Scientists create first laboratory generation of astrophysical shock waves

July 14, 2017, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Physicist Derek Schaeffer. Credit: Elle Starkman/PPPL Office of Communications

Throughout the universe, supersonic shock waves propel cosmic rays and supernova particles to velocities near the speed of light. The most high-energy of these astrophysical shocks occur too far outside the solar system to be studied in detail and have long puzzled astrophysicists. Shocks closer to Earth can be detected by spacecraft, but they fly by too quickly to probe a wave's formation.

Opening the door to new understanding

Now a team of scientists has generated the first high-energy in a laboratory setting, opening the door to new understanding of these mysterious processes. "We have for the first time developed a platform for studying highly energetic shocks with greater flexibility and control than is possible with spacecraft," said Derek Schaeffer, a physicist at Princeton University and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), and lead author of a July paper in Physical Review Letters that outlines the experiments.

Schaeffer and colleagues conducted their research on the Omega EP laser facility at the University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics. Collaborating on the project was PPPL physicist Will Fox, who designed the experiment, and researchers from Rochester and the universities of Michigan and New Hampshire. "This lets you understand the evolution of the physical processes going on inside waves," Fox said of the platform.

To produce the wave, scientists used a laser to create a high-energy —a form of matter composed of atoms and charged atomic particles—that expanded into a pre-existing magnetized plasma. The interaction created, within a few billionths of a second, a magnetized shock wave that expanded at a rate of more than 1 million miles per hour, congruent with shocks beyond the solar system. The rapid velocity represented a high "magnetosonic Mach number" and the wave was "collisionless," emulating shocks that occur in outer space where particles are too far apart to frequently collide.

Discovery by accident

Discovery of this method of generating shock waves actually came about by accident. The physicists had been studying magnetic reconnection, the process in which the magnetic field lines in plasma converge, separate and energetically reconnect. To investigate the flow of plasma in the experiment, researchers installed a new diagnostic on the Rochester laser facility. To their surprise, the diagnostic revealed a sharp steepening of the density of the plasma, which signaled the formation of a high Mach number shock wave.

To simulate the findings, the researchers ran a computer code called "PSC" on the Titan supercomputer, the most powerful U.S. computer, housed at the DOE's Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The simulation utilized data derived from the experiments and results of the model agreed well with diagnostic images of the shock formation.

Going forward, the laboratory platform will enable new studies of the relationship between collisionless shocks and the acceleration of astrophysical particles. The platform "complements present remote sensing and spacecraft observations," the authors wrote, and "opens the way for controlled laboratory investigations of high-Mach number shocks."

Explore further: Ripples in space key to understanding cosmic rays

More information: D. B. Schaeffer et al, Generation and Evolution of High-Mach-Number Laser-Driven Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in the Laboratory, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.025001

Related Stories

Ripples in space key to understanding cosmic rays

October 17, 2016

In a new study researchers at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics have used measurements from NASA's MMS (Magnetospheric MultiScale) satellites to reveal that there are ripples, or surface waves, moving along the surface ...

Experiments shine light on exotic cosmic rays

May 4, 2016

The Earth is under constant bombardment by subatomic particles called cosmic rays, including some, known as ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, which pack much more punch than the world's most powerful particle accelerators. Fortunately, ...

Fields and flows fire up cosmic accelerators

May 16, 2017

Every day, with little notice, the Earth is bombarded by energetic particles that shower its inhabitants in an invisible dusting of radiation, observed only by the random detector, or astronomer, or physicist duly noting ...

NASA observations reshape basic plasma wave physics

March 31, 2017

When NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale—or MMS—mission was launched, the scientists knew it would answer questions fundamental to the nature of our universe—and MMS hasn't disappointed. A new finding, presented in a paper ...

Shocks in the early universe could be detectable today

October 27, 2016

(Phys.org)—Physicists have discovered a surprising consequence of a widely supported model of the early universe: according to the model, tiny cosmological perturbations produced shocks in the radiation fluid just a fraction ...

Recommended for you

Tangled magnetic fields power cosmic particle accelerators

December 13, 2018

Magnetic field lines tangled like spaghetti in a bowl might be behind the most powerful particle accelerators in the universe. That's the result of a new computational study by researchers from the Department of Energy's ...

Stretched quantum magnetism uncovered by quantum simulation

December 13, 2018

By studying ultracold atoms trapped in artificial crystals of light, Guillaume Salomon, a postdoc at the Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics and a team of scientists have been able to directly observe a fundamental effect ...

The secret life of cloud droplets

December 13, 2018

Do water droplets cluster inside clouds? Researchers confirm two decades of theory with an airborne imaging instrument.

200 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
Discovery of this method of generating shock waves actually came about by accident. The physicists had been studying magnetic reconnection, the process in which the magnetic field lines in plasma converge, separate and energetically reconnect. To investigate the flow of plasma in the experiment, researchers installed a new diagnostic on the Rochester laser facility. To their surprise, the diagnostic revealed a sharp steepening of the density of the plasma, which signaled the formation of a high Mach number shock wave.

The researchers "accidentally" rediscovered double layers and were "surprised" by the findings...LOL

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century." Hannes Alfven
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
Shockwaves are not double layers, @cantthink69.

Alfven said that about astrophysics textbooks in 1986. That was, in case you hadn't noticed, three decades ago. I'd say we've made some pretty major discoveries since then. You might want to try to keep up.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
Alfven said that about astrophysics textbooks in 1986.

Please post evidence that anything of significance has changed since his statement.
Also, explain in plain Engrish the difference between the two phenomena.
Help me keep up, would you?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
LOL, you claim it hasn't when all you have to do is google "double layer" or any of the other terms you throw around without understanding and find them in the scholarly literature. Research into double layers was in progress in 1982: http://iopscience...028/24/6 See Double Layer Formation. That would be a change that started *before* his statement.

Maybe you should check some textbooks that were published since the 1990s, two decades ago. Looks to me like you're making an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence and then trying to shift the burden of proof.

That's why I call you @cantthink69 and usually keep you in your ignore cage.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
As for "showing the difference," they're called these, you know, like, different names. And stuff. One is called "shockwaves." The other is called "double layers." Looks pretty clear to me. If you say they're the same I'd say it's on you to prove it since they have these, you know, different names. And stuff. On Earth. In reality. And stuff.

Typical EUdiot sub-90-IQ claims that never get substantiated. Straight up Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
Nice diversion. Explain the difference in the physics of the two phenomena.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. Explain why they're the same if they have different names.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
Thanks for the random link to not a textbook. If you had some perspective you might discover that Langmuir discovered and explained the surface features of plasma about 90 years ago. Nice to see it only took Singh 60-years to expound upon it.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
This is quite simple. You are asking me to explain why elephants are not rhinoceroses. I am telling you this is shifting the burden of proof because it's obvious they're different since they have different names and you have not explained why you think they're the same.

Good luck with that.

Noted when you did not have an answer to this you shifted the goal posts by bringing in an extraneous claim. This is called "changing the subject because you got pwnt."
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
Nice try at shifting the burden of proof.

Ditto, who posted the request first?
BTW, it is analogous to the exploding circuit vs. magnetic reconnection discussion. On one hand you have an actual physical description based upon well founded EE principles and on the other you must rely on pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of frozen-in fields and breaking and reconnecting of field lines.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
And I'll note that $200 textbooks are not generally available on line so your request is not possible in the first place. So now you make an impossible request and obviously intend to whine that a statement about textbooks in 1986 is a valid review of textbooks in 2017 three decades later, because no one can provide a link to a copyrighted textbook that would be sued off the Internet if it ever appeared.

who posted the request first?
That isn't relevant to whether you're shifting the burden of proof. What's relevant is the logical progression, which is they have different names so it's on you to prove they're "the same" since you claimed it. You're still trying to shift the burden of proof.

It is these sorts of deceptive arguments and selective observations that make it clear you are a troll and an EUdiot. Show evidence that elephant=rhino and shockwave=double layer and then I'll have something to argue against.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
Show evidence that elephant=rhino and shockwave=double layer and then I'll have something to argue against.

I'll point to the most obvious example of astrophysicist double speak;
Ionized gas = plasma.
Two different terms to explain what is claimed is the same state of matter. However, on one hand the astrophysicists treat the matter with theoretical "ideal gas" laws with mostly mechanical hydrodynamic interactions in which the electrical phenomena are secondary byproducts of the mechanical processes whereas electrical engineers treat plasmas as fully electrodynamic systems and the electrical phenomena are the primary movers of the physics involved.
In reality a shockwave is a mechanical phenomenon and double layer an electrodynamic phenomenon. Astrophysicists prefer to misapply the incorrect mechanical physics to what is reality an electrodynamic problem. They are both however surface features.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
And I'll note that $200 textbooks are not generally available on line so your request is not possible in the first place.

You are quite pathetic. When was the last time you read a theoretical astrophysical research paper that discussed critical ionization velocity, double layers, Marklund convection, pinch phenomena, or other known plasma phenomena that which Alfven was referring? Good luck with that!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
@cantthink,
dereks@princeton.edu: why not email him, and put him straight? Let us know what he replies. If you actually knew anything about the subject matter, you would be doing just that, and telling him that you will be replying to the paper in the relevant journal. But you won't. Because you're just another one of the Dunning-Kruger stricken know-nothings who infest this place. Maybe I'll email him instead.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
Show evidence that elephant=rhino and shockwave=double layer and then I'll have something to argue against.
I'll point to the most obvious example of astrophysicist double speak;
Ionized gas = plasma
Nope, sorry, neither ionized gas nor plasma is the same as either shockwaves or double layers. You're trying to change the subject which equals lying again.

When was the last time you read a theoretical astrophysical research paper
Thought we were talking about textbooks.

And since you claim there are no papers on these I suggest you provide proof since I find plenty when I look. Here's one from 1981: http://adsabs.har...19..163S
cantdrive85
Jul 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
Nice try at shifting the burden of proof again. Why do you keep trying this when you keep getting caught? Looks like you're a pathological liar.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
So, seeing as we're on the subject, kind of; double layers have been created in the lab. Seeing as cd seems to believe he is an expert on such things, perhaps he could describe the setup of the experiment. And then I'll pull the relevant figures from the above paper and post them online, and we can see how they match up.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2017
You decided to chime in and as of yet have failed to add anything relevant or of value to the discussion except for "nuh uh".
Should be easy enough for You to post evidence of all these papers you so readily seem to be able to find.
BTW, if these concepts are so prevalent in the textbooks they should appears in the literature that is produced.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2017
You decided to chime in and as of yet have failed to add anything relevant or of value to the discussion....


Neither have you. Except the usual ranting about long dead scientists. Let's be honest, if you knew as much as you pretend, you wouldn't be on here telling far smarter people that they have got it wrong; you'd actually be doing something about it. It's all a pretence. Just like EU as a whole - all talk, no trousers.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2017
Should be easy enough for You to post evidence of all these papers you so readily seem to be able to find.


You mean you are criticising this paper having not even read it? Or seen the radiographic images, or the experimental set up? Yep, usual crap.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
@Forum.

Objective, fair and polite discussion, without insults, evasions and 'tactics', is the only way to come to mutual understanding of the actual reality being studied/discussed. I below highlight an example demonstrating where this scientific ideal is not being upheld by those who should be role models rather than being bad examples and worse than the 'cranks' they insult/evade...

Eg, @Da Schneib: You said:
If you say they're the same I'd say it's on you to prove it since they have these, you know, different names.
Then @cantdrive complied and provided another example where astrophysicists may use different names refer to the same phenomenon:
I'll point to the most obvious example of astrophysicist double speak;
Ionized gas = plasma.
That example effectively satisfied @Da Schneib's challenge to @cantdrive, and so turned the onus back onto @Da Schneib to support his own contention that 'double layers and shock waves are different things".

Proceed. :)

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
You mean you are criticising this paper having not even read it? Or seen the radiographic images, or the experimental set up?

Post your username and password to that pseudoscientific rag and I'll read this tripe.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2017
You mean you are criticising this paper having not even read it? Or seen the radiographic images, or the experimental set up?

Post your username and password to that pseudoscientific rag and I'll read this tripe.


You think I pay to get these papers? Lol. And what is the point of reading it if you've already decided it's tripe, sight unseen
If I told you how to access papers on here, I suspect I'd be banned, and the site would find itself in trouble.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
If I told you how to access papers on here, I suspect I'd be banned, and the site would find itself in trouble.

You are obviously an individual of impeccable character.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
See, here's what's wrong: thirty years ago an eminent scientist notes that a particular field hasn't been very well researched and most of the textbooks don't talk about it much.

Flash forward to today, and there are plenty of textbooks on it as well as textbooks that mention it, and there's plenty of research on it and papers coming out all the time.

Meanwhile, one class of Internet troll keeps trumpeting the thirty year old "news" as if the long dead eminent scientist's observation of the state of the science thirty years ago is unchanged. These are the EUdiots.

And that's how that works.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
And that's how that works.

Give some examples without the diversion, that's how it works. You haven't done it yet because you know you are lying through your teeth and very little if anything has changed. Give examples of CIV, pinch effects, Marklund convection, or the other plasma phenomena described by Alfven in the current literature. You can't do it, not only do you not understand the argument but the basics are so far over your head you'll just embarrass yourself. This is why the constant diversion (as pointed out by RC) and avoidance of the discussion ILO the name calling and baseless statements.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Sorry, it's up to you to give evidence for your claims. The fact you can't and keep trying to shift the burden of proof shows you're a liar.

