Closer look at red supergiant Antares suggests convection not enough to remove surface material

August 17, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
Using ESO’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer astronomers have constructed this remarkable image of the red supergiant star Antares. This is the most detailed image ever of this object, or any other star apart from the Sun. Credit: ESO/K. Ohnaka

(Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with Universidad Católica del Norte and the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie has found evidence that suggests that convection alone cannot account for the amount of material that is pulled from the surface of a red supergiant. In their paper published in the journal Nature, K. Ohnaka, G. Weigelt and K.-H. Hofmann describe their study of the supergiant Antares, what they found and why they now believe there is an unknown force pulling some parts of the star's surface into space. Gail Schaefer with Georgia State University offers a News & Views piece on the work done by the team in the same journal issue.

The red supergiant Antares is familiar to stargazers as the heart of the scorpion in the Scorpius constellation. Prior research has found it to be a red supergiant with a mass approximately 15 times that of our sun—it is also at the end stages of its existence. Prior research has also shown that red giants have atmospheres that extend far from their surface—Antares, for example, has some regions that would extend all the way to Mars if it were in our solar system. The prevailing theory explaining such far-reaching regions has been convection cells carrying the material away from the star. But now, that theory might have to be changed as the researchers with this new effort have found evidence that suggests convection alone could not lift as much material from Antares as they have measured.

To gain a better understanding of what is happening with Antares, and by extension other , the team used the Very Large Telescope Interferometer at the European Southern Observatory based in Chile. In addition, they used a device called AMBER, which combines the light from three telescopes into one, creating a virtual telescope with an 82-meter-diameter lens. The team conducted a spectral analysis of the stars' upper atmosphere and created what they describe as a "dopplergram" of the star showing which way parts of the star were moving and in which direction.

This artist’s impression shows the red supergiant star Antares in the constellation of Scorpius. Using ESO’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer astronomers have constructed the most detailed image ever of this, or any star other than the Sun. Using the same data they have also made the first map of the velocities of material the atmosphere of a star other than the Sun. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

The researchers found that the density of the material being moved and its extent were higher than current models predict, which, they note, suggests that there is likely an unknown force at play.

Explore further: Mars—closest, biggest, and brightest in a decade

More information: Vigorous atmospheric motion in the red supergiant star Antares, Nature 548, 310–312. nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature23445

Abstract

Red supergiant stars represent a late stage of the evolution of stars more massive than about nine solar masses, in which they develop complex, multi-component atmospheres. Bright spots have been detected in the atmosphere of red supergiants using interferometric imaging. Above the photosphere of a red supergiant, the molecular outer atmosphere extends up to about two stellar radii. Furthermore, the hot chromosphere (5,000 to 8,000 kelvin) and cool gas (less than 3,500 kelvin) of a red supergiant coexist at about three stellar radii. The dynamics of such complex atmospheres has been probed by ultraviolet and optical spectroscopy. The most direct approach, however, is to measure the velocity of gas at each position over the image of stars as in observations of the Sun. Here we report the mapping of the velocity field over the surface and atmosphere of the nearby red supergiant Antares. The two-dimensional velocity field map obtained from our near-infrared spectro-interferometric imaging reveals vigorous upwelling and downdrafting motions of several huge gas clumps at velocities ranging from about −20 to +20 kilometres per second in the atmosphere, which extends out to about 1.7 stellar radii. Convection alone cannot explain the observed turbulent motions and atmospheric extension, suggesting that an unidentified process is operating in the extended atmosphere.

Related Stories

Mars—closest, biggest, and brightest in a decade

May 19, 2016

Look low in the southeast at nightfall, and an unusually bright, fire-yellow "star" will be staring back at you. It's the planet Mars, closer to Earth now than it has been since November 2005.

Mars, Saturn and the claws of Scorpius

August 21, 2014

Look up at the night sky this week and you'll find Mars and Saturn together in the west. Mars stands out with its reddish colouring and you might just be able to detect a faint yellow tinge to Saturn.

Close-up of a dying heavyweight

May 27, 2008

A team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy (MPIfR) in Bonn and European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Garching near Munich have for the first time taken a close-up of an individual dying supergiant ...

Betelgeuse braces for a collision

January 22, 2013

(Phys.org)—Multiple arcs are revealed around Betelgeuse, the nearest red supergiant star to Earth, in this new image from ESA's Herschel space observatory. The star and its arc-shaped shields could collide with an intriguing ...

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrNewTime
Aug 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
While reading this article, the idea that popped into my head was an extraneous gravitational source.

So far undetected except for this observed phenomena, drawing mass from Antares. Perhaps a unknown type of miniature neutron star? Perhaps a tiny blackhole?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2017
In their paper published in the journal Nature, K. Ohnaka, G. Weigelt and K.-H. Hofmann describe their study of the supergiant Antares, what they found and why they now believe there is an unknown force pulling some parts of the star's surface into space.

