Astrophysicists measure precise rotation pattern of sun-like stars for the first time

September 20, 2018, NYU Abu Dhabi
Sun-like stars rotate differentially, with the equator rotating faster than the higher latitudes. The blue arrows in the figure represent rotation speed. Differential rotation is thought to be an essential ingredient for generating magnetic activity and starspots. Credit: MPI for Solar System Research/MarkGarlick.com

Sun-like stars rotate up to two and a half times faster at the equator than at higher latitudes, a finding by researchers at NYU Abu Dhabi that challenges current science on how stars rotate.

Until now, little was known about the precise rotational patterns of Sun-like , only that the equator spins faster than at higher latitudes, similar to the Sun.

Scientists at the NYU Abu Dhabi Center for Space Science used observations from NASA's Kepler mission and asteroseismology—the study of sound waves traveling inside stars—to determine with precision how Sun-like stars rotate, which no other scientific method has been able to achieve.

Their study found that Sun-like stars, characterized as being like the Sun in mass and age, do indeed rotate in a similar manner as the Sun in that their equatorial regions rotate more rapidly than at mid- to high latitudes. But there's a key difference.

The of the Sun rotates about 10 percent faster than its mid latitudes, while equators of Sun-like stars spin up to two and a half times faster than their mid latitudes.

"This is very unexpected, and challenges current numerical simulations, which suggest that stars like these should not be able to sustain differential rotation of this magnitude," said Othman Benomar, research associate at the NYU Abu Dhabi Center for Space Science and lead author of the study published in Science.

Polar view of the differential rotation of a Sun-like star. The equator rotates faster than the higher latitudes. Differential rotation is thought to be an essential ingredient for generating magnetic activity and starspots. Credit: MPI for Solar System Research/MarkGarlick.com
"Understanding differential rotation—how fast one part of a star spins compared to the rest—is not only important for a complete understanding of how a star works, it will help us gain deeper insights about their magnetic fields," explained Katepalli Sreenivasan, principal investigator of the NYU Abu Dhabi Center for Space Science.

Magnetic fields on the Sun have been known to cause enormous solar storms that frequently disrupt orbiting satellites and have knocked out power grids on Earth.

Scientists agree that the rotation of the Sun plays a crucial role in the generation of the solar magnetic field, but the exact details still remain a mystery, despite the Sun having been observed and studied in great detail.

Sreenivasan added, "learning more about how stars rotate and generate their own magnetic fields could help us gain further insight into the solar dynamo, the physical process that generates the Sun's magnetic ."

Explore further: Distant star is roundest object ever observed in nature

More information: O. Benomar el al., "Asteroseismic detection of latitudinal differential rotation in 13 Sun-like stars," Science (2018). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aao6571

Related Stories

Distant star is roundest object ever observed in nature

November 16, 2016

Stars are not perfect spheres. While they rotate, they become flat due to the centrifugal force. A team of researchers around Laurent Gizon from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research and the University of Göttingen ...

Magnetic fields on solar-type stars

December 12, 2014

The Sun rotates slowly, about once every 24 days at its equator although the hot gas at every latitude rotates at a slightly different rate. Rotation helps to drive the mechanisms that power stellar magnetic fields, and in ...

Przybylski's star is an extremely slow rotator, study finds

May 1, 2018

European astronomers have conducted a study of Przybylski's star and found that it takes almost 200 years to fully rotate on its own axis. The finding, which could have implications for the understanding of chemically peculiar ...

Recommended for you

Calibrating cosmic mile markers

December 11, 2018

New work from the Carnegie Supernova Project provides the best-yet calibrations for using type Ia supernovae to measure cosmic distances, which has implications for our understanding of how fast the universe is expanding ...

Team finds evidence for carbon-rich surface on Ceres

December 10, 2018

A team led by Southwest Research Institute has concluded that the surface of dwarf planet Ceres is rich in organic matter. Data from NASA's Dawn spacecraft indicate that Ceres's surface may contain several times the concentration ...

122 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
3.1 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018
This is very unexpected, and challenges current numerical simulations, which suggest that stars like these should not be able to sustain differential rotation of this magnitude


The latitudinal shear inferred from asteroseismology is much larger than predictions from numerical simulations.


