Magnetic fields could hold the key to star formation

June 8, 2018, University of Central Lancashire
Pillars of Creation. Credit: University of Central Lancashire

Astronomers have discovered new magnetic fields in space, which could shed light on how stars are formed and uncover the mysteries behind one of the most famous celestial images.

For the first time, extremely subtle magnetic fields in the Pillars of Creation – a structure made famous thanks to an iconic image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope – have been discovered and mapped.

The structure consists of and cold, that have nurseries of stars forming at their tips. This innovative research has shown that the magnetic fields that run along the lengths of the Pillars are at a different angle to the regions surrounding the Pillars, revealing the reason behind their unusual structure.

This ground-breaking discovery suggests that the Pillars have evolved due to the strength of the and that the Pillars are held up thanks to magnetic support, suggesting that stars could be formed by the collapse of clumps of gas being slowed down by magnetic fields, and resulting in a pillar-like formation.

The discovery was made by a global team of researchers known as BISTRO and led by astronomers from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) who made measurements at the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii. Using an instrument on the telescope known as a polarimeter, the researchers showed that the light emitted from the Pillars is polarised, indicating the direction of the magnetic field.

Professor Derek Ward-Thompson, Head of the School of Physical Sciences and Computing at UCLan, said: "The technology employed to view the minutiae of the magnetic fields is truly remarkable, and the fact that we have been able to observe the incredibly weak magnetic field with this sensitive instrument will help us to solve the mystery of the formation of ."

Explore further: Pillars of destruction: Colourful Carina Nebula blasted by brilliant nearby stars

More information: "First Observations of the Magnetic Field Inside the Pillars of Creation: Results from the BISTRO Survey," Kate Pattle et al., 2018, Astrophysical Journal Letters: arxiv.org/abs/1805.11554

Related Stories

Magnetic fields discovered in two hot evolved stars

January 3, 2018

Astronomers have presented the initial results of the Large Impact of Magnetic Fields on the Evolution of Hot Stars (LIFE) project. Among determining fundamental parameters of 15 stars, they found that two of them have magnetic ...

Cosmic magnetic fields with astonishing order

April 5, 2018

Turbulent processes in galaxies generate vast magnetic fields that often present a regular structure on a large scale. These are the findings of a study conducted by astronomers at Ruhr-Universität Bochum under the auspices ...

Recommended for you

Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

August 17, 2018

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying ...

First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: ...

Six things about Opportunity's recovery efforts

August 17, 2018

NASA's Opportunity rover has been silent since June 10, when a planet-encircling dust storm cut off solar power for the nearly-15-year-old rover. Now that scientists think the global dust storm is "decaying"—meaning more ...

Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some ...

Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight

August 16, 2018

MIT scientists have uncovered a sprawling new galaxy cluster hiding in plain sight. The cluster, which sits a mere 2.4 billion light years from Earth, is made up of hundreds of individual galaxies and surrounds an extremely ...

Hubble paints picture of the evolving universe

August 16, 2018

Astronomers using the ultraviolet vision of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have captured one of the largest panoramic views of the fire and fury of star birth in the distant universe. The field features approximately 15,000 ...

191 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
1.7 / 5 (24) Jun 08, 2018
And what produces magnetic fields?

Say it with me class..

ELECTRIC CURRENTS

The paradigm behind 'plasma cosmology' is not pseudoscience, it's a realization that modern astrophysics has erroneous assumptions at its core. Confirmational bias allowed GR to become what it is today.

Separation of charge is all that was required to create the universe as we see it now. That's the beauty of it all. One simple 'rule' that developed a complex, intricate system over time.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2018
And what produces magnetic fields?

Say it with me class..

ELECTRIC CURRENTS

The paradigm behind 'plasma cosmology' is not pseudoscience, it's a realization that modern astrophysics has erroneous assumptions at its core. Confirmational bias allowed GR to become what it is today.

Separation of charge is all that was required to create the universe as we see it now. That's the beauty of it all. One simple 'rule' that developed a complex, intricate system over time.


And not a single piece of evidence to back it up.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2018


And not a single piece of evidence to back it up.


Are you in denial?

ALL plasma cosmology proponents declare is that electric currents produce magnetic fields which shape the universe.

This article is direct support of that. I'll say it again.. DIRECT. What direct observation do you have of dark matter? What direct observation of black holes? What direct observation of dark energy? Those are all inferred by the underlying theory and explained indirectly.

Here the weak magnetic field is stronger than alllllllll the gravity or thermodynamics of matter involved in shaping these clouds and forming the stars.

Do you think its a coincidence that stars form like 'beads on a string' or that the overall configuration of galaxies form in strings? These are characteristics of electric currents... duh?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2018
Do you think its a coincidence that stars form like 'beads on a string' or that the overall configuration of matter forms strings? These are characteristics of electric currents... duh?


Lol. And where are these currents? What creates them? Who has written this up? Who takes any notice of it? What is your current? The field measured in this observation is 17-32 nanotesla. Do the maths, write it up, and get your Nobel Prize.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2018
And what produces magnetic fields?

Say it with me class..

ELECTRIC CURRENTS


Fine. What is the magnetic field strength of the IMF? What is the (non) measured current in the solar wind?
I would recommend reading the following, and references therein, to understand where cosmic magnetic fields come from:

On the Origin of Cosmic Magnetic Fields
Kulsrud, R. M. & Zweibel, E. G.
https://arxiv.org...2783.pdf
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2018
On the Origin of Cosmic Magnetic Fields
Kulsrud, R. M. & Zweibel, E. G.
https://arxiv.org...2783.pdf

90 pages of pseudoscientific claptrap of "frozen-in" field lines written by a couple plasma ignoramuses who hve never seen a plasma in a laboratory.
691Boat
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2018
On the Origin of Cosmic Magnetic Fields
Kulsrud, R. M. & Zweibel, E. G.
https://arxiv.org...2783.pdf

90 pages of pseudoscientific claptrap of "frozen-in" field lines written by a couple plasma ignoramuses who hve never seen a plasma in a laboratory.

Tell me CD85, What plasma lab do you work in or have you run actual scientific studies in? Or for that matter, what lab of any kind have you ever done any scientific experimentation in?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2018
Here is Kulsrud's bio:
https://history.a...008.html

It includes being head of the Princeton Plasma Physics ***LABORATORY****.

Now, let's see the bio of the woo merchants from the EU cult, and their impressive list of plasma physics achievements.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2018
That doesn't change the fact he is using pseudoscientific claptrap of "frozen-in" fields. Not to mention the PPPL is rife with plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2018
That doesn't change the fact he is using pseudoscientific claptrap of "frozen-in" fields. Not to mention the PPPL is rife with plasma ignoramuses.


Really? According to whom? So, you admit that you lied about Kulsrud, and now say that even people at the best plasma physics lab in the world are all ignoramuses? Christ, what a dick! Please tell us who, out of living plasma physicists, should we be listening to?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2018
Sure he may have work at PPPL, that doesn't mean he has seen a plasma in the laboratory. And if he did, he clearly doesn't understand it because no magnetic field is "frozen-in" to any plasma, anywhere. It is pure pseudoscience to claim otherwise.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2018
Sure he may have work at PPPL, that doesn't mean he has seen a plasma in the laboratory. And if he did, he clearly doesn't understand it because no magnetic field is "frozen-in" to any plasma, anywhere. It is pure pseudoscience to claim otherwise.


Lol. You didn't read the bio, did you? Kulsrud is probably one of the most respected plasma physicists around. You will find from that bio that he was a working physicist on Project Matterhorn. Project Matterhorn was the former name of PPPL, when it was still doing classified stuff in the cold war. So yes, he most definitely knows about laboratory plasma physics. And I doubt you'll find many, if any working plasma physicists who have much of a different view from his.
What EU loons think is irrelevant. They don't do science, just mythology.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2018
His bio is meaningless if he believes pseudoscientific claptrap such as frozen-in fields, he is nothing more than a hack. Frozen-in fields are nothing more than a fanciful faerie tale of plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2018
His bio is meaningless if he believes pseudoscientific claptrap such as frozen-in fields, he is nothing more than a hack. Frozen-in fields are nothing more than a fanciful faerie tale of plasma ignoramuses.


Plasma ignoramuses like you? And Thornhill? And Scott? Not a single plasma physicist within your cult, woo boy. None of you know crap about the subject. What is a collisionless plasma again? Lol.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2018
What is a collisionless plasma again? Lol.

Just exactly how I explained it and was corroborated by a paper you linked! LOL! You're so emotionally obsessed with protecting your religious servitude to all things dark and mysterious you are unable to pick up on the details of the discussion, it's called having an old mind. You have it in spades.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2018
What is a collisionless plasma again? Lol.

Just exactly how I explained it and was corroborated by a paper you linked! LOL! You're so emotionally obsessed with protecting your religious servitude to all things dark and mysterious you are unable to pick up on the details of the discussion, it's called having an old mind. You have it in spades.


No, idiot. You claimed it was a double layer. Lol! As I said, nobody within your cult is competent in plasma physics, so your objections are irrelevant due to lack of understanding, and the inability to publish rebuttals to these papers when they appear. The best you can come up with is to post crap in places like this. Which would be why your irrelevant little cult has zero scientific impact or credibility. There are a whole bunch of cranks out there. You lot are just one of many.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2018
You claimed it was a double layer.

See, that's your issue. You have a serious comprehension problem. I said collisionless plasmas are separated by double layers and into distinct structures of similar plasmas. DL's and sheaths are ubiquitous in plasmas, and the paper said pretty much exactly what I said. History is quite clear, plasma cosmology and electrical theorists are far more successful in predicting astrophysical phenomena, see Birkeland, Alfvén, Thornhill.
Your cosmology, however, is missing 96% of all they believe exists. It would be comical if it weren't so pathetically sad and expensive.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
CD,
Lab plasma studies have two conditions not met in space - Earth's gravity and magnetic field.
Plasma will act differently in low gravity and with a minimal outside magnetic influence.
Oh, and...
What insulator keeps those differing layered charges from just coming together?