Plasma is electrodynamic, the plasma ignoramuses apparently do not understand this so they claim "unknown forces" are responsible for what they don't understand. They should atay consistant and refer to these "unknown forces" as "dark forces" or the "Darkside"...
krzychu01230
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
Electric star model is more consistent with this observation - no problem with acceleration, deposition or removal matter from surface. Check SAFIRE project based on this concept.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
In their paper published in the journal Nature, K. Ohnaka, G. Weigelt and K.-H. Hofmann describe their study of the supergiant Antares, what they found and why they now believe there is an unknown force pulling some parts of the star's surface into space.

Plasma is electrodynamic, the plasma ignoramuses apparently do not understand this.....


Lol. Which plasma would this be? Perhaps the science ignoramuses ought to read the frigging paper on the measurements of CO gas, before yet again embarrassing themselves. This ain't CO+, or CO-; it is neutral CO. A quick look at the abstract would have been enough to realise this. Dear me.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
Electric star model is more consistent with this observation - no problem with acceleration, deposition or removal matter from surface. Check SAFIRE project based on this concept.


SAFIRE is based on nothing. There is zero evidence for anything as silly as an 'electric star'!
krzychu01230
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2017
Safire is terrella type of experiment and is based on similarity between plasma behavior and observation.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2017
Safire is terrella type of experiment and is based on similarity between plasma behavior and observation.


No, it is based on an idiotic model proposed by an electrical engineer, called Jurgens, further elaborated on by another EE, Don Scott. Neither of them had any qualifications, or indeed even basic knowledge, of actual astrophysics. The 'model' has been shown to be complete rubbish. It explains precisely zero, fails to explain a whole raft of observations, and has zero evidence for any of its claims. It has never made it into the scientific literature. For good reason.
panurg3
2 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2017
oh noes, again;
the continual shortcomings of fluid dynamics and gravity to explain stellar (and galactic and cosmic) behaviors.
The problem that people have with such altscience as EU, or Safire Project (which describes such behaviors) can be summed up with the Duck Attack (if it quacks like a duck...)
That is, the science is not rigorous. It's descriptive, like natural history & much of biology and medicine. Physics prides itself on its reducibility. The correctness (and success) of it is manifest by many physical phenomena that obey very simple formulas. ...
panurg3
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
But perhaps there are emergent systems that cannot be reduced to the interactions of subatomic particles, that will remain unpredictable for a long time to come. Then you are left with (a more) descriptive science, and you're stuck with that. That doesn't mean it can't be a powerful science, that even uses math and stuff. I mean, look at Evolution Theory; there's no simple general formula for it, and every day there's a new thing like epigenetics that nobody predicted. Biology will never be as mathematically rigorous as physics. Now the question you can ask is: "is the universe alive?" I've got an alert out on when biologists come up with a sensible definition of life.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2017
The 'model' has been shown to be complete rubbish. It explains precisely zero, fails to explain a whole raft of observations...

What? Like the solar wind and the corona? Sorry, that's the standard model whereas both of those phenomrna fit perfectly in the Electric Star model. Please, jonesdumb, show us the paper which refutes the Electric Star model in the "scientific literature". And don't bore us with some egotistical blog from some plasma ignoramus as your "proof".
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
What? Like the solar wind and the corona? Sorry, that's the standard model whereas both of those phenomrna fit perfectly in the Electric Star model. Please, jonesdumb, show us the paper which refutes the Electric Star model in the "scientific literature". And don't bore us with some egotistical blog from some plasma ignoramus as your "proof".


How would there be a refutation of something in the scientific literature, when the original idiotic idea is not published within the scientific literature? There is no need to refute it in the scientific literature; it doesn't exist as far as science is concerned. Why don't you show us this fully worked model, so that it can be refuted?
As for the idiotic model matching the SW; how exactly? Ions and electrons heading in the same direction, at the same speed. Now how are you managing that? I realise that Scott said there are ions heading out, but he forgot about the electrons, eh? And where is your current?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2017
Why is the spectrum of the Sun thermal (i.e. a black body)? Resembles no electric woo that I know of.
Where are the neutrinos coming from, which match the predicted rate for nuclear fusion being the power source? And don't be stupid and say the surface! We might notice that. And haven't. There would be a large amount of gamma ray emission from the photosphere. There isn't, apart from at the footprint of very large, occasional, X-class flares. If we can detect their occasional presence, then why can't we detect a constant gamma ray flux from the photosphere? Didn't Scott (or maybe Thornhill) suggest some impossible double layer around the Sun, where the fusion was taking place? Same question; why aren't we detecting it? Et boring cetera.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2017
As for coronal heating; it isn't that physicists haven't got any ideas, just that there are a lot of ideas. Here are a couple of hundred of them from many, many more papers on the subject:
http://adsabs.har...T&db
As for the 'electric sun' 'model' describing anything accurately - well, that is a joke. They can't say what the current is, where it is, and what are the number densities involved. They can't tell you why it is undetectable. They can't tell you what should happen to any incoming current, and its associated magnetic field, when it meets the outgoing solar wind of electrons and ions, and the magnetic field that is carried along with it (the IMF). Now, for people who think they are plasma geniuses, this is a telling absence from the 'model'. In fact, they aren't plasma geniuses. Thornhill has a batchelors degree, and worked in computing. Scott is an EE. Is there anybody else involved in this rubbish that we need to consider?

jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
***Positive ions leave the Sun*** and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current flowing through the Sun (entering at the poles and leaving radially at lower latitudes). This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma laboratory experiments.


From the idiot Scott (my emphasis): http://electric-c.../sun.htm
Anybody else see a fundamental error in that first sentence? Apart from the fact that we don't see electrons entering the Sun? This is the level of astrophysical knowledge that we are dealing with here. That is, extremely limited.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
@jonesdave
Anybody else see a fundamental error ...
i do
that whole electric sun garbage has been debunked by various physicists all over the world

you can watch don scott flail about in ignorance here: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

and therein lies the whole reason for the eu, really

they have people claiming expertise without actually being educated in the requisite material
don scott may be "educated", in the classical sense, but he is absolutely ignorant of all the observed astrophysics data (like the fact that we don't see the electrons)

worse still, he sells this ideal to idiots seeking to "get back" and anyone who is educated beyond their own capabilities, like the conspiracy theorists (cd) and the delusional (eu cult) thereby validating this: http://journals.p....0075637

it's almost sad watching them justify their belief - except that ignorance spreads faster than education
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
it's almost sad watching them justify their belief - except that ignorance spreads faster than education.


Sadly true! When I have seen EU advocates questioned over this electric sun nonsense in the past, it is obvious that they have very little, if any, knowledge of large areas of science. Take their non-existent incoming electrons, for example. I've seen Scott claim that they were detected by Voyager at the heliopause. Apart from the fact that he is orders of magnitude out, he fails to grasp that if we can detect them at the heliopause with 1970s technonlogy, why aren't we seeing them where they need to be? That is, somewhere nearer the bleeding Sun! And then they'll prattle on about 'drift' electrons, and how hard they are to detect. Err, no. It'll be purely down to the speed of the spacecraft encountering them, if they are tootling along at half rat power. And, at those SC speeds, they would be detected. And aren't. Silly idea. Scientifically impossible. Zero evidence.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
CS & jd, what you are observing is fraudulent theology masquerading as science.

The other day the deity was expressing he/she/its concern to me. That we humans were so confusing. Always flummoxing our tribal stuporstitions with the fundamental forces of the universe.

Mighty sad when I have to constantly reassure the deity (after all, he/she/its only a13 billion year old infant) that the baby deity is not to blame. We humans have to learn to take responsibility for our own stupidity. And stop blaming all our acts of commission and omission on fantasy action figures.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
As for coronal heating; it isn't that physicists haven't got any ideas, just that there are a lot of ideas. Here are a couple of hundred of them from many, many more papers on the subject:

That's what you call science, an endless parade of faerie tales because the science is so well understood. And lest we not forget 96% of your Universe is "dark" and missing....
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2017
As for coronal heating; it isn't that physicists haven't got any ideas, just that there are a lot of ideas. Here are a couple of hundred of them from many, many more papers on the subject:

That's what you call science, an endless parade of faerie tales because the science is so well understood. And lest we not forget 96% of your Universe is "dark" and missing....


Answer the questions about how the scientifically impossible, evidence free electric star rubbish helps us understand anything. It doesn't. It has far more missing than actual science.
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
That's what you call science, an endless parade of faerie tales because the science is so well understood. And lest we not forget 96% of your Universe is "dark" and missing....


And where does the rest of the mass in our universe reside in the EU theory? Lead-acid batteries and generators?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
A black cat in a dark alley is "dark" and missing. It scratches just as hard though.
Solon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
Correlation between galaxy rotation and visible matter puzzles astronomers

"The result is confounding because galaxies are supposedly ensconced within dense haloes of dark matter. Furthermore, the team found a systematic deviation from Newtonian predictions, implying that there is some other force is at work beyond simple Newtonian gravity."

http://physicswor...ronomers

Some other force at work? Have to invent another one I guess.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2017
@Solon thinks chopper motors (the only technical thing it's worked on) account for everything.

Typical nutjob technician who doesn't get the engineering never mind the science.

Dodge me all you like when you don't have a technical answer that holds water. I will mock you until you go away.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2017
"From the idiot Scott "

Funny how NASA invites idiots to lecture..
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
And where does the rest of the mass in our universe reside in the EU theory?

