Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores

August 7, 2017, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A far-infrared image of the long filament of star formation activity known as DR21, seen here in emission by the Herschel Space Telescope. A study of the magnetic field along the filament and around six star-forming cores within it finds that magnetic effects are primarily important during the early stages of star formation. Credit: ESA-Herschel

Studies of molecular clouds have revealed that star formation usually occurs in a two-step process. First, supersonic flows compress the clouds into dense filaments light-years long, after which gravity collapses the densest material in the filament into cores. In this scenario, massive cores (each more than about 20 solar masses) preferentially form at intersections where filaments cross, producing sites of clustered star formation. The process sounds reasonable and is expected to be efficient, but the observed rate of star formation in dense gas is only a few percent of the rate expected if the material really were freely collapsing. To solve the problem, astronomers have proposed that magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity.

Magnetic fields are difficult to measure and difficult to interpret. CfA astronomers Tao-Chung Ching, Qizhou Zhang, and Josep Girat led a team that used the Submillimeter Array to study six dense cores in a nearby region in Cygnus. They measured the field strengths from the polarization of the millimeter radiation; elongated dust grains are known to be aligned by magnetic fields and to scatter light with a preferred polarization direction. The scientists then correlated the field direction in these cores with the field direction along the filament out of which the cores developed.

The astronomers find that the along the filament is well-ordered and parallel to the structure, but at the cores themselves the field direction is much more complex, sometimes parallel and sometimes perpendicular. They conclude that during the formation of the cores the magnetic fields, at least at small scales, become unimportant compared to turbulence and infall. Although the field may play an important role as the filament initially collapses, once the dense cores develop the local kinematics from infall and gravitational effects become more important.

Explore further: First look at gravitational dance that drives stellar formation

More information: Tao-Chung Ching et al. Magnetic Fields in the Massive Dense Cores of the DR21 Filament: Weakly Magnetized Cores in a Strongly Magnetized Filament, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65cc

Related Stories

The role of magnetic fields in star formation

July 29, 2016

The star forming molecular clump W43-MM1 is very massive and dense, containing about 2100 solar masses of material in a region only one-third of a light year across (for comparison, the nearest star to the Sun is a bit over ...

Statistical properties of star formation in molecular clouds

September 12, 2016

Stars form within the dense regions of diffuse molecular clouds, but the physical processes that determine the locations, rate, and efficiency of star formation are poorly understood. Recent thinking envisions an approximately ...

Star-forming filaments

May 22, 2017

Interstellar molecular clouds are often seen to be elongated and "filamentary" in shape, and come in a wide range of sizes. In molecular clouds, where stars form, the filamentary structure is thought to play an important ...

Recommended for you

Ancient meteorite tells tales of Mars topography

May 24, 2018

By looking at an ancient Martian meteorite that landed in the Sahara Desert, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and collaborators have determined how and when the red planet's crustal topographic and ...

Rosetta unravels formation of sunrise jets

May 23, 2018

The atmosphere of Rosetta's comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is far from homogeneous. In addition to sudden outbursts of gas and dust, daily recurring phenomena at sunrise can be observed. In these, evaporating gas and entrained ...

Drilling success: Curiosity is collecting Mars rocks

May 23, 2018

Engineers working with NASA's Curiosity Mars rover have been hard at work testing a new way for the rover to drill rocks and extract powder from them. This past weekend, that effort produced the first drilled sample on Mars ...

44 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2017
The astronomers find that the magnetic field along the filament is well-ordered and parallel to the structure, but at the cores themselves the field direction is much more complex, sometimes parallel and sometimes perpendicular...