Rossim,
Electric currents are not possible without magnetic fields. Which are a combinatory product of electric charge difference and matter (which a dense enuff collection of, produces charge differential)...
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2018
I said collisionless plasmas are separated by double layers and into distinct structures of similar plasmas


No, they aren't. DLs have absolutely nothing to do with it. Essentially, it is a plasma where the collisions between the plasma constituents are non-existent, or infrequent enough not to affect the plasma dynamics.
Where the hell you get the need for DLs is anybody's guess.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2018
What insulator keeps those differing layered charges from just coming together?

A strong electric field.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2018
No, they aren't. DLs have absolutely nothing to do with it.


The paper you posted says very much the same thing I said;

The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al.
https://academic..../4036875
"Different collisionless plasma regions do not mix easily. When two plasma components meet, structures form, such as collisionless shocks and cavities in stellar and interstellar winds"
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^
Errrm, no. That is a paper that is describing two collisionless plasmas (i.e the solar wind, and the cometary coma) coming into 'contact'. No DLs are formed. At one point in time the solar wind pressure dominates, and then the cometary plasma dominates, and the solar wind is excluded from the vicinity of the comet. In between these two end members, we have a situation where the solar wind is 'shocked' and slowed down, as the cometary ions are picked up by the SW electric and magnetic field. This takes momentum from the SW and deflects it. However, by this time, things are getting collisional.
A much better description of a collisionless plasma is the SW by itself. Assuming no encounters with comets, planets or other bodies, it will remain so until the heliopause.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2018
This sentence stands on its own regardless of a comet or body, note the sentence doesn't say anything about an object;

"Different collisionless plasma regions do not mix easily. When two plasma components meet, structures form, such as collisionless shocks and cavities in stellar and interstellar winds"

Which is what I said.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2018
This sentence stands on its own regardless of a comet or body, note the sentence doesn't say anything about an object;

"Different collisionless plasma regions do not mix easily. When two plasma components meet, structures form, such as collisionless shocks and cavities in stellar and interstellar winds"

Which is what I said.


Nope, you are totally missing the point. DLs have nothing to do with anything here. Behar et al are talking about the head on collision of TWO collisionless plasmas. The answer to the question, "what is a collisionless plasma", does not involve invoking another collisionless plasma, and smacking them into each other! It is as I described above. A plasma in which collisions between the particles are infrequent enough to not affect the behaviour of the plasma. And that is how one would model it. On the other hand, you would not model a cometary coma in such a way, as that becomes collisional between two different plasmas.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
Anyway, back to Rossim's madness;

And what produces magnetic fields?

Say it with me class..

ELECTRIC CURRENTS


As inferred above, that is not correct. The solar wind is quasi-neutral. If a Q-N plasma is made to move in the same direction, so that electrons and ions are all heading the same way, with Q-Nity maintained, then a magnetic field will be created.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Anyway, back to Rossim's madness;

And what produces magnetic fields?

Say it with me class..

ELECTRIC CURRENTS


As inferred above, that is not correct. The solar wind is quasi-neutral. If a Q-N plasma is made to move in the same direction, so that electrons and ions are all heading the same way, with Q-Nity maintained, then a magnetic field will be created.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2018
He can't drive, but he can make you laugh!
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
As inferred above, that is not correct.

If you want to ignore Maxwell and over 150-years of development of EM theory. This from an educational website;

"The implications of Maxwell's Equations and the underlying research are:

1) A static electric field can exist in the absence of a magnetic field; e.g., a capacitor with a static charge Q has an electric field without a magnetic field.
2) A constant magnetic field can exist without an electric field; e.g., a conductor with constant current I has a magnetic field without an electric field.
3) Where electric fields are time-variable, a non-zero magnetic field must exist.
4) Where magnetic fields are time-variable, a non-zero electric field must exist.
5) Magnetic fields can be generated in two ways other than by permanent magnets: by an electric current, or by a changing electric field.
6) Magnetic monopoles cannot exist; all lines of magnetic flux are closed loops."

See #5, plasma is not ferromagnetic.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
Either way, no fields are frozen-in to plasmas, this is purely pseudoscientific claptrap proposed by plasma ignoramuses. Obviously, if individuals at PPPL are suggesting these astrophysical magnetic fields are frozen-in they are purveyors of pseudoscientific claptrap, as Kulsrud must be as inferred above.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
He can't drive, but he can make you laugh!

https://youtu.be/IWINtUCshxY

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
It should be made very clear, even when Alfvén proposed the frozen-in condition way back in the '40's (before he realized how wrong it is) he insisted it was only a modeling technique. Never, at any point, did he suggest that the fields are actually frozen-in to the plasma. He explicitly wrote;

"The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views....I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical concept" By "pseudo-pedagogical" I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality vou have drastically misunderstood it."
https://inis.iaea...18060222

Clearly many have drastically misunderstood it.
retrosurf
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
That Kulsrud & Zweibel paper is nice reading, with lots of prose and not much math.
Good cite, jonesdave.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
It should be made very clear, even when Alfvén proposed the frozen-in condition way back in the '40's (before he realized how wrong it is) he insisted it was only a modeling technique. Never, at any point, did he suggest that the fields are actually frozen-in to the plasma. He explicitly wrote;
yada, yada, yada.............


Still quoting ancient tracts? More has been learned about plasma physics and astrophysical environments in the last 30 years than Alfven ever knew. You might want to catch up on some of it. A bit like Falthammar managed to do. That includes experiment, theory and in-situ observation.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
That Kulsrud & Zweibel paper is nice reading, with lots of prose and not much math.
Good cite, jonesdave.


You want me to link mathematical papers to EU loons? Lol. None of them are capable of understanding it! I picked a hugely cited paper as an example. It is not beyond the wit of even EU cultists to do a bit of research for themselves. Or is it?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
More has been learned about plasma physics and astrophysical environments in the last 30 years than Alfven ever knew.

And the new measurements agree with Alfvén's views. The frozen-in condition was proposed 80-years ago, and has been shown to be falsified. See in situ measurements of thousands of parallel double layers in Van Allen belts which demonstrably proves the frozen-in condition completely erroneous. Also note direct in situ measurements that the solar wind consists of flux tube structures (Birkeland currents) via ACE observations, also violates frozen-in condition.
But who cares about facts....
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
I picked a hugely cited paper as an example.

Agrees with my view that nearly all astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses. The same confirmation bias group think that pervades AGWism has a grasp on the non-thinkers in cosmology research.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
As inferred above, that is not correct.

If you want to ignore Maxwell and over 150-years of development of EM theory. This from an educational website;........


Moving a quasi-neutral plasma will create a magnetic field. As per Dynamo Theory. Also see the Biermann Battery:
https://en.wikipe..._battery

And, if somebody really wants some maths intensive stuff, here:
https://arxiv.org...5052.pdf

So, no, we do not need electric currents (created by what?) popping up to explain the majority of astrophysical plasmas.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
I picked a hugely cited paper as an example.

Agrees with my view that nearly all astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses. The same confirmation bias group think that pervades AGWism has a grasp on the non-thinkers in cosmology research.


Another argument from ignorance. What has your mythology cult produced? Do please tell us. I keep having to explain to you people that you are a) unqualified, and b) irrelevant. Nobody cares what you think. More people believe in homeopathy and astrology than your woo. Nobody takes them seriously, either.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
More has been learned about plasma physics and astrophysical environments in the last 30 years than Alfven ever knew.

And the new measurements agree with Alfvén's views. The frozen-in condition was proposed 80-years ago, and has been shown to be falsified. See in situ measurements of thousands of parallel double layers in Van Allen belts which demonstrably proves the frozen-in condition completely erroneous. Also note direct in situ measurements that the solar wind consists of flux tube structures (Birkeland currents) via ACE observations, also violates frozen-in condition.
But who cares about facts....


Yes, who cares abut facts! It is well known that the frozen-in condition can break down in certain areas. Reconnection requires it. There is much literature on it. Recent literature. From observation and measurement.
And there are no Birkeland currents in the solar wind. Flux tubes are not Birkeland currents. Dear me.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
Agrees with my view that nearly all astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses. The same confirmation bias group think that pervades AGWism has a grasp on the non-thinkers in cosmology research.


Sorry, when was it that Earth was orbiting Saturn? Can we get a date on that, please? And when did Venus come flying out of Jupiter? Again, a date would be nice. And an explanation for how it managed to break the laws of physics in its solar system tour.
Starting to understand why nobody takes you seriously? Look up the word 'irony'.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
Biermann battery

The presence of an electric field and moving charges (electric current)... There's that electric current causing the magnetic field. LOL!
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
And an explanation for how it managed to break the laws of physics in its solar system tour.

It only broke your gravity only "laws of physics", no such violation in a Universe that includes electromagnetism.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
It is well known that the frozen-in condition can break down in certain areas.

It's well known among real plasma physicists the frozen-in condition doesn't exist in reality but is only a modeling technique. Obviously lost on morons and plasma ignoramuses alike.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
And an explanation for how it managed to break the laws of physics in its solar system tour.

It only broke your gravity only "laws of physics", no such violation in a Universe that includes electromagnetism.


Jesus, what an idiot. So, show us a scientist who understands EM who has backed up this idiocy!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
It is well known that the frozen-in condition can break down in certain areas.

It's well known among real plasma physicists the frozen-in condition doesn't exist in reality but is only a modeling technique. Obviously lost on morons and plasma ignoramuses alike.


Duh! What have we been telling you for years, woo boy? There is no such thing as a perfectly conducting plasma! How many frigging times? Wakey, wakey. So, how conductive is it? How long can the frozen-in condition be said to be viable for? At what timescales, in other words? Then you can define the timescale of your model and see if it is appropriate to use. God you lot are thick.
Go away, and learn some real science, instead of the crap you believe in. You are a joke.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
Biermann battery

The presence of an electric field and moving charges (electric current)... There's that electric current causing the magnetic field. LOL!


Sorry, where is current mentioned? What do you think a quasi-neutral plasma is, woo boy? A collection of moving charges! Jesus, give me strength. What is the current produced when a random mixture of x electron and x ions are made to move in the same direction at the same speed? None. Go check the solar wind.
I'm sure most of these wooists never got past high school. Seriously.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
Flux tubes are not Birkeland currents.

