Astronomers find potential solution into how planets form

October 13, 2017, University of Exeter
V1247 Orionis, a young, hot star surrounded by a dynamic ring of gas and dust, known as a circumstellar disc. The disc can be seen in two parts: a clearly defined central ring ofmatter and a more delicate crescent structure located further out. Credit: Stefan Kraus

The quest to discover how planets found in the far reaches of the universe are born has taken a new, crucial twist.

A new study by an international team of scientists, led by Stefan Kraus from the University of Exeter, has given a fascinating new insight into one of the most respected theories of how are formed.

Young start out with a massive disk of gas and dust that over time, astronomers think, either diffuses away or coalesces into planets and asteroids.

However, scientists are still searching for a complete understanding of how these early formations come together to form asteroid-sized objects. One reason has been that drag in the disk produced by surrounding gas makes the grains move inward toward the star - which can in turn deplete the disk rapidly in a process known as "radial drift."

In the new research, the team use high powered telescopes to target the star V1247 Orionis -, a young, hot star surrounded by a dynamic ring of gas and dust.

The team produced a detailed image of the star and its surrounding , shown in two parts: a clearly defined central ring of matter and a more delicate crescent structure located further out.

The region between the ring and crescent, visible as a dark strip, is thought to be caused by a young planet carving its way through the disc. As the planet moves around in its orbit, its motion creates areas of high pressure on either side of its path, similar to how a ship creates bow waves as it cuts through water.

These areas of could become protective barriers around sites of planet formation; are trapped within them for millions of years, allowing them the time and space to clump together and grow.

Professor Kraus said: "The exquisite resolution of ALMA allowed us to study the intricate structure of such a dust-trapping vortex for the first time. The crescent in the image constitutes a dust trap that formed at the outer edge of the dark strip.

"It also reveals regions of excess dust within the ring, possibly indicating a second that formed inside of the putative planet's orbit. This confirms earlier computer simulations that predicted that traps should form both at the outer edge and inner edge of disc gaps.

"Dust trapping is one potential solution to a major stumbling block in our theories of how planets form, which predicts that particles should drift into the central star and be destroyed before they have time to grow to planetesimal sizes."

Dust-trapping vortices and a potentially planet-triggered spiral wake in the pre-transitional disk of V1247 Orionis is published in Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Explore further: Spontaneous 'dust traps': Astronomers discover a missing link in planet formation

More information: Stefan Kraus et al. Dust-trapping Vortices and a Potentially Planet-triggered Spiral Wake in the Pre-transitional Disk of V1247 Orionis, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edc , iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … 847/2041-8213/aa8edc

Related Stories

Planetary influences on young stellar disks

December 14, 2015

A newborn star typically has a disk of gas and dust from which planets develop as the dust grains collide, stick together and grow. Stars older than about five million years lack evidence for these disks, however, suggesting ...

Rings around young star suggest planet formation in progress

December 12, 2016

Rice University astronomers and their colleagues have for the first time mapped gases in three dark rings around a distant star. The rings mark spaces where planets are thought to have formed from dust and gas around the ...

ALMA spots possible formation site of icy giant planet

September 14, 2016

Astronomers found signs of a growing planet around TW Hydra, a nearby young star, using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). Based on the distance from the central star and the distribution of tiny dust ...

Recommended for you

70 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2017
A very interesting observation. This is a confirmation of a key underpinning to the theory of planetary accretion in protoplanetary disks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2017
Hey DS, did you notice IMP-9 downvoted you '1' while he was BOT-VOTING '1s' against Chris? It's symptomatic of the attitude and lack of scruples that he didn't even bother to check who he was downvoting, in his hurry to BOT-vote instead of LOOKING and see who he was bot-voting against. It's symptomatic of many of the problems with cosmology 'publish or perish' hacks and 'peer reviewers' for many decades: no objective thought, just hack belief and ego-tripping while being wrong and not even realizing it. It's getting better, though! Many mainstream scientists now take more care to really objectively think and test BEFORE being tempted to again just 'go with the mindless unheeding self-satisfied herd mentality' cultivated by HACKS for HACKS all along the chain for so many past decades.

