excess of 10^11,...


"...and Juergens based his claim entirely on the argument that the Reynolds number (a dimensionless value used in fluid dynamics) is on the order of 1011 in the photosphere. Juergens says that this is "100 billion times greater than the critical value", and that therefore convection would be unexpected in the photosphere. As it turns out, Juergens is quite wrong.

Juergens thinks that it is the Reynolds number which determines whether or not convection will happen. But that is wrong,.....it is established by the Rayleigh number."

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

So, yet more crap.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2017
LOL, 10-years for the plasma ignoramuses. How about an EE's POV;
"Laboratory experiments, initially conducted by Kristian Birkeland, revealed that a plasma torus forms around an electrically energized sphere, creating discharges between the sphere's middle and lower latitudes. Those discharges are called "spicules", also called "anode tufts", and are an effect expected from a positively charged Sun.

Spicules rise thousands of kilometers above the Sun's photosphere, carrying ionized plasmas with them. This idea leads to a simple explanation for the corona's greater than 2 million Kelvin temperature: positive ions collide with ions and neutral atoms in that location..."

[TBC]
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2017
Con't
"...As retired Professor of Electrical Engineering, Dr. Donald Scott wrote:

"When these rapidly traveling +ions pass beyond the reach of the intense outwardly directed E-field force that has been accelerating them, they…are moving much faster…Because of their high kinetic energy, any collisions they have at this point with other ions or neutral atoms are violent. This creates high-amplitude random motions, thereby "re-thermalizing" all ions and atoms in this region…to a much higher temperature."

As usual the plasma ignoramuses are trying to reinvent the wheel using boxes.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2017
So, yet more crap.

Oh yeah, old impotent Tim "Timmy" Thompson. Still bringing up strawmen and using pithball electrostatics to "debunk" well-studied electrodynamic plasma phenomena. Timmy is a pathetic attempt of a scientist, right at the top of the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2017
Lol. Tim Thompson is far better qualified than anybody connected with the EU fairy stories! How about this piece of crap: "Those discharges are called "spicules", also called "anode tufts", and are an effect expected from a positively charged Sun." How is a positively charged Sun accelerating both protons (+) and electrons (-) outwards at the same velocity? Whilst, at the same time, attracting non-existent electrons towards it to power this fantasy? It's gibberish. Perhaps you could point me to the paper where this electric sun woo is written up. I presume it has been written up? Hopefully by someone that knows the difference between the Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers. Something the nonentities Juergens and Scott obviously don't know!

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
Regarding Timmy's Raleigh/Reynolds nonsense, here is a snippet from Dr Scott's response;
"Convection in the Sun"
In this section Thompson attacks my use of Juergens' statement: ―Many facile assertions to the contrary, it becomes increasingly obvious that photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is not to be expected.‖ He launches into a detailed description of the Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers. He states: Scott and Juergens ―...made two big mistakes …. First, he thought that convection was controlled by the Reynolds number, which it is not; it is the Rayleigh number that does that.‖ Here Thompson creates a straw man and then dramatically demolishes it. Of course neither Juergens nor I ever mentioned the Rayleigh number, which is used to distinguish between where heat conduction occurs and where convection occurs. Conduction was never even considered to
occur-- TBC
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
Con't
"...neither by mainstream astronomers nor by us.
In the hypothesized convection zone,' the question is not whether convection or conduction occurs. The question is: Since the Reynolds number is so large (remember that how it is numerically evaluated is based on many assumptions about a region we cannot observe), any convection must be turbulent, not laminar, flow. But the photospheric tufts' that we do observe are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that reach from the Sun's radiative zone all the way up to the photosphere. How these stable columns can exist in the highly turbulent convection zone is what is being questioned. Thompson's injection of the Rayleigh number is simply a red herring. Dr. Eugene N. Parker, perhaps the most eminent solar astronomer, worried in print that, ―the Reynolds number [in the convection zone] is on the order of 1012 and, perhaps worse, the convective zone is vertically stratified."
TBC
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
Con't
"...With Parker on our side, I don't think Juergens or I have to be concerned about Thompson's objection to our using the Reynolds number."

As usual and as with jonesdumb, obfuscation is a well used tactic by Timmy.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
Tim Thompson is far better qualified than anybody connected with the EU fairy stories!

You are correct, Lil Timmy is one of the preeminent plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2017
Tim Thompson is far better qualified than anybody connected with the EU fairy stories!

You are correct, Lil Timmy is one of the preeminent plasma ignoramuses.


Yep, and you and Thornhill and Scott are all geniuses, yes? Perhaps you could point me to their work. And explain why nobody takes it at all seriously. And why anyone who is qualified that has looked at it just laughs? And why you have to spam this crap on here? Instead of all these collective geniuses just writing their stuff up like regular scientists?
And how these geniuses explain the non-existent electrons powering the Sun? And why this positively charged Sun has a solar wind consisting of positive and negative protons and electrons? In case you haven't noticed, EU has zero impact on real science. It only exists on crank websites, and places like this, where it is spammed by scientifically illiterate trolls. It is an irrelevance.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2017
And why this positively charged Sun has a solar wind consisting of positive and negative protons and electrons?