I think this observation will require more than just a 'tweak' of the currently adopted theory.

So back to the drawing board on solar dynamo theory, star formation, and stellar evolution, right?
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2018


I think this observation will require more than just a 'tweak' of the currently adopted theory.

So back to the drawing board on solar dynamo theory, star formation, and stellar evolution, right?


Nope. Why would it? The standard model of the Sun is extremely well matched to observation. There is no other model on the table.
rossim22
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2018


Nope. Why would it? The standard model of the Sun is extremely well matched to observation. There is no other model on the table.


So you read this article and paper and think that the standard model of the Sun does not need reworked?

If so, you are delusional.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2018


Nope. Why would it? The standard model of the Sun is extremely well matched to observation. There is no other model on the table.


So you read this article and paper and think that the standard model of the Sun does not need reworked?

If so, you are delusional.


Sorry, where do they say that in the paper? We know why stars shine. It is due to nuclear fusion. Got a better idea? Link me to it.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2018
So you read this article and paper and think that the standard model of the Sun does not need reworked?

If so, you are delusional.


Rich, comiong from somebody who belongs to a cult that believes in Velikovskian woo! However, if you could summarise the paper, and tell us what you think needs to be altered in the standard model, please go ahead.

rossim22
3.4 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018

Sorry, where do they say that in the paper? We know why stars shine. It is due to nuclear fusion. Got a better idea? Link me to it.


Well, first, the fact that differential rotation of the equatorial region exists is already a mystery. In other words, it is not a predicted feature of the standard solar model.

Second, we already don't understand why diff. rotation exists and now we observe it occurring at an anomalous magnitude.

And finally, there doesn't have to be any other model on the table. The standard model can just be wrong on its own.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2018
And finally, there doesn't have to be any other model on the table. The standard model can just be wrong on its own.


No, it can't. There is no alternative. Nuclear fusion powers the Sun. Or do you disagree? If so, show me a scientifically valid alternative.
rossim22
3 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018
And finally, there doesn't have to be any other model on the table. The standard model can just be wrong on its own.


No, it can't. There is no alternative. Nuclear fusion powers the Sun. Or do you disagree? If so, show me a scientifically valid alternative.


LOL

No, the standard model cannot ever be wrong? Umm.. what? Nobody addressed nuclear fusion... ?

Space.com published an article on this paper and here's a quote:

"I think we learn more about the observations that kind of perplex us than the observations that verify what we already know," Maria Weber said.


Maria Weber is an actual astrophysicist and she is "perplexed" by this observation.

Perplex: noun - cause (someone) to feel completely baffled

That doesn't sound like a concrete model to me.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2018
Maria Weber is an actual astrophysicist and she is "perplexed" by this observation.

Perplex: noun - cause (someone) to feel completely baffled

That doesn't sound like a concrete model to me.


Please point out where she says that the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion. Where are you getting neutrinos from, dumbo? Science really isn't your strong point, is it Rossim? Please show me a scientifically valid alternative. For not the first time. Answer, please.
rossim22
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2018

Please point out where she says that the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion. Where are you getting neutrinos from, dumbo? Science really isn't your strong point, is it Rossim? Please show me a scientifically valid alternative. For not the first time. Answer, please.


What are you talking about? AGAIN, I did not mention anything about nuclear fusion. You can keep your neutrinos in that nearly empty space between your ears that can only manage to produce insults or regurgitate the same few lines over and over.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2018
Sorry, no mystery here. Just another example of our level of ignorance about just how disparate and diverse the variations of stars and how they develop in novel ways.

Conflicting with our monkey instincts to categorize the stars into nice, neat, orderly descriptions. No matter how much reality bitch slaps our egotistical demands that the Universe conforms to our whiny dictates for simplistic rules.

Right now there are what? At least a dozen categories of stars? Some with several sub-categories?

It is my suspicion/ guesstimate/ speculation/ hypothesis, that eventually there will be hundreds of categories. Some with dozens od subcategories.

With lots of random vagaries and crazy outliers that will make no sense to the OCD of the world.

