Unique study tests fundamental laws of physics

September 5, 2017
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

A study that will 'test our understanding of how the Universe works, particularly outside the relatively narrow confines of our planet' is being undertaken by an international team of researchers led by the University of Leicester.

The research probes whether the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere in the . In their new study, the Leicester-led team assesses whether these laws are the same within the hot, dense conditions in the atmosphere of a dying as here on Earth.

These have masses around half that of the Sun compressed into a radius similar to that of the Earth, leading to extreme gravity within the atmosphere of the star.

The preliminary analysis, led by the research group of Professor Martin Barstow, Pro-Vice-Chancellor; Strategic Science Projects Director, Leicester Institute of Space & Earth Observation; Professor of Astrophysics & Space Science, Department of Physics & Astronomy, features on the cover of the online journal Universe.

Postdoctoral researcher Matthew Bainbridge is the lead author of the early-stage study titled "Probing the Gravitational Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant from Observations of White Dwarf Stars."

The study involved Matthew Bainbridge, Martin Barstow and Nicole Reindl from Leicester along with colleagues from the U.S., France, The Netherlands, Australia and collaborators in the U.K..

The researchers use the light of white dwarf stars observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. Dr Nicole Reindl, leading the observations, says: "These particular stars contain metals, such as Iron and Nickel, floating within the surface layers of their atmospheres. The light generated within the depths of the star passes through the heavy metals, leaving behind a "fingerprint" in the stars' light that we can study."

Tiny differences in the wavelengths of the light that passes through these heavy metals, compared to experiments here on Earth, gives us clues about potential differences in the of physics under extreme gravity compared to here on Earth.

"Studying these fingerprints in detail requires very precise measurements of the wavelength, or colour, of the light emerging from the atmospheres of these stars" says Dr Matthew Bainbridge, who has been working on the detailed analysis techniques needed to detect the tiny changes expected. "The project is ongoing, but we have established a sophisticated new method and have demonstrated how successful it is on nine stars."

This is a unique study that brings together our expertise and that of world leaders in a variety of fields including observational astronomy, cosmology, experimental atomic physics and high energy theoretical physics. Cosmology studies the origin and evolution of the universe and, since the birth of science, has inspired fundamental shifts in our understanding of our place in the Universe.

Project leader Professor Martin Barstow adds: "This new work will test our understanding of how the Universe works, particularly outside the relatively narrow confines of our planet. We anticipate that our results will challenge current theoretical ideas in cosmology."

Explore further: Scientists solve riddle of celestial archaeology

More information: Matthew Bainbridge et al. Probing the Gravitational Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant from Observations of White Dwarf Stars, Universe (2017). DOI: 10.3390/universe3020032

Related Stories

Scientists solve riddle of celestial archaeology

March 26, 2014

A decades old space mystery has been solved by an international team of astronomers led by Professor Martin Barstow of the University of Leicester and President-elect of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Smallest-ever star discovered by astronomers

July 12, 2017

The smallest star yet measured has been discovered by a team of astronomers led by the University of Cambridge. With a size just a sliver larger than that of Saturn, the gravitational pull at its stellar surface is about ...

Ancient white dwarf stars

November 3, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Pushing the limits of its powerful vision, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope uncovered the oldest burned-out stars in our Milky Way Galaxy in this image from 2002. These extremely old, dim "clockwork stars" provide ...

Recommended for you

Dawn mission extended at Ceres

October 20, 2017

NASA has authorized a second extension of the Dawn mission at Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. During this extension, the spacecraft will descend to lower altitudes than ever before ...

74 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

someone11235813
5 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2017
What are called 'laws of physics' are only our understanding of the laws. If these 'laws' change under particular circumstances then they will be supplanted by new 'laws' that will encompass the new conditions. Bohr understood this when he was prepared to abandon the hallowed conservation of energy at one point before Pauli postulated the neutron, (later renamed the neutrino). The laws of the Universe do not change, it's our conceptions that change.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2017
The "laws of physics" are simply the rules we follow to guide our path thru' chaos by choosing the next snapshot of the positions of fundamental particles which represent the sequence of quantums which provide our subjective experience of the passage of time. In order to construct the "universe" we inhabit each quantum exhibits a macroscopic representation of the previously selected quantum but on a slightly larger scale, thus providing many of the effects necessary for our "universe" to function, e.g. gravity,which is a consequence of the expansion and is not a force. The nature of time is exposed when a microscopic view is taken of our "universe" whereupon it becomes apparent that the "laws of physics" are not obeyed on a very small scale, as the next quantum of time is chosen only to a macroscopic level of detail. It would seem that, after all, there is a limit to the fine grain of time due to the chance of EVERY fundamental particle being in the right place before eternity.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2017
This article is a proposal. Advocating for a 'combined arms' research program bringing together a number of different disciplines.

An attempt to achieve a coherent comprehension of data accumulated from a multitude of sources.

The writers of this article expressed what they hope to eventually accomplish.

And nothing more.

Be careful reading your hopes and desires into this work. They cannot help but disappoint you whatever their future conclusions.

Even if the results match your opinion? The very language the researchers will use to express themselves, will leave you feeling ignored and betrayed.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2017
What are called 'laws of physics' are only our understanding of the laws. If these 'laws' change under particular circumstances then they will be supplanted by new 'laws' that will encompass the new conditions. Bohr understood this when he was prepared to abandon the hallowed conservation of energy at one point before Pauli postulated the neutron, (later renamed the neutrino). The laws of the Universe do not change, it's our conceptions that change.