This is one more example where ignorance of plasma physics obscures the astrophysicists ability to recognize what they are looking at. Clearly with the parallel fields these are confirmed to be Birkeland currents. And if they were aware of these ubiquiteous plasma formations and the physics that describes them then they would realize that the observations are just what one should expect to see.
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
One of these days the plasma ignoramuses might get it, but it will likely take decades to overcome the ignorance based blindness.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
@nazi sympathizing idiot pseudoscience ey cult preacher
One of these days the plasma ignoramuses might get it
don't be so down on yourself - maybe one day you will finally realise that plasma physics is not as hard as you think

it's not enough just to click the free MIT site link i keep offering you: you have to actually take the classes

then you will realise that you've been wrong all along

so repeating a lie about astrophysicists not knowing plasma physics isn't just bullsh*t, your repetition is only your attempt to make yourself really believe it

just like all cults, your eu cult will eventually die out because of the overwhelming scientific evidence making you look like the idiot you are

there isn't a need to denigrate yourself on line, though
leave that to everyone else
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

It would be best if you could actually address the science issues themselves as raised/linked by @cantdrive; instead of just again spamming your interminable irrelevant 'pre-prepared' personal rants; which totally avoid REFUTING (if you can, with an actual on-science post) any SCIENCE claims made/linked by @cantdrive above. Stick to science issues/topic; eschew personal/irrelevant rants. Thanks. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017
Cap'n Stoopid is the height of irrelevance, rants or otherwise. He is completely incapable of addressing the science involved due to pure unadulterated stupidity. A box of rocks would outwit him in a thinking contest.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2017
Fascinating. We're getting pretty deep into stellar formation dynamics. This is a pretty "hot" area of astrophysics just now, it looks like. Wait until we get the JWST up and we can really look closely at these areas.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
It would be best if you could actually address the science issues themselves as raised/linked by @cantdrive
ROTFLMFAO

which science issue?
the part where he denigrates all MS science for not believing his way when he says "One of these days the plasma ignoramuses might get it"?

or the part where he (surprise!) denigrates MS science for not believing his way when he says "This is one more example where ignorance of plasma physics obscures the astrophysicists ability to recognize what they are looking at"??

both have been debunked in the past, and if you read the paper you'll see two of the authors are (drumroll please) plasma physicists, you moronic dipsh*t troll

.

of course, that requires actually reading the paper

... so you have demonstrated (again) that you're illiterate or you didn't read it

FOAD

and either post evidence or STFU
:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

It would be best if you could actually address the science issues themselves as raised/linked by @cantdrive; instead of just again spamming your interminable irrelevant 'pre-prepared' personal rants; which totally avoid REFUTING (if you can, with an actual on-science post) any SCIENCE claims made/linked by @cantdrive above. Stick to science issues/topic; eschew personal/irrelevant rants. Thanks. :)

Not exactly "on science" yourself, with that comment.
Practice what you preach...
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
@Whyde.
@Captain Stumpy.

It would be best if you could actually address the science issues themselves as raised/linked by @cantdrive; instead of just again spamming your interminable irrelevant 'pre-prepared' personal rants; which totally avoid REFUTING (if you can, with an actual on-science post) any SCIENCE claims made/linked by @cantdrive above. Stick to science issues/topic; eschew personal/irrelevant rants. Thanks.
Not exactly "on science" yourself, with that comment.
Practice what you preach...
But Whyde, I was on-science. I alluded to cantdrive's link to that scientific paper; and I also alluded to Captain Stumpy's irrelevant/personal rant against cantdrive didn't even attempt to address the science issue raised. I didn't have to directly address cantdrive's point because I was waiting to see what Captain Stumpy had to counter it with. Try to spend your time/intellect on trying to encourage more on-science and less personal/irrelevant posts. Thanks. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
I alluded to cantdrive's link to that scientific paper
- because you're illiterate and obviously didn't read the paper, nor it's impact, citations or relevance to the above:
citations = 1 (academia: "Electric plasma universe arrives") =PSEUDOSCIENCE
relevance = 0

there is no specific science point being argued by the idiot troll cd that can be determined

in point of fact, the only argument cd makes is that MS science is full of plasma ignoramuses, all while not realising that certain authors of the above are plasma physicists

that claim is directly refuted by me more than 50 times on PO alone, but it's obvious that both scott and cd are pushing known pseudoscience (see: https://phys.org/...ggs.html )

so what "on-science" topic did you really make other than you're too f*cking stupid to actually read the paper, source and material and check for relevance?

so STFU
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
@Captai
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
Lying to yourself/Forum; calling yourself nasty names again? Not healthy, mate.
there is no specific science point being argued by the idiot troll cd that can be determined
He linked to the point/matters; it's in the TITLE:
Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model
So you just denying/ignoring is your problem not his, Stumpy.
the only argument cd makes is that MS science is full of plasma ignoramuses, all while not realising that certain authors of the above are plasma physicists
As far as I can make out, he criticizes the old/misleading interpretational models/terminologies, not the plasma research/science per se, Stumpy.

