Students digging into data archive spot mysterious X-ray source

August 10, 2018, European Space Agency
A peculiar X-ray source spotted in the globular cluster NGC 6540 as part of a collaboration between scientists at the National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF) in Milan, Italy, and a group of students from a local high school. In 2005, ESA's XMM-Newton saw this source undergo a flare that boosted the luminosity of the source by up to 50 times its normal level for about five minutes. Too short to be an ordinary stellar flare, but too faint to be linked to a compact object, this event is challenging our understanding of X-ray outbursts. Credit: ESA/XMM-Newton; A. De Carlo (INAF)

An enigmatic X-ray source revealed as part of a data-mining project for high-school students shows unexplored avenues hidden in the vast archive of ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray Observatory.

When XMM-Newton was launched in 1999, most students who are finishing high school today were not even born. Yet ESA's almost two-decade old X-ray observatory has many surprises to be explored by the next generation of scientists.

A taste of new discoveries was unveiled in a recent collaboration between scientists at the National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF) in Milan, Italy, and a group of twelfth-grade students from a secondary school in nearby Saronno.

The fruitful interaction was part of the Exploring the X-ray Transient and variable Sky project, EXTraS, an international research study of variable from the first 15 years of XMM-Newton observations.

"We recently published the EXTraS catalogue, which includes all the X-ray sources – about half a million – whose brightness changes over time as observed by XMM-Newton, and lists several observed parameters for each source," says Andrea De Luca, one of the scientists who coordinated the student project.

"The next step was to delve into this vast data set and find potentially interesting sources, and we thought this would be an exciting challenge for a internship," adds Andrea.

Scientists at INAF in Milan have been cooperating with local schools for a few years, hosting several groups of students at the institute for a couple of weeks and embedding them in the activities of the various research groups.

"For this particular project, the students received an introduction about astronomy and the exotic sources we study with X-ray telescopes, as well as a tutorial on the database and how to use it," explains Ruben Salvaterra, another scientist involved in the programme.

"Once they were ready to explore the data archive, they proved very effective and resourceful."

The six students analysed about 200 X-ray sources, looking at their light curve – a graph showing the object's variability over time – and checking the scientific literature to verify whether they had been studied already.

Eventually, they identified a handful of sources exhibiting interesting properties – a powerful flare, for example – that had not been previously reported by other studies.

"One of the sources stood out as especially intriguing," says Andrea.

Featuring the shortest flare of all analysed objects, this source appears to be located in the globular cluster NGC 6540 – a dense grouping of stars – and had not been studied before.

After presenting their findings to the scientists in a seminar, the students went back to school. But the work for Andrea, Ruben and collaborators had only just begun.

"The source identified by the students displays brightness changes like no other known objects, so we started looking more in detail," says Ruben.

An otherwise low-luminosity source of X-rays, XMM-Newton saw it brighten by up to 50 times its normal level in 2005, and quickly fall again after about five minutes.

Stars like our sun shine moderately in X-rays, and occasionally undergo flares that boost their brightness like the one observed in this source. However, such events normally last much longer – up to a few hours or even days.

On the other hand, short outbursts are observed in binary star systems hosting a dense stellar remnant such as neutron star, but these outpourings of X-rays are characterised by a much higher luminosity.

"This event is challenging our understanding of X-ray outbursts: too short to be an ordinary stellar flare, but too faint to be linked to a compact object," explains collaborator Sandro Mereghetti, lead author of the paper presenting the results.

Another possibility is that the source is a so-called chromospherically active binary, a dual system of stars with intense X-ray activity caused by processes in their chromosphere, an intermediate layer in a star's atmosphere. But even in this case, it does not closely match the properties of any known object of this class.

The scientists suspect that this peculiar source is not unique, and that other objects with similar properties are lurking in the XMM-Newton archive but have not yet been identified because of the combination of low luminosity and short duration of the flare.

"The systematic study of variability that led to the compilation of the EXTraS catalogue, together with this first attempt at data mining, suggests that we have opened a new, unexplored window on the X-ray Universe," adds Sandro.