You and Timmy like to rely on pithball electrostatics to debunk that which is clearly highly electrodynamic, far more complex circuitry than your simpleton beliefs. It's really quite laughable!
Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrrander
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2017
Good to see NASA looking outward for a change, instead of down the the global warming trough they like feasting at.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2017
The scientific method and computer modeling win again. This is how it's supposed to work.

Now that we have enough computer power to complete the simulations, all of a sudden over the last decade we've learned more about the Sun than we ever knew before.

And one major theoretical advance: now we know how magnetic reconnection works. We flew satellites through a magnetic reconnection event over the Earth, and we've seen it and analyzed it.

Typically, the EUdiots are still whining that something we've actually directly observed-- from the inside, even-- doesn't exist somehow or other. This isn't theory; it's observation of brute reality. The argument is over and magnetic reconnection won. Get over it.
katesisco
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
Please explain magnetic connection the scientific community agrees on.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2017
The argument is over and magnetic reconnection won. Get over it.

The pseudoscience of epicycles "won" for centuries as well, just as you claim for your MRX pseudoscience.
katesisco
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
https://en.wikipe...nnection
So the magnetic field wants to preserve itself and shunts off energy into eddy currents? Different field domains violate Alfven's Theorem by splicing onto each other in a way science is continually retheorizing. Which mean no progress in fusion?
swordsman
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
Cause and effect. Magnetic fields are created by electron movements, or of moving magnetic particles. Magnetic fields also affect particle movements, especially charged particles. With all of these interactions and the lack of thorough measurement, it is likely that any conjectures will be either wrong or incomplete. The "Whip like process" is similar to that of the electromagnetic field of a dipole antenna, in which the "whip" (bending electromagnetic wave) moves back and forth. Nice to see the measurements, but as to cause and effect relationship, not so much.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2017
Please explain magnetic connection the scientific community agrees on.
Please cite papers to refute the large number on magnetic reconnection found through any competent Google Scholar search.

Let's start with NASA. In this article: https://www.nasa....nnection they predict the detection of a reconnection event by MMS; in this article: https://www.nasa....in-space they report on its actual detection and measurement.

OK, your turn. Good luck with that.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2017
@cantthink69 just doubles down on denial as would be expected of any EUdiot.

@swordsman and @Reeve try to change the subject because they don't want to admit magnetic reconnection has been observed and measured.

@kate tries to shift the burden of proof and gets pwnt by the actual fact of observation of reconnection.

This is how the EUdiots roll. It's nothing to do with anything that even remotely resembles science.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2017
From da schnied's link;
'The "science" of magnetic reconnection'
"Under normal conditions, the magnetic field lines inside plasmas don't break or merge with other field lines. But sometimes, as field lines get close to each other, the entire pattern changes and everything realign into a new configuration."
Only in pseudoscience do magnetic field lines "break or merge with other field lines" or "get too close to other field lines".
Pseudoscience is how they roll...
Chris_Reeve
Jun 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2017
Guys, guys, it's been observed. It's not theory any more, they flew a constellation of satellites through a reconnection event half a decade ago; now they've done it many times. It's not a question of whether it happens; that's long done with. There isn't anything left to be "skeptical" about and there isn't any question of "pseudoscience." Skepticism is accepting fact when presented with it, and pseudoscience is denying fact when presented with it.

You've had it extensively described to you what's happening in a reconnection event, without the necessity for the use of the "field line" didactic method. It's quite simple: two fluctuating magnetic fields in opposition to one another meet; at a point in space between them, when the two field intensities get high enough, the field in that region abruptly switches allegiance from one field to the other, and when this happens the plasma in that region undergoes an explosive reaction.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2017
[contd]
This is inherent in the nature of fields and the nature of plasmas. There isn't anywhere to hide. Not only does it happen but it has to happen. It has nothing to do with field lines, which are just a couple-hundred-year-old didactic mechanism used to describe it because most people can't visualize a couple of moving fields interacting with one another.

The proof of this is that you cannot visualize it either, as is apparent from both of your posts, @Reeve and @cantthink.

How many times do you need to be reminded of this? Definition of insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over and thinking there will be a different result.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2017
@Reeve, the evidence is right there; they have videos, written articles, and papers in the scholarly literature. It's NASA, dude. They flew satellites through the region, dude. While there was a reconnection going on, dude. I mean, whadda ya want?

Get over it.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2017
Go check the evidence, @Reeve. If NASA isn't good enough for you you're not worth arguing with because you're insane.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2017
Definition of insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over and thinking there will be a different result.


Pet peeve: that's an *example* of insanity, not the definition. I really wish this particular cliché would die, but I'm not optimistic.

But yeah, it's kind of mind boggling watching all of this. The Gish gallop is real.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2017
Whoosh is the sound da schnied hears as the purpose of the discussion flies over his head...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2017
@cantthink69, the subject is the magnetic reconnection origin of spicules. Denying magnetic reconnection is obviously stupid given we've seen it from the inside from the MMS satellites, and that's what you're doing.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duhhhh.

Speaking of the "purpose of the discussion."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2017
Definition of insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over and thinking there will be a different result.
Pet peeve: that's an *example* of insanity, not the definition. I really wish this particular cliché would die, but I'm not optimistic.
Haha, as the possessor of several pet peeves of my own, I can't blame you. Would it reassure you if I told you I don't think it's *the* definition of insanity, but *a* definition of insanity? ;)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
@cantthink69, the subject is the magnetic reconnection origin of spicules. Denying magnetic reconnection is obviously stupid given we've seen it from the inside from the MMS satellites, and that's what you're doing.