It is unnecessary when one doesn't rely solely on gravity to explain galactic and extra-galactic phenomena.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
A black cat in a dark alley is "dark" and missing. It scratches just as hard though.

The difference being that cats are real unlike the imaginary constructs of the fanciful plasma ignoramuses.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
Anybody else see a fundamental error in that first sentence? Apart from the fact that we don't see electrons entering the Sun?

If as much effort was expended actually looking for these electrons as is expended looking for DM it would take about 5 minutes instead of decades of failure such as the search for DM has resulted in.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
Why is the spectrum of the Sun thermal (i.e. a black body)? Resembles no electric woo that I know of.

jonesdumb, you're not even a plasma ignoramus, just a flat out plasma moron. What was your remark regarding electrochemistry in plasmas? You said, "where's the electrolyte?" One couldn't make a more moronic statement if they tried. Being the self-proclaimed plasma moron that you are shows clearly that even if you understood electric discharges you would still be blinded by your moronism.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
@nazi sympathizing pseudoscience eu cultist
That's what you call science
just because there isn't an answer today doesn't mean there isn't an answer - your argument is god of the gaps argument
It is unnecessary
so, you don't have an "answer", therefore you go on faith?
and you complain about science?
fanciful plasma ignoramuses
leave your scott and idiot eu cult out of this - you still can't produce any hypothesis to test that hasn't been soundly debunked, so why bring in your faith?
If as much effort was expended actually looking for these electrons as is expended looking for DM
obviously you forget the point about 70's tech?
they don't exist - so why aren't you idiot eu cultists pouring all your cash into scotts search for them?

more to the point: why is it that your own delusional cult beliefs don't match observation, let alone proven validated physics?

no prediction, no evidence... ya got nothing but preachers and acolytes!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Why is the spectrum of the Sun thermal (i.e. a black body)? Resembles no electric woo that I know of.

jonesdumb, you're not even a plasma ignoramus, just a flat out plasma moron. What was your remark regarding electrochemistry in plasmas? You said, "where's the electrolyte?" One couldn't make a more moronic statement if they tried. Being the self-proclaimed plasma moron that you are shows clearly that even if you understood electric discharges you would still be blinded by your moronism.


Hey idiot, you're the one that doesn't understand plasma. If you do, then answer this simple question which you keep avoiding: what happens when this invisible incoming current, and its magnetic field, meet the outflowing ions and electrons of the solar wind, and the associated IMF. Simple for plasma geniuses, yes? So answer it, idiot.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Anybody else see a fundamental error in that first sentence? Apart from the fact that we don't see electrons entering the Sun?

If as much effort was expended actually looking for these electrons as is expended looking for DM it would take about 5 minutes instead of decades of failure such as the search for DM has resulted in.


They would be easily detected if they were there, nutjob. How many spacecraft with suitable detectors have been flying around the solar system for decades? Not a sign of them. What is so different about them that makes them any less detectable than regular electrons, genius? Hmm? Cloaked, are they? Intelligent, perhaps? Avoid spacecraft when they see one coming? Lol. What a load of ignorant garbage. Does this non-existent current carry a magnetic field with it? You're always telling us that currents = magnetic fields. So, where is that? Missing too, isn't it?
As CS said, it is just a faith with you nutters. Zero evidence; zero science.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
A black cat in a dark alley is "dark" and missing. It scratches just as hard though.

The difference being that cats are real unlike the imaginary constructs of the fanciful plasma ignoramuses.


Such as the ignoramus Falthammar? Who quite happily accepts MRx? You do believe he is ignorant, don't you? So come out and say it, coward. And that goes for the rest of the unqualified EU nutjobs. Is MRx pseudoscientific ignorance (despite being demonstrated in the lab, and observed in-situ many times)? If so, does that make every scientist who accepts it, or considers it **possible** (be very careful here :) ) an ignorant pseudoscientist? Yes or no. No prevarication. No gish gallops, no diversions; yes or no?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2017
"From the idiot Scott "

Funny how NASA invites idiots to lecture..


They didn't. I'd have to search for the relevant discussion on another forum, but it was an invitation from somebody within a particular department to give a talk. Not a lecture, no official NASA endorsement. Happens regularly, I believe.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Happens regularly, I believe.

Obviously, you have never been invited to speak. But then again, the individuals who could benefit from your expertise (cleaning toilets and emptying trash cans) aren't the ones sending out the invites.
BTW, Scott's lecture was at the Goddard Center, home to the applied science division of NASA. It's no coincidence.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
They would be easily detected if they were there, nutjob. How many spacecraft with suitable detectors have been flying around the solar system for decades?

It is also readily apparent jonesdumb is not familiar with the inflowing Heliospheric current sheet, nor is he familiar with the helical magnetic fields at the Sun's poles which can only exist in the presence of helical electric currents which creates the fields. It's just easier for him to ignore these facts.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017

... inflowing Heliospheric current sheet, nor is he familiar with the helical magnetic fields at the Sun's poles..... .