Here's a paper that has nearly a hundred citations on plasma physics about half of which have the words "double layer" in their titles: http://lasp.color...sson.pdf

So it's obvious this is a fairly "hot" area of research these days, and your whining about what the eminent scientist said 30 years ago may have been true then, but that's no evidence it's true now.

And that's not even mentioning what you're trying to sweep under the carpet: double layers are not shock waves. You made this claim too, and still haven't provided any evidence to support it.

Now stop lying, @cantthink69. It's not going to work.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
Or seen the radiographic images, or the experimental set up?

What I would like to know is why they didn't use plasma with the field lines already frozen-in? Why were they required to generate electric currents to create this magnetized ambient plasma? Where in nature do these "laser driven plasmas" exist? So many questions, yet nary an answer to be found.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
I went on Google Scholar and searched on "plasma double layer research" and got 2,800,000 hits. ROFL. Looks like we're done here.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Meanwhile, let's check out the Wikipedia article on the plasma pinch effect. It has 60 references, pretty much all of which appear to be scholarly papers and textbooks. Looking on Google Scholar searching for "plasma pinch research" gets "only" 76,000 results. Looks like it's not quite as popular as double layers! LOL.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
I went on Google Scholar and searched on "plasma double layer research" and got 2,800,000 hits. ROFL. Looks like we're done here.

Typical diversion from da schnied. We are talking about theoretical astrophysical research. I would posit that 2.7+million on those hits are regarding chemistry physics. Try staying on topic and not changing the subject.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Sorry, man, when I get three million hits searching on something you claim isn't being researched it's obvious you're an idiot. Specifically, an EUdiot. Double layers have been simulated, produced (in several different kinds) in the laboratory, and observed directly in Earth orbit. There isn't any place to hide here. You lied and you're caught but good. Now you're squirming.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
Meanwhile, let's check out the Wikipedia article on the plasma pinch effect.

Theoretical astrophysical research! Stay on point. I have been quite clear that plasma research is and has been vibrant. Astrophysicists choose to ignore it. Stop changing the subject.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Who the hell do you think is doing research on plasmas in space if not astrophysicists? This is your dumbest squirm yet. The papers are right there. The research is ongoing. You're lying, and not even smart lies; really, really dumb ones. You are an EUdiot.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Meanwhile, noted you still haven't given one single piece of evidence that shows that shock waves and double layers are the same thing. You're still trying to ignore it and hope it goes away. Zero chance of that, EUdiot; I've got the fork well into you and have no intention of letting up.
cantdrive85
Jul 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
If I told you how to access papers on here, I suspect I'd be banned, and the site would find itself in trouble.

You are obviously an individual of impeccable character.


Indeed. That is why I have found you an Arxiv copy of the paper:
https://arxiv.org...6533.pdf
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2017
Interestingly, back in 2000, this laser plume method has been used to actually create DLs:
https://www.resea...a_plumes
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
[to @cantdrive] See, here's what's wrong: thirty years ago an eminent scientist notes that a particular field hasn't been very well researched and most of the textbooks don't talk about it much.

....

Meanwhile, one class of Internet troll keeps trumpeting the thirty year old "news" as if the long dead eminent scientist's observation of the state of the science thirty years ago is unchanged. These are the EUdiots.

And that's how that works.
DS, you are still setting a bad example with your insults and evasions. You are also being hypocritical employing (perhaps unwittingly?) double-standards, such as accusing @cantdrive of not acknowledging recent/new developments whilst YOU have been doing exactly that same thing re 'exotic' Dark Matter/Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion recent mainstream discovery/reviews.

Anyhow, please stop treating science discourse as some ego-tripping 'win at all costs to decency' opportunity, and actually respect objectivity/fairness. :)
moops
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Double Layer is not a magnetosonic shock. If you know Alfven's body of work, you would know this. You can create both results with a laser-induced plasma plume, but under different conditions. Why are phys.org comment sections such rancorous cesspools? cantdrive85, you kicked off this whole thing with your heap of snark to kick things off. That much snark needs to be backed up.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
Why are phys.org comment sections such rancorous cesspools?
@moops
because, despite the site claims that "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted", they have chosen to not moderate in any form whatsoever allowing the pseudoscience advocates, creationists, conspiracy theorists and other cult fanatics to overrun the site chasing off most of the scientifically literate posters

the obvious reason is that it pads their numbers allowing them financial compensation (some users have multiple socks)

it also gives the illusion of incredible interest so long as no one actually reads the comments, which also influences their finances

by all appearances of the site, moderation and admin - trolls make the site money whereas being literate and loving science obviously do not

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
Double Layer is not a magnetosonic shock.

Explain the difference between the two phenomena. Show me where I am wrong. Give a simple explanation that clearly resolves the difference between the two phenomena. Explain the mechanism which accelerates the charged particles in a shockwave. It is well known the electric field is responsible for this in DL's, what drives these processes in shocks? Note the two papers linked by jonesdumb, the paper related to this article makes no mention of an electric field. The second paper he linked does discuss the electric field and how it accelerates the plasma. It is a simple request, explain the difference between the two phenomena.
Why are phys.org comment sections such rancorous cesspools?

Good question! I can say my comments are a direct result of the response I have gotten from "The Protectors of the standard theory" and their dogmatic narrow minded approach.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
@cantthink69, your arguments all appear to be directed to a plasma physics community that existed in 1985. Maybe you didn't notice but it's 2017.

Just sayin'.
moops
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
Double Layer is not a magnetosonic shock.

Explain the difference between the two phenomena.


Characteristic speed. Entropy conditions.

an initialized double layer is not obligated to progress to a magnetosonic shock.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2017
Double Layer is not a magnetosonic shock.

Explain the difference between the two phenomena.


Characteristic speed. Entropy conditions.

an initialized double layer is not obligated to progress to a magnetosonic shock.

Yet a "shock" behaves as a surface layer isolating two plasmas from one another, it it accelerates charged particles, and eventually results in a process of equalization. All of the characteristics of a double layer. Traditionally, "shocks" are used to describe the physics of fluids which are mostly a mechanical process. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly, plasmas are fully electrodynamic systems. Treating plasma interactions as mechanical process produces misleading results and largely ignores the electric fields in the plasma. This is likely another example of astrophysicists applying the incorrect physics to explain electrodynamic plasma processes. Plasmas are not "ideal gases" and cannot be treated as such.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
This is likely another example of astrophysicists applying the incorrect physics to explain electrodynamic plasma processes.


They are not fecking astrophysicists! They are PLASMA physicists. Capice? They also have to have a good understanding of astrophysics. Otherwise, what is the point of studying plasmas as they relate to the astrophysical environment, if you are clueless about the astrophysical environment (see D. Scott!)? Properly, they would be called plasma astrophysicists. At least that is what one of the plasma scientists on the Rosetta team refers to himself as. I assume that is common. If you really wanted to discuss this with a plasma astrophysicist, can I recommend posting a question in the Cosmoquest Q & A section. The aforementioned plasma astrophysicist is a moderator on that site, and did his Phd on DLs. I'm sure he'd welcome a good chinwag on why this isn't a DL, and will probably give you very good reasons why it can't be. Pointless doing it here.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
Double Layer is not a magnetosonic shock.
Explain the difference between the two phenomena.
Characteristic speed.
Right. Shock waves are supersonic. Double layers progress at sonic (AKA acoustic) velocities.

Entropy conditions.
Also correct. A double layer, because it progresses at sonic speed, gives time for the ions and electrons to shuffle around; a supersonic shock wave proceeds through the medium (the plasma) faster than the populations of electrons and ions move by themselves. This is analogous to the difference between the way air behaves at the edge of an object moving at subsonic and supersonic speed; the supersonic object generates a shock wave because the air molecules cannot move out of its way fast enough. This creates the well-known "sonic boom" phenomenon. In astrophysical environments, such shock waves move through plasmas with visible results.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
[contd]
an initialized double layer is not obligated to progress to a magnetosonic shock.
And finally, also correct. In fact, in some circumstances double layers are actually generated by shock waves; see http://adsabs.har...c9c18563 from 1989. It's not necessarily true, however, that all shocks generate DLs. I will point out that this was known nearly three decades ago, continuing the rejection of the narrative that "astrophysicists don't know anything about plasma."

@moops, it's nice to talk to someone who actually knows some of the underlying physics. One grows tired and irritable constantly dealing with the trolls. Please add any thoughts you might have.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
@jonesdave, there is some fairly good information available here, and given how @cantthink operates, I seriously doubt that it would survive long at Cosmoquest. The first time it burst forth with its slander of real scientists, it would get the ban hammer.

@moops, this slander against scientists who obviously know more about the entire subject than @cantthink and the other EUdiots ever will is what I find most irritating. And most of that comes from decades-old situations that have since been corrected by findings in the lab, in space, and in simulations. This slander generally drives the competent scientists away and poisons the conversation on this site. If the moderators would actually enforce the rules posted on the site, these individuals wouldn't be posting here. Since they don't enforce them, we are impelled to defend the site ourselves, however imperfectly.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
Finally, @cantthink, seems like your focus on three-decades-old information has led you astray. Perhaps you should look at some more recent research and stop whining about what someone said in 1985. Not to mention slandering people who demonstrably know a great deal more than you do, and ignoring findings from astrophysics and lab physics that you appear to be totally unfamiliar with. It also appears that you have the standard #sciencedenier bias against simulations, which have turned out to be substantiated by these findings. Lose the 'tude, dude.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2017
@Da Schneib, @cantdrive, @moops, @jonesdave.

Please take care not to confuse the causes with the effects. eg:

-@Da Schneib, the driving process/object may be supersonic (in applicable medium) and the sonic waves 'pile up' ahead of it to form the 'shock wave' because it's is being 'pushed at supersonic speeds' by the driving process/object, BUT as the shock 'slips aside' OR once the driving process/object stops or decelerates to sonic/subsonic speed, THEN the 'freed' shock wave ITSELF proceeds at the SONIC speed applicable in the relevant medium, albeit it as a very compressed/dense wave front.

@jonesdave, lab experimenters and astrophysicists are still using misleading terms/concepts to describe/interpret/convey the 'events' in such plasma situations.

@cantdrive, even ordinary 'neutral particle' sonic waves involve interactions of Electromagnetic 'fields' of particles, but in such low energy contexts the electromagnetic nature of the 'collisions' is ignored.

Careful! :)
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2017
@RC,
Do us a favour mate. No offence, but these cretins believe in electric comets!!! Have you ever seen one of these uneducated cretins come on here and defend that crap? Even though it turned out to be complete crap? This is sh*te quoted by the buffoon Thornhill. "The solar wind will create water." How many times do I have to show what a tosspot that bloke is, before people get it through their thick heads, that he is just a jerk, with no scientific knowledge? Seriously? The bloke is a fraud, as are the idiots that follow him. He is a Velikovskian nutjob. With eff all scientific qualifications. Yes?
tl:dr EU is absolute sh*te. Always has been, always will be.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
Just while I'm bored, let's lay out the successes of the EU idea (it sure ain't a hypothesis):

OK, that did it. Anybody like to disagree? Thought not. It's sh*te. Yes?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
@jonesdave, there is some fairly good information available here, and given how @cantthink operates, I seriously doubt that it would survive long at Cosmoquest. The first time it burst forth with its slander of real scientists, it would get the ban hammer.


Agreed. However, you never know. Interacting with a plasma physicist who worked on DLs in Alfven's lab, and knew the bloke, might actually help to take the cbap out of the 1960s. Unlikely, I know. However, one always must try.
Let's be honest, even Falthammar p*ssed on him (Alfven) from on high. Caught on to magnetic reconnection. Yes?. Doubt Hannes would have liked that; but he was never a plasma physicist, was he? And he wasn't around long enough to see the Princeton results. Falthammar was. And knew results when he saw them (references available).
Shame that the EU idiots can't update themselves likewise.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
The simple facts are, @jonesdave, that in the end Alfven won. He was right. Not about everything; lambda CDM cosmology was a bit after his time. But about plasmas he had the shizzle.

The problem here is that there's these trolls who are still stuck in the 20th century. They don't know what to do now that their hero has been "proved right." So they troll science sites with 30-year-old BS hoping to find someone as stupid as they are.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
@DS,
Well, it certainly gets a bit complicated. Falthammar definitely accepted magnetic reconnection. I think that the EU idiots misrepresent Alfven's views on that, too. And also on frozen-in fields. It is totally ludicrous to say he dumped that. They are just incapable of understanding what he said. For what it's worth, it doesn't take much research to prove the idiots wrong.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
He was right. Not about everything; lambda CDM cosmology was a bit after his time. But about plasmas he had the shizzle.