No, that's just your attempted obfuscation of the discussion. Of course pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as this;
Constant convection, or boiling, of material throughout the sun generates islands of tangled magnetic fields. When boiling carries them up to the surface and farther into the sun's lower atmosphere, magnetic field lines rapidly snap back into place to resolve the tension, expelling plasma and energy.

..cannot happen. "Boiling" plasma does not create "islands of tangled magnetic fields", just some pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo from the plasma ignoramuses. Nor do magnetic field lines "snap back into place to resolve the tension", this is but more pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo promoted by plasma ignoramuses and rubes such as da schnied.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2017
I will repeat, if NASA's not good enough for you, you're insane and there's no point talking to you.

It doesn't matter how many Walls of Text you post.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2017
All you have is an appeal to authority fallacy? That's your whole argument? 'Cause they said so! Since they believe in pseudoscience then you too must be an adherent of pseudoscience. You still believe in epicycles too?
Chris_Reeve
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2017
Hey, idiot Reeve!!!! Who the f*** is this burke Scott that you keep quoting? Remind me of his contribution to science, as it stands. Wasn't this the pr**k that couldn't figure out a planetary nebula from a fecking z-pinch? Same eejit, yes? Can't explain how the Sun is being powered by an incoming shed load of electrons, which are undetectable? Thinks that slowing them down solves his idiotic idea? Hasn't taken into account the speed of the spacecraft? Et boring cetera. The guy is a knob. End of story. Quote somebody of note, yes? Who isn't dead for 20 odd years. SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE; of something. Any bloody thing. Just stop talking crap. Nobody is bloody listening.
Still believe in that Velikovskian crap, do we? What about the idiots Thornhill and Scott? Because that is all that their scientifically illiterate babblings are about! Nothing to do with science. So take your crap somewhere else. Yes? It is an irrelevance.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2017
Please explain magnetic connection the scientific community agrees on.


The type that Falhammar agrees with. Idiot.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2017
Re: "... and when this happens the plasma in that region undergoes an explosive reaction."

My understanding is that plasma physics already has a conceptual label for such explosive reactions: exploding double layers. What effort have you put into differentiating the two?


You haven't got an understanding, you idiot. You believe in Velikovsky. Yes? 'Nuff said. Try listening to a plasma scientist. Like Falthammar. Dummy. Or anybody else you care to contact. Done deal. Get over it. Fecking amateurs.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2017
@cantthink.
... this is but more pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo promoted by plasma ignoramuses and rubes such as da schnied.


And Falthammar, dipshit. Get over it. Ignoramus, amateur poser. Jesus.

jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2017
Here's a thing for the hard of thinking EU dipshits on here; how much influence do you think you have had on *real* science over the last 20 years? Zero? Nil? Eff all? Trust me, one, or possibly all, of those answers is correct. Why? Mainly because you are crap at science!
This is a cult led by the unqualified idiots Thornhill & Talbott. Who think Saturn was the centre of the solar system. Or some such shite. Based on a bizarre misinterpretation of mythology. That nobody else agrees with. Well, that'll go well, won't it?
Thornhill; the idiot who thinks solar wind H+ will combine with non-existent O- to form H2O at comets! Despite H+ being far too energetic to combine with anything @ 400 km/s! Jesus, what a joke. Despite knowing that the quantities didn't add up, if it were possible. Which it isn't! Even though the SW isn't getting anywhere near the comet for long periods! Known since '86. Even by Alfven.
The guy is a con artist, and his followers are uneducated shills. Grow up.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2017
Re: "I will repeat, if NASA's not good enough for you, you're insane and there's no point talking to you."

Don Scott speaking at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
March 16, 2009

Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions
https://www.youtu...qgntbjyE


Jesus effing christ. Argumentum ad youtubem. Now there's a new one from the pseudoscience shills. Not.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2017
All you have is an appeal to authority fallacy? That's your whole argument? 'Cause they said so! Since they believe in pseudoscience then you too must be an adherent of pseudoscience. You still believe in epicycles too?
Sigh. No, @cantthink69, it's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy to note that a constellation of four satellites flew through a magnetic reconnection event and measured it. That's called "evidence." Evidence isn't an appeal to authority. It's hard data, brute fact, manifest reality.

And that's ignoring the fact that they've been doing magnetic reconnection in the lab since 1995 at the MRX at Princeton: http://mrx.pppl.gov/

So now we've seen it in the lab, and we've seen it in space. There just really isn't anywhere to hide here. This is experimental science that's going on 25 years old. And the theory goes back a lot farther than that; the first theory of reconnection was developed in 1956.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2017
Argumentum ad youtubem.
Hahahaha, now that was funny. Let me suggest a slightly more latinized version: "argumentum ad youtubeiem."
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2017
And just so we're clear: Alfven was completely wrong about magnetic reconnection. Just like Einstein was completely wrong about quantum mechanics.

Even the greatest minds can be wrong sometimes. It doesn't discredit their other contributions.

So now who's appealing to authority?