The heliospheric current sheet is due to the change in north-south polarity of the Sun's magnetic field. Alfven knew this, and wasn't thick enough to suggest it was due to some imaginary incoming current to power the Sun. Only an idiot would believe that. The tiny current is INDUCED. So, the Sun is producing its own tiny current to power itself electrically? Heaven help us! So, try again.
And the same with the poles. Zilch to do with any of Scott and Jurgens' crap. Ulysses flew over the poles. Nothing incoming. None of this is mysterious. Nor is it the least bit relevant to EU unscientific fantasies of incoming currents powering the Sun. Do try harder. Where is your current, why is it invisible, where is its magnetic field? Etc.
Let's be honest; this nonsense is so poorly thought out, by people who are clueless, that there are no answers.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2017
More from Scott:
This is the effect of the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space just beyond the heliopause. The outward force on positive ions due to this E-field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.

http://electric-c.../sun.htm

Just doesn't get it does he? So what, Don, in your experience of EE, is causing the electrons to also be accelerated in the same direction, at the same time, at the same speed? If the Sun has a positive charge, why are the electrons heading out at all?
Complete cock up of an idea.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Alfven knew this, and wasn't thick enough to suggest it was due to some imaginary incoming current to power the Sun.


You are the last moron to try to explain what Alfven believed. BTW, the plasma is the electrolyte if you haven't gotten past that perplexing dilemma...
Anyways, Alfven saw the current sheet as part of a larger overall circuit, as shown by the diagram.
https://www.plasm..._circuit

See figure 10 in following link...
http://www.i-sis...._Sun.php
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Just doesn't get it does he? So what, Don, in your experience of EE, is causing the electrons to also be accelerated in the same direction, at the same time, at the same speed? If the Sun has a positive charge, why are the electrons heading out at all?
Complete cock up of an idea.

He who doesn't get it (you), tries to explain this away using pithball electrostatics. These plasma processes are electrodynamic and your pitiful understanding of the physics involved are on display for all to see.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
And then we have:
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is probably occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core).


As already mentioned, we are quite capable of seeing the very occasional signatures of gamma rays in the footprint of X-class flares from the photosphere (e.g. https://arxiv.org...92.pdf). If fusion is occurring in this non-existent DL, then it is as invisible as the non-existent incoming current!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Just doesn't get it does he? So what, Don, in your experience of EE, is causing the electrons to also be accelerated in the same direction, at the same time, at the same speed? If the Sun has a positive charge, why are the electrons heading out at all?
Complete cock up of an idea.

He who doesn't get it (you), tries to explain this away using pithball electrostatics. These plasma processes are electrodynamic and your pitiful understanding of the physics involved are on display for all to see.


And yet neither you, nor Scott, can be bothered to explain it! Because you can't explain scientific impossibilities. Eh? Please explain this physics for us, as you seem to fancy yourself an expert in such things. Lol.
Made up your mind on Falthammar, yet? Coward.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
@Da Schneib.
A black cat in a dark alley is "dark" and missing. It scratches just as hard though.
Good try, mate. Although to be strictly analogical, you must also claim it has no effect other than its 'gravitationally effective' energy-mass content/properties would elicit, and call it an 'exotic' Dark Alley Cat having no 'radiative signature' at all in the electro-magnetic spectrum. :)

But as we know, we can 'see' Black Cats via Infra-Red wavelengths. :)

Just as our more sensitive/wide-spectrum telescopes/instruments are NOW also 'seeing' ORDINARY previously dark' matter everywhere we look, and in ever greater quantities/states too. :)

So instead of making lame analogies, you could better employ your intellect/time UPDATING your knowledge base and DROPPING those biases/beliefs leading you to concoct lame rationalizations/analogies instead of getting knowledge/employing objective thinking to help dispel longstanding beliefs/biases. Good luck and good thinking! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
@jonesdave.

I can understand your frustration sometimes, but you must 'let go' emotional/personal attitudes; they only lead to insults/evasions instead of objectively/dispassionately engaging/rebutting as called for. The reason I again urge you to be calm, engage with respect/objectivity, is that you still tend to miss the bigger picture of WIDER dynamical features/extents involved, even in our solar system's behavior.

As I have reminded BOTH 'sides', phenomena you're discussing is a HYBRID/WIDER one involving different 'dominant' forces at different stages/phases/locations/directions ACROSS VAST spatio-temporal evolutionary trajectories of phenomena under discussion.

It's much bigger/longterm than simplistic immediate-factoring 'isolated feature' treatments/interpretations/observations/models imply.