Well, not exactly. He was wrong about magnetic reconnection. His obsession with double layers was also seemingly wrong. His anti-matter universe was also horribly wrong. He was good in the 40s - 60s. After that, it left him behind. Presumably why Falthammar went his own way, and accepted MRx. Lived longer; saw the results. Such is science.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
I think that Alfven imagined the interaction of the fields that we now know to be correct and said that "magnetic reconnection" is a pretty poor way to describe it. I don't think he "didn't believe in the phenomenon that we call magnetic reconnection." He may have had a point, but unfortunately it got lost in the noise of the EUdiots.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
Regarding frozen-in fields, this is obvious stuff if you are dealing with propagation at sonic or even low-Mach-number supersonic speeds. Consider the speed of propagation of such a disturbance compared to the tens-of-thousands-of-light-years sizes of such clouds of plasma in star-forming nebulae. Such disturbances would indeed be "frozen in" on scales of human lifetimes, or even the entire lifetime of the human race.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2017
Yes, Alfven rode back a bit on 'frozen-in' fields. He never chucked it out, though. Turns out that he was wrong to be so wary of it. Had he lived longer, he'd have been pleasantly surprised. He wasn't a bad EE. Plasma physics has moved on considerably, though. He was in at the start, and made a huge contribution, but he was way behind the game by the 80s.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2017
@jonesdave.
@RC, Do us a favour mate.
Gladly; within reason! :)
No offence, but these cretins believe in electric comets!!! Have you ever seen one of these uneducated cretins..
See? That's offensive to whomever your target audience is. Try to tone down on rhetorical insults; just concentrate on polite (and patient) refutations based on the correct/relevant aspects/understandings, and avoid 'tarring everyone with the same brush' (eg, the PLASMA 'crowd' and the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 'crowd' are two separate things). So don't conflate audience/arguments in responses on separate issues. Ok? :)

Note my name: "RealityCheck". That's what I DO; post objective reality-checks; for ALL 'sides'; as needed (especially if arguments/discussion veering off into insults/fantasy/biased dogma etc in complete contradiction to known/evolving science).

I have NEVER knowingly lied or steered you/anyone false, on ANYTHING. An that is the best 'favour' one can do anyone, on ANY 'side'. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2017
I see jonesdumb and da schnied are on their history revision program attempting to put false words and thoughts on Alfven, although da schnied isn't being quite as deceitful as jonesdumb. We can all see their feeble attempts. It is amusing you both still cling to the pseudoscientific frozen-in condition. Both of you so eagerly support pseudoscientific principles but claim the high road of science. LOL
Chris_Reeve
Jul 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@reeve/hannes the eu cult idiot
If you took the emotion out of jonesdave, I'm not sure there would really be anything left
and if you took the delusional beliefs out of your own argument (you know, the ones that are directly refuted by established scientific fact, which means validated studies) then there would be absolutely no argument from you or any other eu idiot at all

point being: your entire argument comes from a belief in the eu and their "authorities"
there is absolutely no science at all being done
just argument from history or belief

that is technically a religion, not science in any way, shape or form

if the eu (or any other pseudoscience cult member) were to simply adhere to the scientific principle and publish under the same constraints, including validation, there would be evidence you could argue from

but somehow all you ever end up with is conspiracy
and out of context history

the eu epic failure is epic
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@cantdrive, @jonesdave, @Da Schneib, @moops, @Forum.
...the pseudoscientific frozen-in condition.
The most recent mainstream astro/cosmo/plasma/mag-field discoveries/reviews have shown that there can be no stable (ie, 'frozen in') condition for mag-fields in dynamical plasma situations, be it at lab scales (eg, fusion reactors) or be it astro/cosmo scales. Essentially, many experiments/insights into dynamical real plasmas confirm that the mass-difference between Electrons and atomic/molecular Ionized 'particles' always produce 'fast currents of electrons and slower ionized nuclei/dust, such that mag-fields are always being de-stabilized by unpredictable 'excursions' of electron flows within the plasmas in flux around lab-scale or cosmic scale mag-fields (latter are now known to exist everywhere, thus affecting, AND being affected BY, ambient plasma flows).

So please adjust your understandings/arguments accordingly. Thanks. :)

PS @cantdrive et al: Stop goading! :)

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017
It should also be noted that the purported "shocks" described by astrophysics do not have an explainable mechanism to accelerate the charged particles to such high energies via the shock. The astrophysicists have to rely on magic while the double layer provides for a simple well understood mechanism to accomplish this acceleration.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
@cd the nazi sympathizing idiot pseudoscience cult member
It should also be noted that the purported "shocks" described by astrophysics
speculations using a delusional religious belief aren't science

if you can't link reputable peer reviewed journals then you're crying about a religion, not science
The astrophysicists have to rely on magic while
funny

the astrophysicists have provided:
empirical evidence not only made in a lab with plasma physicists and electrical engineers (see: http://www.pppl.g...%20FACTS ) but also that can be replicated in other labs, anywhere

you've provided:
your opinion, which has been historically proven to be false and or based upon a delusional belief on almost every science topic everywhere you post
(i've not seen every topic, so i gave you the benefit of the doubt... but considering your known conspiracist ideation, it is far more likely you reject reality for your delusional beliefs)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2017
@RC,
The most recent mainstream astro/cosmo/plasma/mag-field discoveries/reviews have shown that there can be no stable (ie, 'frozen in') condition for mag-fields in dynamical plasma situations, be it at lab scales (eg, fusion reactors) or be it astro/cosmo scales...


Really? Reference would be good. And nobody is saying that the field is permanently frozen in. If you have a ratio when dividing magnetic field energy density by plasma particle kinetic energy density that is <<1, then the plasma will drag the field along with it. As per the solar wind. If you are modelling this over relatively short timescales, which they are, then it is perfectly valid to assume it is frozen in. If you don't accept that, then I would refer you to the same plasma astrophysicist I referred cd to, above.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Re: "Try to tone down on rhetorical insults"

If you took the emotion out of jonesdave, I'm not sure there would really be anything left.


Except a knowledge of science. At least some of it. Which is totally lacking from the Velikovsky inspired cult to which you pay homage. Science >>>>> cults based on myths. Every time.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Let's just remind readers of the raison d'etre of EU: It is based on Velikovsky's unscientific rubbish. Thornhill is a big fan of IV. Even that idiot knows that the laws of physics don't allow the interplanetary billiards proposed by the loon Velikovsky. So he needs another mechanism to put Saturn somewhere near Earth, as per the other loon, Talbott. His way of trying to do this is to appeal to EM forces. Which won't do it either, but he's too thick to realise that. And from thence springs EU. Which is why it is unscientific rubbish.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
Let's just remind readers of the raison d'etre of EU:

Nice off topic rant, maybe you would like to point to where any of those individuals were mentioned. Or any of their ideas were mentioned? BTW, are you seven-years-old? That was the last time I heard so much name calling. A psychiatrist and some heavy pharmaceuticals can help you with your uncontrollable emotions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
Please note I did mention timescales above. @jonesdave has this right; nobody ever said "*permanently* frozen in." Keep in mind that we're dealing with actual astronomers and astrophysicists here, who after all can only work as long as they're, you know, alive. And stuff. On those timelines it's perfectly acceptable to call something that stays in approximately the same position during the entire lifetime (never mind the entire career) of a human being "frozen in."

If this is the objection, it's sillyness, and more FUD from @RC and the other Velikovskyoid EUdiots. Let's try to stick to reality here, and in reality humans aren't immortal. As usual, get over it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
And worth mentioning that it appears that all of this BS about "permanently frozen in" is a huge strawman, which is, as usual, a giant lie. Given the EUdiot track record this should surprise no one at all.

Now stop lying.

I love the smell of burning strawman in the morning.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@cd the nazi sympathizing idiot pseudoscience cult member
That is the latest example of how you set a really sorry example for those whom you would criticize, CS. Before you can criticize you must know/be better than them, CS. You are patently far from that, CS, if your continuing bot-voting and insults-laden irrelevant rants are anything to go by.

Stop this, mate. It's not healthy for you or anyone, let alone science discourse. Try. :)

ps: CS, they are talking about you!...

http://www.abc.ne.../8701424

It's as if they knew you, mate! :)

Go on, CS, stop your malice and clutter, and do something constructive with your intellect/life that is left to you. You don't want to leave a legacy of internet thuggery and stupidity behind you, do you? Of course not. Go on. Try to be a good human being and objective science, for your own sake as well as the greater good. Try. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave (and @Da Schneib if reading).
Really? Reference would be good.
I respect/expect anyone who engages in discussing such subtle/complex matter will be keeping themselves up to date with all relevant mainstream discovery/reviews. Are you up to date on such?
And nobody is saying that the field is permanently frozen in. If you have a ratio when dividing magnetic field energy density by plasma particle kinetic energy density that is <<1, then the plasma will drag the field along with it. As per the solar wind. If you are modelling this over relatively short timescales, which they are, then it is perfectly valid to assume it is frozen in.
The new discoveries/reviews I alluded to show that at ALL time/spatial scales, plasma is UNstable, as it moves through magnetic fields ALL the time/everywhere. Also, regardless of the speed/motion of the 'slower' plasma 'body' of Protonic/Nucleonic etc constituents, the Electrons can speed/current in ANY direction! Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@RC blows it again. Let's examine this statement:
The new discoveries/reviews I alluded to show that at ALL time/spatial scales, plasma is UNstable
What's "unstable" mean in a plasma cloud that's, say, 20,000 light years across? Means that the fastest anything can move through it-- the speed of light-- is going to take at least 20,000 years! And we've just been discussing things that move at the speed of sound, which in a plasma is perhaps a few hundred times the speed of sound in air. This is a small fraction of the speed of light; call it five hundred times, and we're still only talking about 175 * 10^3 m/s, whereas the speed of light is 2.99 * 10^8 m/s, five orders of magnitude higher. So a shockwave can be expected to take 40 billion years to move through such a plasma cloud.

So, what's "unstable" mean?

@RC is lying again. And caught again. Sounds pretty "frozen in" to me. Just sayin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
What's "unstable" mean in a plasma cloud that's, say, 20,000 light years across? Means that the fastest anything can move through it-- the speed of light-- is going to take at least 20,000 years!
By now one would have expected you to grow up and stop gratuitusly insulting, DS.

Anyhow, please consider: Currents of fast electrons can arise and continue for as long as the dynamics/drivers persist. So if the 'cloud' of your example arose from a dynamics which ionized/moved it, then the internal dynamics is UNstable because (as mainstream plasma physicists are now aware) there are Magnetic fields everywhere and over vast distances. So the temporal/spatial 'scale' is not a 'barrier' to the dynamics WITHIN the plasma 'cloud' just because it covers vast reaches and is moving long times/distances.

DS, you conflate YOUR perspective/expectation/interpretation with objective internal dynamics occurring PRECISELY BECAUSE of motion/range differences between Electrons/Protons.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
@RC, there isn't any "electron current" that moves faster than light.

You're lying again, @RC. Just stop.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, there isn't any "electron current" that moves faster than light.
Who said there was? That is YOUR perspective which ignores the reality of instability due to whatever speed differences there are between currents of electrons and the main body of the plasma constituents (protons, molecules, dust etc) which move at whatever speed they move at in the applicable circumstances.

Just because YOU strawman 'supelunimal speeds' at me doesn't mean the reality isn't doing what its doing as mainstream now knows it does, as I alluded to. Please separate YOUR fixations/strawmen from the real physical phenomena involved.

The plasma is unstable by its nature/dynamics, DS; else it would not BE a plasma, would it? And we NOW know energetic electron currents which move quickly in any direction can both generate, affect and be affected by internal/ambient magnetic fields; THAT is what drives the INSTABILITY at ALL temporal/spatial scales.

PS: Drop the insults, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Who said there was?
You did. You said it was "unstable" and denied that time scales had anything to do with it, @RC:
the internal dynamics is UNstable because (as mainstream plasma physicists are now aware) there are Magnetic fields everywhere and over vast distances. So the temporal/spatial 'scale' is not a 'barrier' to the dynamics


You're lying again, @RC. Just stop. This is going to be another one of those threads where you get caught lying and get reminded of it over and over again. It's almost more than will fit in a post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Let's review, since it seems necessary again:
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
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html

This guy always lies. Simple as that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Who said there was?
You did. You said it was "unstable" and denied that time scales had anything to do with it, @RC:
the internal dynamics is UNstable because (as mainstream plasma physicists are now aware) there are Magnetic fields everywhere and over vast distances. So the temporal/spatial 'scale' is not a 'barrier' to the dynamics


You're lying again, @RC. Just stop. This is going to be another one of those threads where you get caught lying and get reminded of it over and over again. It's almost more than will fit in a post.
The temporal/spatial scale of the EVOLUTIONARY trajectory of the phenomena under study; NOT the 'speed barrier' of your strawman. Please separate YOUR misunderstandings from the objective reality being discussed, DS. Thanks.

PS: Your persistence in gratuitously insulting while being wrong is your Achilles Heel in intellect/argument, CS. It betrays your intellect and all objective scientific ideals. Not good.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
OK, @RC, so lets review here: basically you're admitting that on human time scales "frozen in" is a good description of a double layer or a shock wave moving through a plasma cloud that's thousands of light years wide. Is that correct?

Let's see whether this guy admits he lied above, or chooses to transparently and explicitly lie here and now.