Just askin'.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2017
Even still you can't seem to grasp it. The only question that this pertains to is whether the exploding circuit is to be described with real science based concepts such as those that relate to EE concepts or they are described by pseudoscientific concepts of moving, snapping, breaking, or frozen-in field lines and which ignore the underlying electric fields which are of utmost importance. I prefer the science based approach to your favored pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo approach.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2017
Ummmm, I'm not the one who doesn't seem to grasp the difference between theory and evidence, @cantthink69. And who doesn't know that citing evidence isn't an appeal to authority.

Sorry. man, next you'll be arguing there's no such thing as gravity and when I point out that if you drop something it falls accusing me of appealing to authority.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Jones you are so last century, you think you are on top of it all, but sadly you're just a consensus stooge stuck on yesterday's beliefs.
Lab results confirm this reaction so sorry small minded fellow this is the reality.
" ..electrochemical process mediated by electric fields of concentrated deuterium contained in the solar flux interacting with hydroxide ions originating from refractory minerals and carbonaceous materials found in dust grains in the coma as well as on the surface of comets"
And on the moon as well it seems. Electric Universe making some electrochemical water!

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
Alfven was completely wrong about magnetic reconnection.

Actually, Alfvén was initially completely wrong about MHD and he admitted to it and implored against its misuse. The ultimate irony is that he used his Nobel lecture to explain how what he was being awarded (MHD) was mostly incorrect. He explained the pseudoscience of the frozen-in condition. None of these science facts mean anything to the plasma ignoramuses however.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
Ummmm, I'm not the one who doesn't seem to grasp the difference between theory and evidence

You certainly don't grasp the difference between pseudoscience and real science, nor do you seem to be capable of staying on topic without changing the subject or obfuscating and using fallacious argumentum.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2017
NASA satellites and Princeton's MRX aren't doing "pseudoscience." Claiming they are is the real pseudoscience, and it's also yet another wild-eyed conspiracy theory. This is silliness, @cantthink69, or psychosis complete with delusions.

Magnetic reconnection is proven by solid experimental and observational fact, and it behaves as theory says it should. There is nowhere left to hide.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2017
@Reeve, it's up to you to explain how magnetic reconnection can be wrong in the face of solid evidence, not up to anyone else to explain how it works theoretically; you're trying to shift the burden of proof. And in any case, I already did explain it for you and you ignored it.

Look at MMS. Look at MRX. Now explain them. Good luck with that.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
And Falthammar, dipshit. Get over it.

Falthammar is very clear that he opposes the pseudoscientific frozen-in condition and moving field lines.
http://aapt.scita....2180285
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
NASA satellites and Princeton's MRX aren't doing "pseudoscience."

Wow, how do you put your pants on? You're right, NASA satellites are not doing pseudoscience, the scientists analyzing the data are doing so. Same goes for Princeton's Plasma Ignoramus Lab.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2017
@cantthink69, you have no explanation for the results at either MRX or the MMS results. I'm going with you are a nutjob (as if I didn't already know) and this is a waste of time (and I knew that too, I just wanted to see you make it clear how much of a nutjob you are for any lurkerz).

So long and thanks for all the fish.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2017
@Reeve, if there's no energy being released, what are all those electrons and ions doing getting accelerated? Ever hear of conservation of momentum? How about conservation of energy? You do know that changing the position of a charged particle in an EM field increases and decreases energy, right?

This is duh ummm.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2017
Meltdown time again, I see.

Evidence, @Reeve. That's the thing. Evidence like at Princeton in the MRX. Evidence like NASA's from MMS, collected in the collision zone between the Earth's magnetosphere and the Sun's solar wind. Evidence of ions and electrons moving at velocities that they simply couldn't if there wasn't such a thing as magnetic reconnection. All backing up the theory, @Reeve.

That's how they do science. You know, out here in reality where the rest of us live.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
So this paper contains an even newer, never-seen-before quantity - magnetized electrons ... That's a new one. We're being relentlessly confronted, it seems, by scientific papers written by investigators who want to impress funding agencies and the public with the cleverness of their imaginations free from the mundane restraints of real scientific knowledge ..."

"Cleverness of their imaginings, free from the mundane restraints of real scientific knowledge"...That is the very definition of astrophysics these days. Free from the restraints of science.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
Evidence of ions and electrons moving at velocities that they simply couldn't if there wasn't such a thing as magnetic reconnection.

News flash! There is only one way to skin cats! And it requires pseudoscience!
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib (@Chris_Reeve).
Evidence like at Princeton in the MRX. Evidence like NASA's from MMS, collected in the collision zone between the Earth's magnetosphere and the Sun's solar wind. Evidence of ions and electrons moving at velocities that they simply couldn't if there wasn't such a thing as magnetic reconnection. All backing up the theory
I 've been reading your exchange re the "zero magnetic field" aspect. May I remind you both, that:

- 'zero/balanced' boundary conditions are UNstable in dynamic and high energy environments (think of the many fusion reactor 'problems' caused by this tendency to instability) involving chaotic fluxes in electrons/protons and other ionized state 'transient particles' being formed/decaying during high energy collisions;

- Earth's magnetospheric 'particle accelerator' effect arises when plasma/electron flows change/energize the magnetic field strength/directions (magnetic RE-ARRANGEMENTS are 'consequence' not 'causes').

Complex.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
Where do you suppose they'll go with this magnetized electron idea?
There is no magnetism without moving electric charge, and there is no electric charge that is not affected by magnetism. Charges move when magnetic fields move; that's been known for a hundred and seventy years now, @Reeve. Ever heard of Maxwell's Equations? The one you're looking for is Faraday's Law of Induction.