Trickster Coyote godling having a good laugh at our befuddlement!
hat1208
1 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2018
@rrwillsj

Trickster Coyote godling and monkey instincts, now there is a conflict.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2018
Yep. Like mixing sodium and water!
Steelwolf
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2018
JD, not all EU-types believe that fusion is not how stars work, that part is settled science, however, ALL emission from it comes from electrons leaving their high energy ions, dumping pairs of photons into the Universe. We can also closely daily chart the magnetic fields,been done for years and how they link to our own geomagnetosphere. And yes, there are huge amounts of ions and electrons that flood these connections. Look up internal charge rate for some of the L-points in the sunlight.

But to go saying that magnetics has no influence on the movement of bodies when it is only a single significant factor off of gravity, instead of the several factors off that the Dark matter/Energy problem creates. Accept electromagnetic plasmas affecting galactic motions and how they are shaped can clear up a lot of the dark mass and dark energy problems. We have found a MUCH redder era of stars than before, due to chemical nature, not distance or speed. So much rework needs done, Obviously.
rrwillsj
3.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
"... So much rework needs done, Obviously...."

But 'obviously' not ney any of the EU cultists. They just talk and talk. Rehashing plagiarized bits and pieces of scientific terms stolen from the actual work of real scientists. A fraudulent incoherence of EU woology.

Without a shred of repeatable, verifiable experiments to show for the money they have scammed from the gullible.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2018
Accept electromagnetic plasmas affecting galactic motions.....


Why should I accept it? No rational scientist does.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2018
@steel
But to go saying that magnetics has no influence on the movement of bodies
unless there is empirical evidence, and it's been validated, you cant say that magnetics *does* have influence

that is how science works

mind, pseudoscience would just make an assumption and run with it on faith hoping it was correct...
Accept electromagnetic plasmas affecting galactic motions and how they are shaped can clear up a lot of the dark mass and dark energy problems
erm... no

it doesn't matter how pretty something is
it only matters what can be proven

DM isn't pretty at all, but there is more evidence for it's existence than for EM Plasma affecting galactic motions, hence the MS stance
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2018
It is very clear we do not understand all of astrophysics, while we have pinned down cosmology (and so nucleosynthesis, dark matter and dark energy) very well. We also do not know very much about dynamo theory, which also bridges into planetary physics.

So we will make discoveries and changes, but not along the lines suggested by some comments here. Obviously.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2018
[duplicate removed]
rossim22
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
It is very clear we do not understand all of astrophysics, while we have pinned down cosmology (and so nucleosynthesis, dark matter and dark energy) very well. We also do not know very much about dynamo theory, which also bridges into planetary physics.

So we will make discoveries and changes, but not along the lines suggested by some comments here. Obviously.


The most powerful, observable phenomenae displayed by astrophysical objects (stars, "black holes", active galactic nuclei, etc.) are always somehow attributed to the magnetic fields of said object. The main objection is how that magnetic field is produced... the dynamo theory. You can't pretend to know all about how the universe works if you can't "pin down" dynamo theory.
barakn
3 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2018
ALL emission from it comes from electrons leaving their high energy ions, dumping pairs of photons into the Universe. -Steelwolf
It doesn't help the EU side when its adherents appear to have flunked high school physics. It takes energy to pull an electron away from an atom, so this would absorb a photon, not emit a pair.
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
"The most powerful, observable phenomenae displayed by astrophysical objects (stars, "black holes", active galactic nuclei, etc.) are always attributed to the magnetic fields of said object. The main objection is how that magnetic field is produced... the dynamo theory. You can't pretend to know all about how the universe works if you can't "pin down" dynamo theory."

Precisely!

"unless there is empirical evidence, and it's been validated, you cant say that magnetics *does* have influence"

Empirical evidence is the evidence of the senses, of direct observation or measurement. Compare that to rational evidence, which is evidence that is the result of deduction or other reasoning,

Empirical evidence for the existence of DM as anything but the name of an unseen entity influencing motion doesn't exist yet. The mathematical evidence for it as a particle would fall under the "rational evidence".