From the same educational website that described Maxwell's equations from above;

"The spiraling effect of currents around each other gives the appearance of twisted ropes. Because the currents are aligned with the magnetic field, Birkeland Currents are often called 'magnetic ropes' or 'flux tubes'. Although not inaccurate, this description tends to disguise the current-carrying nature of the filaments and imply that the effect is due to magnetic forces alone. As we have seen, this is not correct, as magnetic fields coexist with electric currents."

Flux ropes, flux tubes, and Birkeland currents are synonymous.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018

From the same educational website that described Maxwell's equations from above;


Link to this educational website, and I'll make a plasma physicist I know aware of it. And he can then tell them that they are talking crap.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Link to this educational website, and I'll make a plasma physicist I know aware of it. And he can then tell them that they are talking crap.


Nope, don't bother. Here is this trash, on the website of the people who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, among other garbage:

http://www.thunde...er_7.htm

Educational website! Haha, Jesus, you lot could lie for (insert name of home country here). Wazzocks. Linking to pseudoscience to back up woo! Lol.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Hey people, want your kids to see this 'educational' website? Look what they could learn about dinosaurs!
https://www.thund...saur.htm

All kids love dinosaurs! And even the adults can have a laugh at the contention that they were too heavy to exist, and therefore gravity must have been different in the past. Just as the loon Thornhill needs it to be for his physics defying Velikovskian beliefs.
Fun for the whole family!!!!
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
Look what they could learn about dinosaurs

Change the subject much?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Look what they could learn about dinosaurs

Change the subject much?


Lol. It was your 'educational' website! I didn't bring it up! There's more, if you'd like some.....?
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Facts are facts, period.
Wikistupidia agrees, look up flux tubes. Says "see also" Birkeland current. Look up flux ropes, redirects to flux tube which indicates see also Birkeland currents. All the same.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
I didn't bring it up! There's more, if you'd like some..

Really? Funny how even phys.org has articles on more than one subject, which aren't relevant to the discussion. Not that I'm at all surprised with you changing the subject.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Facts are facts, period.
Wikistupidia agrees, look up flux tubes. Says "see also" Birkeland current. Look up flux ropes, redirects to flux tube which indicates see also Birkeland currents. All the same.


Nope. Not a mention of current in the flux tube article on Wiki. I already knew this from actually listening to what a real plasma scientist has said about this before. Ergo, flux tube does not equal Birkeland current. One has a current, the other doesn't necessarily.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
I didn't bring it up! There's more, if you'd like some..

Really? Funny how even phys.org has articles on more than one subject, which aren't relevant to the discussion. Not that I'm at all surprised with you changing the subject.


No, you changed the subject by lying about getting your information from an educational website. You knew damn well that nobody takes anything written on there seriously, so tried to hide the fact. I was merely showing, as known to most, that the people who put crap on there are scientifically illiterate loons, and can therefore be safely ignored.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Show me experimental evidence which falsifies Maxwell's equations or the implications thereof are incorrect. Or any portion of the information that is not factually accurate. Or show anything anywhere that indicates that Birkeland currents are not flux ropes, flux tubes, or "cylinders of magnetic fields" or whatever you want to call them. Besides, of course, your hand wavey proclamations based on ignorance. BTW, those structures cannot exist without a current running through then, flux tube or otherwise.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Show me experimental evidence which falsifies Maxwell's equations or the implications thereof are incorrect. Or any portion of the information that is not factually accurate. Or show anything anywhere that indicates that Birkeland currents are not flux ropes, flux tubes, or "cylinders of magnetic fields" or whatever you want to call them. Besides, of course, your hand wavey proclamations based on ignorance. BTW, those structures cannot exist without a current running through then, flux tube or otherwise.


Sorry, but your ignorant crap is irrelevant. All the things you talk about are within the scientific literature. Go read it. What your cult believes in, and misunderstands, is of no consequence. It is hardly worth busting a gut on people who are not qualified in the subject area, and are not capable of doing the research, nor having the intellect to understand what they might find.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Sorry, but your ignorant crap is irrelevant.

That's what I thought, you're incapable of doing so. You're always very eager to post a pseudoscience link or whatnot to "prove" I am wrong. Your weak excuse isn't fooling anyone. You can't show anything, nor do you even understand why they are the same. As obviously Maxwell isn't wrong or you wouldn't be tapping away on that contraption nor would you be able to spew your dementia riddled blatherings on the interweb.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
Sorry, but your ignorant crap is irrelevant.

That's what I thought, you're incapable of doing so. You're always very eager to post a pseudoscience link or whatnot to "prove" I am wrong. Your weak excuse isn't fooling anyone. You can't show anything, nor do you even understand why they are the same. As obviously Maxwell isn't wrong or you wouldn't be tapping away on that contraption nor would you be able to spew your dementia riddled blatherings on the interweb.


Hey, idiot, I'm the only one posting links to actual science! It isn't my fault you're too thick to understand it. YOU are the one linking to pseudoscience crap. Now why don't you go to Google Scholar, type in 'Dynamo theory', and sit back and read the papers? What I can or cannot prove to your idiotic satisfaction on here in less than 1000 characters is f ***ing irrelevant. Read the science, woo boy.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
And he devolves into name calling and vulgarity. No need to get emotional jonesdumb, and don't forget to take your dementia medication. It should help you keep on topic as well.
And good attempt at changing the subject again. Pseudoscientific dynamo guesses doesn't have anything to do with the physics of Birkeland currents/flux tubes etc. Nor does it explain how Maxwell is a crank. Try again.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
And he devolves into name calling and vulgarity. No need to get emotional jonesdumb, and don't forget to take your dementia medication. It should help you keep on topic as well.
And good attempt at changing the subject again. Pseudoscientific dynamo guesses doesn't have anything to do with the physics of Birkeland currents/flux tubes etc. Nor does it explain how Maxwell is a crank. Try again.


I don't need to try again, woo boy. The science is settled. You can read all about it. Just do some research. No currents required. Frankly, it doesn't matter what you believe, as you aren't involved in this science. Neither is anybody in your cult. I've linked you to some papers, so why don't you read them? Better still, why not head to a physics forum, where you might actually be educated on such things?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
Birkeland currents/flux tubes...


Nope. Not the same thing. Not aware of any physicist who says that they are.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
The science is settled

LOL, apropos to compare you with the AGWites and their claims of knowing everything in spite of the inability to accurately predict anything whatsoever or avoid being surprised by every observation.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
The science is settled

LOL, apropos to compare you with the AGWites and their claims of knowing everything in spite of the inability to accurately predict anything whatsoever or avoid being surprised by every observation.


Nope, that is just your rote learned crap from dunderdolts. You only ever look at press releases. How many science papers are accompanied by press releases? Sod all. The only ones are those that are newsworthy due to being something very important, or because they don't fit in with previous understandings. Why would a site like this publish stories otherwise?
So, why don't you go have a look through the latest editions of ApJ, A & A, MNRAS, etc, etc. See how much science is being done without any reference to idiots like you or your silly cult. You are not involved in the science, so how would you know what is going on?
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
All I read from these comments is that the quacks continue to ignore the basics. Charges move, creating currents, currents create magnetic fields. ... So many in the past have noticed these basic things, Oersted, Faraday, Maxwell, and so on. ... Its as though the ones that burned Bruno are still lingering around hoping their nonsense continues to be viewed as the only "science". I say to them good luck ignoring observations, like the ones in this article.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
All I read from these comments is that the quacks continue to ignore the basics. Charges move, creating currents, currents create magnetic fields. ...


Sorry, what is the current in the solar wind? What is the strength of the magnetic field carried by the solar wind? Somebody else who cannot tell the difference between the movement of charged particles, a current, and a quasi-neutral plasma.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
All I read from these comments is that the quacks continue to ignore the basics...


No, what scientists tend to ignore are cranks such as EU loons, and others, (a fair percentage of whom seem to be EEs), with little or no knowledge of astrophysics. Who can never seem to write a scientific paper, but feel the need to display their ignorance in places like this, and on loony websites. Maybe they should just shut up, eh? Given that nobody is listening.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
@jonesdave.

From you to @cantdrive85:
Moving a quasi-neutral plasma will create a magnetic field. As per Dynamo Theory. Also see the Biermann Battery:
https://en.wikipe..._battery

So, no, we do not need electric currents (created by what?) popping up to explain the majority of astrophysical plasmas.

Careful, jd. I already mentioned such unusual sources/causes of magnetic fields before, including 'homopolar systems'. And re the Biermann Battery 'angle', you still have to have a-priori differential/relative motion of charges (even a 'weak' one) in order to generate the weak 'seed' magnetic fields treated by the paper referenced.

So it's not quite clear what you and @cantdrive are 'disagreeing' about; since all magnetic fields, no matter how weak, how evolving, or whence derived, must involve an a-priori electric 'current' of some sort (even QM 'spin') for it to arise/persist in the first instance. Yes? :)

continued...
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
So it's not quite clear what you and @cantdrive are 'disagreeing'

It's actually quite clear; jonesdumb keeps claiming "no currents required", which is of course wrong. Maxwell was no crank, jonesdumb is the crank per almost 200-years of laboratory confirmation.
The most amusing item is how jonesdumb keeps dismissing electric currents (or changing electric fields) while referencing the Biermann battery which most definitely involves the movement of charges, i.e. an electric current.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
So it's not quite clear what you and @cantdrive are 'disagreeing'

It's actually quite clear; jonesdumb keeps claiming "no currents required", which is of course wrong. Maxwell was no crank, jonesdumb is the crank per almost 200-years of laboratory confirmation.


What is the current in the solar wind, dumbo?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
movement of charges...................


What is the current in the solar wind, dumbo?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
@jonesdave...continued from previous post.

Moreover, jd, you seem to be ignoring some of the (even more important/fundamental) implications in the information/descriptions in what you are reading from the links. Eg, when you read "flux' tubes, you seem to be ignoring the point of 'what' is actually doing the 'fluxing' and 'why'. Since I just pointed out above that the magnetic field is always preceded/generated by some sort of 'electric current' (be it 'differential/relative' spin, rotation, linear etc motions), then what 'fluxes' first is the 'charge flows'; then, via magnifying feedbacks (ie, magnetic-pinch 'compression' and/or gravitationally-induced collapse), the whole dynamical system evolves and produces the observed 'hybrid' phenomena over the relevant spatio-temporal scales/extents (as I have also long been pointing out).