The team plans to study the newly identified source in greater detail to better understand its nature, while searching for more similar objects in the archive.

"It is exciting to find hidden jewels like this source in the XMM-Newton archive, and that young students are helping us find them while learning and having fun," concludes Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA.

Explore further: First catalogue of X-ray sources in overlapping observations published

More information: Sandro Mereghetti et al. EXTraS discovery of a peculiar flaring X-ray source in the Galactic globular cluster NGC 6540, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2018). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833086

Related Stories

Andromeda's first spinning neutron star found

March 31, 2016

Decades of searching in the Milky Way's nearby 'twin' galaxy Andromeda have finally paid off, with the discovery of an elusive breed of stellar corpse, a neutron star, by ESA's XMM-Newton space telescope.

Recommended for you

37 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2018
Evidence of a cosmic thunderbolt. Electric discharge on a grand scale.
RNP
5 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
This is an idiotic claim. Where would such a discharge originate or terminate?

BTW. Open access copy of paper here; https://arxiv.org...8057.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Where would such a discharge originate or terminate?

By the looks of the data, it was a discharge between the two stars as there seems to be a clear connection between the two during the event. And the researchers seem to agree an interpretation beyond the standard guesswork is appropriate.
From the paper;
"However, the flare luminosity is significantly higher than what commonly observed in stellar flares of such a short duration, leaving open the possibility of other interpretations."
RNP
4.9 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85

By the looks of the data, it was a discharge between the two stars as there seems
to be a clear connection between the two during the event. And the researchers seem to agree an interpretation beyond the standard guesswork is appropriate.

You have clearly not understood anything in the paper ( https://arxiv.org...8057.pdf )

For instance, if you look at the paper; the objects in question are located at a distance
of ~4 kpc (~13,000 light years) from Earth, and their separation is about 30 arcseconds (Fig. 1 of the paper). It is then easy to estimate they are separated by more than 100 light years.

Your purported "thunderbolt" lasted only 300 seconds, so, assuming that it moved at the speed of light, it was at most 100 million kilometres long (0.00001 light years).

Do you want to try to explain how/why your "thunderbolt" was only visible for only such a tiny part of its existence?
RNP
5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
@All
APOLOGIES!

My estimate above was wrong. Under the assumption that they are are at the same distance as the X-ray burst, the separation of the objects in the image is only about 2 light years. But, my argument still stands.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.
RNP
5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.


As usual, your post is pure BS. Your post clearly indicates that you have NO understanding of the science you try to discuss.

You have no evidence for **any** of your silly claims. I challenge you to give me a single piece of evidence that supports a single idiotic thing that you said in your above post!
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.


As usual, your post is pure BS. It clearly indicates that you have NO understanding of the science you try to discuss.

You have no evidence for **any** of your silly claims. I challenge you to give me a single piece of evidence that supports a single idiotic thing that you said in your above post!


So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2018
@cantread the electric acolyte troll
The average radius of the astromagnetosphere
LMFAO
really?
just making sh*t up now, cd??

from Google Scholar
Your search - astromagnetosphere - did not match any articles
so what about an astrophysics lexicon! lets see: it goes from Astrology to Astrometric Binaries
https://ned.ipac....mes.html

still no astromagnetosphere!
so who is using the word?
No results
https://duckduckg...p;ia=web

it seems not even the cult you joined is using that term
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.

It's pretty self-explanatory, it would be the magnetosphere of a star. All stars will have them. One of these stars encountered an interstellar doorknob (the other star) and received a zap of cosmic plasma proportions. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
@cd the electric cult looney
It's pretty self-explanatory
no, it isn't, otherwise it would be in at least one lexicon for astrophysics, in nothing else then as a pseudoscience term in the lexicon as noted above about astrology
It's not a difficult concept to grasp
neither is it difficult to grasp that you're making up words for the sake of sounding science-like

that is one of the earmarks of pseudoscience

just because you can make up technical sounding words doesn't mean they have any basis in reality
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Cap'n Stoopid, you'll have to speak up! This is all I can hear of your blather;
Comment posted by a person you have ignored...

RNP
5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2018
@cantdrive85



So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.