Nonsense. The law is the law. Science is Texas. Just ask any common merger maniac. They are unable to consider anything that violates the Law! They are not interested in understanding. No, they are only interested in the recognition of their gun-toting peers, who will shoot anything that violates the Law. Open-carry. Hence, they will never comprehend.
shavera
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2017
While I'll agree that a lot of physics laws are mathematical approximations of the truth (ie, they predict the outcomes of experiments to high degrees of precision), there are some physical laws that are more rigid.

Chiefly, I'd say Noether's theorem is pretty much as closed to a "baked-in" law as you can get. If a symmetry exists, then there _must_ be a conserved quantity associated with it. Noether's theorem guides much of 'fundamental' physics. And while I could perhaps grant that maybe the symmetries we use are only approximate or need to be refined still, some of them seem pretty inviolable. (Conservation of 4-momentum and the angular versions thereof)
shavera
4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2017
I should also be more clear, I guess. A 'law' in physics really is _only_ a mathematical tool to predict approximate outcomes of experiments. And despite my previous post, sometimes the approximation isn't even that great. Consider Hooke's law. It's a physical "law" but it only really holds for ideal massless springs who aren't deformed too far from their relaxed positions. Or Ohm's law for resistence. And so on. We should always be clear that a "law" in physics isn't like a dogmatic "perfect truth" that the universe must obey. It's only a useful tool, usually existing as a part of a broader framework of associated laws and postulates that we often term a "theory." Which itself doesn't mean the end-all-be-all final answer, just an explanatory framework that is more useful than others with fewer unjustified assumptions.
bschott
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2017
They are unable to consider anything that violates the Law! They are not interested in understanding.

I present to you the current solar model. Not only do they consider it, but they refuse to alter it despite the fact that observations clearly demonstrate a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Essentially...the laws are only there to support a position taken by a mainstreamer until observations that a law is violated occur. Then you have to wade through word salad like the above 2 posts whose message is "sometimes were right, sometimes were not".... which can be extended to - "just don't point out when we're wrong cause we're not".
How someone who claims to be any kind of physicist can hold a magnet in each hand, feel the interactions, and then believe in DM is mystery only scoob and the gang can solve...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
@shavera, gotta agree with that; what are generally called "laws of physics" are relatively simple mathematical constructs that are generally true in our experience. Newton's Laws of Motion are a great example; F=ma is a great generalization, but requires the addition of Einstein's SRT to be exact for all definitions of m, and possibly for all definitions of a (we're still investigating that, since a is defined in GRT, and we haven't directly observed high values of gravity).
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2017
They are unable to consider anything that violates the Law! They are not interested in understanding.

I present to you the current solar model. Not only do they consider it, but they refuse to alter it despite the fact that observations clearly demonstrate a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. ........blah, blah, blah..


Really? Care to point us to a model that has been proposed, that solves these "problems"? In the scientific literature? And the evidence for it? I'm sure that we'd all be happy to see such a thing, particularly as whoever has devised it is surely in line for a Nobel Prize.
A link will be fine.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2017
Really?

Yes, really.
Care to point us to a model that has been proposed, that solves these "problems"?

No, but getting rid of garbage is never a bad idea.
In the scientific literature?

A model that contradicts physical reality resides in mainstream literature...why would anyone besides a brain dead idiot think it was worth reading?
I'm sure that we'd all be happy to see such a thing

Definitely not, you can barely deal with the fact that the model you support is completely wrong, showing you reality might induce another episode...
A link will be fine.

Jones ability to read and comprehend:
https://phys.org/...ian.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
@shavera, @Da Schneib.

@shavera and @Da Schneib. It is heartening to note the more reasonable/balanced honest/humble tenor/content entering your more recent responses/explanations; eg, such as in your respective posts above re what a "law" in physics context is in actuality. Much appreciated! :)

Yes, agreed, such "laws" are could also be succinctly characterized as mathematical "Rules of Thumb"; the most commonly applied real-world version of which is in the electrical trades by apprentices who are taught to make a fist then 'extend your thumb, index finger and second finger' to represent/visualize the 'current', the 'magnetic field and the 'electric' field 'vectors' (resembling the usual representation of Euclidian Cartesian Co-ordinates System).

Of course, as you above honestly acknowledged, such 'rules of thumb' are merely illustrative tools for identifying/predicting certain aspects of the dynamics/phenomena under study; and NOT MEANT as 'explanations' of same. :)

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2017
@jonesdave.
From bschott: I present to you the current solar model. Not only do they consider it, but they refuse to alter it despite the fact that observations clearly demonstrate a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. ..
From @jonesdave: Really? Care to point us to a model that has been proposed, that solves these "problems"?
Again I urge you to temper your 'reactions' and consider the actual Objective Scientific Method Principles especially relating to the subject/requirements of/for "Falsification".

I remind you/all that falsification may be effected merely by OBSERVATIONS which counter a hypothesis/claim. At no stage does the scientific method DEMAND that the observer produces an alternative hypothesis/claim.