I'll just point out that I'm listening to Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" just now. Seems pretty appropriate, in a couple of different ways.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
BTW, @RC, if you want me to stop pointing out you lie, stop lying. If you do it it's not an insult; just a note on your regular behavior, which you repeat over and over ad nauseum apparently because you think everyone but you is stupid and won't notice. I find it disgusting, quite frankly, and insulting to the entire forum. If you want me to stop noting it, stop doing it.

Just stop lying, @RC. You sound like Peewee Herman. Nobody believes it, and nobody can fail to notice it who interacts with you over more than a couple of posts. You are hated here by everyone who knows anything. You should either turn over another leaf or leave.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
OK, @RC, so lets review here: basically you're admitting that on human time scales "frozen in" is a good description of a double layer or a shock wave moving through a plasma cloud that's thousands of light years wide. Is that correct? Let's see whether this guy admits he lied above, or....
Why keep trying to pre-dispose the discussion like that by strawmanning me, DS? Are you afraid you will be shown to be incorrect while you insult again? Stop it; and actually discuss fairly without 'framing' others beforehand, ok? Thanks.

Re your "frozen in" descriptor:

NO, I do not 'admit' it at any scale/level. That is as bad as "magnetic reconnection" descriptor. They mislead from get-go.

UNDERSTAND: Plasma is UNSTABLE. Period. It NEVER 'settles' in mag-fields or charge-currents. Period. At ANY scale. Period.

That is what MAINSTREAM has NOW confirmed. The OLD 'frozen in' and 'magnetic reconnection' descriptors are NOW OBSOLETE. Don't use them anymore, DS!

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@RC, it's not a strawman to note you lie. It's also not a strawman to note you presented a strawman argument. The pre-disposition toward noting you lie and assuming every post you make has a lie in it is supported by the fact that you have been proven to lie, and the fact that every post you make has a lie in it. It's not insulting; it's the plain simple brute fact supported by your own posts. I have tried multiple times to engage you on the basis that you were serious and been met by lies and subtle insults every time. Sorry, man, you'll have to fix that and keep at it a long, long time before I'll believe anything you say or respond in any way but to find the lie in your post and make it clear to everyone.

In this post, you start with lies:
Why keep trying to pre-dispose the discussion like that by strawmanning me
Every single post you make, @RC. Every single one contains a lie.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
it's not a strawman to note you lie. It's also not a strawman to note you presented a strawman argument. The pre-disposition toward noting you lie and assuming every post you make has a lie in it is supported by the fact that you have been proven to lie, and the fact that every post you make has a lie in it. It's not insulting; it's the plain simple brute fact supported by your own posts. I have tried multiple times to engage you on the basis that you were serious and been met by lies and subtle insults every time. Sorry, man, you'll have to fix that and keep at it a long, long time before I'll believe anything you say or respond in any way but to find the lie in your post and make it clear to everyone
Why do this to yourself/your credibility, DS?

RECALL: You yelled "liar" in the plasmoids-in-sun discussion! You were CERTAIN they did not exist! You were WRONG!

You never apologized for callig ME "liar", DS; as I/others tried to inform you they DID exist. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@RC, when you always lie you aren't credible when you claim someone else lied. Sorry but that's reality. Your lie in this post: you imply I never changed my view. I did, when presented with credible evidence I was wrong. This is something you are incapable of. If you are, do it now. Admit it, @RC: you were wrong when you claimed there isn't any possibility of "frozen in" interactions in interstellar plasma. Just admit it, like I did. Man up and take the hit and move on, like I did.

Stop lying, @RC. Just stop. It's not going to work, ever. All it will do is make everyone hate you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, when you always lie you aren't credible when you claim someone else lied. Sorry but that's reality.

Stop lying, @RC. Just stop. It's not going to work, ever. All it will do is make everyone hate you.
Did you even read my previous post pointing out how you accuse people of "lying" at the drop of a hat while being wrong? Go and read it. I even recalled an example of your over employing of ego-centric accusatory tactics in lieu of being correct on the science/ethics.

You are again 'projecting' your own character/actions onto others, DS.

Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
If you can't admit you were wrong, @RC, you have no courage, no honor, no shame, and no credibility. That's the simple brute fact. Until you learn to have enough humility to admit you might be wrong, you cannot progress and you'll be the same lying troll you are right now, and everyone will hate you.

Here's your lie in this post: I don't accuse anyone of lying "at the drop of a hat." You have lied over and over and over and over and over and over and over again; sorry, but after you've done that it's perfectly reasonable to figure everything you say is a lie. After all, you lie in every post. And for the most prideful and trivial of reasons. You are a really lousy excuse for a human being, @RC.

Stop lying, @RC. Just stop.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. How you are podna? I am good, just dandy.

Since ol Really-Skippy has ruined another good article, I don't feel bad about making an objective REALITY based unbiased correct all along comment of my my own.

@RC. Just stop.
I hope you have the patience Cher. We been waiting for 10 or 9 years and he never even slowed down long enough to tie his shoe that keeps falling off.

All it will do is make everyone hate you.
That would have been good advice about 10 or 9 years ago, but it is too late for that now.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
Hey, @Ira. Doin' well, thanks for asking. Listening to "Tempus Fugit" by Yes just at the moment; Drama is a great album. Drinkin' a Pacifico and getting some herb and garlic chicken ready. Just figuring out Microsoft's eclectic implementation of Kerberos for one of my customers.

Hope springs eternal, man. ;) Be a shame if no one ever engaged @RC right where it lives and lies; you never know, maybe it might decide to stop lying and grow some courage, honor, shame, and credibility. Like you I doubt it, but hey, nothing much wasted by trying; I got nothing better to do until the herbed chicken is done. :D
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@DS.
If you can't admit you were wrong, @RC, you have no courage, no honor, no shame, and no credibility. That's the simple brute fact. Until you learn to have enough humility to admit you might be wrong, you cannot progress and you'll be the same lying troll you are right now, and everyone will hate you. Here's your lie in this post: I don't accuse anyone of lying "at the drop of a hat." You have lied over and over and over and over and over and over and over again; sorry, but after you've done that it's perfectly reasonable to figure everything you say is a lie. After all, you lie in every post. And for the most prideful and trivial of reasons. You are a really lousy excuse for a human being, @RC.
I gave example for you/members to recall. You accused me/others of "lying" despite you being wrong and I/others correct all along. We patiently endured your now-infamous psychopathy compelling you to accuse others of "lying". Pitiable. Stop 'projecting'; stop 'digging', DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. How you are podna? I am good, just dandy.

Since ol Really-Skippy has ruined another good article, I don't feel bad about making an objective REALITY based unbiased correct all along comment of my my own.

@RC. Just stop.
I hope you have the patience Cher. We been waiting for 10 or 9 years and he never even slowed down long enough to tie his shoe that keeps falling off.

All it will do is make everyone hate you.
That would have been good advice about 10 or 9 years ago, but it is too late for that now.
That a bot-voting ignoramus troll accuses the WRONG poster for 'ruining a good article' is not surprising, since he obviously doesn't know what's what while he bot-votes insensibly. Pitiable.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Hey, @Ira. Doin' well, thanks for asking. Listening to "Tempus Fugit" by Yes just at the moment; Drama is a great album. Drinkin' a Pacifico and getting some herb and garlic chicken ready. Just figuring out Microsoft's eclectic implementation of Kerberos for one of my customers.

Hope springs eternal, man. ;) Be a shame if no one ever engaged @RC right where it lives and lies; you never know, maybe it might decide to stop lying and grow some courage, honor, shame, and credibility. Like you I doubt it, but hey, nothing much wasted by trying; I got nothing better to do until the herbed chicken is done. :D
Your eager clutching of straws, even from bot-voting ignoramuses, in order to distract from your own grievous errors and failures in science and ethics, is no longer surprising, DS. Poor Uncle Ira trots out whenever he sees that his 'preferred skippys' are in dire straights due to their own arrogant belief they are correct even when they are not. Pathetic.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@RC, I gave six examples, the latest on this thread. And there are more spread over a decade or more of you lying; hundreds of them quite frankly. Your cred is shot, you have no honor, you have no decency, you have no courage, you have no shame, and you give every evidence of continuing down this path with no ability to introspect and no sense of how transparent you are to everyone who has a mentality north of an IQ of 80. I have no hesitation in pointing out that you lie since you have done it so much. If you can only give one example of me being wrong in which I admitted it and changed my mind, the contrast between what you do and what I do is obvious to anyone paying attention.

Your lie in this post is: "I gave example." You gave an example of me discovering I was wrong and changing my mind, something you have demonstrated no capability for because you have no honor, shame, courage, credibility, decency, or ability to stop lying.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I gave six examples, the latest on this thread. And there are more spread over a decade or more of you lying; hundreds of them quite frankly. Your cred is shot, you have no honor, you have no decency, you have no courage, you have no shame, and you give every evidence of continuing down this path with no ability to introspect and no sense of how transparent you are to everyone who has a mentality north of an IQ of 80.you do and what I do is obvious to anyone paying attention.
You spammed lies and half-truth, DS. No substitute for being correct, DS.

Your lie in this post is: "I gave example." You gave an example of me discovering I was wrong and changing my mind, something you have demonstrated no capability for because you have no honor, shame, courage, credibility, decency, or ability to stop lying.
You're in denial, DS. You NEVER apologized to me for FREQUENTLY calling me "liar" due to your OWN ignorance. You're STILL doing it, DS. Learn, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
Getting back to the thread, it seems that @cantthink and @RC are incapable of understanding why a shockwave that takes longer than the age of the universe to propagate through a plasma cloud might be called "frozen in" despite it being obvious that such an effect will appear static from the point of view we have. They continue to lie about this despite the obvious physical effects including the speed of light. This is because admitting they are wrong would conflict with their EUdiot Velikovskyoid mythology, and cause them intolerable cognitive dissonance, causing extreme pain in their teeny tiny collections of a few neurons.

There is no point in paying any attention to these trolls; just vote them down and move on.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? (That is the rhetoric question, I can see how you are.) I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I see you still obsessed about how I use the vote the nice peoples at physorg give to me. Cher, how many times over the years I offered to quit giving you the '1' karma votes if you would be nicer? I bet it was a couple of hundreds. Anyhoo, you vote the way you want, and I will vote the way I want. That is how voting works. If it worked different, then the nice peoples at physorg would let you push my vote button. And since they are more smart and nice to do something as silly as that, you just got to play by the rules Skippy.

If you want better votes, you have to DO BETTER DILIGENCE cheery matey.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
You spammed lies and half-truth,
Given the chance to take the path of honor and decency, you always choose instead to lie, @RC. It's indicative of your character.

I will never, ever, ever apologize to you, @RC. I may admit I'm wrong and change my mind, but after all the lies you told and tell, there is no reason to make any apology for assuming ab initio that anything you say is a lie.

And your lie in this post is above: I have never spammed, nor have I ever told a half-truth, and this is demonstrable by the fact that you have no examples to present. I present multiple examples of you lying, and will do so in the next post since you seem bent on continuing your lying, dishonor, shameful behavior, and lack of credibility, courage, and decency.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@RC lies. It's fair to assume that if @RC makes a post, there's a lie in it. Here is a collection of lies that @RC has told recently, for examination for anyone who ever makes the mistake of assuming that anything @RC says is not a lie:
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
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? (That is the rhetoric question, I can see how you are.) I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I see you still obsessed about how I use the vote the nice peoples at physorg give to me. ...

If you want better votes, you..
Keep your '"better votes" for your desperate 'preferred skippys' who crave them in order to help delude themselves they are correct when they are incorrect while they insult instead of being objective/fair in science/discussion. You, Uncle Ira, and your bot-voting stupidity, are a constant reminder of how a 'peer review' and 'discussion' situation can be corrupted by bot-voting ignoramuses and those so-called 'scientists' who profess to respect scientific principles while NOT doing so, and in some cases also go so far as to unashamedly exploit/enable bot-voting ignoramuses to skew metrics and sabotage discussion for their own UNscientific agendas having more to do with ego than with science. Obviously.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
The collection of @RC's lies is getting long enough that it doesn't fit in a single post. The latest thread is this one; I'll be including it in the thread every time I catch @RC lying, and collecting more and more such lie threads by this dishonest, dishonorable, lying, shameful, non-credible, cowardly, indecent individual.

Good bye, @RC liar. Talk to you in a month or two. Stew in your own vile juices until then.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
So now using pseudoscience is ok if is valid on "human timescales". That sounds about right coming from da schnied.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You spammed lies and half-truth,
Given the chance to take the path of honor and decency, you always choose instead to lie, @RC. It's indicative of your character.

I will never, ever, ever apologize to you, @RC. I may admit I'm wrong and change my mind, but after all the lies you told and tell, there is no reason to make any apology for assuming ab initio that anything you say is a lie.

And your lie in this post is above: I have never spammed, nor have I ever told a half-truth, and this is demonstrable by the fact that you have no examples to present. I present multiple examples of you lying, and will do so in the next post since you seem bent on continuing your lying, dishonor, shameful behavior, and lack of credibility, courage, and decency.
You're in denial. You're 'projecting'. You're 'rationalizing' away your inability to apologize for calling me "liar"; and trying to 'justify' your abominable persistence in that dishonorable 'tactic', DS.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Let's just remind readers of the raison d'etre of EU:

Nice off topic rant, maybe you would like to point to where any of those individuals were mentioned. Or any of their ideas were mentioned? BTW, are you seven-years-old? That was the last time I heard so much name calling. A psychiatrist and some heavy pharmaceuticals can help you with your uncontrollable emotions.