It's pretty self-explanatory, it would be the magnetosphere of a star. All stars will have them.
One of these stars encountered an interstellar doorknob (the other star) and received a zap of cosmic plasma proportions. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.



So, be honest, you made up the word "astromagnetsosphere" in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. Silly really because it had the opposite effect.

Also, you still can not provided ANY kind of evidence for your claims.

Perhaps you could instead give us an estimate of the voltage required to create a discharge between two doorknobs separated by two light years? How could such a voltage develop?

I am interested in your thoughts because I note that even for real doorknobs separated by only millimetres, it requires thousands of volts.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2018
So, be honest, you made up the word "astromagnetsosphere" in an attempt to sound knowledgeable.

We have 1000 characters per post, it was more about conservation of characters. Regardless, I put a prefix on a word, just like the guy who coined the term 'magnetosphere' and likely was ridiculed by people like yourself for doing so.
At least you dwell on the important stuff...Not!
RNP
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2018
@cantdrive85
OK. Let's concentrate on the important stuff.

What voltage is needed to create a discharge between two doorknobs separated by two light years?

How could such a voltage develop?
andyf
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2018
We're waiting.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2018
@RNP, @cantdrive85.

Impartially observing your exchanges so far. In the interests of your discussion, will make observation/comment.

From @cantdrive to @RNP:
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star...
From @RNP to @cantdrive:
I am interested in your thoughts because I note that even for real doorknobs separated by only millimetres, it requires thousands of volts.
Now @RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs.

ps: Languages/Sciences have history of coining new terms. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2018
and this is why you're ridiculed, penguin head fodera
ps: Languages/Sciences have history of coining new terms. :)
sigh

A magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are manipulated or affected by that object's magnetic field
- Ratcliffe, John Ashworth (1972). An Introduction to the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere (wiki)

see also: https://science.n...nosphere

you don't say "one-wheeled unicycle" because a unicycle, by definition, has only one wheel
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
A magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are manipulated or affected by that object's magnetic field
...
you don't say "one-wheeled unicycle" because a unicycle, by definition, has only one wheel
He didn't say anything like "one-wheeled unicycle", as you put it. He said "astromagnetosphere"; a legitimate composite word which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean the 'magnetosphere of a stellar body'; which would have taken more characters than astromagnetosphere (this site's limited text format is what prompted his use of astromagnetosphere, as he explained; so why quibble over trivial/legitimate semantics? Science before Semantics! Stick to the substantive science/logics issues being raised/discussed instead of creating semantic diversions.

ps: Please address posts properly/respectfully. You're not a cranky child anymore; you acting like a cranky old man is no better.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2018
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
wrong
the term is "magnetosphere" which has fewer characters, you moron

if you're not going to bother to actually read what you comment on, why jump in the middle and prove you're stupid?
Science before Semantics!
if you have a pseudoscience idiot, like you or cd, making up words that have no clear, concise definition and aren't specifically described containing the requisite data for information to be communicated, then it's not science, nor is it a "substantive science/logics issues being raised/discussed"

it's called pseudoscience technobabble
or bullsh*t
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
Wh you trying to convince, CS?

Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactic from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Who you trying to convince with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty and integrity intelligible/alien concepts to you still? Look them up; then try to get some, CS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
Wh you trying to convince, CS?

Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactic from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Who you trying to convince with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty and integrity intelligible/alien concepts to you still? Look them up; then try to get some, CS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

*Edit/Submission stalled; trying again*
[@cantdrive's] "astromagnetosphere" is legitimate composite word which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean 'magnetosphere of a stellar body'
you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere or you never knew what it meant
Who you trying to kid, CS? Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactics from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Again, who you trying to kid with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty, integrity alien/un-intelligible concepts to you still? Look them up, CS; then try to get some. And grow up.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience penguin head TROLL
insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere')
it's not an insinuation: you didn't read the definition and obviously didn't know the meaning, otherwise, you would have understood the point I made about one-wheeled unicycle
acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting
1- I don't "bot vote"
there isn't anything automatic, programmed or coded about my voting