Electrons, ionized Protons/Nuclei, PERVADE ALL of (and beyond!) galactic/solar-system space and temporal evolutionary extents; so TRANSIENT sortings/circuits inevitable! :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
^^^^Cobblers. This is about a particular model that is not only scientifically inept, it is also refuted by ALL the evidence. This is not some political debate, where we make concessions, it is about science, and the total lack of it in this particular god awful, unpublished crap. I have no problem ignoring such crap (as the scientific community does), as long as the idiots that spam it here stop doing so. As long as they carry on with their unscientific garbage, I, along with others, will continue to point out that it is, indeed, garbage.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Just a little history: an EE called Ralph Jurgens (don't even know if he was a good EE) wrote this nonsense, and then chucked it in a shoebox. He obviously had little confidence in it. After he died, it was found by his wife or mother, or some such, and found its way to some other bugger, who sent it to the loony tunes magazine Kronos (or a similar nutty publication). From there the EU nutters got hold of it, and it has gone nowhere. Still unpublished. Still evidence free. Still scientifically inept. No amount of spamming can change that.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
The electrons jonesdumb claims don't exist were detected by Voyager. And given the updated info there are more than enough electrons entering the solar system. Along with Scott's explanation.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
The electrons jonesdumb claims don't exist were detected by Voyager. And given the updated info there are more than enough electrons entering the solar system. Along with Scott's explanation.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf


And I've already explained to you, that if the Voyager instrumentation were capable of detecting electrons at the heliopause, with 1970s tech, then why do we not see them in the inner solar system, either with the same Voyagers, or many more recent satellites? Because they aren't there. And no, there weren't enough of them, by a long way (about 10^8). As well as being omnidirectional, these are high energy galactic electrons; there is not a chance that they could be missed. As proved by the ageing Voyagers. They are powering Jack s**t out there at the heliopause, are they?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Explain how one can determine the the drift current of one out of 20,000 electrons in any given area? Your claims are without merit due to your utter ignorance of electrodynamic plasmas. You have already admitted there are plenty of electrons intermingled in the solar wind, it only takes one out of 20,000 drifti g toward the Sun to produce the needed current. BTW, EE's are far more qualified to describe plasma circuits than any astrophysicist plasma ignoramus. Ignorance is the root of your disbelief and inability to grasp these concepts, not physical possibilities.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
They are powering Jack s**t out there at the heliopause, are they?

Who is claiming anyting is being powered at the heliopause, other than you.
BTW, I'm sure you have an explanation for the observation that tha solar wind reverses direction as measured by Voyager. It's easily expained using laboratory observations of plasma discharges, how would a plasma moron such as yourself explain said observation?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Explain how one can determine the the drift current of one out of 20,000 electrons in any given area? Your claims are without merit due to your utter ignorance of electrodynamic plasmas. You have already admitted there are plenty of electrons intermingled in the solar wind, it only takes one out of 20,000 drifti g toward the Sun to produce the needed current. BTW, EE's are far more qualified to describe plasma circuits than any astrophysicist plasma ignoramus. Ignorance is the root of your disbelief and inability to grasp these concepts, not physical possibilities.


Infantile crap. Of course there a f***ing electrons in the solar wind! As many as there are protons. All heading the same way. From a positively charged Sun? Do me a favour. Why would one in 20 000 change direction? Explanation, please. Calculations, please. From what distance are they changing direction? Why? Why aren't their fellow electrons changing direction? It is crap. Give up.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Who is claiming anyting is being powered at the heliopause, other than you.
BTW, I'm sure you have an explanation for the observation that tha solar wind reverses direction as measured by Voyager. It's easily expained using laboratory observations of plasma discharges, how would a plasma moron such as yourself explain said observation?


I'm saying that they AREN'T powering anything out there, moron. That is the point. And please link to a paper that says the SW changes direction. This is the termination shock of the heliosphere. The SW is meeting the incoming interstellar medium. It is slowed down and eventually stopped. It gets to a point where the two forces balance out. Much like a comet forcing the SW to flow around it due to outgassing. Some SW will penetrate the IM, and some of the IM will penetrate the the heliosphere. It won't get far in either case.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
And let's see where this 1:20 000 rubbish comes from. Where are the calcs? What energy? Why 1 in 20 000? What is going to happen to electrons heading toward squillions of electrons and squillions of protons heading the other way? Carrying a magnetic field with them? Utter lunacy.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
Then we get back to the neutrinos. Where are they coming from? Never get an explanation for this.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2017
^^^^At least, none that makes any scientific sense (like the rest of this unpublished joke of an idea).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
... , it only takes one out of 20,000 drifting toward the Sun to produce the needed current. BTW,

Reference?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
... , it only takes one out of 20,000 drifting toward the Sun to produce the needed current. BTW,

Reference?