And Stumpy, MS science history/literature shows personal feuds/insults do NOT 'refute' anything; nor serve/advance objective science discourse. And 'experts' have often been as/more wrong/misleading as those they attacked.

So chill. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@sam fodera the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
He linked to the point/matters; it's in the TITLE
he did not link any evidence to support his claims, you illiterate moron

he made an ASSumption based upon his delusional belief in the authority of scott
his argument has been debunked (that means falsified) in the links i just provided which you (again) did not read
LOL
As far as I can make out, he criticizes the old/misleading interpretational models/terminologies, not the plasma research/science per se
are you now psychic and know the thoughts of all the other pseudoscience idiots like you?

by all means, make your argument and show where his denigration of the above plasma physicists is not denigration of plasma research, per se

i did quote specific lines he stated that have been falsified and debunked
where is your evidence other than your opinion?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
@sam fodera the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :) cont'd
MS science history/literature shows personal feuds/insults do NOT 'refute' anything
evidence does, however!

just because you don't read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, you illiterate idiot
nor serve/advance objective science discourse
spreading false information also does not advance or serve science or discourse in any way whatsoever

i provided ample evidence for my claims - you don't

so links/references or STFU already
And 'experts' have often been as/more wrong/misleading as those they attacked
not when said "attack" is based upon evidence like the above discourse, or like my points to you elsewhere

like i said: links or STFU
So chill
so FOAD or Anhero :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
@Forum.

Wow! Did you see that? Poor CS has lost it again. Two posts of drivel and spite to add to his now astronomical numbers of drivel and spite posts. What a 'legacy' to leave for posterity. Unwavering stupidity and malice disguised as defending science. I pity even more any scientist being 'defended' by this zealous but ignorant savage; who not only does not comprehend the subtle/complex physics matters being discussed above his head, but also makes it a personal matter whenever he is found out to be less than helpful (and that's putting it kindly) to actual objective science discourse/advance.

Caps is a self-created stalker, hacker, harasser, insulter and liar; who misses all the important scientific developments while he continues his political/personal 'crusade' against those whom he cannot meet on equal objective terms on the science discourse field.

And Caps STILL lies about "criminal record"; will NOT explain himself as to WHY he tells such lies to @Forum.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
@sam fodera the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
Wow! Did you see that? Poor CS has lost it again
delusional projection
just because you got caught lying yet again doesn't mean anyone else "lost it"

it's evident you didn't read any of my links, nor the very lengthy evidence presented in them against not only the idiot scott, but the idiot cd

ya got caught lying again, rc: suck it up, buttercup
STILL lies about "criminal record"; will NOT explain himself
1- not a lie
2- I will provide the evidence in exactly 7,106 posts

again, that is assuming that the very next post you make presents the evidence for your libelous and fraudulent BICEP2 claims

3- repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, ya fraudulent troll

4- until you can make an evidence based argument, you will be treated like a trolling POS liar that you've demonstrated yourself to be

FOAD and Anhero, in any order you like
:)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
@Forum.

How juvenile and/or unstable in mind and character is this Captain Stumpy? Very! As his use of nasty internet slang demonstrates for all to see (except himself, because his 'insensibility' and 'non-self-awareness has increased in direct proportion to his decrease in character and mind integrity). A couple of examples of Cap's 'level' of internet nastiness:
FOAD and Anhero, in any order you like
For those who do not know what these mean, the Urban Dictionary says...
FOAD = "F*ck Off And Die"
Anhero = "K!ll yourself".
Yes, folks. That's what passes for 'class and intellect' in the twisted juvenile world of @Captain Stumpy. Sad, ain't it folks? From such a low-level creepiness to start with, it was but a short step for Stumpy to resort to making up personal lies re "criminal record" while (childishly) pretending to be in any way relevant or worthwhile to actual polite objective science/discourse. What a waste and shame. WHY is he like this? Pitiable.