Hey, s***forbrains,
Still awake yes? Explain to us, in scientific terms, how the moron Thornhill is creating H2O at a comet? Is it scientifically possible? Of course it isn't. What about the loon Scott. and his invisible incoming current to power the Sun? Anything to add to that crap? It is crap. You do realise that, don't you? Please elucidate us, if you believe otherwise. Lol.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@cantthink69, sorry you can't think well enough to see why "frozen in" is a good description of a shockwave propagating through a plasma cloud thousands of light years across. Whining about it won't change the facts, though.

EUdiot Velikovskyoidism was dead decades ago; your inability to comprehend 21st century astrophysics is noted but proves nothing but how stupid you are. Good luck with that.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
So now using pseudoscience is ok if is valid on "human timescales". That sounds about right coming from da schnied.


Quiet, idiot. You are way out of your depth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
It should also be noted, the frozen-in pseudoscience is used on all timescales/sizes of plasmas. It is just as invalid on quantum timescales as it is in the largest of scales. And lest we not forget double layers are completely omitted from MHD/frozen-in plasmas. They cannot exist in those models because DL's must be considered part of a circuit and those pseudoscientific principles do not consider circuitry either.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
Yet another off topic rant. Clearly you are out of meds jonesdumb. Call your psychiatrist STAT!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
the frozen-in pseudoscience is used on all timescales/sizes of plasmas
You're lying again, @cantthink69. Show this being used on solar plasmas, much less quantum plasmas. Or admit, tacitly by not responding with evidence since you won't have the courage to admit you're wrong and there isn't any, that you're lying.

Grow up, and start using that ugly cancerous growth on top of your shoulders for something other than a hat rack.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@cantthink69, sorry you can't think well enough to see why "frozen in" is a good description of a shockwave propagating through a plasma cloud thousands of light years across. Whining about it won't change the facts, though.
Make up your mind, DS. Either it's "propagating through" OR it's "frozen in". You can't have it both ways. The motion/trajectory of overall 'body' or 'cloud' of plasma is whatever it is. The Internal Dynamics are whatever they are. You can't use your own 'perspective' for timeline/trajectory to make 'conditional descriptions/claims' for what is actually going on irrespective of scales. Also recall that ambient magnetic fields are also interwoven with the internally generated and fluxing magnetic field patterns/effects irrespective of what stage/location any particular 'part/phase' of the dynamics is 'at' in its evolutionary trajectory locally/overall. It's more subtle/complex/dynamic than terms "frozen in", "magnetic reconnection" imply.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
The new discoveries/reviews I alluded to show that at ALL time/spatial scales, plasma is UNstable, as it moves through magnetic fields ALL the time/everywhere. Also, regardless of the speed/motion of the 'slower' plasma 'body' of Protonic/Nucleonic etc constituents, the Electrons can speed/current in ANY direction! Ok? :)


Instead of alluding to them, why not actually link them? Yes? Just a bleeding thought, eh? I will tell you right now, that you are talking crap. If you would like me to post this as a question on the Q & A section of Cosmoquest, and have it answered by an actual plasma astrophysicist, then fine. Let me know. Trust me, you will lose. You simply are not sufficiently qualified. But, hey; let me know. I'll post it on your behalf, unless you start coming up with references.Yes?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Yet another off topic rant. Clearly you are out of meds jonesdumb. Call your psychiatrist STAT!


Shut up idiot; you are well out of your depth here.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
The new discoveries/reviews I alluded to show that at ALL time/spatial scales, plasma is UNstable, as it moves through magnetic fields ALL the time/everywhere. Also, regardless of the speed/motion of the 'slower' plasma 'body' of Protonic/Nucleonic etc constituents, the Electrons can speed/current in ANY direction! Ok? :)


Instead of alluding to them, why not actually link them? Yes? Just a bleeding thought, eh? I will tell you right now, that you are talking crap. If you would like me to post this as a question on the Q & A section of Cosmoquest, and have it answered by an actual plasma astrophysicist, then fine. Let me know. Trust me, you will lose. You simply are not sufficiently qualified. But, hey; let me know. I'll post it on your behalf, unless you start coming up with references.Yes?
There've been PO articles re fusion power plasma behavior/problems and re astro/cosmo scale plasma behavior which acknowledge instability etc as I said. :)
jonesdave
Jul 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
There've been PO articles re fusion power plasma behavior/problems and re astro/cosmo scale plasma behavior which acknowledge instability etc as I said. :)


Link the papers. Yes? Are you seriously saying that the frozen-in condition is no longer used? Trust me, you are going to get your arse kicked on this. Refer to my post on the particle density v magnetic field strength. You want to keep going down this route? Like I said; you'll lose.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave, everyone.
Shall I post some stuff where Alfven & Falthammar agree with the frozen-in condition? What about a bunch of stuff where Falthammar agrees with magnetic reconnection? Any takers? Helloooo. Second decade of the 21st century now, eh? Wakey, wakey, woo boys. We are not in 1983 any more. Grow the f*** up. Yes?
You and everyone would be better employed in catching up with what's happening now rather than rehashing historical battles which may have been overtaken by recent mainstream discovery/review since those 'olden times'. Some things may hold but some things may have been too simplistic/misleading to just keep parroting ad nauseam. Good luck with your respective due diligence, jonesdave, everyone. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
There've been PO articles re fusion power plasma behavior/problems and re astro/cosmo scale plasma behavior which acknowledge instability etc as I said. :)


Link the papers. Yes? Are you seriously saying that the frozen-in condition is no longer used? Trust me, you are going to get your arse kicked on this. Refer to my post on the particle density v magnetic field strength. You want to keep going down this route? Like I said; you'll lose.
It's not a question of the terms being used, it's a question of whether they should still BE used; given the fact mainstream increasingly aware/demonstrating that plasma instability is 'always on' and no 'frozen in' descriptors can ever capture the dynamics as it is in reality, be it at lab or astro/cosmo temporal/spatial evolutionary scales.

Mate, be less gung-ho, more sober. Read up, catch up, but do so without confirmation biases or preconclusions based on 'old' terminologies that may have misled. Cheers.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
You and everyone would be better employed in catching up with what's happening now rather than rehashing historical battles which may have been overtaken by recent mainstream discovery/review since those 'olden times'. Some things may hold but some things may have been too simplistic/misleading to just keep parroting ad nauseam. Good luck with your respective due diligence, jonesdave, everyone. :)


Yep, and we don't need to be told that by someone who is not involved in the science. Eh? Like I said; if you want, I'll put your question up on Cosmoquest. Then you can defend it. Unlikely, eh? Don't need a plasma astrophysicist telling you that you are bleeding clueless, eh? Best to make out that you understand stuff on a place like this. Yes? Same old, same old. Yawn.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Shall I reiterate for the idiots? Magnetic field energy density / plasma particle kinetic energy density <<1, means a short term model where the field is frozen-in is perfectly bleeding valid. Idiots. Alfven knew that. As does Falthammar,. As does every bloody plasma physicist that works within the field. The EU idiots are reconstructing a 4 decade old strawman, since when plasma frigging physics has moved on. Way beyond Alfven. Yes?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
Yep, and we don't need to be told that by someone who is not involved in the science. Eh? Like I said; if you want, I'll put your question up on Cosmoquest. Then you can defend it.
You may be laboring under a misapprehension re what I've been doing here/elsewhere, mate. I am not trying to sell/convince you re anything. I will eventually publish my scientific/maths work complete. Until then I 'soundboard' and make observations for your/others info re known/evolving objective scientific discoveries/reviews. Whether you take the time to pause, consider, do your own further due diligence, is up to you. I have no time to do everyone else's due diligence; only my own. Those who ignored my suggestions to do their own due diligence invariably came a cropper. Not my problem. And if I HAD been interested in wasting time on 'approved' sites where 'peer review' is as 'lame' as 'peer review' in 'official' science publishing 'system' has been, I'd be there already! Thanks.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
You may be laboring under a misapprehension re what I've been doing here/elsewhere, mate. I am not trying to sell/convince you re anything. I will eventually publish my scientific/maths work complete. Until then I 'soundboard' and make observations for your/others info re known/evolving objective scientific discoveries/reviews. Whether you take the time to pause, consider, do your own further due diligence, is up to you. I have no time to do everyone else's due diligence; only my own. Those who ignored my suggestions to do their own due diligence invariably came a cropper. Not my problem. And if I HAD been interested in wasting time on 'approved' sites where 'peer review' is as 'lame' as 'peer review' in 'official' science publishing 'system' has been, I'd be there already! Thanks.


Yep, heard that a few times. As I always say, publish or STFU. Yes?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
Yep, heard that a few times. As I always say, publish or STFU. Yes?
I bet you would have been just as rude and impatient if you had been a contemporary of Darwin, Einstein or any other scientist working for DECADES to complete a subtle/complex work before publishing when ready. See? It's that kind of 'instant gratification' mentality that leads to some 'scientists' to put 'publish or perish' imperatives before objective, patient, scientific probity and thoroughness commensurate with the scope of the work involved. In my case it's the whole shebang, as it were. Starting from scratch to work out the reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model same is not something one can do/publish 'piecemeal' just to to satisfy YOUR impatience, mate. Better if you just listened and learned and stopped attacking and deriding, especially if you are not engaged in such a wide-scope works as I have been for decades. It will be published when I am satisfied it's done. :)
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2017
Just a little note to RC; this is not about what you believe. That is irrelevant. You publish, then fair enough. This is about the EU cretins. I have explained, and am happy to do so again, why they are scientifically illiterate idiots. It is not difficult. Which is why we do not need loons like cd telling us stuff which is way beyond his pay grade. These are people who believe in electric suns, electric comets, and that frigging Saturn was somewhere near Earth in the recent past!. Loony tunes, or what? It is Velikovskian woo. End of story. These people are frigging clueless. It is impossible to have any kind of scientific debate with them, because science is totally beyond them. A total irrelevance.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2017
.........'publish or perish' imperatives before objective, patient, scientific probity and thoroughness commensurate with the scope of the work involved. In my case it's the whole shebang, as it were. Starting from scratch to work out the reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model same is not something one can do/publish 'piecemeal' just to to satisfy YOUR impatience, mate. Better if you just listened and learned and stopped attacking and deriding, especially if you are not engaged in such a wide-scope works as I have been for decades. It will be published when I am satisfied it's done. :)


Then may I rephrase? Until you publish, STFU?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
Just a little note to RC; this is not about what you believe. That is irrelevant. You publish, then fair enough. This is about the EU cretins. I have explained, and am happy to do so again, why they are scientifically illiterate idiots. It is not difficult. Which is why we do not need loons like cd telling us stuff which is way beyond his pay grade. These are people who believe in electric suns, electric comets, and that frigging Saturn was somewhere near Earth in the recent past!. Loony tunes, or what? It is Velikovskian woo. End of story. These people are frigging clueless. It is impossible to have any kind of scientific debate with them, because science is totally beyond them. A total irrelevance.
Forget past battles; look forward. :)

I've NO 'beliefs'; only observations/insights I've posted from time to time over years; which have been attacked/ignored etc by some who prefer gang-tactics, ego-tripping etc over objective scientific discussion.

Best. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
It's worth mentioning that azzholes just like @RC and @cantthink69 and the rest of the EUdiots who insist science "produce something" are the exact, only reason that "publish or perish" exists. So they create the conditions that make the problem, then point out the problem and want everyone to have heartache over it.

GTFOOTW of science and stop lying and whinging while the scientists do the work you're incompetent, too stupid, and don't have the integrity to do, K?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
...'publish or perish' imperatives before objective, patient, scientific probity and thoroughness commensurate with the scope of the work involved. In my case it's the whole shebang, as it were. Starting from scratch to work out the reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model same is not something one can do/publish 'piecemeal' just to to satisfy YOUR impatience, mate. Better if you just listened and learned and stopped attacking and deriding, especially if you are not engaged in such a wide-scope works as I have been for decades. It will be published when I am satisfied it's done. :)
Then may I rephrase? Until you publish, STFU?
I have a suspicion you meant that as a harmless jesting poke in the ribs, as it were. If not, then it is a sad and sorry state of affairs when someone who purports to care about science advancing is trying to dictate who or what may be involved in scientific discourse here or elsewhere. I hope it was just in jest. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's worth mentioning that azzholes just like @RC and @cantthink69 and the rest of the EUdiots who insist science "produce something" are the exact, only reason that "publish or perish" exists. So they create the conditions that make the problem, then point out the problem and want everyone to have heartache over it.

GTFOOTW of science and stop lying and whinging while the scientists do the work you're incompetent, too stupid, and don't have the integrity to do, K?
Is that the best example you can set the younger generation of would-be scientists, DS? You conflate everyone who disagrees with you as being all the same. Your emotional (drunk-posting?) tirades and insults are no substitute for proper respectful polite discourse, especially if you are wrong, DS. Please try to sober up and drop your compulsions to insult before you even know whether you are right or wrong on a matter. Get/Do better soon, DS.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
I've NO 'beliefs'; only observations/insights I've posted from time to time over years; which have been attacked/ignored etc by some who prefer gang-tactics, ego-tripping etc over objective scientific discussion.