I expect IMP-9 will apologize to you, DS; as soon as he realizes how bot-like he was, and has been for too long now. Let's hope he (and you too) snap out of that bot-trance and start to think.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
Here comes the next 4, bringing the current total number of threads on which @100LiarRC has lied to 94:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims both DM and the BB are denied by unspecified "recent discoveries" again, and again without any evidence of these "recent discoveries:" https://phys.org/...ark.html

@100LiarRC is now desperately trying every possible strategem to get me to stop posting its lies before we reach 100. None of them will work.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
Four in the last post; the fifth wouldn't fit. Here it is:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are no lab experiments in magnetic reconnection before 2016, despite the PPPL experiments: https://phys.org/...its.html

I think the most amusing thing here is that @100LiarRC has no idea how many threads it has lied on, because its lies are so pervasive. It cannot gauge how long it will be dealing with this expose, bleeding slowly five lying threads at a time.

I am very much enjoying this death of a thousand cuts.

Current count is 95 threads. 5 more to go tonight, @100LiarRC please please accommodate me by posting again tonight.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2017
@Forum.

Note that Da Schneib has become a drunken spammer unheeding of his own errors which he is trying to run away from by denying and lying through spam posts. Take a lesson from this. Drink and ego in excess will destroy your mind and your character: evidence DS's mania of late. He studiously does NOT post the links to where he was proven to be wrong and lying while he accused me of being wrong and lying. So much for his desperate spam campaign, hey folks? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic to see. No wonder he never made it as a real scientist; he has ego and arrogance (and 'dutch courage' from his boozing), but he has no objectivity or integrity; as demonstrated by his willingness to ditch all ethics and principles of objectivity and humanity in order to pursue his vendettas against those whom HE has wrongly and tragically attacked while being WRONG on the science/logics and DRUNK on the Internet. Too sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
Stupid physiorg edit removed the middle three. Here they are:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang is "pretend:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims LISA GW detections are "noise" despite the fact they are thousands of miles apart and the ringdown sequence is predicted by GRT: https://phys.org/...ime.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims peer review is contaminated because the reviewers use math: https://phys.org/...big.html

Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm cheating. One more post of 5 threads and we're at the Magic 100 Lies mark.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
Let's keep in mind here I have a list of 100 threads on which you lied, with the links to the threads, and the exact lies told.

You're going to be encountering these 100 threads every time you post here from now on, @100LiarRealityCheck. No one is ever going to forget it and every time I see you post I will post five of them at random.

You brought this on yourself. It is the natural and logical consequence of lying on 100 threads. Feeling persecuted after what you have done is a mental disease. In fact, doing it is a mental disease.

Can't you stop lying, @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
Poor DS, now just a drunken spambot trying to distract from the debacles he has brought upon himself through unheeding arrogance and drunken ego-tripping attacks on the one who has been proven correct while poor DS has been forced to face the truth about himself and his errors while attacking me who has been correct. How many times can his denial and projection delusions keep him oblivious to his own 'problems'? Time will tell. Poor sod.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
OK, so here's the last 5 making the round total 100 threads on which @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck has lied:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims relativity is not a mathematical theory: https://phys.org/...nal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims gravitational radiation is EM: https://phys.org/...tar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies DM exerts gravity despite that being its signature: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again without evidence that "recent discovery" denies DM, again without evidence: https://phys.org/...los.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet one more time that DM doesn't exist due to "recent discoveries" that it has no documentation to support: https://phys.org/...ark.html

I don't see what possible argument someone who has lied on 100 threads can make.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
The next step is to deconstruct these threads for individual posts and see how many actual posts containing lies this person has made.

This will require more work but I will start with checking how many posts in these threads contain lies; we may then start to drill down into how many lies this individual has told. So far we only have how many threads this individual has lied on. The grand total will be many more.