2- you're the one defending a pseudoscience parasite with absolutely no science presented
you do it because you're one of the pseudoscience parasites yourself

the only self-delusion here is your willingness to put factual science (RNP et al) supported by evidence on the back burner simply because someone (cd) believes in some BS

that isn't science, that is religion or faith

you and cd are trolls
FOAD
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
you didn't read the definition and obviously didn't know the meaning, otherwise, you would have understood the point I made about one-wheeled unicycle
What "obviously" you talking about, CS. The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such. Period. If said body is a STAR, then "astromagnetosphere' (as used by @cantdrive) was perfectly clear, valid.
I don't "bot vote" there isn't anything automatic, programmed or coded about my voting
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics, was you just being a biased ignoramus? Glad we cleared that up, CS.
the only self-delusion here is your willingness to put factual science (RNP et al) supported by evidence on the back burner simply because someone (cd) believes in some BS
I support proper/fair science discourse. Period. My comments re RNP's 'challenge' of @cantdrive's scenario went ONLY to the applicability of @RNP's example. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) 19 hours ago
@idiot illiterate sammie
What "obviously" you talking about
how about this:
The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such
do you say "the One-wheeled Unicycle"?
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics
just because you "claim" to be correct doesn't mean you *are* correct
pseudoscience acolytes like yourself *literally* can't see the evidence why you're wrong
http://psycnet.ap...7.6.1121

I support proper/fair science discourse
no, you don't, and I can prove it
links available upon request (there are so many)

"proper/fair science discourse" doesn't allow for unsubstantiated conjecture, nor does it allow for blatantly false pseudoscience or gibberish on the fly in an attempt to "sound" technical

it requires clear, concise communication that can be verified (argument from evidence)

anything else is a discourse in belief
RNP
5 / 5 (6) 18 hours ago
@Realitycheck
@RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs.

If you had followed the conversation, you would realise that the "doorknob" analogy was cantdrive's, not mine. If you knew anything abut the subject, you too would be trying to relieve this person of his ridiculous misconceptions.

Alternatively, since you seem to be offering support to his ideas, perhaps YOU want to try and answer the questions I asked above.

I will paraphrase them for you;

What electric field is needed to create a discharge between objects separated by 2
light years (given reasonable estimate of the density and ionisation fraction of the intervening medium)?

The alternative, a massive magnetic re-connection, is against cantdrive's religion. I do not think he would appreciate your using that one.

Whatever the case, how would such a field develop?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 9 hours ago
@RNP.
...the "doorknob" analogy was cantdrive's
Yes. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression as to initial source of said example. My comment went to the validity/otherwise of your 'challenge' questions keeping @cantdrive's 'doornobs' example. I pointed out the non-comparability of that example with the two-stars situation because your questions did not have any regard to the different contexts either.
since you seem to be offering support to his ideas
I neither support nor refute @cantdrive's ideas; I merely made impartial observation re your above exchanges, pointing to certain 'contextual' difference between two doorknobs vs. two stars (re differing intervening-space conditions/contents).

Anyhow, the answers to your questions I leave for @cantdrive to make (if he can) re his ideas/claims. They must be consistent with the reality of the intervening space plasma dynamics and any interactions between two 'close' stars generating respective magnetospheres/fields. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) 8 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
What "obviously" you talking about
how about this:
The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such
do you say "the One-wheeled Unicycle"?
No, mate! @cantdrive said "ASTROmagnetosphere". There is MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between the GENERAL term 'magnetosphere', and the SPECIFIC term 'ASTROmagnetosphere'.
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics
just because you "claim" to be correct doesn't mean you *are* correct.
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times, CS. You just keep ignoring, denying, downvoting, lying, insulting, stalking and trolling irrespective. Look to your ethics/objectivity, CS. :)
I support proper/fair science discourse
no, you don't,
You're lying to yourself, CS; as well as to everyone else. The way you address your juvenile, emotional posts despite my being correct all along and you/gang incorrect, says it all, CS. Bad.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) 8 hours ago
Now @RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs. -RealityCheck
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) 8 hours ago
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience sam
There is MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between the GENERAL term 'magnetosphere', and the SPECIFIC term 'ASTROmagnetosphere'
there is no specific term "astromagnetosphere" - it's not in any astrophysics manual or lexicon anywhere, even the one the idiot electric loons use