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
@forum
How juvenile and/or unstable in mind and character is this sam fodera liar? Very! As his use of libelous fraudulent false claims demonstrates for all to see (except himself, because his 'insensibility' and 'non-self-awareness has increased in direct proportion to his decrease in character and mind integrity). A couple of examples of sammie's 'level' of internet nastiness:
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw
https://phys.org/...nal.html

in three years there has been zero evidence presented for just these mentioned 4 fatal flaws

Yes, folks. That's what passes for 'class and intellect' in the twisted juvenile world of @sammie. Sad, ain't it? From such a low-level stupidity to start with, it was but a short easy step for Sammie to resort to making up personal lies re "falat flaws"
waste and shame. Pitiable.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
@RC can't hold it because it's only 3.

Your stinky jeans are not proof, @RC. You lie in every post. I don't even need to read them any more.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
@Forum.

See again where @Captain Stumpy resorts to the juvenile "Yes I know you are but what am I" retort. Pitiable, isn't it? No attempt at face the reality of his own malice and creepiness on the net as being just the same kind as causing fear in another poster (quote Da Schneib in another thread where he was speaking to someone else):
Yeah, because trolls like you never, ever, ever pursue people who reveal their identities on line and then get harassed by trolls like you.
Funny how Da Schneib can see this POTENTIAL danger from whomever he was responding to, but is so blinded by CS-gang membership bias that Da Schneib cannot see it from the REAL and PRESENT and ACTIVELY ON-GOING danger which @Captain Stumpy has been for YEARS now.

So, @Stumpy insensible to his own internet actions being a danger to all; and @Da Schneib now chiming in, supporting Stumpy while being totally biased/oblivious to that Cap's real danger as described by Da Schneib own words above! Wow.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC can't hold it because it's only 3.

Your stinky jeans are not proof, @RC. You lie in every post. I don't even need to read them any more.
Really, DS? Here, answer these for the @Forum:
- 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, DS/CS-gang; face your reality and explain yourselves to @Forum.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@forum
See again where @Captain Stumpy resorts to the juvenile "Yes I know you are but what am I" retort.
ROTFLMFAO
hey: @sam fodera the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)

you do realise all i did was copy and paste your own words right?

so you just slammed your own post as juvenile and a threat to the site!

ROTFLMFAO

the difference is: i can and have proven my arguments with evidence
you have YET to be able to prove yours with evidence

.

LOL

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
See again where @Captain Stumpy resorts to the juvenile "Yes I know you are but what am I" retort.
ROTFLMFAO
hey: @sam fodera the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record you do realise all i did was copy and paste your own words right?
Exactly! You have just admitted to twisting my desription of what YOU did/were; hence turning it into a version of "Yes I know you are but what am I", Stumpy. Too subtle?

You really are silly, Stumpy; you just admitted to twisting what I pointed out for the @Forum about YOU and deluding yourself that you're somehow 'refuting' it. Oh dear, Stumpy. Oh dear.
so you just slammed your own post as juvenile and a threat to the site! ROTFLMFAO
No, laughing-boy, I "slammed" your 'repetition' of it as your juvenile 'tactic' which avoids/denies the facts pointed out about you to @Forum, ie: YOU STILL have NOT explained WHY you lied to @Forum about "criminal record", Stumpy.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2017
Nice to see all the cranks in this thread and their anti-science attempts to obfuscate and ignore the actual science discussion. Way to go Cap'n Stoopid, WG, da shnied and FSC!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@nazi sympathizing idiot pseudoscience eu cult peon
Nice to see all the cranks in this thread and their anti-science attempts to obfuscate and ignore the actual science discussion
i keep tying to share science, but you refuse to accept validated papers over your delusional cult manifesto

so lets talk about real science for a moment: why is scotts paper only referenced by eu idiots?
that is one big indicator of pseudoscience, really
i mean, no plasma physicist or even electrical engineers are referencing the paper, just the eu cult

that speaks volumes in and of itself, but beyond that, it's a singular paper with no validation

this is important because i've presented you with experimental evidence that has over 100,000 experiments in a single lab, that is also validated by every plasma physics lab in existence, yet you claim it's "pseudoscience" without any evidence