Still having fun exposing this fool.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
OK, so here's the last 5 making the round total 100 threads on which @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck has lied:
....
I don't see what possible argument someone who has lied on 100 threads can make.
You poor drunken spambot, DS. What you "don't see" is your lies and delusions and projection-in-denial of your own 'problems' and debacles; and the fact you boasted about not reading, makes it obvious all your present spamming and past debacles happened because you were unheeding of reality and just made it up as you wanted in order to attack (unfortunately, as my earlier links showed, you were wrong on the science/facts while insisting you were 'right'). You were forced to face the reality eventually: you were wrong while you claimed to be right and called me 'liar'; either you were drunk, were suffering a bout of overweening ego 'need', were just plain stupid/malignant in mind (or 'all of the above?). Anyhow, now you have descended into farce and tragedy. Sad, DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.
Article: "These areas of high pressure could become protective barriers around sites of planet formation; dust particles are trapped within them for millions of years, allowing them the time and space to clump together and grow."

Reality: Protostellar discs have repeatedly been observed to change on much faster timescales than this.

For example, from https://www.nasa....rotostar

"The first hint of brightening appears in Spitzer data from 2006. By 2008, they write, HOPS 383's brightness at a wavelength of 24 microns had increased by 35 times. According to the most recent data available, from 2012, the eruption shows no sign of abating."
Hmmm. Can you imagine the static electricity building up and then discharging in great arcing violence/brightness as the motions/friction of the dust/ice particles 'separates/accumulates' charge akin to the raindrop/dust convection/winds do on Earth?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
I would say, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck, that blaming me for your lies is pretty transparent. I'm just showing what you yourself have posted.

Maybe if you didn't want it reviewed you shouldn't have posted it. Maybe if you didn't want to be exposed as a serial liar you shouldn't have serially lied.

It's your own words. Do you repudiate or disown them?

Just askin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I would say
Yes, you would say anything that your ego and drunken delusions make you say to protect your obviously fragile ego and mind from the reality of your own faults and debacles, mate. Not healthy; and it only 'works' for so long before your delusion, and with it your psyche too, implodes.
I would say, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck, that blaming me for your lies is pretty transparent. I'm just showing what you yourself have posted.
Your Projection-in-Denial is obvious to all readers by now, DS. And you have posted only YOUR 'delusional takes' self-serving lies, mate. Readers can see that all over you have distracted or evaded instead of answering the point; especially when you have been proven wrong while attacking/trolling.
Maybe if you didn't want it reviewed you shouldn't have posted it.
You're doing my work for me! All those instances, and those I linked before, demonstrate how you were in error and I correct while you trolled. Thanks, DS!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
You lied, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck. It's documented. You lied 100 times. Do you admit or deny it?

Make up your mind and face reality. Or deny it and tell everyone you are a psychopathic liar.

You: trying to keep lying while face pressed to grindstone. Me: pressing. It's your face doing the bleeding.

Your call. Simple as that, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
These are not new, just a reprise of five previously posted threads:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @100LiarRC 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 @100LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html

I can bring at least a million posts using random selections from the 100 threads I have.

Enjoy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
And if I find another 50 threads (which appears to be a slam-dunk) I can bring over 4 million unique posts based on this #physicscrank #troll #100liar's threads. Each thread I find multiplies the possible permutations. As this fool would know if it had the slightest idea how math works.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You lied, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck. It's documented. You lied 100 times. Do you admit or deny it?

Make up your mind and face reality. Or deny it and tell everyone you are a psychopathic liar.
Mate! You just admitted in that other thread that you STILL don't read or bother to check what's going down before you keep opening your big unheeding ego-motormouth to put your big foot in again and again! Don't you ever learn? Do you not ever pause to consider that maybe you have a drink/ego/not-reading/ignorance 'problem' which may be the root cause of your debacles here and elsewhere, DS? Your Projection-in-Denial of your own faults and debacles and not-facing-reality 'problem' continues apace, hey! Poor sod.

By the way, DS, it's probably too subtle for you, but your spam campaign has been USEFUL TO MY CAUSE against the bot-voting gang who have unconscionably perverted the RATINGS voting system. It defeats their 'game', by pointing to my posts! Thanks, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
Here's another one that's not new but based on a reprise of another five previously posted threads:

Thread where @100LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "inconsistencies" it claims exist in the Big Bang model: https://phys.org/...ack.html

Only 4 of these ones fit; next one coming up on the next post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Oops! I'm better than I thought. Tried to put 6 in the last post!

That's OK. I'll keep it coming.