Best. :)


In which case, you need to publish said work. Posting it on a medium such as this does you no favours! You are falling into the trap of believing that anybody gives a damn about what is posted on an irrelevant sci-news site like this. Never matters, never will. And this goes for the idiot Thornhill, and his faithful. Anything to say? Want to influence scientific thinking? Publish. Do some frigging work. Stop making it so easy to take this crap down. Do real science. (Solar wind making H2O! FFS!)
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Grow up, and start using that ugly cancerous growth on top of your shoulders for something other than a hat rack.


I laughed!

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.

Again, you seem to be under a misapprehension of what I am here for. This is a news reading/comments/discussion site. I am not 'publishing' my work as such. I make occasional observations/insights/suggestions/reminders etc in discussion, on the thread topic and/or on side-topic discussions. I am not 'publishing' my work as such. I merely post as indicated occasional reminders/observations/insights etc for the benefit of discussion/others info. Period. As for your disdain for this site, you'd be surprised who reads through such sites as these when they do google enquiries on subject/discussion terms which relate to what they have published/mooted 'officially' in the relevant approved science publishing/discussion venues/papers. It pays for scientists to keep abreast of how their work/ideas is being received by the 'unofficial' venues/commentators, and many do so as part of their daily routine for checking feedback and new ideas etc. Don't be 'elitist', mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
From Da Schneib to @cantdrive: Grow up, and start using that ugly cancerous growth on top of your shoulders for something other than a hat rack.


From @jonesdave to Da Schneib/Forum: I laughed!

Mate, if you laugh while the science principles and behavioral ethics goes by the board like that, then it explains why your attention to scientific objectivity is being eroded in you. Leave the insults and cheap shots to those who have nothing better to offer science discourse/advancement. Either you are serious scientist or you're not. There are no 'half measures' when applying scientific/humanity principles/ethics. Decide which path you want to follow, mate. :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2017

(snipped for brevity. And sanity)...........It pays for scientists to keep abreast of how their work/ideas is being received by the 'unofficial' venues/commentators, and many do so as part of their daily routine for checking feedback and new ideas etc. Don't be 'elitist', mate. :)


I have communicated with scientists. Occasionally just to get a clarification, or explanation, whilst doing a degree. To a man and woman, they have been excellent in providing answers. When I have occasionally brought idiocy like EU to their attention (such as during the Rosetta mission), their response has unanimously been: "what the f*** is EU?" Hell, I even wrote to a scientist re the ice seen at 103P/ Hartley 2. She'd heard of some sort of weird antimatter sh*te regards the comet, but not EU! Way to go guys. How to get the message out there, eh? Repeat after me; we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, et boring cetera.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017


Mate, if you laugh while the science principles and behavioral ethics goes by the board like that, then it explains why your attention to scientific objectivity is being eroded in you. Leave the insults and cheap shots to those who have nothing better to offer science discourse/advancement. Either you are serious scientist or you're not. There are no 'half measures' when applying scientific/humanity principles/ethics. Decide which path you want to follow, mate. :)


I followed it mate. I did science. Yes? I do not come on here telling people that are better qualified than I am that they are wrong. I know my limitations. I am not stupid enough to believe that I can change scientific thinking by posting on here. I don't even try. Therein lies the difference.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jonesdave.
I have communicated with scientists. Occasionally just to get a clarification, or explanation, whilst doing a degree. To a man and woman, they have been excellent in providing answers. When I have occasionally brought idiocy like EU to their attention (such as during the Rosetta mission), their response has unanimously been: "what the f*** is EU?" Hell, I even wrote to a scientist re the ice seen at 103P/ Hartley 2. She'd heard of some sort of weird antimatter sh*te regards the comet, but not EU! Way to go guys. How to get the message out there, eh? Repeat after me; we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, et boring cetera.
I wasn't alluding to EU crowd doings. I am NOT in any 'crowd'. I differentiate between things; do not conflate matters. The point I made was that a wise scientist nowadays HAS to be aware of INTERNET potential for widening scientific discourse, getting new ideas previously missed by limited 'closed shop' mentality etc. Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@jhonesdave.
I followed it mate. I did science. Yes?
Good on you.
I do not come on here telling people that are better qualified than I am that they are wrong.
Good on you for that also.
I know my limitations. I am not stupid enough to believe that I can change scientific thinking by posting on here. I don't even try. Therein lies the difference.
And therein lies the difference, indeed. I post here for the reasons I already made clear. Whether you or any other scientist takes note or not is their problem, not mine. I have no intention of dictating what they will read/understand. That is their lookout. My lookout so far here/elsewhere has been to do what I can to further objective science discourse no matter where it may arise or who may be the participants/ideas involved. Insofar as the topic articles discussion I make posts as I see fit that may help encourage objective discussion/understanding of the matter at hand. No more; no less. Good luck to you. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
I am NOT in any 'crowd'
i beg to differ

you're in the liar crowd (demonstrated and validated yourself in your own words yet again here: https://phys.org/...ure.html )

you're also in the pseudoscience crowd (not only because the above link, but you don't understand what the scientific principle is, & because when you make claims that can't be substantiated, and you've done that plenty, then it's directly against the principles of science and it's methodology)
a wise scientist nowadays HAS to be aware of INTERNET potential for widening scientific discourse
they do

that is why there is a peer review system and they require evidence for claims
it limits the discourse to relevant evidence based argument or constrained science based extrapolation

6,924 posts and you still lie, still can't produce evidence, still based your argument on false claims
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2017
Let me make this clear; the internet is a useful place for organisations, such as NASA or ESA to promote their missions. ESAs Rosetta blog was excellent (apart from the EU nutters, who, to a man, had disappeared by the end of the mission). What it isn't, is a place to change scientific thinking. Not going to happen. Scientific literature. That is where it happens. Without fail. You are not going to post anything on here, or dunderbolts, or anywhere else, that makes a scintilla of difference. Ever. Not going to happen. The sooner people realise that, the better. Nobody gives a toss what is posted here. Rightly so. You have a point to make? Do it in the scientific literature. Which comes back to my point (to anyone); publish, or STFU.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Why keep doing this? You know by now that your kind of trolling malice has been rejected by those who previously 'supported' you because it suited their own agendas. As the 'paddoboy' case over at Sciforums has demonstrated, even the most hardened naysayers and trolls in the 'gang' get fed up with such relentless irrelevant and malignant trolling as you and 'paddoboy' brought to practically every (otherwise interesting and polite) scientific discussion. That malignancy was observed by members of Sciforums. Whenever paddoboy turned up in a thread the malignancy and irrelevance post count went through the roof. He was poisonous to good discussion on merits. Your posts have been doing the same for years now, CS. Take the lesson from the 'paddoboy' fiasco over at Sciforums. They got sick of him and told him so. He is no longer there. He took the hint. Why don't you, CS? Be/Do better. Don't keep sabotaging discussion with malicious intent. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2017
@jonesdave.
Let me make this clear; the internet is a useful place for organisations, such as NASA or ESA to promote their missions. ESAs Rosetta blog was excellent (apart from the EU nutters, who, to a man, had disappeared by the end of the mission). What it isn't, is a place to change scientific thinking. Not going to happen. Scientific literature. That is where it happens. Without fail.
You appear to think science 'appears out of nowhere fully formed and settled at published paper stage', mate. That's not how it works in reality. Ideas arise in the most unlikely places/times sometimes. Serendipitously, and even DESPITE prior conditioning to other approaches. The 'aha' moment can strike anyone who has understood the underlying reality, irrespective of their 'training'; even outside the field altogether. And you want to delimit/ignore full potential of Internet? And its ongoing evolution as to who/what can be done via it for science process? Don't underestimate it. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
They got sick of him and told him so
ROTFLMFAO
that is not what happened at all, you idiot!

you would know that if you had not been repeatedly banned for doing the exact same thing you do here on PO

so either you can't read or you're making sh*t up again
You appear to think science 'appears out of nowhere fully formed
and you appear to think that just calling yourself objective and a scientist makes you either one

PROTIP - it doesn't

Only the evidence can determine that

and to date, the evidence (6,926 posts of it) shows you're a liar and you can't substantiate your claims

that's not debatable, and you validated it in your own words here: https://phys.org/...ure.html

so by all means, continue to backpedal and hope someone believes your lies
you will continue to get downrated by anyone who is literate
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2017

You appear to think science 'appears out of nowhere fully formed.............. even outside the field altogether. And you want to delimit/ignore full potential of Internet? And its ongoing evolution as to who/what can be done via it for science process? Don't underestimate it. :)


Crap. Give one example. Publish it. or you are not even in the conversation. There has been nothing accomplished by internet warriors in the scientific field. Remember all those Velikovskian magazines, back in the day? Kronos and others? How long has the EU cretinry been around? Seen them making headway? Via dunderdolts? Via youtube? No, of course not. Sh*te is sh*te. Back it up, scientifically,.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
They got sick of him and told him so
ROTFLMFAO
that is not what happened at all, you idiot!
Oh dear, you are in denial and saying anything that comes to your rationalizing mind now, CS. The posts can be seen by anyone even if they are not logged in. He got angry and insulted the mods for castigating him on his relentless negativity and poisonous attacks on people instead of sticking to objective and polite science discourse on topic and on science. He left rather than be booted out. The comments of his erstwhile 'followers', while commiserating, were also frank about his malignant effect/behavior on any thread he entered. Poor 'paddoboy'. Now even more poor 'Stumpy', it seems. At least paddoboy saw he had gone too far. You apparently haven't that level of self-awareness yet, Stumpy. Maybe in the near future you may attain that level of self-awareness, Stumpy. Until then, take care of yourself, CS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2017
@jonesdave.

You appear to think science 'appears out of nowhere fully formed.............. even outside the field altogether. And you want to delimit/ignore full potential of Internet? And its ongoing evolution as to who/what can be done via it for science process? Don't underestimate it. :)


Crap. Give one example. Publish it. or you are not even in the conversation. There has been nothing accomplished by internet warriors in the scientific field. Remember all those Velikovskian magazines, back in the day? Kronos and others? How long has the EU cretinry been around?
Why the fixation on EU/past battles, mate? It's NOW/FUTURE you should be looking at. Forget all that old nonsense. Start afresh with what is known now, by mainstream. I observe the potential and process for science in ANY venue where ideas can flow freely and be considered objectively. The INTERNET is the 'new coffee shop' where many minds discussed many things. Eureka! It happens thus, mate. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2017
I've NO 'beliefs'; only observations/insights I've posted from time to time over years;

which you BELIEVE are correct... But offer no substantive evidence of...
which have been attacked/ignored etc by some who prefer gang-tactics, ego-tripping etc over objective scientific discussion.

Once again, an observation/insight which you BELIEVE...
Ergo, something you have convinced yourself of to explain a lack of acceptance of your OTHER beliefs....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2017
@Whyde.
I've NO 'beliefs'; only observations/insights I've posted from time to time over years;
which you BELIEVE are correct... But offer no substantive evidence of...
which have been attacked/ignored etc by some who prefer gang-tactics, ego-tripping etc over objective scientific discussion.
Once again, an observation/insight which you BELIEVE...
Ergo, something you have convinced yourself of to explain a lack of acceptance of your OTHER beliefs....
You mistake me for yourself and any other person so non-objective as to not check with reality before arriving at conclusions. For example, like in the Bicep2 situation, I checked the reality for myself and arrived at the conclusion that your/others' 'belief' in Bicep2 claims was NOT objectively based. See what I did there, Whyde? A conclusion based on objectively checked reality is NOT mere 'belief' but 'scientific conclusion'. Your 'belief', that a scientific conclusion is mere 'belief', is just silly. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2017
Geez, @Whyde, it said that? So it was lying about that whole ToE thing too, looks like. Now all we have to do when it starts lying about it again is link this thread and post that quote.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2017
A conclusion based on objectively checked reality

...which you could neither explain nor corroborate (despite being asked dozens of times).
Not impressed.

You tried a con (here, of all places...the sheer hubris of this is mind-boggeling) and it blew up in your face. If ever anything disqualified you terminally it was the lack of backup to your claims on this matter.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? Alright, I see you are about the same. I am good, thanks for asking.

It pays for scientists to keep abreast of how their work/ideas is being received by the 'unofficial' venues/commentators, and many do so as part of their daily routine for checking feedback and new ideas etc.
I bet that makes you mad, eh Cher? This is all you got for checking on your feedback and the feedback that you get.

I am NOT in any 'crowd'.
But you are the Earthman Club, a crowd of one Skippy.
http://earthlingclub.com/

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You are not the scientist. You got to go to school for that. And a Earthman Playhouse is not a laboratory. It's where the kids and demented grownups hang out.

Laissez les bons temps rouler. How you like me now Skippy?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
@Forum.
Geez, @Whyde, it said that? So it was lying about that whole ToE thing too, looks like. Now all we have to do when it starts lying about it again is link this thread and post that quote.
Da Schneib is so transparent in his strawmanning/lie-manufacturing, it's alarming!

To think that such characters as DS can so self-servingly betray all good scientific objectivity/humanity ethics!