The point I am trying to get across is that your over-reaction, unreasonable demands, emotional/gratuitous outbursts/insults, only serves to LESSEN RESPECT for yourself AND for the TRUE scientific method when you misapply it. OK? Good luck. :)
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2017


Jones ability to read and comprehend:
https://phys.org/...ian.html


Sorry, dickhead, what have you done there? Cannot understand that Martian dust devils are eff all to do with solar wind woo? Please, dear, explain this for us. Lol. Never done plasma physics, have you love? Clueless, would be the first thing I would say. I'll repeat this for the hard of thinking; how is the solar wind, or any other woo you care to dream up, causing dust storms on Mars, or anywhere else, when the sodding solar wind isn't reaching the frigging surface, where dust storms occur? Spell it out, you unqualified loon.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2017
Definitely not, you can barely deal with the fact that the model you support is completely wrong, showing you reality might induce another episode...


Really? Where is it wrong, woo boy? Please explain. Scientifically.

jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2017
I'll repeat this for the hard of thinking; show me a model that explains the Sun better than the standard model. As backed up by multiple observations. Where is it? Doesn't exist, does it woo boys? Dear me; get past third form science, and these loons think they can tackle **real** science. Here is a thought; you know sod all about science, and run away every time you are asked to back your garbage up with **actual** science. If you knew anything about science, then, by definition, you wouldn't believe in the woo that you do. N'est-ce pas?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2017
Looks like Alfven proposed frozen-in fields in 1942. In fact it's called "Alfven's Theorem" these days: https://en.wikipe..._theorem and is considered a foundational part of magnetohydrodynamics.

Weren't all these Velikovsky #physicscranks claiming that "frozen in fields" were BS six months ago? If they think so, what are they now trumpeting Alfven all over the place for? Pick one, guys.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Looks like Alfven proposed frozen-in fields in 1942. In fact it's called "Alfven's Theorem" these days: https://en.wikipe..._theorem and is considered a foundational part of magnetohydrodynamics.

Weren't all these Velikovsky #physicscranks claiming that "frozen in fields" were BS six months ago? If they think so, what are they now trumpeting Alfven all over the place for? Pick one, guys.
Didn't Alfven himself later retract his earlier 'frozen in' approach to modeling the plasma dynamics in question, because he later found it to be incorrect despite his earlier naive interpretation of what was happening in fact, DS?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2017
I'd need to see some evidence of that, @RC. It is, after all, called "Alfven's Theorem." It's also foundational to MHD, so basically he'd be denying the research he won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for. I have trouble imagining that.

But good luck.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2017
Did some poking around and found that Alfven's Theorem is well established, which one would expect for a theorem (which is susceptible to a proof, unlike a theory). It turns out that it's only exactly accurate for a perfectly conducting plasma; Alfven himself did point that out, but never said the theorem is incorrect (as he obviously could not, given that it's a theorem and has a proof). Numerous out-of-context quotes are taken as supposed evidence that he rejected it, but he cannot have done so since, as I pointed out, it is a theorem, not a theory. He'd have had to reject math to do that.

He did point out (and it is pointed out in all modern textbooks on MHD today) that it only applies to an ideal plasma, not to the real-world plasmas that one encounters when doing astrophysics.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2017
[contd]
The limitations of MHD are that it does not consider particle physics. Therefore, both the time and space scales must be large enough to override particle effects. Thus, one must consider the density, charge, and motion of the plasma. Below a critical size, a critical time, or a critical density or charge, MHD is not valid. There is no set formula based on particular sizes, times, densities, or charge densities, but given a particular plasma's density and charge density, critical sizes and times can be calculated.

So no, Alfven never said his own theorem was incorrect. He said it was incomplete, but he never said it was incorrect (and couldn't have, because it's a theorem, not a theory).
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
For the curious, the main parameters of the particles in a plasma that determine the size and the time below which MHD is not usable with good accuracy are controlled by the gyromagnetics of the particles in the plasma. We look at plasmas over times that are greater and preferably many times greater than the gyromagnetic period of the longest period particles in them, and over spatial extents that are greater and preferably many times greater than the gyromagnetic radius of those particles. Provided these criteria are met, MHD is a perfectly adequate way to examine plasmas anywhere. By the time we get to an order of magnitude greater time and size than the gyro period and gyro radius, that is, 10x greater, the errors are minuscule and may be ignored in any real world calculation.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
[contd]
It is notable that Ohm's Law is similarly "incorrect;" it fails to take particle behavior into account. To use it (and the associated Joule's Law), one must consider a large enough number of particles over a long enough time and large enough space, and even then, it only applies to perfect conductors (of which there are none but superconductors). Electronics engineers happily ignore these limitations and use Ohm's Law to design and troubleshoot electronic circuits, building and repairing telephones, stereo sound systems, televisions, radios, and computers, and shifting to the more accurate but computationally limited quantum descriptions only where it is needed.

Basically, Alfven's MHD is about as accurate as Maxwell's Equations, and both are about field theories, not particle theories. Both are also about as accurate as Einstein's General Relativity Theory; GRT is also a field theory.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
[contd]
Eventually we will discover quantum gravity theory, and then we will have a particle theory of gravity that will be as accurate (at very small distances and over very short times, and at very high field strengths) as quantum mechanics is for the electromagnetic, color, and flavor forces. But no practicing gravity engineer will use it; they'll stick to GRT, just as electronics engineers stick to Maxwell's Equations. And just as astrophysicists stick to MHD.