So, may I suggest (for the umpteenth time?) that you and @cantdrive stop feuding; start actually talking/understanding science not character?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
What I was arguing with, RC, is the idiotic assertion by Rossim, that the observation in this article means there is some sort of current involved, as per the usual EU lunacy. As the abstract to the freely available paper states:

......we estimate a plane-of-sky magnetic field strength of 170−320μG in the Pillars, consistent with their having been ***formed through compression of gas*** with initially weak magnetization.


I merely pointed out how this is possible, and is ubiquitous, through well attested science, that does not need a current to suddenly turn up from who knows where, as per EU woo. Of course, the well attested science is all invented by ignoramuses, and only the geniuses of EU are qualified to speak on plasma physics. Despite being provably crap at it. That is all.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
@jonesdave...continued from previous post.

Moreover, jd, you seem to be ignoring some of the (even more important/fundamental) implications in the information/descriptions in what you are reading from the links. Eg, when you read "flux' tubes, you seem to be ignoring the point of 'what' is actually doing the 'fluxing' and 'why'. Since I just pointed out above that the magnetic field is always preceded/generated by some sort of 'electric current' (be it 'differential/relative' spin, rotation, linear etc motions), then what 'fluxes' first is the 'charge flows'; then, via magnifying feedbacks (ie, magnetic-pinch 'compression' and/or gravitationally-induced collapse), .....


Go tell it to a plasma physicist. That's where I got it from. A flux tube is not a Birkeland current.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
@jonesdave (and @cantdrive85).

Think about what I (yet again) pointed out about these all being HYBRID phenomena once the 'electric' QM-spin, rotation, linear motions etc aspect starts off the whole electro-magnetic-AND-gravitational dynamics; which evolves 'complexly' therefrom, over the relevant spatio-temporal 'evolutionary trajectories' (as I keep trying to get BOTH of you 'one-eyed' argumentative types to get onto the same page and stop your 'merry one-eyed feuding'). Now try, for the sake of proper comprehension and the science itself, to STOP your nasty feuding; which is making one-eyed 'asses' of you both!

OK? Try. :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
^^^^^^^^^Sorry, would you like to show me where I, and the whole of the plasma physics community, is wrong on this? If you don't mind, I'll believe the writings of experts in the field, within the scientific literature, rather than random people on the internet. Thank you.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Think about what I (yet again) pointed out about these all being HYBRID phenomena once the 'electric' QM-spin, rotation, linear motions etc aspect starts off the whole electro-magnetic-AND-gravitational dynamics

You're looking to join the Strawman Society too, aren't you. The EU fully acknowledges gravity, as a matter of fact they even have proposed an actual mechanism ( http://www.holosc...niverse/ ) unlike the circular gravity just happens explanation of Einsteinianism.
I am pointing out what is being omitted and why 96% of their Universe is missing, because they are ignoring 96% of the relevant physics, electromagnetism.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Sorry, would you like to show me where I, and the whole of the plasma physics community, is wrong on this?

It's not the "whole of plasma physics", just the hypothetical astrophysical branch. The ones who are adequately trained with the proper EE concepts (see Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, C.E.R. Bruce, Thornhill) are not as in the "dark" as the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
^^^^^^^Oh dear! Thornhill's electric gravity woo!! We don't need your silly mechanism. It doesn't, and couldn't possibly, work! Thornhill only needs it because he needs to stop breaking laws of physics with his Saturn and Venus woo. Nobody would give this a moment's consideration. It is nutso!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
.....C.E.R. Bruce, Thornhill


Sorry? Who are these two in the grand scheme of things?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
We don't need your silly mechanism

According to Einstein, it's magic. When you have magic as part of your pseudoscience why do you need a mechanism?

LOL! We don't need no stinking physics!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
We don't need your silly mechanism

According to Einstein, it's magic. When you have magic as part of your pseudoscience why do you need a mechanism?

LOL! We don't need no stinking physics!


Why on Earth would anybody listen to the ramblings of the unqualified Velikovskian nutjob, Thornhill? Seriously? You think someone who believes the crap that he does, is scientifically capable of describing gravity? Please!
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Sorry? Who are these two in the grand scheme of things?

History will tell. You and your ilk will likely be dead, although I certainly would prefer y'all to eat your well-earned crow.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Why on Earth would anybody listen to the ramblings of the unqualified Velikovskian nutjob, Thornhill?

Well, he certainly isn't the Patent Office Plagiarist, is he?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
Why on Earth would anybody listen to the ramblings of the unqualified Velikovskian nutjob, Thornhill?

Well, he certainly isn't the Patent Office Plagiarist, is he?


No, he's a nobody. And scientifically illiterate to boot. Not a bad con-artist, though.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
For a nobody you sure do expend a lot effort to cast ad hominems his way. If you spent half the effort researching real plasma physics you'd be an expert by now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
Oh no no no no no no not that electricity business again. NO!! AHHHHhH!!!!

it cant be true it just can't I'm gonna mumble myself to death

shit
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
Let's consult an expert
https://youtu.be/qe0N-E3oAMg

-well I think that clears it up-
WillyNilly
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Man these are some really bizarre people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
Mr willy my star rater dont work on this Samsung. But thankyou for your participation.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
For a nobody you sure do expend a lot effort to cast ad hominems his way. If you spent half the effort researching real plasma physics you'd be an expert by now.


No need to be an expert. However, I listen to a few. And I do a fair bit of research. That's why I can link to papers, and you have to quote from woo sites. Unfortunately for you, plasma physics didn't stop when Alfven died. As I said, we know far more now than he ever did. And Thornhill isn't even a scientist, and only gets the opprobrium he does due to his anti-science attitude, and disregard for real scientists. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd ever accomplished anything himself, and didn't believe in complete crap. In my view, he deserves everything he gets.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
No need to be an expert.

That's pretty telling coming from someone who claims to be an "expert" in comets. It's an object immersed in plasma yet you think ancillary knowledge is adequate. Is it any wonder your views are so skewed.
Old_C_Code
not rated yet Jun 10, 2018
Are permanent magnets "frozen-in"? How do you measure the electric current in a permanent magnet?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
No need to be an expert.

That's pretty telling coming from someone who claims to be an "expert" in comets. It's an object immersed in plasma yet you think ancillary knowledge is adequate. Is it any wonder your views are so skewed.


I know enough plasma physics to know what is possible, likely, and total BS. What you people believe in is total BS. You have nobody with a clue about plasma physics. However, you don't have to take my word for it. You could also check with actual plasma physicists. They will tell you what I've told you - you believe in made-up fairy tales.
Why don't you get your experts in plasma physics and comets (Thornhill & Talbott; lol!), to publish their woo? Or head on over to a physics forum to discuss their lies with an actual plasma physicist? Why don't you go through the literatutre from the 67P mission and previous ones, to find out how badly you have been lied to? You won't, because your faith in these con-artists is total.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Are permanent magnets "frozen-in"? How do you measure the electric current in a permanent magnet?

No, permanent magnets are not frozen-in either. It is the aligned harmonic spin of electron orbits that creates ferromagnetism, it's still the movement of charges (electric currents) which creates the magnetic field.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
It is the aligned harmonic spin of electron orbits that creates ferromagnetism, it's still the movement of charges (electric currents) which creates the magnetic field.


False. There is no perpetual electric current inside a permanent magnet.

https://en.wikipe...c_moment

An electron is basically like a tiny bar magnet, because it has "spin", but this is a QM property of the electron - it's not literally spinning. There's no perpetual motion here. A permanent magnet happens in materials where the electron shells aren't completely filled, so there's electrons with no opposite pairs, which are free to align according to an external field. These materials are electrically neutral - they're not plasma - typically they're metals of some sort.

Atomic hydrogen can also be magnetic like this because it has a single electron.

The electron orbits around the nucleus do produce a weak magnetic effect, but that's orders of magnitude less.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Pretty much all atoms and molecules have some amount of intrinsic magnetism. There's no perfectly neutral material.

For example, a cloud of electrically neutral O2 floating around in space is strongly paramagnetic. That means, if an external magnetic field is applied, the cloud becomes magnetized in the direction of that field.

Paramagnetic materials don't retain the field because the thermal motion of the atoms is strong enough to randomize the spin orientations immediately after the external field is removed, but at cold enough temperatures (eg. liquid oxygen) they can behave like permanent magnets and "trap" a magnetic field.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
https://en.wikipe...agnetism
The narrowest definition would be: a system with unpaired spins that do not interact with each other. In this narrowest sense, the only pure paramagnet is a dilute gas of monatomic hydrogen atoms. Each atom has one non-interacting unpaired electron.

The element hydrogen is virtually never called 'paramagnetic' because the monatomic gas is stable only at extremely high temperature; H atoms combine to form molecular H2 and in so doing, the magnetic moments are lost (quenched),


But in space, where hydrogen atoms can be few and far between, a sufficient number of solo H atoms can sustain large scale magnetic fields without being ionized into plasma. With all the other elements, the whole Pillars of Creation can essentially be a huge permanent magnet.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
There is no perpetual electric current inside a permanent magnet.

Electrons, and all "elementary" particles, do actually spin. The inferred magical probabalistic properties of QM guesses are unnecessary, just an understanding of the medium required to make EM theory coherent, but I digress.
You must be suggesting the spin and orbital momentum of atomic electrons cease at some point?
The unbalanced charge pairs is the root cause of the harmonic alignment which is the manifestation of the electromagnetic energy which causes the field
If your QM guesses can imply intrinsic properties, so too can I claim initial intrinsic conditions to support suppositions.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
I think the problem the EU cranks have, is that they want all sorts of electrical woo to be dominating at all scales. So, they see a report of a magnetic field, and automatically think 'electric current!'. Of course, pretty much all plasma in the universe is going to be in a quasi-neutral state. And then one can look up the Debye lengths for various plasmas, and see that large scale, long-lived currents are just not likely to happen. In the solar wind we are talking ~ 10m.
That is not to say currents don't occur - they do, and it is a well studied area. However, they are induced currents. They don't just pop up out of nowhere, for no good reason.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
the whole Pillars of Creation can essentially be a huge permanent magnet.

Ummm, 'fraid not snookems. You're pandering a special kind of pseudoscience, one thay is completely unsupported by any science whatsoever.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Electrons, and all "elementary" particles, do actually spin. The inferred magical probabalistic properties of QM guesses are unnecessary,.....