Reference will likely be Scott's crap maths, where he takes Jurgens out of thin air estimate for the number needed, and then multiplies it by 100. This being the increase in number of high energy electrons detected by Voyager 1 as it went through the termination shock. He's applied it, with no justification, to all energy levels, then multiplied it by Jurgens' fantasy number. That's EU maths for you!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2017
As an aside, all this has been dismantled before:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/electric-universe-fantasies-heliopause.html
Where proper maths has been done to show that Scott is actually 10^8 out in his calcs!

And a longish thread at cosmoquest where it was also shown to be a fantasy:
https://forum.cos...t-claims
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Then we get back to the neutrinos. Where are they coming from? Never get an explanation for this.

If you changed your underwear as often as you try to change the subject it would be brown, stiff, and stinky. Regardless of your pathetic tactics the answer to your question is fusion of course. It just isn't occurring in the mythical core Eddington dreamed up way back in the Gaslight Era. What were Eddington credentials on plasma physics in 1926 when he made his guess? Right, probably (astoundingly) his qualifications were even more ignorant than your own since his guesses predated even Langmuir's work on double layers/surface features in plasmas. Actually, Eddington's pie in the sky guesses predated nearly all research in modern plasma physics, curious how he could form the basis for stellar physics with absolutely zero understanding of the matter involved.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Then we get back to the neutrinos. Where are they coming from? Never get an explanation for this.

If you changed your underwear as often as you try to change the subject it would be brown, stiff, and stinky. Regardless of your pathetic tactics the answer to your question is fusion of course. It just isn't blah, blah, irrelevant blah.....


Total crap again. Where is the fusion happening, idiot? Not at the bloody surface is it? Answer the frigging question.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
As an aside, all this has been dismantled before:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/electric-universe-fantasies-heliopause.html

And there is the boring egotistical blog flom an unrepentant plasma moron.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
For once, jonesdumb is right. Eddington and all that he wrote is irrelevant blah. Yet it is the foundation of stellar physics, as such all of stellar physics is irrelevant blah.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
edit:

If you changed your underwear as often as you try to change the subject it *wouldn't* be brown, stiff, and stinky.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2017
^^^^Haven't got any answers, have you? Can't do a bit of simple plasma physics to show what would happen to an invisible incoming current and magnetic field meeting electrons and protons and a magnetic field heading out. Can't figure out that fusion isn't happening at the surface. Can't even give a number or energy state for the invisible electrons heading in. Yet continues to think he has got a viable model! Lol. No evidence, no scientifically valid hypothesis, and only supported by a handful of cranks on pseudoscience websites. Impact? Zero. Thousands of real solar physicists, plasma physicists et al are quaking in their boots! No, they aren't, actually. Chances are the vast majority have never heard of Scott, Thornhill or their silly, unscientific, unpublished ideas. A complete waste of time.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
As an aside, all this has been dismantled before:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/electric-universe-fantasies-heliopause.html

And there is the boring egotistical blog flom an unrepentant plasma moron.


Sorry, who are the plasma physicists working on EU ideas? None, by my count.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Change your underwear jonesdumb, you're trying to change the subject again. It stinks in here.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Change your underwear jonesdumb, you're trying to change the subject again. It stinks in here.


Change the subject to what, dummy? The fact that your stupid, unscientific, unexplainable electric sun rubbish just doesn't work? I'll stick to the subject; where is your current? Where is its magnetic field?; what happens when it meets the SW and its magnetic field?: where is the neutrino flux coming from? where does the 1:20 000 rubbish come from?; what is the velocity (i.e. energy) of the electrons?; how many would be needed to power the Sun at that energy?; what would that imply for the electron density at 1 AU?. These are all questions that have been asked of you and others, and there is no sane answer. Certainly none that matches observation. Face it, it is a stupid and unsupportable idea, dreamed up by loons who have little to no knowledge of solar physics. Hence why you, nor anybody else, can find a way to support it. Go ahead, answer the questions.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Here is an exercise for EU maths geniuses (they must have some; you can't do physics without maths);
If this invisible current is composed of drift electrons, then what is their speed? Give it an arbitrary value, for a BOTE calculation. Say 1 m/s. What is the energy of an electron at that speed? How many would be needed to provide the observed output of the Sun of ~ 3.8 x 10^26 W? Now, are they coming in omnidirectionally? Surely must, as we'd have hotspots on the Sun otherwise. So, take a sphere of 1 AU radius. Calculate the square meterage. How many m^2 does the Earth present to this incoming invisible current? What, therefore, is the electron density in near Earth space? How does this match observation? What does this figure imply for satellites and astronauts? What would it do to radio communications in space?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
I know your only concern here is to obfuscate and detract with your series of logical falacies and lies about the concepts surrounding the EU. Most of your questions are answered in the paper I linked to, you just have to read it and try to understand the EE concepts put forth by Dr. Scott. I know this is nearly impossible for a moron such as yourself, but at least try.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
@jonesdave.
^^^^Cobblers. This is about a particular model that is not only scientifically inept, it is also refuted by ALL the evidence. This is not some political debate, where we make concessions, it is about science, and the total lack of it in this particular god awful, unpublished crap. I have no problem ignoring such crap (as the scientific community does), as long as the idiots that spam it here stop doing so. As long as they carry on with their unscientific garbage, I, along with others, will continue to point out that it is, indeed, garbage.
Calm down, mate. :)