I can see, @RC, why you deny math. The very idea of a theorem must be painful for you. What doesn't make sense is how you think you can deny Maxwell's Equations while typing on a computer and making posts to the Internets. There really isn't any way around math; it's like not "believing in" air.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
Oh, and BTW this all exactly confirms my claims that it makes sense to talk about "frozen in fields" in plasmas many light years across developing over millions of years; in fact, it makes sense to talk about frozen-in fields in solar wind plasmas of extents of under a hundred kilometers over tens of minutes. MHD describes these plasmas perfectly well.

As far as solar plasmas, they exist under very high field conditions near the surface of the Sun, so MHD can be done for packet sizes under 10 km and over timescales of seconds with excellent accuracy. The particle physics are unnecessary here, because the gyro radius is in kilometers, and the gyro period is in milliseconds.

And these are things that the Velikovsky #physicscranks have been told over, and over, and over again on this forum.

If anyone wants the actual equations to verify my contentions I'll be happy to provide them, but you have to post your results-- and they have to be accurate. There will be a test.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2017
In short, bring the math. If you can handle it I can; if you can't then you're making stuff up. It's as simple as that. Don't bring BS that denies the math; I got two apples and you give me three more means I got five. There isn't any place to hide here.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2017
Sorry, dickhead, what have you done there?

I have demonstrated that you are a complete idiot who can't comprehend what he reads. I did this by quoting one of the inept comments you made in a thread under an article where observations directly contradict your mindless drivel...just like the time you couldn't figure out that an increase in photonic output from a comet meant that it was brightening.
Really? Where is it wrong, woo boy? Please explain. Scientifically.

You're a retard Jones (scientifically). We observe a surface temperature of thousands of degrees and above it a corona in millions, your idiot model sandwiches a layer of thousands of degrees between two layers that are at millions of degrees C.... violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. The idiots that support it, don't even feel it necessary to understand how our observed physical laws show the model is wrong ...must be why you need it explained by a "woo boy" on a news site.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2017
Here is a thought;

Congratulations...your first one!!!
you know sod all about science, and run away every time you are asked to back your garbage up with **actual** science. If you knew anything about science, then, by definition, you wouldn't believe in the woo that you do. N'est-ce pas?

Funny...because I am the one talking science and you are the impudent child doing your usual trash talking. So, you asked why the model is wrong, (because apparently your understanding of *actual* science is that of a walmart cashier) I had to explain your own physics to you along with the laws being violated if the model is correct.
Now if I were an optimist I would hope you would address the issue, but I am a realist so I flat out expect a response that ignores any scientific issue but contains more name calling and feeble attempts at insult....IOW...more defective products from your feeble mind Jones.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I'd need to see some evidence of that, @RC. It is, after all, called "Alfven's Theorem."....he'd be denying the research he won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for.
I recall seeing a quote from Hannes Alfven doing exactly that, mate. Perhaps a PO member with more time on his hands can find/post same for your info. And it's NOT math theorem(s) I alluded to; it's the CONCEPT/PERSPECTIVE of "frozen in field lines". Please try to differentiate between ABSTRACT maths concepts and REALITY physical concepts; else you will continue to conflate the two and confuse yourself when trying to actually understand what is actually happening in the particular phenomena/dynamics under study.
Oh, and BTW this all exactly confirms my claims that it makes sense to talk about "frozen in fields" in plasmas...
please elaborate how your cut-and-pasted textbook info does this; especially since NEWLY observed FAST ELECTRON 'currents' at ALL SCALES make "frozen-in" claims silly.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2017
@Da Schneib.
you deny math.
Please stop resorting to cheap/lame 'tactics', DS. By now you should have 'caught up' and understood what I ACTUALLY pointed out re the CURRENT FORM of the AXIOMATIC CONVENTIONAL MATHEMATICS 'concepts and constructs'. Two centuries of failure demonstrates it is patently incapable of modeling the universal reality as a consistent whole rather than disparate 'partial modelings' which do NOT 'meld' when trying to create a GUT model of THE UNIVERSE (as it is in reality; and not as the unreality-based, undefines-riddled, abstract maths constructs 'disjointly models' it).

These links discuss JUST SOME of the problems I've been working on overcoming via my own novel REALITY-BASED maths project:
http://web.maths....ews2.htm
http://goodmath.s...of-math/
https://phys.org/...rld.html

Less ego and 'tactics'; more objectivity, DS. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2017
@RC, as usual, you can't provide a quote from a reliable source, which was about what I figured.

You also, as usual, completely failed to even try to address any of my arguments.

Sorry I scared you with the math stuff.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, as usual, you can't provide a quote from a reliable source, which was about what I figured. You also, as usual, completely failed to even try to address any of my arguments. Sorry I scared you with the math stuff.
You're using evasion tactics to distract from MY points in return, mate. Why do that? I said I didn't have the time to search out the Alfven quote; and asked anyone who knows it to search/post it if they have time for that. As for the maths issues, I just gave you links which explain the points I made re inadequacies etc. You haven't even acknowledged you are aware of said problems let alone tried to remedy them, so your 'castigation' is disingenuous and evasive, mate. As for the plasma issues, I POINTED OUT that new discoveries make "frozen in" fields SILLY.

Oh, and if you stop being a 'textbook/wiki parrot' regurgitating stuff being superseded by NEW developments, then your 'opinions' might mean something, mate.

Less ego/tactics, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2017
Arguments, @RC. Real ones. With, you know, logic, and math, and facts, and all that boring stuff you never bring to a conversation.

All you have is bluster. As usual.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2017
I'd need to see some evidence of that, @RC. It is, after all, called "Alfven's Theorem." It's also foundational to MHD, so basically he'd be denying the research he won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for. I have trouble imagining that.