it's made up on the fly to sound technical or scientific for the purpose of misinformation or distraction from lack of evidence (IOW - pseudoscience)
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times
so you say
but the only thing you can be confirmed on is that you have a lot of places on PO where you claim to have been confirmed on something
Look to your ethics/objectivity
I do
that's why I downrate you and point out your lack of ethics/objectivity/science/knowledge/scruples
You're lying
no, I'm not
despite my being correct all along
Ok, so produce your 4 fatal flaws + other 4 flaws you claimed to have seen

& hurry
it's strawberry shortcake night
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) 6 hours ago
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?

barakn steps to the soapbox and announces his willful ignorance of plasmas.
https://physics.a...s/v6/131
In situ measurements of a stream of double layers which showed a potential of a million volts over a 6 minute period of time.
You keep believing in that fanciful ideal ionized gas nonsense, science will move on. Eventually...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 5 hours ago
@barakn.
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?
You've just put your finger on the very aspect which made @RNP's challenge/question to @cantdrive's 'doorknobs' example non-sequitur (because it's not neutral air, but space plasma, between). :)

I was impartial, and left @cantdrive to answer RNP's questions (if he can), having regard to reality of intervening space plasma dynamics, respective astromagnetospheres interactions).

But since you/RNP asked me, I will impartially point out (in the interests of your/RNP's discussion of @cantdrive's claims):

- Dynamical plasma streaming/swirling strengths/velocities are known to be amplified/accelerated via turbulent phenomena/conditions;

- Stars so close may be 'scavenging' ejected 'charged' material from each other (via 'coronal-mass ejections', 'stellar-winds');

- turbulence, mag-fields etc tend to 'sort' charges.

Enjoy your discussions, guys! :)

RealityCheck
not rated yet 5 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience sam
Readers are increasingly noticing the lack of calm objectivity in your mental processes; and you continuing to address your posts like that only further confirms your lack of calm objectivity. Chill out, CS. :)
there is no specific term "astromagnetosphere" - it's not in any astrophysics manual or lexicon anywhere,
So in your view, @cantdrive's CRIME is that HE COINED a shorter term for saying "magnetosphere of a star"? Are you JEALOUS you, or your 'stumpy-approved' ASTROphysicists, didn't think of coining that term first? Get some perspective, CS; and chill out! :)
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times
so you say,...
I don't just "say". I have previously pointed out the specific instances/threads which show it in black and white. You ignored it all and just insulted, lied and cluttered the threads with your personal, malicious, 'noise' posts.

Start afresh, CS. Be calm, objective. Learn.
RealityCheck
not rated yet 5 hours ago
Hey @cantdrive! How did that post from YOU get between my post (to barackn) and Stumpy's last post to me? Your post wasn't there when I submitted mine. :)
barakn
5 / 5 (1) 4 hours ago
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?

barakn steps to the soapbox and announces his willful ignorance of plasmas.
https://physics.a...s/v6/131
In situ measurements of a stream of double layers which showed a potential of a million volts over a 6 minute period of time.
You keep believing in that fanciful ideal ionized gas nonsense, science will move on. Eventually...

So you've dropped the idea that huge charges build up via some unnamed and unphysical process and have come around to the mainstream idea that particles can be accelerated in quasi-neutral plasmas embedded in magnetic fields? Hallelujah brother, welcome to the fold.
granville583762
not rated yet 44 minutes ago
RNP please refrain from feeding This Demonic Troll captain stumpy, who has been allowed to enter The Five Star Club
RNP> @All
APOLOGIES!

My estimate above was wrong. Under the assumption that they are are at the same distance as the X-ray burst, the separation of the objects in the image is only about 2 light years. But, my argument still stands.

This Demonic Troll has been allowed to enter The Five Star Club by any commentator who has grovelled before This Demonic Troll and prostrated themselves and paid their homage to This Demonic Troll paying their dues, namely those glittering 5 stars!

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.