However, there is empirical evidence of magnetic influence in most of cosmology
rossim22
3 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018


mind, pseudoscience would just make an assumption and run with it on faith hoping it was correct...

it doesn't matter how pretty something is
it only matters what can be proven

DM isn't pretty at all, but there is more evidence for it's existence than for EM Plasma affecting galactic motions, hence the MS stance


You're saying DM isn't "pretty"? It's a pretty as it gets.

No field of science has ever predicted the existence of dark matter until we first observed that galaxies did not rotate according to GR with all their observable matter. To preserve GR, we need an extraordinary amount of this undetectable (not just invisible) matter which ONLY reacts gravitationally (how convenient) and we need to put it ONLY in halos around galaxies to fit the observed rotation curves.

That, my friend, is extremely ad hoc and requires nothing but faith.

I'm less of an EU supporter and more of a mainstream skeptic.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
@redpill
Empirical evidence is the evidence of the senses, of direct observation or measurement. Compare that to rational evidence...
that makes no sense
if one is rational then one uses the levels of evidence and that would include measurement, etc

where are you getting your definition of "rational evidence" from?
However, there is empirical evidence of magnetic influence in most of cosmology
and the point is: there is no empirical evidence of the claims that "magnetics *does* have influence" stated

you cannot draw the conclusion that because there *is* magnetic influence in most of cosmology then it's logical to assume that it's the driving force of a galaxy

That would be no different than saying "fire trucks are red, and because apples and other fruits are also red, then fire trucks are edible and supply the sugars needed for life"
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2018
"where are you getting your definition of "rational evidence" from?"

The text I posted was one of the many identical definitions of empirical evidence available via a search for it's definition that also happened to contain the definition of rational evidence. It was a copy and paste.

" there is no empirical evidence of the claims that "magnetics *does* have influence" stated"

I am not sure what the above means...most of the astrophysics community agrees that polar jets result from acceleration due to a magnetic field, as do solar flares, the solar wind. All of this information is easily found.

"you cannot draw the conclusion that because there *is* magnetic influence in most of cosmology then it's logical to assume that it's the driving force of a galaxy

I agree, but that is the reasoning that lead to gravity being the driving force is it not? Our planet has gravity, therefore it is assumed that it drives all galactic motion.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2018

No field of science has ever predicted the existence of dark matter until we first observed that galaxies did not rotate according to GR with all their observable matter. To preserve GR, we need an extraordinary amount of this undetectable (not just invisible) matter which ONLY reacts gravitationally (how convenient) and we need to put it ONLY in halos around galaxies to fit the observed rotation curves.

That, my friend, is extremely ad hoc and requires nothing but faith.

I'm less of an EU supporter and more of a mainstream skeptic.


Far more to it than that. I don't see how you can be a skeptic when you fail to understand even basic mainstream science. Here, see if you can come up with an answer to the observations here;

https://medium.co...bd606ba8

Or maybe you can link to some piece of work that explains them all.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2018
Our planet has gravity, therefore it is assumed that it drives all galactic motion.


What else would it be? We know the magnetic fields of some galaxies, including our own. They are trifling. Do some equations, and you'll see why nobody thinks it has any effect on rotation curves.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2018
" We know the magnetic fields of some galaxies, including our own. They are trifling"

Interesting, by that rationale, a stars field would be even more trifle. Considering the behaviour of matter in a CME, and the solar wind...the instances where those trifling fields overcome the suns gravity to expel matter is truly remarkable then, no? Then we have the curious instance of voyager passing through a region where the magnetic field intensified and was accelerating electrons by a factor over the adjacent space. 11 billion miles away, a magnetic boundary with an intensifying region of flux. What does that say about the inverse square "rule" and dynamo theory? There is a lot we don't understand, and can't explain within the contexts of current physics. Please stop acting like you can when the people whose theories you support do not even understand it. Or, shoot us your equations for how that boundary works...but it has nothing to do with gravity.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2018
Or, shoot us your equations for how that boundary works...but it has nothing to do with gravity.