But good luck.

You haven't read his Nobel lecture I have posted numerous times, have you?
https://www.nobel...ure.html
He states;
"I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure."
See then Table 1, the first approach describes plasma with magnetic field lines "frozen-in" and "moving".
He goes on;
"It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points."
Note the second approach listed in Table 1 states;
"The frozen-in approach often completely misleading"

So yes, Alfven used his Nobel lecture to state that which he was receiving the award for is wrong.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2017
I'd need to see some evidence of that, @RC. It is, after all, called "Alfven's Theorem." It's also foundational to MHD, so basically he'd be denying the research he won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for. I have trouble imagining that.

But good luck.

'Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics'
https://inis.iaea...18060222
"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by menas of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."
Section III, A.- Frozen-in field lines, a pseudo-pedagogical concept.
More lies and obfuscation from da schnied.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, as usual, you can't provide a quote from a reliable source, which was about what I figured.

You also, as usual, completely failed to even try to address any of my arguments.

Sorry I scared you with the math stuff.
Why keep doing this, DS? You're intelligent enough not to 'need' to do this sort of thing at all; so why keep doing it? Your ego and arrogance are in control of your intellect instead of the other way round which should be the case for any true scientist and objective observer/discourser. So please try harder to control your ego/arrogance and stick to the actual issues/facts rather than 'tactics' which avoid the points made already to you based on KNOWN science as well as novel insights and new observational/review developments.

Anyhow, as to your delaying 'tactic' demanding the quote I alluded to, I see cantdrive linked the relevant Alfven speech where he effectively recanted re his 'frozen in' approaches/interpretations/claims. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
@RC, if you're going to make an argument you need to avoid ad hominem, along with the rest of the rhetorical arguments that don't bring data, links, facts, verifiable quotes, real logic rather than logical flaws, and all the rest of the BS you always try that never works. That's all the stuff I look for in order to identify trolls like you. You are obvious, @RC. And not very bright since you keep trying this stuff over and over and getting pwnt over and over.

@cantthink's quote has been taken out of context, another logical fallacy. And quite frankly, even if it hadn't been, it would still signify nothing; a theorem is a theorem, it's got a proof, and if the proof isn't overturned it doesn't matter what someone claims about it that doesn't include a counter-proof that overturns it. That's how math works.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
From @cantthink69's own quote:
I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure.
Let's read that again: "in certain respects." What respects are those, specifically? Alfven states it categorically;
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory.
Now, in the 1970s this was probably true; but in the 2010s it's not any more. The exemplar is MRX at the PPPL. This experiment has recently yielded experimental results, and exactly the ones Alfven said-- right there in the quote I posted, the context @cantthink left out-- we should be looking at.

Looks to me like the plasma physicists listened to what Alfven *really* said, not some cherry-picked quote of what he said.

Having watched a bunch of #physicscranks ignore this, I am less than impressed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Your ego/arrogance are a matter of record now, DS. There've been too many instances (be honest now) where you jumped into a discussion with 'insult guns' blazing, only to eventually find you were wrong all along and me correct all along, on both the science and behaviour.

Points made by me are OBVIOUSLY based on KNOWN science and novel insights and new observation/review developments which YOU are not up to date on; so the onus is on YOU to 'catch up' before you opine/insult due to your own EGOTISTICAL KNEEJERKING from your own ignorance/misunderstanding (too many recorded instances of this for you to try denying it now, DS).

So if you DON'T KNOW shite, then try to keep your mouth shut, listen and learn. Try, DS.

And again, please don't change the subject. The issue was the PHYSICAL 'frozen in fields' interpretations, and NOT the mathematical theorem which may or may not apply in the REAL PHYSICAL dynamics under study

Less ego and 'tactics', DS. Try. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
Moving right along, the Alfven lecture also says,
If you ask where the border goes between the first approach and the second approach today, an approximate answer is that it is given by the reach of spacecrafts. This means that in every region where it is possible to explore the state of the plasma by magnetometers, electric field probes and particle analyzers, we find that in spite of all their elegance, the first approach theories have very little to do with reality.
Right here, Alfven says, we need to use the data from spacecraft to inform our research. And oh my goodness, here's the spacecraft and the data: https://mms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I have watched the #physicscranks claim that MRX and MMS are "wrong because Alfven said so." Looking at Alfven's real quotes, we see that they are exactly what he called for.

So, sorry man, you got what you said you wanted and now you deny it. That's why I call you #physicscranks.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
@RC, it's not about me. If you try to make it about me you are committing the ad hominem fallacy, plain and stark for everyone to see.

I got data, you don't. Bring the data or admit, whether tacitly or actively, that you don't have any data and are talking out your hat. And note that if it's tacitly then you are lying again, just like I always say you are.

This is easy stuff and you are obviously trolling. Bring the data. If you don't everyone can see what you are.