In this age of supposed high enlightenment; and on the Internet for all to see too!

@DS, don't pretend to use Whyde as the 'source' of your own lies. It's not only dishonest but also a cowardly slur on Whyde's own character; Whyde wouldn't lie like you do DS.

Whyde is honest even when mistaken.

But YOU, @DS, are BOTH mistaken AND dishonest.

As the above attempt to 'frame' and 'manufacture' yet another lie demonstrates!

All PO readers now see for themselves how little regard YOU have for science and humanity ideals, DS.

You, DS, are a nasty self-demonstrated disgrace. Yuk.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
@antialias.
A conclusion based on objectively checked reality
...which you could neither explain nor corroborate (despite being asked dozens of times).
Not impressed.

You tried a con (here, of all places...the sheer hubris of this is mind-boggeling) and it blew up in your face. If ever anything disqualified you terminally it was the lack of backup to your claims on this matter.
That's some self-serving industrial strength 'rationalizing' you have going there, anti. :)

No amount of that can detract from the fact you/gang were 'believing' Bicep2 crap; and 'bashing cranks' with your flawed claims/beliefs; due to your bias/ego-tripping disregard for scientific objectivity.

I clearly suggested YOU checked the Bicep2 work/claims for YOUR selves, objectively.

But you/gang preferred to attack the messenger instead!

Your failures are not my doing, antialias; they are due to YOUR ego-tripping eagerness to NOT follow scientific principles while 'bashing cranks'. Shame.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Laissez les bons temps rouler. How you like me now Skippy?
You keep proving how gangs of bot-voting ignoramuses can corrupt/skew 'peer review' systems and metrics. Just as has been occurring in the 'official' science peer-review system for decades (as Penrose and Steinhardt and me/others have pointed out). That a 'gang' of disgraceful liars and ignoramuses depends on '5's from and 'defending' by such anti-science trolls as you, Ira, is all too sadly telling of how low they have come in both integrity and self-awareness. Pitiable.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2017
One last point to da schnied and jonesdumb, the time factor you raise to justify claiming frozen-in fields is utter bollocks. The fact that dispells the use of the the pseudoscientific principle is plasmas aee not perfect conductors. That simple fact refutes all claims the frozen-in conditions are valid.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2017
One last point to da schnied and jonesdumb, the time factor you raise to justify claiming frozen-in fields is utter bollocks. The fact that dispells the use of the the pseudoscientific principle is plasmas aee not perfect conductors. That simple fact refutes all claims the frozen-in conditions are valid.


Crap. As Alfven would tell you. Like me to dig out the reference, dear?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2017
Crap. As Alfven would tell you. Like me to dig out the reference, dear?


While I'm at it, why don't I dig out a few references to Carl-Gunne backing up MRx? I'm sure you've seen them before. and have never been able, or prepared, to comment on them. Why not start now, genius? Was C-G Falthammar a tosspot, who went over to the dark side? Yes or frigging no? Do you think the fact that he lived longer than Alfven (who had given up on plasma physics by the late 80s) might have changed his mind? Because he saw results that were incontrovertible? What do you think, genius? Let us know. Especially if you want the references to prove you wrong.
Here's a thought; get out of the 1980s, and try to understand plasma physics as it is in the 2nd decade of the 20th century. Jerk.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2017
OK, I posted this a while ago:
Shall I reiterate for the idiots? Magnetic field energy density / plasma particle kinetic energy density <<1, means a short term model where the field is frozen-in is perfectly bleeding valid


Anybody with a relevant degree like to object? If so, it should be bloody obvious. Eh? Please point us to who is claiming otherwise. Within the last 10 years.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2017
@cantthink69, whether or not plasma is a perfect conductor has nothing to do with the speed of light. You're lying again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2017
Here, I'll explain it again for the hard-of-thinking:

Picture a plasma cloud a thousand light years across. How long does it take for the fastest possible disturbance to cross it? Duh, a thousand years at the speed of light.

Now, how long does it take a sonic disturbance to cross it? Depends on the speed of sound. Above we see that the speed of sound in a plasma is five orders of magnitude slower than the speed of light. So obviously it takes five orders of magnitude longer. That would be, duh, a hundred million years.

Now given that, and given the fact that a thousand light year wide star forming nebula is a pretty small one, I think it's fair to call any feature caused by double layers or shock waves "frozen in."

If you disagree post some evidence. Or at least post some sort of rational argument other than "[it's] utter bollocks."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2017
And if you want to see some visual evidence, go take a look at the famous Hubble shot titled "Pillars of Creation." If you have a good enough telescope you can take a picture of the region Hubble imaged (it's the Eagle Nebula) yourself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2017
FYI.

Regardless of the electron/proton-ion disturbance/sonic velocities, the changes in the electric field energy status is transmitted at almost the speed of light (you can see this when you switch a power station 'on' and the electricity (em energy wave) travels to your home at almost lightspeed to appear 'almost immediately' there even if it's hundreds of kilometers away.

So, talking of the 'speed' of space plasma constituents/disturbances, is only PART of the FULLER dynamics/effects which can affect the whole cloud from end to end/side to side, even as plasma 'sonic wave' disturbance propagates at ITS applicable velocity in that plasma cloud.

Please don't make simplistic/non-sequitur arguments based on 'speed'. Use the fuller ELECTRO-MAGNETIC dynamical phenomena that arises in reality.

Good luck and good thinking. :)
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2017
@RC
Every single time you put something in quotation marks, it completely detracts from any point you are trying to get across. When i read a post you have written that has dozens of words in quotations, it seems that you don't know what you are actually trying to say, or embellishing way beyond the truth, and I struggle to take any of it seriously.
But beyond that, you really do lack the ability to support the points you try to prove with any relevant information or supportive links. Just my two cents.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2017
@cantthink69, whether or not plasma is a perfect conductor has nothing to do with the speed of light. You're lying again.

Really, you don't say. Oh, and neither did I. If you knew anything about anything you might realize that a prerequisite of the 'frozen-in' condition is that the plasma must be a perfect conductor. This is what Alfven explained when he proposed both MHD physics and the frozen-in condition way back in the1930's-1940's. It is a plain and simple fact. You are promoting the use of pseudoscience. It is a plain and simple fact.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2017
@691Boat.
Every single time you put something in quotation marks, it completely detracts from any point you are trying to get across...

But beyond that, you really do lack the ability to support the points you try to prove with any relevant information or supportive links.
Quotation marks were invented for very cogent reasons. One reason is to indicate that the term/word/phrase is open to other interpretations (or intentional MIS-interpretations by trolls) depending on context. I use them to alert to possible presumptions and/or forestall intentional misconstruings/strawmanning by those who do not want to read/comprehend fairly. Another reason is that to write out explanations of such subtle/complex matters would require whole textbook paragraphs, especially if novel insights/concepts are also inextricably involved in the developing science. It behooves my interlocutors to do their part to fairly/objectively comprehend in the circumstances. Try harder, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2017
@cantthink69,
If you knew anything about anything you might realize that a prerequisite of the 'frozen-in' condition is that the plasma must be a perfect conductor.
Why? Don't give me "Alfven said so." That's argumentum ad verecundiam. Say why, or admit you have no idea what Alfven meant and whether it's applicable, whether actively or tacitly.

Noted you had no reasonable argument other than "Alfven said so." Sorry, I don't accept arguments from authority unsupported by any indication of why. Looks like I'm more selective than you are, which means I'm more accurate. Which is not surprising since you are an EUdiot.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2017
@RC
When Da Schneib discusses the speed of a disturbance in plasma, you then comment on it and put it in quotations. You are therefore making the word speed (per your definitions) either open to interpretations or you mean the word speed requires textbooks worth of defining. Therefore you are not actually addressing the issue of speed, but instead you are discussing 'speed'. You then later use the word velocity (not in quotations mind you) as if it is better than speed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2017
@691Boat, I see little point in discussing vector addition, much less cross products and dot products, with someone like @RC who hasn't yet figured out the meaning of "one." This individual denies the meaning of mathematics; how can one even begin to address this level of ignorance in order to begin a conversation about vectors, much less make any point they will accept?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2017
@cantthink,
This is what Alfven explained when he proposed both MHD physics and the frozen-in condition way back in the1930's-1940's. It is a plain and simple fact. You are promoting the use of pseudoscience. It is a plain and simple fact.


Alven said, Alfven said, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Why don't you get an education on current plasma physics? And then read up on Alfven? Why was he still producing tables in papers in the 70s and 80s saying where the frozen-in condition WAS appropriate, if he didn't think it was appropriate? How can Alfven suggest that it is valid in some circumstances (more than he realised, actually) when no plasma is a perfect conductor? Was he an idiot? Like you? No, because he knew that it was valid for those conditions due to the reasons I've already given. Which you would know if you knew anything about plasma physics or Alfven.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2017
@691Boat.
@RC
When Da Schneib discusses the speed of a disturbance in plasma, you then comment on it and put it in quotations. You are therefore making the word speed (per your definitions) either open to interpretations or you mean the word speed requires textbooks worth of defining. Therefore you are not actually addressing the issue of speed, but instead you are discussing 'speed'. You then later use the word velocity (not in quotations mind you) as if it is better than speed.
The subtle point is the speed of the 'constituents' disturbance (the 'sonic' propagation of 'matter waves' in applicable plasma) is NOT THE SAME as the speed of propagation of the 'changing electric field' status 'energy waves'. As I explained. That is why I caution against conflating/using 'speed' of EITHER 'wave' type as a basis for the counter-arguments, and concentrate on FULLER ELECTRO-MAGNETIC dynamics.

That is what I tried to get across. Hence necessitating the inverted commas. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2017
@Da Schneib.
..like @RC who hasn't yet figured out the meaning of "one." This individual denies the meaning of mathematics; how can one even begin to address this level of ignorance in order to begin a conversation about vectors,.
It's NOT about vector addition or cross-products etc. It's about UNDERSTANDING the electro-magnetic phenomena itself irrespective of the 'maths' which may misrepresent the reality situation in real cosmic plasma features/phenomena.

The maths 'map' is NOT the plasma 'territory, DS. Even the wiki definitions make distinctions between the Mathematics and Physics terms/usages/concepts! Learn the difference, DS. :)

As for your lame assertions..
@RC...hasn't yet figured out the meaning of "one." This individual denies the meaning of mathematics;
..it is tragic that YOU STILL do NOT 'get' it.

LISTEN!

Algebra is incapable of treating THE REAL UNIVERSAL INFINITY because the latter is NOT a "value" OR a "number" OR an 'abstract 1'.

LEARN!
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2017
@RC,
even considering the entire electromagnetic wave as the actual shock front while moving across a field of 10 ly, it will still take at least 10ly to get across. Not sure what you are getting at. Considering the scale involved (i.e. light years), Da Schneib's explanation seems perfectly logical. Unless you can prove that taking all EM considerations into account results in travel fast than the speed of light, you aren't disproving Da Schneib at all.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2017
@691Boat.
@RC,
even considering the entire electromagnetic wave as the actual shock front while moving across a field of 10 ly, it will still take at least 10ly to get across. Not sure what you are getting at. Considering the scale involved (i.e. light years), Da Schneib's explanation seems perfectly logical. Unless you can prove that taking all EM considerations into account results in travel fast than the speed of light, you aren't disproving Da Schneib at all.
You misunderstand the purpose of my posting reminders/FYIs etc, mate. :)

I didn't post that FYI to 'disprove' anyone; I just pointed out that electro-magnetic nature of plasmas makes them *inherently unstable* due to its dynamics being subject to much internal/external influences as energy and constituents move/flux at different rates. That is the crux. The different rates of action/reaction of electron flows, proton/ion flows....and the incessant flux of magnetic field *re-arrangements* that entails.

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2017
You misunderstand the purpose of my posting reminders/FYIs etc, mate. :)
I didn't post that FYI to 'disprove' anyone
ORLY?
lame assertions


Ahem.

@691, it always lies. Even when everyone can see it just by looking at two posts it made one after the other, separated by a single post by you. All it knows how to do is lie, and it's never going to stop lying. It has no honor, no shame, no dignity, no decency, no integrity, no purpose here but disruption, and no intent of ever changing.

This thread has already been added to the list, and this latest lie is only the most recent, neither the worst nor the most obvious.

Play with it if you like, but even when you obviously make the point, and everyone can see it, it will just lie again. Don't expect it's ever going to admit it lied, or stop lying, because it won't. If that doesn't bother you, then feel free.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You misunderstand the purpose of my posting reminders/FYIs etc, mate. :)
I didn't post that FYI to 'disprove' anyone
ORLY?
lame assertions
Ahem.

@691, it always lies. Even when everyone can see it just by looking at two posts it made one after the other, separated by a single post by you.
They are quotes from TWO DIFFERENT posts, DS. Why did you conflate the two separate things again, DS? To make your strawman 'rebutal' again, DS? Have you no shame at all, DS?

@691Boat, @Forum.

See for yourselves how DA Schneib twists, misattributes, intentionally misleads YOU into 'believing' his lies and trolls.

OBVIOUSLY:

- my FYI post was ON SCIENCE; reminding ALL of relevant dynamics.

- my OTER post taking to task DS's "lame assertions" went to HIS lies claiming I 'deny/don't understand' 'one', 'maths' etc; and I gave examples of how he lied and doesn't yet comprehend himself that he IS lying.