Where do you come up with this stuff from? It appears to be the depths of ignorance, or the depths of psychosis.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
Nobody's having any trouble finding the electrons. The MMS satellites can see them just fine, as can the MRX. You can see it on their web pages, and in the scientific papers published from their data.

Now you're just lying, @Reeve.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@RC, that post actually made some sense. Other than the "zero magnetic field" part, which is not a good representation of anything I've said.

If you can give up some of your more prominent bad behavior and start discussing real science, it would be groundbreaking. But I'll be watching closely for a very long time.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
Here comes another meltdown.

Parks' point isn't that MHD doesn't work-- it's that idealized MHD doesn't work for real plasmas. Anyone watching the floundering Tokamak fusion approach already knew that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, that post actually made some sense. Other than the "zero magnetic field" part, which is not a good representation of anything I've said.

But I'll be watching closely for a very long time.

If you could drop your personal tactics and feigned praise in order to belittle others, you might eventually become objective commenter. Until then, please realize I have been correct all along on many fronts while you have been incorrect too often to be pretending to judge my credibility or my comments. In any case, the 'zero magnetic field' aspect was raised by Chris_Reeve in discussion with YOU, so please don't try to 'manufacture' something for you to pretend to criticize me just because you can't fault me. Ok? Thanks.

ps: While you "watch closely" (for something which has already happened!), I will 'watch closely' to see how long it will take for you to admit you have been wrong and me correct all along. :)
Da Schneib
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You did it again, @RC. I figured it was just a ploy.
So, my being correct all along is "just a ploy"? While you damning with feigned praise and insulting and twisting things so you can 'gratuitously correct' where no correction is needed, is NOT "just a ploy" from you (as usual for years now). When will the penny drop, mate, that you are ego-driven and will not learn from someone whom you have been prejudiced against personally while ignoring his correctness on many fronts which has taught YOU a few things over the years which you did not know until I explained it to you, DS? Are you going to your grave with that ego-tripping mindset which twists everything to suit your own in-denial 'narrative' which you are deluding yourself with? It's painful to watch it happen, DS. It's a waste of intellect/character. It's not healthy, especially in SCIENCE. Please do better and just acknowledge correct science, irrespective of whom it is presented by. Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
Here we go again with @RC, limping up to get smacked down again.

@RC, you're another of the well-known liars on this site. Witness:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html

Now, seriously, do you want to add another thread to the list? Really?
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2017
LOL, @Reeve tries to pretend that there's some difference between reconnection and rearrangement.

There's one phenomenon. It's called "reconnection." By scientists, as opposed to random people posting on comment threads on a science news aggregation site.

Get over it.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Here we go again, you spamming and denying and lying your head off, DS; just because you cannot admit I am correct and you had no clue until I explained it to you (as in so many instances over the years). How is it possible that you are so in denial that you cannot realize that PO readers have already got wise to your MO/tactics which only the 'gang' of bot-voting ignoramuses 'approve' you '5' for. This is the sort of disconnection from reality which so many of the Big Bangers/Inflationists and more recently the Bicep2/Ligo 'scientists' have exhibited; and which is the root cause for much of the crap/pseudoscience that has 'passed by peer review' for decades until Penrose/Steinhardt (and I) blew the whistle on the MO/denial which people like YOU have brought to the science endeavor; which MO breaks all the objectivity/impartiality rules of the scientific method/discourse. This is why you'll, never make a TRUE SCIENTIST. You spam, lie, twist, DS. Get better soon.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
These words have specific meanings and histories
"Rearrangement" doesn't. Not in the context of EM theory. "Reconnection" does.

And in any case the theory isn't the description; it's the math. And the measurements are neither.

You're lying again, @Reeve.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
There isn't any spamming, @RC. You're lying again.

It's your own posts, dudebro. If you didn't want to be involved with them you shouldn't have posted them. Anybody can go see you squirming and lying and totally blowing it. Bye, @RC. You're still playing the same old games.

You're actually a pretty smart person, but you're misusing it.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
There isn't any spamming, @RC. You're lying again.
You're lying, in denial again, DS.
It's your own posts, dudebro. If you didn't want to be involved with them you shouldn't have posted them. Anybody can go see you squirming and lying and totally blowing it.
It's your twisting/misconstruing of my posts that is the problem, DS. The context shows I was correct all along and you just ego-tripping/insulting, jumping in unprepared, ignorant of the context/matter. It's happened for years now, and PO readers are wise to your MO/denials while being incorrect and posing while having no clue as to what was going on in reality (because you used to ignore/not read before ego-tripping all over threads).
Bye, @RC. You're still playing the same old games.
So, my being correct all along is seen by you as me "playing games"? Maybe you should try it, DS.
You're actually a pretty smart person, but you're misusing it.
Echo! I said that about you. Remember?
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2017
And yet another meltdown.

@Reeve, we're discussing magnetic reconnection. When you keep changing the subject it means I keep pwning you.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2017
Changing the subject is the Red Herring Fallacy, @Reeve.