I don't think anyone but trolls thought @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck was anything but another lying troll. But just in case. And I am definitely having fun. Keep squirming, @100LiarThreadsRealityCheck, you are making this much better than it would be otherwise.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Here's another one that's not new but based on a reprise of another five previously posted threads:

Thread where @100LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html

Only 4 of these ones fit; next one coming up on the next post.
Do you even realize how tragic you are becoming to watch in the thrall of your compulsive delusional self-abuse-by-internet-spamming, DS? If you spent even a fraction of what's left of your 'mind' after the booze and ego have done the damage they obviously have done over the years to date, you might have made a real scientist and human being. As it is you have morphed yourself into a spam-bot and troll. Not good, mate. Seek help to find your way out of that drink-and-ego excess induced delusion that you are being anything other than an internet tragic now, DS. Please, for pity's sake, get help for your psyche. Immediately.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
OK, here's another random combination of the threads you lied on, @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims the #EUdiot #physicsdeniers have made scientific predictions: https://phys.org/...ven.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about astrophysicists' knowledge of the galactic magnetic field: https://phys.org/...ays.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims all magnetic fields are due to plasma: https://phys.org/...lts.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html

I got 10^158 to go, feel free to keep it coming @100TLRC!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Betcha @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck doesn't know about permutations, combinations, and factorials. Suggest you study up on those. I won't duplicate a list of your lies in a billion trillion times the age of the universe dude, at the rate you post!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Betcha @100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck doesn't know about permutations, combinations, and factorials. Suggest you study up on those. I won't duplicate a list of your lies in a billion trillion times the age of the universe dude, at the rate you post!
You've gone loony now, mate. Obviously I know about those things. I Matriculated to University, one pre-requisite knowledge/subject requirement of which was mathematics proficiency and statistical techniques/applications, among many other pre-requisites. That you would even entertain that self-serving "Betcha" assumption/ploy only highlights for the readers how desperate and out of touch with the reality you have become in order to 'self-justify' your own 'delusional takes and claims and accusations' campaign bordering on lunacy, DS. GET A GRIP, mate! Get help to solve your excess ego/drink/malice 'problems' and try to make a start NOW to heal your psyche, in both mind and character. Good luck, DS. Sincerely.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
Here's another five:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the current SM of cosmology by equating it to the original LeMaitre hypothesis: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

Gotta love those permutations and combinations!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
DS, you're losing touch with reality, mate. STOP. Are you on meth as well as booze, now? The signs are there, mate; stop whatever it is you're 'taking', because its making you 'go troppo' and unheeding even more than usual! Your posting is now indicative of a delirium 'loop' which your mind has got itself into and can't snap out of. STOP.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
Enjoy, @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck, I own you 9.322 x 10^156 times!

Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @100LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @100LiarRC has never said what three of them are.

Only four fit, fifth in the next post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html

@100ThreadLiarRealityCheck, you are 9.322 x 10^156 times toast. I own you. Best give up while you don't look like more of an idiot for lying on 100 threads than you already do.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
Actual mathematicians of course will have realized that there are only 9,034,502,400 combinations of 100 objects taken 5 at a time, but this still adds up to over 300 years assuming @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck and I post once a second each. :D

Of course at #troll's current posting rate of about once an hour it's more like a million years. Heh.

I'm good with 300 years. This #physicscrank #troll won't live 5 years at this rate.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2017
@Forum readers.

This @Da Schneib SPAM item is yet another lying misrepresentation attempt by that poor deluded Internet Tragic:
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html
The alert and objective reader will note that therein I pointed out the KNOWN SCIENCE and effective FLOWS caused by the equally well RECOGNIZED 'fast electron' behaviour which ANY up-to-date PLASMA physicist (be it lab or cosmic phenomena/contexts) already knows and explains. Yet @Da Schneib CHOOSES to IGNORE KNOWN SCIENCE and EVADE THE POINT MADE, and all to persist in his delusion that he is somehow 'right' while TROLLING me who was CORRECT re KNOWN science. How can this childish twit still delude himself that his 'games' and 'dares' and 'boasts' and lying/delusional spam 'items' be 'acceptable' to anybody with sane and objective mind? Tragic.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@100ThreadLiarRealityCheck is lying again. It's not spam; it's what @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck itself posted. And if that's spam, then @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck is itself a spammer.