I never say what that is, exactly, and that's deliberate; I'm not using ad hominem arguments. I'm merely noting your behavior. What people conclude about you from that may be obvious, but it's not my problem how you behave. I just note it. If you don't want people to conclude that you should stop behaving that way.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The exemplar is MRX at the PPPL.
DS, from your own referenced PPPL SIMULATION report:
"This is the first application of this particular fluid model in studying reconnection physics in space plasmas," said Ng,
Which acknowledges/agrees with cantdrive's and Chris's earlier objection: that ASTROPHYSICISTS were using the WRONG mathematical techniques to 'interpret' SPACE PLASMA phenomena/behavior etc. Yes?

and

They concluded the process through a mathematical technique called "closure" that enabled them to describe the kinetic mixing of particles from non-local, or large-scale, regions.
Such "closure" technique and NON-local range E-M forces/interactions NOW effectively acknowledge COMPLEX particle-current EFFECTS/CIRCUITS within space plasmas. Yes?

and

The completed results agreed better with kinetic models as compared with simulations produced by traditional fluid codes.
Which was cantdrive et al's URGING all along. Yes?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
When you get your quotes all worked out, @RC, and I can tell what you wrote and what you didn't, maybe I'll respond.

Try not to get so upset you can't type, K?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
When you get your quotes all worked out, @RC, and I can tell what you wrote and what you didn't, maybe I'll respond.

Try not to get so upset you can't type, K?
Already done. Go ahead. And stop with the cheap shots and frivolous posts based on your lame fixation on obvious typos. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@RC, you'll need to make a post that has something meaningful in it first. I'm not interested in dealing with your typos.

Good luck with that.

You're already two strikes down: trolling and making nonsensical posts where it's not clear what you are claiming. You're being boring again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you'll need to make a post that has something meaningful in it first. I'm not interested in dealing with your typos.

Good luck with that.
Won't work anymore, DS. Your denial is now obvious to any reasonable reader. The quotes were from your own referenced PPPL simulation exercise; and those quotes effectively support cantdrive's and Chris's previous observations; which were scientifically CORRECT and perfectly JUSTIFIED, re the flaws/shorcomings in ASTROPHYCISTS' simulations/interpretations of SPACE PLASMAS and hence the astronomical/cosmological hypotheses/claims based on those earlier flawed methodologies/interpretations.

So, DS, be honest/objective on this matter at least; it's time for you to finally give credit to cantdrive, Chris et al for pointing all these flaws out to you and the whole astrophysical, astronomical/cosmological 'professional' community, hey?

Try that instead of continuing your insulting/evasive tactics, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
Seems to be working fine from over here, @RC. Tired of dealing with callow adolescents who think they can just declare victory without any evidence.

Say something sensible, @RC. I grow bored with you again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2017
Here's how it works, @RC: as soon as you start your logical fallacies, I start making the same sort of arguments you do. If you want to argue logically then don't start this, because every time I see you do it I'm going to respond in kind.

It's the Golden Rule, reversed: I do to you what you do to me. If you don't want it to go there then don't take it there.

Let's start getting out the big guns:
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
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Seems to be working fine from over here, @RC.
Denial and kneejerking from ignorance "works" only in the egotistical/arrogant 'mind' of the intellect so afflicted. You have already denied, evaded, insulted and used 'tactics' to avoid acknowledging you were incorrect, and cantdrive et al correct (as the quotes from Alfven and then also from your own referenced PPPL study confirmed). Your continuing 'tactics' is just prolonging the agony for when you will eventually have to admit to being wrong/insulting all along on this particular matter.
Say something sensible, @RC. I grow bored with you again.
The forum has observed that you often "get bored" when being found to be in the wrong, DS. That is a 'running away' smokescreen you have employed before; to as much 'success' as this instance (ie, not at all).

You're dishonestly evading the points made, DS.

PS: You're SPAMMING again, DS. Another sign of your failure; more 'running away' smokescreen. Sad.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
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
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

If you don't want to look in the box, don't open the box. Just that simple, @RC. You lie a lot and get caught a lot. You're boring.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You're SPAMMING lies and half-truths again, DS. Yet more signs of your denial/dishonesty/evasion/failure; yet more 'running away' smokescreens. Sad.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
Liars are easy meat, @RC. Everyone can see it and humans have millions of years of experience detecting them. You are as transparent as an eight year old girl. And as boring.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Liars are easy meat, @RC. Everyone can see it and humans have millions of years of experience detecting them. You are as transparent as an eight year old girl. And as boring.
You are (unwittingly) the living proof of that; which is why you were so easy to 'spot' by any fairminded reader (not your gang of goons bot-voting you '5' despite of you being blatantly incorrect). The juvenile antics are from you, DS; as the forum has now again noted, because you deny/evade the points I made to you above, supported by quotes from the very PPPL study report YOU alluded to. You have evaded and insulted and 'run away' using tactics and excuses so childish and transparent that the irony of your own posts is obviously lost on you.

DS, address the points I made to you earlier using quotes from your own PPPL reference. If you don't, and instead keep spamming/insulting/running-away, you only increase the damage you have been doing to your credibility and your psyche.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2017
RC,