Really? Says whom? Wouldn't be this crank that believes Earth used to orbit Saturn, would it?

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
So, they see a report of a magnetic field, and automatically think 'electric current!'.

Or changing electric field, which cause electric currents.

But yes, that is correct as Maxwell's equations demand, and nearly 200 years of experimental confirmation and a modern society built upon these principles. It's amusing how astrophysicists are able to pick and choose which physics they deem as relevant in spite of them claiming the laws of physics should be everywhere the same. It's all the same except for plasma physics. LOL!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
So, they see a report of a magnetic field, and automatically think 'electric current!'.

Or changing electric field, which cause electric currents.

But yes, that is correct as Maxwell's equations demand, and nearly 200 years of experimental confirmation and a modern society built upon these principles. It's amusing how astrophysicists are able to pick and choose which physics they deem as relevant in spite of them claiming the laws of physics should be everywhere the same. It's all the same except for plasma physics. LOL!


So, what is the average B in the solar wind? ~6 nT, yes? What about close to the diamagnetic cavity boundary of a comet? Maybe 50 nT, without looking it up. What is the intrinsic B of a comet? 0 nT. So, what caused this amplification? Can a current be created in this situation? Yes. Ergo, it is induced. Did we need a current to cause it? No.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
You can take the above example, and use it with a much larger, non-magntised body with an atmosphere, such as Venus. What will happen? Pretty much the same thing. What about going to a gas cloud, with an intrinsic, but low, B? What would happen if a star formed (or went supernova) nearby, and it's magnetic field was carried at speed into that cloud? Same; compression, magnetic field pile-up, increased B.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
You're pandering a special kind of pseudoscience, one thay is completely unsupported by any science whatsoever.

Electrons, and all "elementary" particles, do actually spin. The inferred magical probabalistic properties of QM guesses are unnecessary


No further comments

If your QM guesses can imply intrinsic properties, so too can I claim initial intrinsic conditions to support suppositions.


You're denying the evidence and conclusions of fundamental particle physics for the past 100 years as "guesses" and pseudoscience. You're schitzsophrenically in denial of reality.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Can a current be created in this situation? Yes. Ergo, it is induced. Did we need a current to cause it? No.

Ergo, you are an utter moron! The electric current of the solar wind with its 6nT magnetic field is inducing further currents.
The solar wind magnetic field is not there via magic jonesdumb, it is created by electric currents in the SW.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
The unbalanced charge pairs is the root cause of the harmonic alignment which is the manifestation of the electromagnetic energy which causes the field


Thats' just pure psychobabble.

In any case, regardless of whether electrons do or don't spin, it's an observable fact of reality that atoms, molecules, fundamental particles etc. are intrinsically magnetic and there's no stellar scale ionic/electric currents needed to explain the existence of large scale magnetic fields in clouds of gas.

Which means you just did a switcheroo and shifted the goalposts by starting to argue about perpetual currents in permanent magnets.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
You're denying the evidence and conclusions of fundamental particle physics for the past 100 years as "guesses" and pseudoscience. You're schitzsophrenically in denial of reality.


Of course he is! How else can you have Earth orbiting Saturn, and Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system recently, if the well established laws of physics aren't totally dismantled and built from scratch? After all, it cannot be that the laws of physics are correct, and geniuses like Velikovsky were wrong! Ergo, the laws of physics need changing!

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
You're denying the evidence and conclusions of fundamental particle physics for the past 100 years as "guesses" and pseudoscience. You're schitzsophrenically in denial of reality.

A dramatically wrong turn leading down a pseudoscientific dead-end was taken about 100-years-ago. A return to classical physics and an understanding of the background medium the Universe resides within will be needed to make real scientific progress going forward. The fanciful pontifications of the mathematicians have divorced QM/ST from reality and the cause/effect mechanisms required by physics.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
You're denying the evidence and conclusions of fundamental particle physics for the past 100 years as "guesses" and pseudoscience. You're schitzsophrenically in denial of reality.

A dramatically wrong turn leading down a pseudoscientific dead-end was taken about 100-years-ago. A return to classical physics and an understanding of the background medium the Universe resides within will be needed to make real scientific progress going forward. The fanciful pontifications of the mathematicians have divorced QM/ST from reality and the cause/effect mechanisms required by physics.


Hahahaha. Lol. Straight out of the mouth of the scientifically illiterate woo merchant, Thornhill! Tell me, what is he qualified in? Deary me.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
A dramatically wrong turn leading down a pseudoscientific dead-end was taken about 100-years-ago.


How science works is by experimentation and evidence. You're telling me there exists a planet-wide conspiracy and cover-up to hide that QM doesn't work.

A return to classical physics and an understanding of the background medium


The "background medium" argument was a dead duck even in its time, and failed to explain observations. Even the contemporaries understood that the idea was conceptually unsound with many internal inconsistencies and contradictions.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
there's no stellar scale ionic/electric currents needed to explain the existence of large scale magnetic fields in clouds of gas.

First, it's plasma.
Yet we can measure the movement of those charges (which implies a current), we can measure the polarization, and we can detect large scale magnetic fields.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
Of course he is!


The irony of sitting on a computer writing to an online message board, while denying quantum mechanics is like sitting in a car arguing that engines don't work.

Though I've actually seen some of those types as well - arguing that engines don't burn fuel but actually the gasoline is just used to catalyze the combustion of nitrogen in the air.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Yet we can measure the movement of those charges (which implies a current)...


No, it doesn't. What is the current in the solar wind?
b_man
not rated yet Jun 10, 2018
As usual, cause and effect get reversed.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
First, it's plasma.
Yet we can measure the movement of those charges (which implies a current), we can measure the polarization, and we can detect large scale magnetic fields.
Nothing to see here, move along...


Which is saying exactly nothing. You're just mashing things together and saying "see? See?"

The uptick in sale of ice cream coincides with increased rates of drowning. Therefore ice cream causes drowning and not the fact that it's summer when people swim and buy ice cream. Same fallacy.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
planet-wide conspiracy and cover-up to hide that QM doesn't work.

No, planet-wide group think and confirmation bias. QM is probabilistic, statistical gymnastics are used to explain reality. There are no physical cause/effect mechanisms at play, just statistical probabilities. See spooky action at distance, there is no physical explanation, no physics.
Another example is gravity, there is no physical explanation as to how it works, just maths to explain the effects. NASA can send probes where they choose using the maths, but they still don't know how gravity works. QM is in the same state of affairs.
The "background medium" argument was a dead duck even in its time,

Not at all, as a matter of fact it is required by Maxwell's equations as EM waves cannot wave through nothing. The must be a medium to wave. The EU view is the aether is likely made up of a sea of neutrinos. What is the likelihood this would have been detected by M&M back in the 1800's?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
The EU view is the aether is likely made up of a sea of neutrinos


Which we can detect. So, do the maths. How many do you need? Lol. Where are all these neutrinos coming from? Why do they oscillate? Bit spooky that, eh? How many are from the direction of the giant nuclear furnace in our skies, and how many from elsewhere? What does this tell you? Idiots.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
No, planet-wide group think and confirmation bias. QM is probabilistic, statistical gymnastics are used to explain reality.


Of course it is. Otherwise QM couldn't work - it was shown long ago that deterministic "hidden variable" versions cannot explain the observations. Reality is intrinsically probabilistic, and one of the Einstein's famous triad, Locality, Causality, Reality must be abandoned to explain why things happen the way they do.

Abandoning Locality leads to breaking the speed of light. Abandoning Causality leads to breaking all physics (or into many-world interpretations), but there's still Reality - so QM can work in a causal and local manner if we realize that things that seem to be things are a result of their observation and not existing as such.

Eikka
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
Not at all, as a matter of fact it is required by Maxwell's equations as EM waves cannot wave through nothing. The must be a medium to wave.


That's exactly what lead to the fundamental breakdown of the background medium concept, because there needed to be so many of these media that these "aether" theories simply became too ridiculous to accept.

The grand conceptual breakthrough of Einstein was to note that space has properties - that space itself is a medium.

Plus the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiments failed to find aether of any kind. Modern repeats of the experiment, and updated versions to find anisotropy in the speed of light, also failed to prove the existence of any background medium.

https://en.wikipe...eriments

The experimental evidence shows that the speed of light is the same regardless of direction of movement to the precision of 10 to the power of -17
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
The experimental evidence shows that the speed of light is the same regardless of direction of movement to the precision of 10 to the power of -17


And is commensurate with the speed of gravity, as long believed, and essentially confirmed by the GW and EM detections from the neutron star merger.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
https://en.wikipe...Problems
By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.


In other words, aether had these mutually contradictory properties. Then there needed to be different aethers to explain why certain forces didn't interact. Maxwell wrote:

Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
The EU view is the aether is likely made up of a sea of neutrinos


Then you're in direct contradiction with the very idea of the aether, because neutrinos aren't massless. It would have very large scale consequences on the orbits of planets and the large scale distribution of mass in the universe, which simply isn't observed.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2018
Lorentz tried to rescue the aether theory by introducing the concept of local time and lenght contraction

https://en.wikipe...r_theory

but his mathematics were essentially identical to Einstein's and the concept of the aether could be simply left out as unnecessary. Lorentz had already removed all the classical properties of the aether to make the thing work, and Einstein simply dropped the name.

The only difference between Einstein's and Lorentz's "aether" is that Lorentz pulled some constants out of his hat to force certain intrinsic properties for space, while Einstein held the properties of space as relative to what exist in the space (e.g. mass bends space, causes gravity).
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Reality is intrinsically probabilistic, and one of the Einstein's famous triad, Locality, Causality, Reality must be abandoned to explain why things happen the way they do.

Reality is intrinsically physical, there are actual processes that occur for cause/effect. Maths, however, is intrinsically probabilistic as numbers and equations are but a language.
But at least you admit/agree that QM is not physics (neither is GR) as physics requires cause/effect.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Then, the step from Maxwell and aether, through Einstein, to quantum mechanics, came from the observations made with the photoelectric effect where Einstein showed that light isn't actually a wave, but a particle with wave-like qualities - or a wave with particle-like qualities.