If you didn't want your lies and spam pointed out, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it. Stop blaming others for your own posts.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
And another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the current SM of cosmology by equating it to the original LeMaitre hypothesis: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

Don't spam and lie, @100ThreadLiarRealitySpam.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2017
@Forum readers.

Well folks, it looks like the Projection-in-Denial-and-LyingSpam campaign by @Da Schneib has gone from delusional to manic to just plain weird. He has just been told where he was WRONG above, and yet he persists in his totally blithe unheeding 'fog' he has generated out of thin air for the purposes of "doing this all night" stupidity. How much more weird can he get from here is anyone's guess. At this rate he may soon 'pass go' heading straight for a 'straight-jacket' which he has already well-embroidered with his 'list' of delusional spam items having no connection with the reality at all. It's sad, isn't it? The most tragic thing about this is that there seems to be no caring/kind family/friend to help him out of his, obviously drink-drug induced, delusional state. Poor thing.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
And yet another unique 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html

Keep it comin', @100ThreadLiarRealitySpam, I still got 9 billion more. At the rate you're goin' I'll still have 9 billion in 2025.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Maybe I'll go find a hundred more and extend the number by a billion times or so.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Maybe I'll go find a hundred more and extend the number by a billion times or so.
Find what? Pixies at the bottom of your garden? Mate, you need to stop. You are heading for disaster of your own and drink-drug making. It's patently obvious to all readers now. Please pause and seek help, mate. Isn't there anyone that can take you in care until you dry out and recover your senses? Go and ask someone near/professional for help, mate; it's no shame if you actually realize you need help; it's only shame if you try to keep denying you have a 'problem' and it ends tragically for you and others near you, ok? Go on, find help. We'll still be here when you get back fully recovered! Good luck, mate. Sincerely. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
I have stood here before inside the pourin' rain
With the words all in circles runnin' round my brain
I guess I'm always hopin' that you'll end this reign
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain

Truer words never sung.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
And another 5 to keep it going:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @100LiarRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes numerous erroneous claims including that the EM force can change the path of light and the Sun is held from collapsing by e-e degeneracy: https://phys.org/...lar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC tells the Steinhard-doesn't-believe-in-the-BB lie again: https://phys.org/...rby.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims not to have an agenda: https://phys.org/...cal.html

Maybe soon I'll go find more. But I still have 9 billion to go so it's not all that urgent.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
@RC

All DS is doing here is holding up a mirror for you to rant at, youre getting annoyed at your own posting history.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
To catch birds with a mirror is the ideal snare. :D

Now if you can tell me what that's a quote from you'll impress me.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
Oh yeah! There was a sciency thing up there at the start. Go ALMA! Lets hope this is the first of many protoplanetary disc images at different stages.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
It would appear to be in a Bruce Sterling book i just got from HumbleBundle. Dunno if its the original source tho!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
You'll find the Shaper War interesting I think. :D Good job.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
BTW if you got the short version of Schismatrix, you'll want the long version. But to get the idea you only need the short one. If you like it then you'll like the long one better.

I read books like I listen to music; something I read only once or listen to only once isn't very good.
mrbeardy13
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
Its the Plus version i got, im assuming its the longer one. I will read it next, working my way through Autonomous by Annalee Newitz first.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2017
Just listening to The Dangerous Type from The Cars. The New Wave spawned a lot of good music, too.

Meanwhile I'm finishing up Convergence from the Foreigner series. I'll prolly go read some Walter Jon Williams after that.

The Plus version is prolly the new one. If you read that first there's no point in the short one.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
physman
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
YAWN. Your bickering is very tiresome and disruptive. What are you both trying to achieve? I, and I'm sure many others, are tired of your constant spamming. It's not hard to judge whether someone is posting bullshit or not (using scientific knowledge, common sense, and google). We don't need a merry band of physorg warriors, we are happy to ignore trolls and chose not to obsess and pander to their attention seeking. In short: talk science or fuck off.