conclusion: you're a cult denier of science and an idiot who thinks his religion is important
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@FineStructureConstant.
@Forum says "Nobody here is interested in your infantile screaming." Just go take your meds and lie down in a dark corner.
By "@Forum" I allude to those posters who do NOT belong to CS-gang of foulmouthed, poisonous, bot-voting ignoramus who bring their vile personal stupidities and lies into practically every thread. Just look at the latest example of said poisonous poster/post in this very thread, FSC. Mate, how can you expect any 'crank' to have respect for anyone who behaves/poisons like that while claiming to represent 'science' while betraying its objectivity/dispassionate principles in the same post/breath?

While ever you/CS-gang continue what you have been doing for years now, poisoning, bot-voting and personal lies/insults in lieu of actual OBJECTIVE science discourse (not just 'parroting' orthodoxy which has been well falsified already), then you 'speak' ONLY for that poisonous, bot-voting gang which you have condoned. Bad. Rethinkit!
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2017
this is important because i've presented you with experimental evidence that has over 100,000 experiments in a single lab, that is also validated by every plasma physics lab in existence, yet you claim it's "pseudoscience" without any evidence

conclusion: you're a cult denier of science and an idiot who thinks his religion is important


And still can't/ won't explain why Falthammar accepts that MR happens. So, I guess that in the EU idiotic worldview (due to Scott, Thornhill & Talbott; lol), Falthammar must be one of the ignoramuses that the unqualified idiot CD refers to. Yes?
References available on request.
Give up CD, you know sh*t about plasma physics, and are kidding nobody here. Back to your homework. School is back soon.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
OK, for the hard of thinking, and those with crap research skills:
Alfvén waves appear to be responsible for certain kinds of auroras (Stasiewics et al., 2000; Keiling et al. 2003; Chaston et al. 2003, 2007; Janhunen et al.,2006), and recent observations (Chaston et al., 2009) indicate that they play an important role in **magnetic reconnection**.

My emphasis.
CG Fälthammar (2010)
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

A special kind of violation of the frozen field condition is the process of reconnection.

See above paper.

Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth's magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet.

See above paper.

I could go on. I guess Falthammar is an ignoramus. What say you CD? Care to stack up your lack of quals against his? Idiot.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
Caps is a self-created stalker, hacker, harasser, insulter and liar; who misses all the important scientific developments while he continues his political/personal 'crusade' against those whom he cannot meet on equal objective terms on the science discourse field.

And Caps STILL lies about "criminal record"; will NOT explain himself as to WHY he tells such lies to @Forum.


......and look who gave him a 5 Star, Jonesy

August 10, 2017, 3:10 pm 5 Uncle Ira, jonesdave

The entire foul mouthed name calling brigade all hang in there together whining like 2 year olds because others won't agree with them.

Hey Jonesy, ever see a Differential Equation you could solve?

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
@banjiTROLL
because others won't agree with them
just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it's factual, let alone real
you know, like your claim-
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...als.html

ever see a Differential Equation you could solve?
not only are you math illiterate yourself with your epic fail in the link above with basic addition, but you fail at all DE's too:
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

that is just 4 of the 10+ links i have on your math fail's
so STFU
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
The reconnection events in the geomagnetic tail that are associated with magnetospheric substorms have many similarities to the fast energy release that takes place in solar flares (Lin et al., 2008).


More from the pseudoscience plasma ignoramus, Falthammar. Same paper. I would suggest reading it to any EU loons. Alfven's right hand man. Colleague, friend and co-author. Telling you, right there, that you are talking sh*t. As per usual. Come on CD, please let us know why you think that Falthammar is a plasma ignoramus, and you aren't. Possibly because you know Jack about plasma physics, yes? Grow up, son. Get an education. Better still, get a relevant degree. And then come back to us. When you actually have a clue about the subject upon which you post EU dogma. From people who haven't a sodding clue about what they're talking about.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@jonesdave.