Hell's bells man, you're trying to reason issues about science with a clown who believes a finite stellar body can have qualities of infinite gravity & infinite density at it's surface, certainly not a Fundamental Law of Physics, but Schneibo doesn't know any better, and why would he when he's already demonstrated he couldn't recognize a Differential Equation if it were slapping him up alongside of his head.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2017
Sorry, @RC, if you don't like this used against you then don't use it. It's your choice; once you go there, I'm going to do the same thing you do. It's no skin off my azz. I can do it as well or better than you. And if that's where you're going to go, then I have no hesitation doing the same thing to you that you do to me, only better.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Sorry, @RC, if you don't like this used against you then don't use it. It's your choice; once you go there, I'm going to do the same thing you do. It's no skin off my azz. I can do it as well or better than you. And if that's where you're going to go, then I have no hesitation doing the same thing to you that you do to me, only better.
Mate, you must have your 'ego' so far up your "azz" that you probably don't even realize you just admitted that you DO use "this" (meaning denial, evasion, insult and dishonest 'tactics'); all of which "this" I have been trying to get you to stop and just address the points I made earlier to you using quotes from the very referenced PPPL simulation report! Now stop faffing about with the sort of "this" you just (unwittingly) admitted to "doing"; and just address the earlier points I made which you have been evading ever since. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2017
@RC, it doesn't matter how artful your insults are when you

don't

have

any

arguments.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@DaSchneib.
@RC, it doesn't matter how artful your insults are when you

don't

have

any

arguments.
The 'arguments' are self-made by the content of the QUOTES from the PPPL report YOU alluded to. I merely pointed out how they support @cantdrive et al's longstanding observations that astrophysicists were not using the correct maths for simulating/interpreting SPACE PLASMA features/dynamics. Moreover they effectively reognize the fast electron 'currents' which create the circuits now being incorporated into the mathematical terms/construct for the new simulations which they admit was never before applied to space plasmas. Now, DS, if you've finished being a time-wasting smart-aleck and insults-merchant, please do yourself a big favor: either address my earlier points as made using said quotes; or just admit you aren't up with what's going on in the real science evolving re space plasmas, and the correction of old naive astronomical/cosmological interpretations. Thanks.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2017
No, @RC. Arguments have data, quotes that aren't taken out of context, math, logic, and links to reliable sources.

Not insults and logical fallacies.

You're at a disadvantage, you see; you're taking the #physicscrank side, whereas I'm taking the side of the real scientists. So I don't have the handicap of having to lie all the time like you do.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC. Arguments have data, quotes that aren't taken out of context, math, logic, and links to reliable sources.

Not insults and logical fallacies.

You're at a disadvantage, you see; you're taking the #physicscrank side, whereas I'm taking the side of the real scientists. So I don't have the handicap of having to lie all the time like you do.
You're so lost in your own 'world' that you miss the fact I AGREE with that PPPL report and their recognition that previous simulations of space plasmas was flawed/incorrect; as per @cantdrive et al's longstanding observations which you pooh-poohed but which NOW those involved in that new more correct simulation acknowledge was the case until now. So please get the 'story' straight for yourself before trying to again pretend you have clue one what's gone down with that PPPL report. You do this too often, mate; you do a quick read, or ignore new info, and just make up your own 'impression' of what's what. Don't.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
Now, DS, either address yourself to the points made in my earlier relevant post to you; or just drop the pretense that you know what's going on with that PPPL work which is now supporting @cantdrive et al's past observations that previously astrophysicists were using flawed maths constructs to model space plasmas/dynamics. Thanks.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2017
It doesn't matter how many artful insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies you post, @RC.

Your disadvantage will always sink you.

I've stopped reading; I don't care about artful insults, lies, and logical fallacies. And that's all you ever have. It's inherent in your disadvantage.

If you wanted me to pay attention to anything you say you squandered that with artful insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies. I see no reason to pollute my mind with your BS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It doesn't matter how many artful insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies you post, @RC. Your disadvantage will always sink you. I've stopped reading; I don't care about artful insults, lies, and logical fallacies.
It doesn't take much "artfulness" to point out for the readers how you are evading the points made in my relevant earlier post to you. That you somehow blame me for your evasion demonstrates how your ego cannot let you face the reality that you are also wrong on this occasion too, DS. This is a major flaw in your character which is why (as you admit) you are not (and probably never will be) a true scientist; because you score dismally on objectivity and humility and high on denial and ego. Too bad; you could have made a great scientist with that intellect, but you have been wasting it and abusing/betraying your natural gifts. Your parents must be so sad to see you doing this. Please try to be/do better, DS; for their sake. Good luck.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
You're the Boy Who Cried Wolf, @RC. And you're learning the same lesson. I'm reading on my Kindle and listening to iTunes. Not polluting my mind with your artful insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies. You're not worth my time, or anyone else's.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You're the Boy Who Cried Wolf, @RC. And you're learning the same lesson. I'm reading on my Kindle and listening to iTunes. Not polluting my mind with your artful insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies. You're not worth my time, or anyone else's.
You're delusional, mate. All I did was post those observations, supported by quotes from that PPPL report YOU alluded to; and pointed out that PPPL simulation's authors NOW recognize that space plasmas were NOT BEING simulated correctly because they were using flawed/simplistic mathematical construct etc. And it's YOU has been evading like billy-o since then; all because your ego can't bring you to admit that at least on that score @cantdrive et al were CORRECT in their LONGSTANDING observation that astrophysicists were using the wrong maths for space plasmas; as that PPPL group frankly admitted had been the case until they just used a more correct maths for the first time to simulate space plasma etc.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2017
You're not worth my time, or anyone else's


Wrong Schneibo,

RC ALMOST always makes more sense than you have ever demonstrated the intellectual capacity for having. Hey, got any REAL Differential Equations you'd like to put up, unlike your past past submissions which were nothing less than high school algebra you tried palming off as DEs?

We know you think it's a Fundamental Law of Physics that infinite gravity & infinite density can exist on the surface of a finite stellar BH, and anyone who believes that kind of FUNNY FARM SCIENCE is someone who has never studied Nuclear Physics like I have, which is the reason I know better & you don't.