Why is it that every time you make an argument, you either lie or use a logical fallacy, and most times both?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@Reeve, we're discussing magnetic reconnection. When you keep changing the subject it means I keep pwning you.
Actually, DS, IF YOU STOPPED and actually read what he is posting, it is no more than what many PO articles have been treating and explaining re group dynamics; which affects ALL GROUP ENDEAVORS/PROCESSES....and that includes science/peer review in recent decades!

That is highlighting many PROBLEMS which HERD MENTALITY and mindless/intimidated FOLLOW-THE-LEADER situations, which have 'facilitated' the many years of Big Bang/Inflation (and more recently Bicep2 and increasingly Ligo) fiascos to happen! Because too many science/scientists are NOT PRACTICING science AS IT SHOULD BE PRACTICED...objectively, without fear or favor or threat/cost of attack/sidelining etc which have been the root reasons so many 'papers' have been written to pass a BIASED peer review/grant etc process rather than doing FEARLESSLY objective science.

Read, DS. :)
yep
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
Changing the subject is the Red Herring Fallacy,
Why is it that every time you make an argument, you either lie or use a logical fallacy, and most times both?

Might as well be talking about yourself. That's not Reeves problem, his problem is the ego tripping consensus stooges unwilling to question their assumptions because in their minds they already know the answer and have made a decision, so why bother reading new concepts or many times old concepts, or trying to understand that history which brought us to where we are now.
Math as a descriptor is fine, but it is not empirical and has lead us astray in the past because it was considered proof of theory. Garbage in garbage out. All the data in the world is worthless with a false priori.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2017
Sorry, @Reeve, we're discussing science not philosophy. This is a standard dodge that #physicscranks and other losers use.

If you don't have any explanation other than magnetic reconnection for the observations of MMS and the experiments at MRX best you just admit it and move on. If you do let's see it. And I'm not going to address a WOT; make your argument in a single post and we'll see if you have anything that's relevant, or if you're just trying to game the system.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2017
'Any set of magnetic fields can be thought of as a row of lines. These field lines are always anchored to some body - a planet, a star - creating a giant magnetic network surrounding it. It is at the boundaries of two such networks where magnetic reconnection happens.' (NASA press release)

Well, this is totally incorrect in at least two ways:

Magnetic field lines are not anchored to bodies. They go right through bodies. The magnetic field of the Earth comes up around the Earth, but it also goes right back down through the Earth."

Well... Can we use "sourced", then?
Magnetic field energy is only released to the next level of mag energy of the body it is sourced from..
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@Reeve, we're discussing magnetic reconnection. When you keep changing the subject it means I keep pwning you.
Actually, DS, IF YOU STOPPED and actually read what he is posting, it is no more than what many PO articles have been treating and explaining re group dynamics; which affects ALL GROUP ENDEAVORS/PROCESSES....and that includes science/peer review in recent decades!

IOW, Reeves is whining and reaching for straws. Off-topic ones, even...
That is highlighting many PROBLEMS which HERD MENTALITY and mindless/intimidated FOLLOW-THE-LEADER situations...
Read, DS. :)

It's a 2 way street...
Most every article is written to convince others of something...
Think, RC...:-)
Chris_Reeve
Jun 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
Noted @Reeve doesn't have any suggestions for what else might account for what MMS and MRX see. That would be the end of that.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
Noted @Reeve doesn't have any suggestions for what else might account for what MMS and MRX see. That would be the end of that.

The wilful ignorance of the exploding double layer continues....
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib, @Whyde.

There is SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG with your 'mind set', that would characterize the very ethical/logical UNDERPINNINGS of OBJECTIVE SCIENCE METHOD as 'worthless philosophical nonsense'!

What is the matter with you guys? Why keep underestimating the very tenets/discussions/issues which ORIGINALLY NECESSITATED and INEVITABLY LED to the present objective scientific method?

Have you no sense at all? Has it been totally expunged from your psyche/character by PERSONAL, SUBJECTIVE EGO, MALICE?

Stop for one moment!

Consider HOW INDISPENSABLY CRUCIAL it is for EVERYONE, be they lay or professional, to be REMINDED, REFRESHED re these very principles (which you characterize as "worthless philosophical nonsense")!

Principles which intelligent forebears realized must be scrupulously adhered to by ANYONE claiming to be 'doing science', making/publishing 'claims' etc, purporting to treat objective universal reality phenomena!

Wise up, guys! :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
@RC, no theory no credibility. No tickee no laundry.

MMS and MRX are experiments; their data strongly support the theory of magnetic reconnection. If you have some theory that is strongly supported by the results of these experiments, let's see it; otherwise, as usual, you are lying, which is why you're not publishing in the scholarly literature.

Simple as that. Time to wise up yourself. Handwaving doesn't substitute for actually getting down in the trenches, doing the math, and making a credible theory. As usual, you FUD, whine, insult, and logic chop instead of presenting the ticket and getting the laundry back.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.

When will you stop spamming trite phrases and old interpretations which are totally irrelevant/wrong in light of the most recent discoveries/reviews of all these old naive/simplistic 'analysis' based claims/interpretations, DS? Be/Get objective and up to date instead of just spamming trite phrases and tactics pandering to your basest unscientific 'personal ego needs' due to your patently NON-objective and malicious mind set that misses the whole point of science practice/discourse ANYWHERE. Try, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
@RC, I'm not here to argue with a liar. There's no point. When you decide to stop lying you'll get something other than me pointing out you're lying again from me.