Also, nice article.
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
aaah a stellar performance by Da Schneib, brings tears to my eyes of laughter to see this realitygoon exposed every time he squeels back at you. Antigoracle and his trolls keeps getting it good lol...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
@mrbeardy13.
@RC

All DS is doing here is holding up a mirror for you to rant at, youre getting annoyed at your own posting history.
It's not 'my' posting history, only links to threads with my posts, and DS has 'attached' his own delusional self-serving 'misrepresenting takes' on what transpired therein. He is holding a 'funhouse mirror' that distorts, and he is holding it 'the wrong way round', reflecting back at him his own 'distorted' delusional image/actions. Don't enable/encourage his ego/drink/drug excesses induced mania, mate. It only makes him worse; and his 'mates' in the bot-voting ignoramus troll gang 'goosing' him with '5' and 'egging him on' even when he is wrong and obviously not 'healthy' in mind/character is not helping him either. I've suggested DS take a break and recover his mental equilibrium and restore his integrity, but he just keeps spamming his delusional 'takes' unheeding of the damage he is doing himself by spamming his delusions. Too sad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
@HeloMenelo.
aaah a stellar performance by Da Schneib, brings tears to my eyes of laughter to see this realitygoon exposed every time he squeels back at you. Antigoracle and his trolls keeps getting it good lol.
You have just 'cheered on' DS's manic spamming of his delusional 'takes' with which he is trying to rationalize and delude himself that it wasn't me who was correct all along while he either didn't know, didn't care or couldn't learn from what was posted for his benefit based on known and evolving science. I already provided links to where this was starkly illustrated. Poor DS is now on a face-saving campaign of spam and lies/misrepresenting what actually happened. I give you one link to check out the truth about DS's tactics and his drink-drug-ego-tripping 'problems' and modus operandi when he is ignorant and malignant in mind and action...

https://phys.org/...per.html

That will show you the truth about DS's mania.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2017
@physman.
...We don't need a merry band of physorg warriors, we are happy to ignore trolls and chose not to obsess and pander to their attention seeking. In short: talk science or fuck off.
I have addressed the on-topic subject/science in my post of 19 hours ago; to wit:
Hmmm. Can you imagine the static electricity building up and then discharging in great arcing violence/brightness as the motions/friction of the dust/ice particles 'separates/accumulates' charge akin to the raindrop/dust convection/winds do on Earth?
But since then, DS has been spamming his delusional 'takes' list in a manic personal vendetta campaign which is cluttering up not only this but also other threads/discussions. I can sympathize with your impatience; and can only agree with the sentiment in the last sentence of yours I quoted above. Thanks for your self-evident interest in polite and objective science discourse rather than in personal vendettas and bot-voting campaigns by troll gang. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2017
Here's another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]
Thread where @Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]]https://phys.org/...pse.html[/url]
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there haven't been any lab experiments in plasma physics before 2015: https://phys.org/...lds.html
katesisco
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2017
Still waiting for the James Webb and we can progress thru theories like mine.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:"

https://phys.org/...pse.html
See what excessive 'unreality math-turbation' combined with compulsive 'drink-drug-ego tripping' does to your objectivity/integrity, DS?

You MISSED the obvious implications of finding, not only MUCH MORE Hydrogen/Helium etc 'gases' than previously imagined/detectable, BUT ALSO MUCH MORE DUST/ICE PARTICLES than previously imagined/detectable!

DO THE MATH FOR YOURSELF, mate. :)

The humongous quantities of Hydrogen etc 'gases' is ONLY THE TIP of the 'seeing' ICEBERG.

We NOW realize that DUST and ICE 'particles' are EVERYWHERE; each containing thousands/millions/billions of ATOMS (many of which atoms are themselves MANY TIMES THE MASS of Hydrogen/helium atoms)!

THINK it through. Stop spamming unheedingly, DS.

READ, THINK, LEARN, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2017
IMP-9, @RNP, @antialias_physorg, @shavera et al.