Particles don't need a medium to propagate. No aether needed. Thus, when we shift to quantum mechanics, the Maxwell's equations actually describe the spread of the probability waves as averages - the actual electric influence follows an aggregate of multiple quanta.

For example, if you take something like a radio transmitter that transmits exactly one oscillation of a fundamental charge as an EM wave - following classical physics you'd expect two recievers to both recieve the signal, but this is impossible because it would break the conservation of energy, since EM waves are quantized. The work done to swing the charge cannot double to excite two recievers - only one can recieve the signal.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Then you're in direct contradiction with the very idea of the aether, because neutrinos aren't massless.


Dr Dayton Miller found the ether,
https://journals....ys.5.203
And The Nobel Laureate Maurice Allias confirmed his findings in 1998.
http://allais.mau...12-1.htm

As Einstein remarked about Miller's paper;
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein

Such as Thornhill's electric gravity.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
The work done to swing the charge cannot double to excite two recievers - only one can recieve the signal.

Huh?!?! That's really weird. I was driving down the street the other day and the car next to me was "unbelievably" playing the same song, and it was exactly in time with my radio! What are the chances of this?
Funniest thing, it was classical...
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
Reality is intrinsically physical, there are actual processes that occur for cause/effect.


Physicality, probability, and causality don't have the connection you're trying to argue.

Probability does not exclude causality. A still causes B, but it can also cause C, D, E, F...

Under classical physics, causality is symmetrical: A and B can be exchanged in order, and so the question arises why time doesn't run backwards. Probability explains why this doesn't happen - since there are many possibilities for the outcome, and each of those outcomes have multiple possible outcomes, getting back from B to A is much less likely to happen and causal events seem to have a preferred direction in time - a broken glass doesn't jump back up to the table and repair itself.

Maths, however, is intrinsically probabilistic as numbers and equations are but a language.


Non-sequitur. You're not making sense.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Such as Thornhill's electric gravity.


Lol, Thornhill! Double lol, electric gravity! Unfortunately, there are some very easy experiments to show that that is bunk. And GR just keeps getting confirmed in test after test. Thornhill is no intellect - he has made zero contribution to science, nor scientific thinking. He believes in scientifically impossible nonsense. The only people he's trying to con with this electric gravity woo is cultists like you. Even the denizens of the dunderdolts forum don't buy it! It's pathetic.
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
Dr Dayton Miller found the ether,


You're shifting the argument: your neutrinos as aether is still invalid, because the aether is supposed to be massless. If Miller is arguing the same as you, then he must be just as wrong.


Huh?!?! That's really weird. I was driving down the street the other day and the car next to me was "unbelievably" playing the same song, and it was exactly in time with my radio! What are the chances of this?


The radio station is transmitting enough EM quanta for both of you to recieve. Read carefully the argument: exactly one wave-particle is being sent, so exactly one can be recieved. The quantization of EM waves has been proven a hundred years ago. The wave-only nature of light and EM in general fails to explain observations.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
Maths, however, is intrinsically probabilistic as numbers and equations are but a language.


If you can't do maths, you can't do physics. End of story. That would be why Thornie couldn't do the maths to figure out why his H+ making OH at comets was numerically as well as physically impossible. That is what happens when one is both scientifically and mathematically illiterate. Thornhill just wants to philosophise science until it fits his warped views. He is a loon.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Probability does not exclude causality. A still causes B, but it can also cause C, D, E, F...

Agreed, but QM does as they do not propose mechanisms. QM states there is no structure to atoms, just a statistical cloud of probability. Sure it can aid via deterministic solutions, but it ain't describing reality. Given how nature works on larger scales, deterministic probabilities isn't how she works. The atom must have structure;
https://etherealm....org/sam
And gravity has a physical mechanism;
http://www.holosc...niverse/
We need to return to reality based physics, and use maths as an ancillary tool ILO reifying mathematical entities to describe our Universe.
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
Dr Dayton Miller found the ether,


Yes, he "found" it in 1933 by a false positive.

The same experiment with improved methods and machinery performed over and over again, last time in 2009, have not confirmed the result. The aether is dead.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Anyway........ what about these dinosaurs? What was the gravity of Earth in the Cretaceous? Sorry, but this is the level of intellect that is going to overturn all of modern science due to his belief in Velikovskian woo! This nutjob cannot be taken seriously. And isn't.
Eikka
4 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Agreed, but QM does as they do not propose mechanisms.


Non-sequitur. You seem to think that a mechanism is only a rigid object physically touching another rigid object, which is exactly the kind of contradictory nonsense that requires a perfectly rigid yet perfectly fluid aether to mediate forces.

It is also conceptually impossible for a particle to have such well defined shape, size, position etc. because for a particle to be precisely such and so would require infinite information.

QM has mechanism: it's the interaction of the probability waves as they sum up and subtract from each other. The wave is the particle.

QM states there is no structure to atoms, just a statistical cloud of probability.


The wave IS the structure of the particle.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
In other words, if you want to get over the infinite information problem, things have to come quantized at some small level.

And it cannot mean a rigid grid like on a graph paper, or pixels on a screen, because that's falling in the same trap again: to say that okay, things move around in exactly Planck lenght steps, then you're back into the problem where you need infinite information to define what "exactly" is.

Since there exists only a finite amount of information in the particle, at some level of detail it must be vague, indefinite, approximate, "probabilistic", and that's the only way they can work.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
The same experiment with improved methods and machinery performed over and over again, last time in 2009, have not confirmed the result.

Reference please. I would like to see exactly how rigorous the experiment. Miller's last almost 25-years, included 200,000 data points, 12,000 turns of the inferometer, taken throughout the years, at multiple locations. Confirm with rigorous control experiments. And corroborated by a couple of his peers, Sagnac and Michelson/Gale.
http://www.orgone...ller.htm

References would be great, thanks.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018

References would be great, thanks.


There's a whole list:
https://en.wikipe...eriments

Older experiments show upper bounds to the speed of light variation at couple km/s and the modern experiments show a maximum variation of some nanometers per second as the upper bound. This is to be expected as the measurement techniques and equipment have improved considerably since 1933.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
"By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.[citation needed] Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica:[A 3]"

-Exactly. Infinitely dense and quite rigid.

"Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in"

-And so in order to detect them, all we need to do is sprinkle many tons of glitter in the earths wake and look for eddy currents and such.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
-And so in order to detect them, all we need to do is sprinkle many tons of glitter in the earths wake and look for eddy currents and such.


Which would get blown away by the solar wind. Hence why the experiments are done with lasers and microwaves instead, because if there is an aether and we're moving through it, then the speed of light should vary with the direction of motion.

Of course the aether could be moving with us, thus explaining the null results, but then starlight would become considerably distorted.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018


Of course the aether could be moving with us, thus explaining the null results, but then starlight would become considerably distorted.


... and so, let's just ignore all of the observations.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave, @cantdrive.

In response to this from @jonesdave to my post...
Sorry, would you like to show me where I, and the whole of the plasma physics community, is wrong on this?
...AND in response to this from @cantdrive to my same post...
The EU fully acknowledges gravity, as a matter of fact they even have proposed an actual mechanism.....I am pointing out what is being omitted and why 96% of their Universe is missing, because they are ignoring 96% of the relevant physics,...
Gentlemen, the nub of your mutual animosity is that:

- you both acknowledge Gravity, Electric Current, Magnetism involvement in the 'hybrid forces/factors resultant' plasmic/gravitational 'concentrations/collapse phenomena observed....

..BUT..

- you two differ bitterly re interpretations/conclusions as to 'dominance' of each in said phenomena!

Let that be the starting point for POLITE, OBJECTIVE scientifc/logical discourse between GENTLEMEN and SCHOLARS, not childish ego-battles. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
Now, I am still very busy offline, but will make time today to respond to comments, claims, interpretations etc posted to @cantdrive by his interlocuters on the relevant issues.

While I do NOT subscribe to the 'sillier' claims by @cantdrive and EU/PU/Thornhill 'crowd', I must in all fairness as scrupulously objective independent 'third party observer' to the discussion, point out certain 'shaky' claims, interpretations etc on the part of those arguing against @cantdrive's various points re 'fundamentals' in QM and COSMIC plasma phenomena.

This may require a series of posts, so please do not immediately 'kneejerk reply' to any one post, but wait until the series is complete, so your reply may reflect the full context and so forestall much partial-info based cross-purpose exchanges. Thanks. :)

In my next few posts, I'll address certain relevant excerpts from @Eikka's responses to @cantdrive; and after that will proceed to @jonesdave's responses to @cantdrive.

cont...
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy like I always am.

Now, I am still very busy offline, but will make time today to respond

And we really do appreciate you make the time for that.

This may require a series of posts, so please do not immediately 'kneejerk reply' to any one post,
Ut oh. Sorry about this one, I guess I jumped the gun, eh?

In my next few posts, I'll address certain relevant excerpts
It's good for you to explain that.

@Eikka's responses to @cantdrive; and after that will proceed to @jonesdave's responses to @cantdrive.
And explain that too. Do you think any of them will thank you for it?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
@Eikka.
An electron is basically like a tiny bar magnet, because it has "spin", but this is a QM property
No, mate; it's an QM THEORY abstract interpretational CONVENTION. There is no fundamental physical 'identity' or mechanism/process described by QM stochastic observational construct and calculations...only measurable effects outcomes and quantifications of same.
There's no perpetual motion here.
Actually, both macro scale (GR etc) and micro scale (QM etc) theories acknowledge that universal fundamentals of the universe are in a state of motion/change at all scales. In GR there is no 'absolute' rest frame; and in QM the uncertainty principle ensures no static states. Hence the Universe is ALL in 'perpetual motion'.
A permanent magnet happens in materials where the electron shells aren't completely filled
Permanent magnetism can be destroyed at high temps/energies. Hence no conclusions re magnetism PER SE can be based on such arguments.

Continued...
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
No, mate;
I sure am glad you cleared that up. And I am sure everybody is glad too with me.