I'm not holding my breath considering:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.

When will you stop spamming trite phrases and old interpretations which are totally irrelevant/wrong in light of the most recent discoveries/reviews of all these old naive/simplistic 'analysis' based claims/interpretations, DS? Be/Get objective and up to date ...

RC,
As you, yourself, have noted (ie - you're constant crowing on Bicep) one must always keep an open mind as to the credibility of the research being summarized in these articles.
You seem to accept SOME research, ipso facto, as credible when it fits your own narrative...
And not others which oft-times appear to have stronger evidentiary content...
This, along with all your "/" dividers, makes for a lot of confusion...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Shneib.

You poor thing. The more you spam your twists and lies, the more you prove t the readers that you have been in the wrong an I in the right all along on many fonts which mainstream discoveries/reviews are increasingly confirming. Even today there is the latest aexample of mainstream cming around to my observation that GR nees to be properly applie, to all sorts of mass/orbitas/motions 'regimes/distributions' before going for exotic 'dark' matter/energy 'explanations' of the actual observations (which observations themselves have recently been found to be not as cut-and-dried' data as previously assumed). DS, if you insist on being emotionally/egotistically 'invested' in whatever 'self-serving version of reality' you are 'manufacturing' for youself/gang instead of facing the actual evolving reality, then no wonder all you have is spammed lies, misleading out-of-context assertions etc to offer. Stop bringing your 'personal problems' to the science discourse, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
@RC, not reading any more. Frankly the only thing paying attention to your lies does is raise my blood pressure, and I don't need that.

I'll wait for you until a third party I trust tells me you stopped lying.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Whyde.
@Da Schneib.

When will you stop spamming trite phrases and old interpretations which are totally irrelevant/wrong in light of the most recent discoveries/reviews of all these old naive/simplistic 'analysis' based claims/interpretations, DS? Be/Get objective and up to date
RC, As you, yourself, have noted (ie - you're constant crowing on Bicep)...You seem to accept SOME research, ipso facto, as credible when it fits your own narrative...
I never 'crow'; I RESPOND in kind and/or remind those who would 'correct me', that I have been correct all along and they incorrect all along. That is correcting the record in response to THEIR lies, attacks, denials, incorrectness (which I would not have to keep doing if I wasn't still attacked etc unfairly whenever I remind/inform as necessary on the correct science/principles etc). And I never just 'accept'; I objectively observe/comment, and point out if/why CLAIMED:
"stronger evidentiary content"
is NOT so. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
not reading any more. Frankly the only thing paying attention to your lies does is raise my blood pressure, and I don't need that. I'll wait for you until a third party I trust tells me you stopped lying
Not only does this sort of evasion/denial MO explain why you have put your foot in it so many times now, but it also explains why you have no character/courage to face the reality as it is, instead of 'manufacturing' your own 'version' to spare your blood pressure as well as your ego-tripping needs. How many times can you run away from the reality that I have had to teach you many things when you were still learning or totally incorrect in your 'understandings' of the science/logic/maths issues I raised for your benefit; but which you kept not-reading, ignoring, denying, not caring about; because you deluded yourself you were 'correct' and 'needed' to 'correct' me; EVEN WHEN IT WAS I correct all along. Don't 'trust' gangs or 'outsource' your thinking, DS! :)
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
This one really shows how the pseudo-science tendency among the EU crowd is actually mental illness. "Now, for the first time, a computer simulation—so detailed it took a full year to run—", but these primate dingleberries actually think that their armchair musings are more reliable. In fact, they demonstrate an awful lot of superstition around the notion that no computer simulation is ever useful, full stop. You see the same thing with the deniers.

So, when you debate them, not only are you legitimizing their delusion be acknowledging it, at best, you are using mentally ill people to get your jollies. Unacceptable on every level.

As I've said before, show up at the EU circle jerk in August in Phoenix and do some real damage, or STFU!
AGreatWhopper
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2017
Da Schneib5 /5 (1) 24 minutes ago
I'll wait for you until a third party I trust tells me you stopped lying.


With that dotty codger the only reliable indicator will be when he quits breathing. So, most of us wait with baited breath for him to stop lying. And then come the leg cramps...
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
Chris_Reeve1 /5 (3) 20 hours ago

People claiming that physics has NOTHING AT ALL to do with psychology is self-identification as socialized mindset.


As opposed to your ravings, which can only constitute self-identification as a delusional, raving idiot. Crawl back into your hole and do not open that malodorous rictus that spews your wisdumb in public again!
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2017
yep2.6 /5 (5) Jun 28, 2017
Might as well be talking about yourself. That's not Reeves problem, his problem is the ego tripping consensus stooges


No, it's his uneducated oxygen thieving fuck buddies like you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2017
@AGreatWhopper.
Da Schneib5 /5 (1) 24 minutes ago
I'll wait for you until a third party I trust tells me you stopped lying.
With that dotty codger the only reliable indicator will be when he quits breathing. So, most of us wait with baited breath for him to stop lying. And then come the leg cramps...
Meanwhile, in the real world of real objective science discovery/review, that "old codger" is being confirmed correct all along on many fronts in astro/cosmo/QM observations/insights/explanations. And all you and other bot-voting trolls have been doing is parroting incorrect old/naive/simplistic 'myths' instead of actually trying to get up to speed with the evolving objective reality re many issues in science/maths which have been allowed to fester for far too long due to a broken 'peer review' system which 'passed' much 'publish-or-perish' offerings by those 'in the club'. The NOT INVENTED HERE syndrome obtained for DECADES now. Time to review it all, AGW. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2017
Meanwhile, in the real world of real objective science discovery/review, that "old codger" is being confirmed correct all along on many fronts in astro/cosmo/QM observations/insights/explanations. ...