It is that sort of gratuitous insults, disrespect, that created the 'bad blood' between many on either 'side' of these issues. Time now to tone down all that old/unnecessary 'attitude' and concentrate on actual science issues per se, don't you think, mate? :)

To that end, I again note that the "mag Reconnection" is merely a 'label' denoting 'mag-field re-arrangement'. Also, from your pdf link:
...a key role is
played by the electric field, which is difficult or impossible to measure remotely. In the Earth's magnetosphere it is accessible to in situ measurements and even active experimentation. Of particular importance is the existence of magnetic-field aligned electric fields, which were considered non-existent on the basis of idealized models but have
proved to play a key role both in acceleration processes and in plasma dynamics.
"Mag Reconnection" SEMANTICS tends to 'hide' the importance/presence of Electric fields. It's Electro-Magnetic phenomena! :)
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2017
Caps is a self-created stalker, hacker, harasser, insulter and liar; who misses all the important scientific developments while he continues his political/personal 'crusade' against those whom he cannot meet on equal objective terms on the science discourse field.

And Caps STILL lies about "criminal record"; will NOT explain himself as to WHY he tells such lies to @Forum.


......and look who gave him a 5 Star, Jonesy

August 10, 2017, 3:10 pm 5 Uncle Ira, jonesdave

The entire foul mouthed name calling brigade all hang in there together whining like 2 year olds because others won't agree with them.

Hey Jonesy, ever see a Differential Equation you could solve?



Sorry, s___ for brains; what happens to visible light when it encounters rock, for arguments sake? Lol. Back to school, bozo. And I'm not sure about your education area, but we did differential equations, integration etc, in 6th form.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2017
"Mag Reconnection" SEMANTICS tends to 'hide' the importance/presence of Electric fields. It's Electro-Magnetic phenomena! :)

BS. Really? Like me to quote a shed load of frigging papers where that is taken into account? Jesus. How do you think plasma physics works? What an idiotic comment.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
Like me to quote a shed load of frigging papers where that is taken into account? Jesus. How do you think plasma physics works? What an idiotic comment
@jonesdave
look who you're talking about...

posting to it makes no difference

you (and the forum, and the thread, etc) will now receive multiple posts that do absolutely nothing to explain anything

It will only regurgitate the false data presented in the above posts in some random order

best choice: ignore and report

unless you like poking the stupid, that is
:D
LOL

(PS - the site will likely delete some of your posts simply because they do not like their prolific trolls disturbed, regardless of the 7,125 posts with no evidence proven in their own words by them on the site - https://phys.org/...ure.html )
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@jonesdave.

Again, mate, no need for that sort of 'attitude'. Relax. I'm not an 'enemy', but a friend in science. Ok? :)

Anyhow, to this:
Like me to quote a shed load of frigging papers where that is taken into account?
That is exactly the point, mate. Only recently, have the 'papers/researchers' started to actually acknowledge the presence/importance of the Electric field components involved in the Electro-magnetic field RE-ARRANGEMENTS which are what is now being discussed with the better understanding that all the electric-magnetic components/forces/effects MUST BE included in the 'modeling' and 'calculating' and 'describing' terminologies and theories/explanations. I'm glad you are recognizing what has been the main complaint from cantdrive et al, ie: previous 'papers/models' underplayed/ignored the Electric component of the phenomena, and so arose the "magnetic reconnection" label as a "thing" in its own right instead of as PART OF Electro-Magnetic phenomena. :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
Probably right, CS. However, here is another paper on which the pseudoscientist ignoramus, Falthammar, was a co-author:
Magnetospheric substorms and solar flares.
http://articles.a...ssic=YES

Yikes. One year after Alfven died, and there he is, bigging up reconnection again. Shame on him. :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@jonesdave.

Again, mate, no need for that sort of 'attitude'. Relax. I'm not an 'enemy', but a friend in science. Ok? :)