TWO SEPARATE things.

Why does DS do it? Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
Oh, so you can say two contradictory things in two posts, obviously lying, and pretend it's not lying in either post?

ORLY?

Seriously, @RC, it's like you think everyone else's IQ is as low as yours. Not merely insulting to everyone who reads your spew. Denigrating, and intended to degrade them. You are disgusting.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2017
Once again, the list:
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
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html

Just so we're clear.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Oh, so you can say two contradictory things in two posts, obviously lying, and pretend it's not lying in either post?

ORLY?

Seriously, @RC, it's like you think everyone else's IQ is as low as yours. Not merely insulting to everyone who reads your spew. Denigrating, and intended to degrade them. You are disgusting.
What is wrong with you?! No-one can be as obtuse/dishonest as you come across when you do things like this, DS.

Get it straight. There was NO "contradictory things in two posts". They were TWO SEPARATE things in TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. Got that?

It's obvious to the Forum that YOU want so desperately to contrive yet another STRAWMAN lie, that YOU intentionally conflate the two distinctly separate things/contexts.

This is beneath you, DS. It betrays not only science/humanity discourse principles/ethics, it also betrays your own intellect/character. It's UNHEALTHY to keep doing this, DS. Please stop digging your hole. Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2017
@RC, nothing wrong with me. You tried to lie to two different people and posted mutually contradictory posts. And got caught and are now trying to worm your way out of it, as you usually do.

You can't stop lying; it's a character flaw. Pretending that mutually contradictory posts are "separate" is lying, and it's dishonorable, disgusting, dishonest, shameless, indecent, and indicative of a pathology. There is nowhere to hide any more. You should admit it, stop, and apologize to the forum for your foolishness.

Of course, this is only true if you wish to stop trolling.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
nothing wrong with me.
You are demonstrably unfit to make that judgement call about your obvious neuroses and compulsions to strawman and lie about what's what, mate. Get a second opinion, from a professional who can help you get better soon, DS.
You tried to lie to two different people and posted mutually contradictory posts. And got caught and are now trying to worm your way out of it, as you usually do.
I didn't lie; you deliberately and with malice aforethought conflated two separate things in two different contexts to 'justify' your accusation. That's unhealthy, DS.

I pointed that out clearly for the Forum, DS.

That you still deny it, and continue your lying and baseless accusing, is indicative that something is seriously wrong with you. So stop diagnosing yourself, DS. You are far from well or objective. Go get that second opinion, preferably from a professional medico acquainted with your malady.

Stop digging; and get better soon, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2017
No judgment calls are required. It's very simple. If you post two things that contradict one another at least one of them is a lie; it doesn't take any judgment, just observation. And, of course, that means you're lying again. Just sayin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
just observation
You just blew your own rationalizations/delusions out of the water, DS: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

Your admission:
@Da Schneib.
If I had actually been reading all your crap, @RC, I would have wasted valuable time..
And there is the usual cause of your kneejerking-in-ignorance. You boast you do not read, and/or just ignore, points/contexts, then you proceed to make up your own 'version' of what went down (usually me being correct all along, and you incorrect and insulting because you missed info which could have forestalled your incorrectness and insulting-in-ignorance). That's not the modus operandi of a truly genuine, objective scientist/discourser, DS; it puts you in the wrong from the get-go; which is why you spam your lies/delusions instead of actually finding out where/why I have been correct all along, as recently increasingly confirmed by mainstream, on many fronts...
QED.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
@RC, it's not "knee-jerking" any more after you've been shown to lie in every post of yours I've ever responded to.

And yet again, you lie. This is #worsethantrump.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, it's not "knee-jerking" any more after you've been shown to lie in every post of yours I've ever responded to.
"shown" by whom? You, DS? That's a laugh, mate. You boasted about not reading, ignoring and instead make up strawmen to attack, crying "Liar!" at the drop of a hat.

Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, CS?

It's not a substitute, DS. Start learning the true objective method before pretending to know what is or is not going on, DS.
And yet again, you lie. This is #worsethantrump.
Is that what you have come to, DS? Asserting a 'false equality' in order to 'rationalize' your own lies and kneejerks-in-ignorance?

DS, you still evade acknowledging the linked post/mainstream news confirming my observations correct all along while you were busy ignoring/not-read, crying "liar" and kneejerking-in-ignorance?

Are you so driven that you cannot bring yourself to admit I've been correct? Get objective, DS. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, CS?
did you forget who you were talking to?

or did you forget how to read?

it's not like you haven't been proven to be a chronic liar and pseudoscience idiot spewing about things you have no knowledge of

in fact, you (literally) proved that here when you admitted you had no evidence to link and refused to even search for it because it doesn't exist: https://phys.org/...ure.html

then you validate that here: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

that means, by definition, you are intentionally lying and attempting to interject FUD and pseudoscience into the news aggregate for the sake of personal validation because you can't pass peer review nor the requirements of evidence based science
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, CS?
did you forget who you were talking to?
It was a typo when I culled the text to fit the limit. A "by" should have been after the comma; it should have read:
Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, by CS?
You are still practising your fantastic 'science method', CS; comprising of:
TL;DR (too long; didn't read) followed by ranting and insults flowing from the self-imposed ignorance which your 'method' inevitably leads to.
That is no substitute for the objective science method which you have been trying betraying, CS. All you can do is waste time being malicious and wrong, while ignoring the science points made me and the links to PO/mainstream articles about new/recent mainstream discovery/review which confirm me correct all along.

Do better, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
It was a typo
it still doesn't make sense, you idiot
let me explain in english, which you are obviously not conversant in
if this is what you mean:
Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, by CS?
this means, specifically: [insert target person] learned a method instead of [or that is contradictory to] the objective science method that i teach

now, i do not disagree with that statement as it stands above, but you then absolutely contradict yourself further in the post adding to the confusion

only an illiterate idiot who didn't progress further than 7th grade english or a multi-lingual who is not familiar with english at all would word it that way expecting others to accept this as denigration on my part

do better, you moronic idiot
https://en.oxford...on/comma

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
Too late, CS; your "TL;DR-and-Insults-Method" precedes your above lies/malice. I have no "criminal record", as you well know, CS; since ZergSurfer already looked and found none. You still making up lies to justify your malicious, not-reading "method" is just sick, CS. Even the poisonous 'paddoboy' troll recently gone from Sciforums wasn't so dishonest or sick as to try that lie, CS. There is hope for that 'paddoboy' troll; but all hope for you, CS, has flown out the window by now; as you still persist in lying and malicious tactics which must be bringing shame onto your confederates in the CS-gang by now (if they had any sense left, that is). The 'paddoboy' troll's 'friends' finally told him enough poisonous lies was enough; maybe YOUR 'friends' will come to their senses too, and tell you enough is enough, because you are bringing shame on everyone connected with you now, CS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2017
What we basically have here is the @RealityCheck who cried wolf.

Aesop's Fables were published in around 600 BCE, that's 2600 years ago. @RC doesn't seem to have heard of them. Considering he hasn't heard of any plasma physics since the 1960s, I can't say I'm surprised.

The thing is, see, that it isn't even a matter of any wolves coming; there aren't any. This troll is crying wolf when there aren't any wolves and never were.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
What we basically have here is the @RealityCheck who cried wolf.

Aesop's Fables were published in around 600 BCE, that's 2600 years ago. @RC doesn't seem to have heard of them. Considering he hasn't heard of any plasma physics since the 1960s, I can't say I'm surprised.

The thing is, see, that it isn't even a matter of any wolves coming; there aren't any. This troll is crying wolf when there aren't any wolves and never were.
Are you so devoid of science and integrity that you again default to silly irrelevances while denying the reality of what is going down around you, DS?

Mate, seriously, go read this latest (of many recent) mainstream confirmations that what I have been observing for your benefit for so long now was correct all along (despite your silly CS-gang influenced knejerking cries of "liar", insults' and denial of the OBVIOUS reality which even mainstream is now finding):

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

Get real, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
@RC, "devoid of science and integrity" is another lie. You always lie, you lie in the first sentence, you are a known liar, and you have nothing to spew but lies.

When will you stop lying? *Can* you stop lying? It appears you cannot, and this is indicative of pathological lying, which you cannot control. This is a psychiatric condition, for which you should seek psychiatric assistance and psychological counseling. There is nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to run. Lying more just makes it more apparent. I strongly suggest you seek assistance with your psychological problems instead of demonstrating them here in front of people who are competent to note them and will abuse you because you will not seek help.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, "devoid of science and integrity" is another lie.
Like I reminded you in that "gravitational anomaly" thread:
So, go on, DS, explain to @Forum how you/CS-gang can be "objective readers", as you/CS-gang boasted you:

- DIDN'T READ ALLTHE FACTS posted/linked before proceeding straight to kneejerking and insult in self-imposed ignorance;

- BOT-VOTE on the basis of person instead of actual science/idea posted/linked;

- GANG UP on posters, clutter up, bury interesting/correct posts/discussion points, keep denying/distracting to evade same;

- BASH CRANKS with flawed Bicep2 claims, REFUSING to CHECK OBJECTIVELY those claims even after I suggested you should because they WERE obviously flawed.

Also DS, you especially, have many times cried "liar!"; only to find you WERE WRONG all along and ME CORRECT...yet you KEEP DOING IT!...never learning your OBJECTIVE lesson.
Sorry to have to be the one to burst your self-delusional bubble, DS. Get better soon. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
:)@7,040 posts and still lying rc
Like I reminded you
it's not a reminder as you've never been able to establish any requisite evidence
in that "gravitational anomaly" thread
that same thread where:

-DS proved you're a liar :o

-DS linked the threads with you're epic lies :O

-I proved you chronically lied (thats two separate sources not related - AKA Validation)

-i proved you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims

-i linked the thread where you admit you can't actually prove your lies about "4 fatal flaws"

...that thread?

.

Sorry to have to be the one to burst your self-delusional bubble, rc, but the only thing that happened in that thread is that your lies were outed, validated and it's proven in your own words

that isn't debatable because it's all there in black and white for any semi-literate person to read

that is called: evidence
freely accessible to anyone
and can be cross-checked with archived data
:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Captain Stumpy (& @Da Schneib).
DS proved you're a liar
Oh really, CS? Instead of spamming your delusional versions of what's been going down in our respective PO posting histories, why not answer the following questions for @Forum objective members/readers:

- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?

- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?

- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?

- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I knew all these things/more, DS; I tried to point them out for your benefit; so answer also these further questions for @Forum:

- Why did you keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of, CS/DS?

- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, CS/DS?

Go on, CS/DS; face your reality.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. I ask on the other one how you are so I'll skip it here.

What you call it when you write the same thing over and over and over on different articles everyday? Here in Louisiana we call that spamming. Why you don't knock it off before the management needs to get involved.

If nobody believes it now, saying the same thing one more time (10,979th time) probably won't change anybody's mind.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
What you call it when you write the same thing over and over..
Yeah, that's sad, you/CS-gang doing that. So I'm duty/honor bound to respond/rebut your spam. I remind of reality you're denying like cowardly malicious bot-voting gang of ignoramus asses on the net; I ask:
- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?
- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?
- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?
- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I tried to point out these, and more, for your benefit; so:

- Why did you/DS/CS-gang keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of?

- Why do you/DS/CS-gang keep BOT-VOTING, calling ME "liar", when YOU DON'T KNOW sh!t?

Objective readers see You/DS/CS-gang: The Pitiables.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record who is not at post 7,047 with no evidence
why not answer the following questions for @Forum objective members/readers:
so, what you are saying is: everyone else has to answer to the forum except you

why is that?

Is it because you already admitted you're a liar and didn't post your 4 fatal flaws? (here: https://phys.org/...ure.html )

or is it because you think no one will notice that you refuse to post the requested information?

hmm?

besides, you idiot, you're spamming and crossposting this BS to get distract from your epic failure to produce evidence yourself because i already answered it here: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

i will await your data with links and references
:)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
PS to the idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record who is now at post 7,047 with no evidence
- Why do you/DS/CS-gang keep... calling ME "liar"
this is easily answered really

because not only has DS proven you to be a liar
but i have also proven you're a liar
and Uncle Ira has also proven you're a liar

when one person proves it, you may be able to get away with whining about it
but when it's also demonstrated by unrelated non-friendly secondary sources, it is called validation

having three people prove it just makes it absolutely pathetic on your part, because you can't stop yourself

LOL
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Why do you do this to yourself/CS-gang, Stumpy?
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
Your address lines drip with personal poison, CS. And how long have you had, to post the evidence in support of your above lie re "criminal record", Stumpy? Please provide same to @Forum immediately; else cease and desist your silly campaign of lies, Stumpy. It's not a good look for you or CS-gang, mate. Rethink it, Stumpy. :)
so, what you are saying is: everyone else has to answer to the forum except you
You and your CS-gang are the ones irrationally and gratuitously attacking without due cause in science or humanity. So you and your CS-gang are the ones who need to answer questions which highlight the reality of your shameful behavior and lack of cause/evidence for your false accusations/other outrages against correct/polite poster.
...DS proven you to be a liar
You/they're dreaming and evading the questions. Why? :)

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.