No, the "old codger" has an MO of claiming to have shown everyone the "Light" with his "Magnificent Intellect".
I don't think you're lying. I think you actually believe your own delusions. Ergo, you've deluded even yourself...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2017
@Whyde.
No, the "old codger" has an MO of claiming to have shown everyone the "Light" with his "Magnificent Intellect".
I don't think you're lying. I think you actually believe your own delusions. Ergo, you've deluded even yourself..
You've been around/influenced by that 'gang' too long. Your own character integrity and objectivity have now attained free fall state. How can you keep doing that? I didn't "claim" it. I pointed out the various hints, clues, examples; and even alerted your attention to recent astro/cosmo/QM discoveries/reviews which confirm me correct all along, and my detractors (and now you) incorrect. What does it take to get through your ego-tripping, biased troll-gang-MO ways. Stop 'rationalizing' and 'denying' your/that gang's failures. Start actually listening/learning correct science/insights increasingly replacing old crap. Penrose/Steinhardt are now doing that. And Others also, eg: https://phys.org/...ity.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2017
@Whyde.
No, the "old codger" has an MO of claiming to have shown everyone the "Light" with his "Magnificent Intellect".
I don't think you're lying. I think you actually believe your own delusions. Ergo, you've deluded even yourself..
You've been around/influenced by that 'gang' too long. Your own character integrity and objectivity have now attained free fall state. How can you keep doing that? I didn't "claim" it. I pointed out the various hints, clues, examples; and even alerted your attention to recent astro/cosmo/QM discoveries/reviews which confirm me correct all along, and my detractors (and now you) incorrect....

Another Liberace-like, "Legend-in-his-own-mind" post from the King of "/"...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2017
@Whyde.
No, the "old codger" has an MO of claiming to have shown everyone the "Light" with his "Magnificent Intellect".
I don't think you're lying. I think you actually believe your own delusions. Ergo, you've deluded even yourself.
You've been around/influenced by that 'gang' too long. Your own character integrity and objectivity have now attained free fall state. How can you keep doing that? I didn't "claim" it. I pointed out the various hints, clues, examples; and even alerted your attention to recent astro/cosmo/QM discoveries/reviews which confirm me correct all along, and my detractors (and now you) incorrect...

Another Liberace-like, "Legend-in-his-own-mind" post from the King of "/"...
Meanwhile, read this:

https://phys.org/...ity.html

And now this:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

The first refutes Inflation.

The second refutes Expansion.

As I already had. QED. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2017
...

The first refutes Inflation.

The second refutes Expansion.

As I already had. QED. :)

Neither of which has anything to do with Solar spicules.
Neither of which are refutations of anything.
And neither of which are anything but you crowing "We've got milk!" - when the cows haven't even come home,yet...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2017
@Whyde.
The first refutes Inflation.

The second refutes Expansion.

As I already had. QED. :)

Neither of which has anything to do with Solar spicules.
Neither of which are refutations of anything.
And neither of which are anything but you crowing "We've got milk!" - when the cows haven't even come home,yet...
That was response to YOUR continuing mis-characterization of my pointing out the flaws in existing claims and pointing out the correct science I have been posting for your/everyone's benefit, and which mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct in, on many subjects/fronts. If you would stop your mischaracterizations and stick to the actual science topics, then I wouldn't have to defend against your/others' mischaracterizations which are obviously motivated by either envy or malice because I HAVE been correct all along while the 'gang' HAVE been trolling, sabotaging and otherwise attacking the messenger instead of listening and learning. Ok? :)
Chris_Reeve
Jul 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jul 02, 2017
Re: "This one really shows how the pseudo-science tendency among the EU crowd is actually mental illness. 'Now, for the first time, a computer simulation—so detailed it took a full year to run—', but these primate dingleberries actually think that their armchair musings are more reliable. In fact, they demonstrate an awful lot of superstition around the notion that no computer simulation is ever useful, full stop. You see the same thing with the deniers."

You're completely missing the larger patterns that are at play in the space sciences today: Accurate results are not only a function of how many gigaflops your supercomputer has. It of course also depends very heavily on what the code you're running has been programmed to assume.

The idea that bigger supercomputers === more accurate results is just plain silly.

Bigger variable data sets require bigger computers...
Which, coincidentally, produce more accurate results.
Chris_Reeve
Jul 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jul 03, 2017
Re: "Bigger variable data sets require bigger computers ... Which, coincidentally, produce more accurate results."

You might want to talk to your nearest programmer, and ask them what GIGO means.

So.. you're saying they use the wrong data and variables?
What was meant was - bigger variable sets produce better accuracy. The only way to process them in a reasonable amount of time is to use ever larger and ever faster computers.
yep
not rated yet Jul 30, 2017
"Science is one thing wisdom another. Science is like an edged tool, with which men play like children, and cut their own fingers." Sir Aurthor Eddington

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.