Then why, in the name of all that isn't holy, would you suggest that the electric field isn't taken into account???????? Like I said - dumb comment. Do some research, yes?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
@jonesdave.
Again, mate, no need for that sort of 'attitude'. Relax. I'm not an 'enemy', but a friend in science. Ok? :)
Then why, ....would you suggest that the electric field isn't taken into account?
Relax, mate. It's a wide-ranging discussion with many subtleties, possibilities for misunderstandings developed along the way. The point is while some have (like Alfven himself) taken into account Electric fields/currents component/forces/effects/constituents, it remains the case that some astrophysicists still not fully 'integrated' this understanding of overall E-M phenomena, and still speak of 'mag-reconnection' as if that is simple cut-and-dried 'explanation' of what has been observed. But what HAS been observed of late is that it is NOT as simple as 'mag-reconnection' based models/explanations implied. Yes, it's great that, NOW, the WHOLE E-M phenomena is being more fully 'treated' by some astros/models; but more need to get on board to avoid misleading.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@RC,
This more general definition of reconnection was proposed by Schindler et al. (1988) and Hesse and Schindler (1988) and further elaborated by Birn et al. (1997), but the term reconnection is commonly used for reconnection at a separatrix.


That is from the same paper I linked above. Take a look at the bloody dates of the papers Falthammar is referencing. Recent? Errr, no. I could go back further. I suggest that dragging up Alfven, who never lived to see the Princeton experiments, nor Cluster, nor Themis, nor MM is irrelevant. Like the man said himself; experiment is important, but nothing beats in-situ data. And we have it. Game over.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
@jonesdave.
That is from the same paper I linked above. Take a look at the bloody dates of the papers Falthammar is referencing. Recent? Errr, no. I could go back further. I suggest that dragging up Alfven, who never lived to see the Princeton experiments, nor Cluster, nor Themis, nor MM is irrelevant. Like the man said himself; experiment is important, but nothing beats in-situ data. And we have it. Game over.
We've moved past that, mate. The only point at issue now is that many astros/paperwriters do not unambiguously define the usage/meaning properly in their model/language descriptions/explanations. You and I know that many INDIVIDUALS have been cognizant of the finer points re 'connection' of previously 'open' flux tubes etc, but the 'latency' in their insights getting integrated into the wider astro/paperwriting community on these matters is a problem because they still use terminology which can mislead the reader/understanding of what is being 'treated'. See?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
Nice, another twenty or so comment rant changing the subject and spewing vitriol. And as of yet not one follow-on comment on the observed field-aligned current (aka....Birkeland current).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
@nazi sympathizing idiot pseudoscience ey cult preacher
And as of yet not one follow-on comment on the observed field-aligned current (aka....Birkeland current)
So?
there is no follow on comment because you're not only not being specific, you also don't know WTF you're talking about WRT plasma physics (demonstrated: https://phys.org/...ggs.html )

so:

1- why should we accept pseudoscience terminology based upon a singular paper that is not only not cited by electrical engineers, but irrelevant with no clearly defined point?

2- why do you, specifically, think the paper is relevant?
be very specific so it can be tested, validated & checked

3- considering your additional claims of pseudoscience when your own cult doesn't recognize validated experimental evidence from plasma physicists, why should we even consider your own posts as anything other than bullsh*t?

especially considering the absolute lack of evidence

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
Probably right, CS
@jonesdave
i was right about the gish-gallop of BS though!
LOL

i loved this totally bogus and delusional BS gem
it remains the case that some astrophysicists still not fully 'integrated' this understanding of overall E-M phenomena
no evidence at all!
none whatsoever! (imagine that)

just another invalid troll claim because he's proven to be a liar yet again!
especially considering: https://ocw.mit.e...ophysics

or http://www.pppl.gov

the funniest part about that lie is this: he believes it!
he really believes that cd lie that astro's don't comprehend the EM, despite they get far more plasma physics training than the EE's!!

the fact that he repeated the claim from cd while defending it as plausible, despite the links that directly prove him wrong, is one reason we should just ignore and report the troll from now on

what do you think?
appreciate your feedback
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
@RC,...

Like the man said himself; experiment is important, but nothing beats in-situ data. And we have it. Game over.
@RC doesn't "believe in" data, any more than it "believes in" math. Only problem is, it never has a coherent argument against either, and always lies when challenged.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
RC doesn't "believe in" data, any more than it "believes in" math. Only problem is, it never has a coherent argument against either, and always lies when challenged.
Your science-empty, personal-lies 'trolling tactics' demeans your character, betrays true science method, DS. Have you no shame; don't you ever learn, DS?

Face your reality, DS:

- 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 and more, DS, but you did NOT! So...

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

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

Shame on you, DS! Shame!

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.