Continued...
If you say so. But I really wish you would try to move a little faster. Waiting for your next scientific post is like waiting for Santa for a six year old
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@Eikka continued:
regardless of whether electrons do or don't spin, it's an observable fact of reality that atoms, molecules, fundamental particles etc. are intrinsically magnetic and there's no stellar scale ionic/electric currents needed to explain the existence of large scale magnetic fields in clouds...
Careful, mate; your 'point' there relies on assuming that the cloud's 'environment' is 'passive'. Please realize that in space contexts (as opposed to artificially constrained 'clouds' in lab contexts) there is always 'mean free path' motions/interactions present; and then of course there is ionizing radiation from all directions at many energy levels/potentials (ie, even cryogenically cold 'gases' can be Photo-ionized plasmas to varying degrees of electric-magnetic effectiveness in producing 'seed' electric/magnetic fields, feedbacks/magnifications etc which produce the usual 'self-sorting' and 'current' phenomena inevitably found in such plasmas).

Cont...
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
Careful, mate; your 'pint' there relies n the assumption that the cloud's 'environment' is 'passive'. Please realize that in space contexts (as opposed to artificially constrained 'clouds' in lab contexts) there is always 'mean free path' motions/interactions present; and then of curse there is the ionizing radiation from all directions at many energy levels/potentials (ie, even cryogenically cold 'gases' can be Photo-ionized plasmas to varying degrees of electric-magnetic effectiveness in producing 'seed' electric/magnetic fields, feedbacks/magnifications etc which produce the usual 'self-sorting' and 'current' phenomena inevitably found in such plasmas).
Cher, you practice that in front of the mirror? You got the lab coat costume for practicing in?

Cont...
Glad to hear it, but I wish you would not take 30 minutes every time. Choot, it's same gobbledygook you are posting for years, you should have it down to the 3 minute mark by now.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
While I do NOT subscribe to the 'sillier' claims by @cantdrive and EU/PU/Thornhill 'crowd', I must in all fairness as scrupulously objective independent 'third party observer' to the discussion, point out certain 'shaky' claims, interpretations etc on the part of those arguing against @cantdrive's various points re 'fundamentals' in QM and COSMIC plasma phenomena.


Jeez mate! You have just put yourself in the same category! Eh? W***er! Figure it out! Dear me.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@Eikka.
That's exactly what led to the fundamental breakdown of the background medium concept, because there needed to be so many of these media that these "aether" theories simply became too ridiculous to accept.
Much like Higgs Field 'background medium' is supposed to 'confer mass' to certain particles (but NOT to certain other particles), the 'old aether' concept was much in the same vein; providing a 'light speed limit' propagating context for electro-magnetic 'waveform' energy quanta/phenomena.
The grand conceptual breakthrough of Einstein was to note that space has properties - that space itself is a medium.
Actually, no mate; Einstein STATED he 'gave up' all physical properties of SPACE; and re-cast all the observations, maths and interpretations into a PURELY ANALYTICAL 'context' based on the ABSTRACT SPACETIME 'construct' (which even mainstream physicists still refer to as the spacetime 'FABRIC' forming the ABSTRACT 'background medium' for analysis).

Cont
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018


Of course the aether could be moving with us, thus explaining the null results, but then starlight would become considerably distorted.


... and so, let's just ignore all of the observations.


....and these observations would be.......? Dickhead. Never actually done science, have you, dear? Lol. Please, tell me you don't think the idiot Thornhill has a clue? Yes? Bet you don't.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2018
Much like Higgs Field 'background medium' is supposed to 'confer mass' to certain particles (but NOT to certain other particles), the 'old aether' concept was much in the same vein; providing a 'light speed limit' propagating context for electro-magnetic 'waveform' energy quanta/phenomena.
How much like that it is Cher? From over here it looks not like that so much at all.

Actually, no mate; Einstein STATED he 'gave up' all physical properties of SPACE; and re-cast all the observations, maths and interpretations into a PURELY ANALYTICAL 'context' based on the ABSTRACT SPACETIME 'construct' (which even mainstream physicists still refer to as the spacetime 'FABRIC' forming the ABSTRACT 'background medium' for analysis).
To bad the Einstein-Skippy did not have the physorg and Really-Skippy around back in the day, eh?

Cont
Yeah, I saw that the last time you write it too but he is not getting any better.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
.........e Higgs Field 'background medium' is supposed to 'confer mass' to certain particles (but NOT to certain other particles), the 'old aether' concept was much in the same vein; providing a 'light speed limit' propagating context for electro-magnetic 'waveform' energy quanta/phenomena.
The grand conceptual breakthrough of Einstein was to note that space has properties - that space itself is a medium.
Actually, no mate; Einstein STATED he 'gave up' all physical properties of SPACE; and re-cast all the observations, maths and interpretations into a PURELY ANALYTICAL 'context' based on the ABSTRACT SPACETIME 'construct' (which even mainstream physicists still refer to as the spacetime 'FABRIC' forming the ABSTRACT 'background medium' for analysis).


Oh jeez, just another nutjob. Surprise, surprise. I was not expecting that!

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
While I do NOT subscribe to the 'sillier' claims by @cantdrive and EU/PU/Thornhill 'crowd', I must in all fairness as scrupulously objective independent 'third party observer' to the discussion, point out certain 'shaky' claims, interpretations etc on the part of those arguing against @cantdrive's various points re 'fundamentals' in QM and COSMIC plasma phenomena.


Jeez mate! You have just put yourself in the same category! Eh? W***er! Figure it out! Dear me.
Please stop kneejerking, mate; it is unbecoming to a true scientist. And exactly how do you equate a lone, scrupulously independent, objective observer/commenter on the discourse, to putting himself "in the same category" as @cantdrive, EU/PU/Thornhill et al? Please stop reading with emotive bias, and actually understand what is being said. And please wait until I finish my series of responses before again giving way to impulses for kneejerking to personal insults, irrelevances. Thanks. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
The same experiment with improved methods and machinery performed over and over again, last time in 2009, have not confirmed the result.

Reference please. I would like to see exactly how rigorous the experiment. Miller's last almost 25-years, included 200,000 data points, 12,000 turns of the inferometer, taken throughout the years, at multiple locations. Confirm with rigorous control experiments. And corroborated by a couple of his peers, Sagnac and Michelson/Gale.
http://www.orgone...ller.htm

References would be great, thanks.


References, please. Venus went hurtling around the solar system, woo boy? Saturn was orbited by Earth? Come on, woo boy, let's see the evidence? (As if anyone is thick enough to believe crap like that; eh?). On the other hand, if you tossers want to lay it out for us................
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Please stop kneejerking, mate; it is unbecoming to a true scientist. And exactly how do you equate a lone, scrupulously independent, objective observer/commenter on the discourse, to putting himself "in the same category" as @cantdrive, EU/PU/Thornhill et al? Please stop reading with emotive bias, and actually understand what is being said. And please wait until I finish my series of responses before again giving way to impulses for kneejerking to personal insults, irrelevances. Thanks. :)
.

Doesn't stop you being a complete wanker, eh? Mate, go deal with some shit that you can understand. You are as way out of your depth here as the idiot cd85. Correct? Go away.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018


Of course the aether could be moving with us, thus explaining the null results, but then starlight would become considerably distorted.


... and so, let's just ignore all of the observations.


Hey, Dumbo! How are you? OK, which observations are these? Spell it out, woo boy. Otherwise, you know how it goes, eh?..............STFU, idiot.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
"By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.[citation needed] Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica:[A 3]"

-Exactly. Infinitely dense and quite rigid.

"Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in"

-And so in order to detect them, all we need to do is sprinkle many tons of glitter in the earths wake and look for eddy currents and such.


Might work!
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2018
And please wait until I finish my series of responses
Nothing personal Cher, but we have been waiting for 9 or 8 years for you finish up. You keep saying you are putting the finishing up touches to him,,,,,, well to tell you the truth, I really don't think you are ever going to finish up your series. It does not look like you are even off to a good start on finishing anything.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.

*sigh*

jd, please stop kneejerking; READ this from Einstein's Leiden University address:
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite
state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the
last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We
shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which
I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat
halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general
theory of relativity.
jd, there is much misunderstanding and myth been overlaid on Einstein/Relativity (mostly due to unfettered mathematical physicists-theorists mistaking maths for actual reality/explanation...which it AIN'T....as any true physicist will tell you if you can stop 'listening with bias' and personal prejudices/emotions). :)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Ahh well, at least we know that RC is a big fan of Velikovskian woo, eh? Jeez, and he turns up wanting us to listen to him? RC; do you know what a tosspot is? Let me explain it to you.........................lol.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
cd,

Thanks for presenting the clinic on Confirmation Bias, and Collisionless Rationalization.

It really helped both myself and other readers here at PO to understand the types of recursive mental and rhetorical methods employed to try to keep such dirigibles of fatuousness as your EU nonsense afloat in the fringed aethers of the Pseudoscience Sea.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
......istaking maths for actual reality/explanation...which it AIN'T....as any true physicist will tell you if you can stop 'listening with bias' and personal prejudices/emotions). :)


Oh well. Do please link us to this woo. Yes? (Like we could give a sh*t.)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
mostly due to unfettered mathematical physicists-theorists mistaking maths for actual reality/explanation.
Yeah, I found the maths hard too, but I kept to it and now I can do them. It's actually easier to take the time and effort to learn them than to try to come up with something that doesn't need them that peoples don't make the GREAT BIG FUN with.

.which it AIN'T....as any true physicist will tell you
Cher, I don't know if any true physicist would tell him that he doesn't need to know all the maths. But if you are talking about the pretend physicists that haunt the physorg you might be right.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
cd,

Thanks for presenting the clinic on Confirmation Bias, and Collisionless Rationalization.

It really helped both myself and other readers here at PO to understand the types of recursive mental and rhetorical methods employed to try to keep such dirigibles of fatuousness as your EU nonsense afloat in the fringed aethers of the Pseudoscience Sea.


Mate, he isn't even going to understand that! If you had included maths, it might have got worse.....otherwise.....!!!!!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.

*sigh*

Yu aren't fair-dinkum, mate; else you would stop withy your dishonest characterizations and misattributions. You are becoming worse than @cantdrive. Not a good look. Stop it now. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Meanwhile, in scienceville. real scientists are actually doing real science! God forbid!!!! And guess what? They are (occasionally) making headlines! Yippee! Yay, science.
On the other hand, we have a bunch of tossers, none of whom have the slightest idea about science, slagging them off. Yes?
What is it about these aforementioned tossers, that makes them think that they know anything about science? Well, baby, you just need to belieeeeeeeve! Correct? W***ers.
Come on woosters; what is it that you are qualified in, and what is it that you want to prove? That you can put a lawnmower back together? Guess what? So can !!!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.