So old man, keep impressing us with how mis-educated you are, I enjoy the entertainment as you hop-scotch around here with the likes of the rest of the foul-mouthed brigade like the now banned Stumpo, yeah, someone who was great company for you while it lasted, now you're on your own reproducing his foul mouthed laced litanies.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
Obviously all you have is insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies, @RC. After all, that's all you ever post.

If you want something other than me noting your behavior and leaving folks to draw their own conclusions about your character, then perhaps you should stop behaving in this childish fashion. I don't really see the point of what you're doing; it's pretty transparent.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2017
then perhaps you should stop behaving in this childish fashion. I don't really see the point of what you're doing


.........well then Schneibo, have you ever thought that he may just be following your lead? No, you haven't, and the treason you haven't is because you have such a high opinion of your own profanity laced foul mouthed rants, that you imagine yours are RIGHTEOUS RANTS.

There are those of us Science Professionals who demand EVIDENCE for the Funny Farm Science you cling to, like the outlandish claims that Infinite Gravity & Infinite Density can exist within the confines of a Finite Stellar Mass using an unproven metric of Black Hole Math concocted by a soldier in the German Army in 1916, yeah name of Schwarzschild, another clown of a person whose BH Math Einstein summarily despatched in his 1939 paper:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Obviously all you have is insults, outright lies, and logical fallacies, @RC. ...that's all you ever post.
You're in denial still, mate! It's YOU keeps starting in with the kneejerks, insults and dishonest-ego blather which misses/ignores new/known science, not me. Blame yourself for these exchanges which would not occur if you hadn't been the one to blame for them by doing all those things you falsely attribute to me.
If you want something other than me noting your behavior and leaving folks to draw their own conclusions about your character, then perhaps you should stop behaving in this childish fashion. I don't really see the point of what you're doing; it's pretty transparent.
The Forum has ALREADY "drawn their own conclusions", DS; from your continuing evasion of the points made to you earlier (supported by the PPPL work YOU referenced); and by your continuing denial, insults and mis-attribution of bad behavior to me which is YOURS in fact, DS.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
Just a tip, @RC. If the first sentence of your post includes the word "denial" I don't bother reading any more.

Now listening to Kansas, Point of Know Return, IMHO their best album. Stevie Morse and the Dregs have intervened since the last time I bothered to look at one of your easy target posts filled with insults, lies, and logical fallacies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Just a tip, @RC. If the first sentence of your post includes the word "denial" I don't bother reading any more.
Just to test your resolve in that direction I will now observe the obvious, DS; ie, you're now in-denial about being in-denial; and invoking a self-serving 'condition for reading' to use as a lame 'excuse' for you 'not facing the reality' which you are still in-denial of!

How's that, DS, enough "denial" words in that "first sentence" to trigger your self-serving "condition for reading" copout? :)
Now listening to Kansas, Point of Know Return, IMHO their best album. Stevie Morse and the Dregs have intervened since the last time I bothered to look at one of your easy target posts filled with insults, lies, and logical fallacies.
Your music and writing 'tips' are NOT SCIENCE rebuttals, DS; nor is your retreat into 'music world', where you control what you will 'listen to', any substitute for objective reading of all the facts/points made. :)
PTTG
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2017
I'll repeat this for the hard of thinking; show me a model that explains the Sun better than the standard model. As backed up by multiple observations. Where is it? Doesn't exist, does it woo boys? Dear me; get past third form science, and these loons think they can tackle **real** science. Here is a thought; you know sod all about science, and run away every time you are asked to back your garbage up with **actual** science. If you knew anything about science, then, by definition, you wouldn't believe in the woo that you do. N'est-ce pas?


Don't feed the trolls.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
An FYI/REMINDER:
I'll repeat this for the hard of thinking; show me a model that explains the Sun better than the standard model. As backed up by multiple observations. Where is it? Doesn't exist, does it woo boys? Dear me; get past third form science, and these loons think they can tackle **real** science. Here is a thought; you know sod all about science, and run away every time you are asked to back your garbage up with **actual** science. If you knew anything about science, then, by definition, you wouldn't believe in the woo that you do. N'est-ce pas?
Don't feed the trolls.
In that instance, it was the writer of what @PTTG quoted, that was effectively the "troll"; since, according to actual OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, falsification may be effected simply by observation which counters a hypothesis/theory. It does NOT REQUIRE any 'alternative hypothesis' from said observer(s) in order to effect falsification. Please do not 'feed' the misunderstandings. Cheers.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2017
@PTTG, why DNFTT doesn't work, illustrated.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2017
Observation to @Forum.

From @DS to @PTTG:
@PTTG, why DNFTT doesn't work, illustrated.
The above quoted post is a further example of a trolling post adding nothing but more 'noise' to the already obviously existing problem of trolling. It is such constant 'cheap shots' and 'frivolous' ego-tripping posts that make a mockery of the very 'standards of behavior' which they purport to want to uphold/encourage, but continue to undermine with such posts due to their own ego-tripping and cheap shot contributions to an already well known problem.

Advice: If 'one' professes to 'not like trolls', and/or to encourage ''not feeding the trolls", fist take great care to ensure that 'one' is not effectively being a 'troll' themselves!

Because DOUBLE STANDARDS are a sure give-away of the REAL 'trolls'. And we see much double-standards being applied by the above poster quoted.

So, folks, try not to emulate said poster. Thanks.

Cheers. :)

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.