The point I am making is that YOU have to be BETTER than THEY are; else YOU are doing WORSE DAMAGE than any of the 'cranks' you are 'feuding' with. Ok? :)

If cantdrive etc make what you consider to be insulting/wrong claims, then just calmly REFUTE them with BETTER behavior/science! Not with insults and/or equally 'iffy science' based on old feuds/misunderstandings etc. OK? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
@jonesdave and @cantdrive.

@jonesdave:
..can't do physics without maths
Which brings me to the double standards which you and the 'gang' apply to yourselves/others. For example:

- 'demands' for alternative hypothesis from others; when, according to the actual objective scientific method, all it requires to falsify a mainstream hypothesis is to point to new discoveries/reviews which conflict with said mainstream hypothesis; and NOT necessarily 'requiring alternative hypothesis' from the one pointing these new discoveries/reviews out.

- I ask all, who 'believe' a-LIGO 'detected' gravitational waves from sources BILLION(s) of lightyears away, for 'the maths' to support their claim that said waves would STILL BE 'detectable above noise' after propagating/dissipating over such vast distances....while NO grav-waves detected for MUCH CLOSER sources!

@cantdrive, mate, the variety of plasmoid and homopolar features/processes make ALL previous naive views moot.

Cheers. :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
I know your only concern here is to obfuscate and detract with your series of logical falacies and lies about the concepts surrounding the EU. Most of your questions are answered in the paper I linked to, you just have to read it and try to understand the EE concepts put forth by Dr. Scott. I know this is nearly impossible for a moron such as yourself, but at least try.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf


Scott is a moron. End of story. He is too much of a coward, not to mention thick as pi*sh*t when it comes to solar science, that he has never published this ridiculous crap in the scientific literature. The bloke is senile. Or stupid. End of. Answer the frigging questions, because the moron Scott won't. Yes?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
I know your only concern here is to obfuscate and detract with your series of logical falacies and lies about the concepts surrounding the EU. Most of your questions are answered in the paper I linked to, you just have to read it and try to understand the EE concepts put forth by Dr. Scott. I know this is nearly impossible for a moron such as yourself, but at least try.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf


Do the maths, dickhead. That is NOT a paper, you loon. It is a bunch of crap posted on a pseudoscience crap website. Correct? Where are the calculations, and cartoons of an incoming current meeting the solar wind? And its magnetic field? It is shite. Care to start again? Scott is a moron. End of story.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
Have I mentioned that Scott is a frigging moron? If not, consider it done.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
I know your only concern here is to obfuscate and detract with your series of logical falacies and lies about the concepts surrounding the EU. Most of your questions are answered in the paper I linked to,...


Errr, no, they frigging aren't, loony child. How are you getting a current, and its magnetic field past an outflowing magnetic field? Plus all the electrons and protons? Where the f*** is the neutrino flux coming from, sh*t for brains? It is complete crap. Which is why nobody, literally, takes it seriously. It has been dreamed up by idiots. And followed by idiots. It is scientifically illiterate. Nobody takes it seriously. For all of the reasons that I have spelled out. It is junk. Garbage. Nobody with an IQ over 85 would give it the time of day. IT IS CRAP.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
Let me make this quite clear for the idiotic, maths phobic EU loons: how many drift electrons do you fecking need to power the Sun? Simple question, idiots. Answer it. Yes?

ETA:
Want me to do it for you? Show you how bloody ridiculous it is? Say the word.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2017
jonesdumb, you're emotional again. Are you out of meds again? Maybe you should buy bulk at Costco or Sam's Club.
krzychu01230
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2017
In my opinion observations like equatorial super rotation, sun spots, helical-filamental structures of granules, filamental corona, equatorial torus are more consistent with electric hypothesis. Also on rocky bodies we can see electrical scarring like parallel chains of craters, craters – chain of craters – trench transition, right angle trench bifurcation, hexagonal/polygonal craters, twin craters, geological structures on comets, cycloidal trenches.
Old_C_Code
Aug 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2017
At least jonesdave has some proof for his claims. Some of us are still waiting patiently for the response to his questions. This isnt the first time they have been evaded.
Old_C_Code
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2017
mrbeardy: I think the standard model wins, regardless of some missing pieces, like why the corona is so much hotter than the surface. But it's become entertaining to watch jonesdave literally go mad defending the internally powered fusion sun.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2017
I can understand his frustrations. The comment section in this site can get very repetitive

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.