*sigh*

Yu aren't fair-dinkum, mate; else you would stop withy your dishonest characterizations and misattributions. You are becoming worse than @cantdrive. Not a good look. Stop it now. :)


Oh dear, lol. What are you questioning, woo boy? Need to know anything about science? I'll do my best. On the other hand, you are a bit clueless, eh?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
Meanwhile, in scienceville. real scientists are actually doing real science! God forbid!!!! And guess what? They are (occasionally) making headlines! Yippee! Yay, science.
On the other hand, we have a bunch of tossers, none of whom have the slightest idea about science, slagging them off. Yes?
What is it about these aforementioned tossers, that makes them think that they know anything about science? Well, baby, you just need to belieeeeeeeve! Correct? W***ers.
Come on woosters; what is it that you are qualified in, and what is it that you want to prove? That you can put a lawnmower back together? Guess what? So can !!!
What are you on?

Step away from whatever is causing your 'high' of emotional/egotistical 'investment' in what SHOULD be polite, objective SCIENTIFIC discourse.

You're coming across as 'cheerleading' for some 'mainstream-right-or-wrong!' rally; complete with political slogans, insults. You're becoming what you despise, mate. Not good, jd. :(
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
^^^^^^WTF are you on about, woo boy? Do explain. Like I said, I'll help where I can. What are you failing to understand? Just spell it out, dear. We'll all do our best, I'm sure.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
You're coming across as 'cheerleading' for some 'mainstream-right-or-wrong!' rally; complete with political slogans, insults. You're becoming what you despise, mate. Not good, jd. :(


Guess what, woo child? Velikovsky was wrong! Hold the front pages, eh? Or do you disagree, woo boy? Or, when people who believe such crap start posting shite on here, we are all supposed to agree with them? Stop being a dick, and try to understand science, and why people that do understand it have no time for dickheads who can do nothing more than criticise. Anything to add, woo boy? Thought not. F*** Off.
arcmetal
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
Meanwhile, in scienceville. real scientists are actually doing real science! God forbid!!!! And guess what? They are (occasionally) making headlines! Yippee! Yay, science.
...
What are you on?

Step away from whatever is causing your 'high' of emotional/egotistical 'investment' in what SHOULD be polite, objective SCIENTIFIC discourse.

You're coming across as 'cheerleading' for some 'mainstream-right-or-wrong!' rally; complete with political slogans, insults. You're becoming what you despise, mate. Not good, jd. :(

Its just as I've always said, as soon as you point out a flaw in their logic they get all their panties in a bunch and only reply with insults. Its as though they have no interest in the science, or fear showing their inadequacies.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Its just as I've always said, as soon as you point out a flaw in their logic they get all their panties in a bunch and only reply with insults. Its as though they have no interest in the science, or fear showing their inadequacies.


Oh God. Another dick. What flaw would this be, dear? Not an EU idiot, are you? Want me to start on that crap? Come on, woo child, what is the flaw? And, while you're at it, let us know in which year you finish grade school.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^WTF are you on about, woo boy? Do explain. Like I said, I'll help where I can. What are you failing to understand? Just spell it out, dear. We'll all do our best, I'm sure.
You're patently still 'high' on emotion and ego, mate. Not conducive to objective science discourse with you; since you kneejerk to your own unheeding/misunderstanding biases and personal 'feuds', rather than actually trying to DISCERN between who/what is 'crank' and who/what is NOT so.

When you get 'sober' and (hopefully) more rational/discerning and polite/objective, you can re-read what you obviously misread/ignored due to your own 'need' to 'defend' mainstream even when it can be shown to have been erroneous/misled etc (even by more recent reviews/discoveries by astro/cosmo mainstream itself). You commit the 'sin' of ignoring 'falsification' principle of true science: where challenge, falsifying, reviews/re-interpretations, new approaches are WELCOME, not ignored/demonized.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Its just as I've always said,............


Really, love? Where have you said this? Hmm? In the scientific literature, was it? Or on the thingywhatsit that Mummy and Daddy got you for xmas? Please, do tell us. Lol.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^WTF are you on about, woo boy? Do explain. Like I said, I'll help where I can. What are you failing to understand? Just spell it out, dear. We'll all do our best, I'm sure.
You're patently still 'high' on emotion and ego, mate. Not conducive to objective science discourse with you; since you kneejerk to your own unheeding/misunderstanding biases and personal 'feuds', rather than actually trying to DISCERN between who/what is 'crank' and who/what is NOT so.

When you get 'sober' and (hopefully) more rational/discerning and polite/objective, you can re-read what you obviously misread/ignored due to your own 'need' to 'defend' mainstream even when it can


Go away you tiresome tosser. You have accomplished 5/8ths of f*** all, yes? You are just another deluded loon like CD, or the idiot Benni. Correct? Want to vote on it?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
.....your own 'need' to 'defend' mainstream even when it can be shown to have been erroneous/misled etc


Really, loony tunes? Sorry, point me to the scientific literature where somebody has done this. By you? F*** off, liar. You are scientifically illiterate. Stop intruding on crap that you do not, nor ever have a hope of, understanding. Yes? Go away, and finish your TOE (LOL), and then come back with the invites to the party in Stockholm! Otherwise, why don't you do one? You are a waste of space. Not to mention pixels.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^WTF are you on about, woo boy? Do explain. Like I said, I'll help where I can. What are you failing to understand? Just spell it out, dear. We'll all do our best, I'm sure.
You're patently still 'high' on emotion and ego, mate. Not conducive to objective science discourse with you; since you kneejerk to your own unheeding/misunderstanding biases and personal 'feuds', rather than actually trying to DISCERN between who/what is 'crank' and who/what is NOT so.
Go away you tiresome tosser. You have accomplished 5/8ths of f*** all, yes? You are just another deluded loon like CD, or the idiot Benni. Correct? Want to vote on it?
Heh heh. Jd, I'll just respond to that emotional and ungentlemanly 'outburst' by applying your own favorite dismissive 'tactic' against others: paraphrasing...

Alas and alack!...an irrelevant maniac on the internet (you, jd) ignores/misreads and calls me names...how 'surprising'!

Stop digging. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
Its just as I've always said, as soon as you point out a flaw in their logic they get all their panties in a bunch and only reply with insults. Its as though they have no interest in the science, or fear showing their inadequacies.


Right, back to this tosser. What do you think you have shown up, woo boy? You aren't one of the loons who follows the liar Thornhill, are you? Before we carry on, let us just get that straight. Yes or no?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
..misunderstanding biases and personal 'feuds', rather than actually trying to DISCERN between who/what is 'crank' and who/what is NOT so. Go away you tiresome tosser. You have accomplished 5/8ths of f*** all, yes? You are just another deluded loon like CD, or the idiot Benni. Correct? Want to vote on it? ]Heh heh. Jd, I'll just respond to that emotional and ungentlemanly 'outburst' by applying your own favorite dismissive 'tactic' against others: paraphrasing...

Alas and alack!...an irrelevant maniac on the internet (you, jd) ignores/misreads and calls me names...how 'suprising'!

Stop digging.


Like I said. Tiresome.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
Note to @jonesdave.

To assist the Forum in keeping straight whom you are addressing, please properly address your posts accordingly, as per longstanding polite practice; so that we can all see at a glance, without ambiguity, whom/what you are ignoring/insulting/attacking so emotionally in any particular instance. Thankyou. :)

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2018
Note to @jonesdave.

To assist the Forum in keeping straight whom you are addressing, please properly address your posts accordingly, as per longstanding polite practice; so that we can all see at a glance, without ambiguity, whom/what you are ignoring/insulting/attacking so emotionally in any particular instance. Thankyou. :)



Piss off.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Its just as I've always said, as soon as you point out a flaw in their logic they get all their panties in a bunch and only reply with insults. Its as though they have no interest in the science, or fear showing their inadequacies.


Right, back to this tosser. What do you think you have shown up, woo boy? You aren't one of the loons who follows the liar Thornhill, are you? Before we carry on, let us just get that straight. Yes or no?


Well, looks like another wooist has done a runner. Come on, kid, we don't bite!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
Note to @jonesdave.

To assist the Forum in keeping straight whom you are addressing, please properly address your posts accordingly, as per longstanding polite practice; so that we can all see at a glance, without ambiguity, whom/what you are ignoring/insulting/attacking so emotionally in any particular instance. Thankyou. :)



Piss off.


"Dad, a nasty irrelevant person on the internet just told me to "Piss off"; what shall I do?"

"Just return the compliment, son."

PS @jonesdave. Please consider your 'compliment' returned in the same friendly spirit as you offered it to me. Ta. :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^F*** off. There's a good chap. Yes?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^F*** off. There's a good chap. Yes?
Dad! Dad! That same nasty irrelevant person on the internet now tells me to "F*** off; what does "F*** off" mean, dad?"

"Who cares what some nasty irrelevant person (otherwise known as a "troll") tell you, son; just return the compliment again like before; while being grateful that, by the grace of better upbringing, this poor unfortunate is not you, son."

PS @jonesdave. My Dad says I should again just return the compliment; so please hereby consider it done. Oh, and I am so sorry for your 'unfortunate' upbringing; and I hope you can rise above it sometime in the future soon. Good luck. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2018
Which would get blown away by the solar wind. Hence why the experiments are done with lasers and microwaves instead
No, it would be scientifically designed, by scientists, to be unaffected by solar winds. Only aether eddies.

Or hey! Scientists could merely subtract the effects of solar wind on regular glitter, leaving only aether effects, and save the taxpayer $$.

Ok that's enough silly.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Jun 25, 2018
I don't have the energy to read through the tread since it ended in a series of invective, but I note that the very first comment is a funny/tragic pseudoscience one that is actually *encouraged* by an observation of a very weak magnetic effect of some molecular cloud formations - which would not explain the first stars or even molecular clouds anyway, weakening the importance of the phenomena. Makes you wonder what these persons make of fridge magnets...

These pillars are sculpted by massive earlier stars that eject ionized gas and light, hence aligning up magnetic fields. The hypothesis here was that these weak fields eventually act as brakes to compress the cloud filaments, but that remains to be seen.

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.