My above latest post to @Da Schneib contains the challenge to 'do the math' for the implications (for EXOTIC DM hypotheses/claims) of all the recent/ongoing NORMAL matter discovery by mainstream astronomers. You also now have the opportunity to rescue your own respective reputations from the recent one of unheeding bot-voting gang member. You are invited to 'read up' on the more recent mainstream discoveries re 'dustier universe than previously assumed/estimated'; and to bring objective logics and maths to the new/evolving situation I have pointed for DS's benefit just above. Whether or not DS and YOU all can NOW eschew personal prejudices/vendettas in order to do the 'proper scientific thing' and DO THE MATH/LOGICS re this ONE straightforward issue as I presented for you to consider fairly and kneejerking/insuting etc, will tell whether you are here for real science discourse/learning or not. The test is clear. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2017
ERRATA:

The phrase:

"...and kneejerking/insuting etc,..."

should read:

"...sans kneejerking/insuting etc,..."

Thanks.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2017
IMP-9, @RNP, @antialias_physorg, @shavera et al.

My above latest post to @Da Schneib contains the challenge to 'do the math' for the implications (for EXOTIC DM hypotheses/claims) of all the recent/ongoing NORMAL matter discovery by mainstream astronomers.


This named bunch is neither interested in the science or the math you speak of, only Perpetual Motion Machines & Schwarzschild's Perpetual Motion Black Hole Math.

Too much shit here to be bothered with Commentary on any of it, no entertainment value to any of it.
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2017
It's really tough believing in the BB theory. What with there being no rational explanation for how stars and planets can form on their own from purely standalone physical and chemical processes.
This article is merely another confirmation that those stumbling blocks will persist no matter what the researchers do other than go out there and create a star or planet of their own and then fully understand exactly what is involved in creating either of those items.

Right now though, basic physics 101 principles are staunch obstacles in the path of those having tremendous faith in the self-creation and self-existence of stars and planets.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2017
It's really tough believing in the BB theory.

There's really nothing you need to believe. All follows from direct observation
1) The universe is expanding (this can be directly observed).
2) It does not seem to have been contracting in the past (as can also be observed because looking far afield is the same as looking back in time)

From 1) follows that in the past the universe was closer together
From 2) follows that there is a point in the past when the universe was very small (possibly infinitely so)

So what alternative do you have to a Big Bang?

bschott
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2017
It's really tough believing in the BB theory.
There's really nothing you need to believe. All follows from direct observation

LMAO>>>this should be good.
1) The universe is expanding (this can be directly observed).

Actually Fred, what is observed is a redshift in almost all of the light we see that mainstream lunacy has attributed to "expanding space"....which they cannot verify in any way whatsoever
2) It does not seem to have been contracting in the past (as can also be observed because looking far afield is the same as looking back in time)

Sure, further away = more redshift...shouldn't that mean that in the past it was expanding faster? Oh, only if you use the flawed perspective above.
From 1) follows that in the past the universe was closer together
From 2) follows that there is a point in the past when the universe was very small...


So what alternative do you have to a Big Bang?
More plausible....God did it.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2017
From 2) follows that there is a point in the past when the universe was very small (possibly infinitely so)


The only realm in which INFINITY exists is that of THEOLOGY. There is no evidence that the Universe functions under any concept other than the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) & you can't prove otherwise, except to introduce Schwarzschild's unproveable Perpetual Motion Math into an argument such as this.

So your alternative to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is Theology.
shadybail
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2017
If I may...if energy can neither be created or destroyed....would this imply an infinite universe?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2017
If I may...if energy can neither be created or destroyed....would this imply an infinite universe?


.....only in the anti-physics world of antialias_physorg's theology. The Universe cannot "imply" infinity because the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics dictates that ENTROPY eventually reaches UNITY (1), at which point energy distribution shuts down because there is no longer any remaining MASS that can be TRANSFORMED to ENERGY.

Unless ENERGY is TRANSFORMED back to MASS at the same rate ENERGY is TRANSFORMED from MASS, the Universe will self extinguish, there is no evidence this is in fact happening, nor evidence this is not happening, but I will say that it is only in the world of Theology that Perpetual Motion Exists.
shadybail
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2017
@ Benni I see. Thank you for the detailed explanation. Have a good day.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2017
If I may...if energy can neither be created or destroyed....would this imply an infinite universe?

Good question. However there is an unspoken rider in your assumption: That time is constant (i.e. if you take an integral over mass and energy to get the sumtotal of energy at one point in time it is the same as if you take it at another point in time).
The definition of time becomes iffy when you go to the very beginning of the universe.

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.