What? That is the heliopuse where, as expected, the solar wind, which carries the IMF is balanced by the interstellar medium. It is therefore expected that the IMF will pile up at that point. There is nothing particularly unusual happening at the heliopuse, and certainly nothing that requires EU woo to explain it.

https://solarscie...IMF.html
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2018
There is nothing particularly unusual happening at the heliopuse, and certainly nothing that requires EU woo to explain it.

https://solarscie...IMF.html

There is a whole bunch of pseudoscientific claptrap written in that link.
And amusingly the direct measurements of Voyager and Ibex have completely falsified the standard guesswork of the Sun's EM field and left them without a working model. But according to the moron jonesdumb "nothing particularly unusual happening" at the heliopause. Lies and obfuscation is all he has to go along with the name calling.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2018
There is a whole bunch of pseudoscientific claptrap written in that link.
And amusingly the direct measurements of Voyager and Ibex have completely falsified the standard guesswork of the Sun's EM field and left them without a working model


Nope, the crap you believe is pseudoscience, you idiot. The link is real science. Voyager and IBEX see nothing that is particularly unusual. And they certainly see nothing that helps braindead EU woo.

theredpill
2.9 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2018
" It is therefore expected that the IMF will pile up at that point."

Please provide an experiment or anything scientific in nature that demonstrates magnetic flux "piling up" and the appropriate equations derived from said experimental observations magnetic piling....

" There is nothing particularly unusual happening at the heliopuse"...

You need to get on the phone then....here's a few quotes from actual astrophysicists regarding the region and the observation: " has now entered a new region at the edge of the solar system that scientists didn't even know was there"...and " The new region isn't what we expected, but we've come to expect the unexpected from Voyager". I could do this all evening but, point being...your lack of surprise is uniquely yours from a mainstream POV.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2018
Please provide an experiment or anything scientific in nature that demonstrates magnetic flux "piling up" and the appropriate equations derived from said experimental observations magnetic piling....


Already seen in-situ at comets. As predicted. By Alfven.

You need to get on the phone then....here's a few quotes from actual astrophysicists regarding the region and the observation: " has now entered a new region at the edge of the solar system that scientists didn't even know was there"...and " The new region isn't what we expected, but we've come to expect the unexpected from Voyager". I could do this all evening but, point being...your lack of surprise is uniquely yours from a mainstream POV.


Oooh scientists discover things! Wow. And what they discovered is not requiring of idiotic EU woo to explain it, is it? Go look at the papers, instead of using the idiot Thornhill's tactic of cherry picking quotes from press releases.

hat1208
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2018
@theredpill

I thought the surprise at the boundary layer was that it trailed behind the Sun much like the Earth's magnetosphere trails behind. The surprise was that it was unexpected for the interstellar medium to react to the Sun's region of influence in that fashion.
theredpill
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2018
"Already seen in-situ at comets. As predicted. By Alfven"

Seen, or interpreted? Link please...so we can ascertain the nature of your claimed observation. I have a feeling you are confused between particles and fields but your link will clear that up.

"Go look at the papers...."

I have asked you for a few here and keep getting your opinion instead (and one paper that didn't show what you claimed it did). Also of note is how you avoid dealing with any comment that gives you trouble as far as your understanding goes...such as claiming there are no surprises where everyone "in the know" was surprised.

"I thought the surprise at the boundary layer was that it trailed behind the Sun much like the Earth's magnetosphere trails behind. The surprise was that it was unexpected for the interstellar medium to react to the Sun's region of influence in that fashion."

Why did you think that?

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2018
Seen, or interpreted? Link please...so we can ascertain the nature of your claimed observation. I have a feeling you are confused between particles and fields but your link will clear that up.


Seen. As I said. Go download the magnetometer data from Halley and Rosetta.

http://adsabs.har...87...73N

https://academic..../2633385

I have asked you for a few here and keep getting your opinion instead (and one paper that didn't show what you claimed it did)


Which one was that? You probably failed to understand it.

such as claiming there are no surprises where everyone "in the know" was surprised.


No, I said there was nothing particularly unusual. That is, nothing that requires something as idiotic as EU crap to explain it.

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
Here is a paper on the completely unexpected ENA's discovered by IBEX. Note, no bow shock observed in contrast to jonesdumb's crap link.
http://adsabs.har...15.2350M
More uninteresting stuff about the symmetrical bands of unexpected ENA's around solar system.
http://iopscience...799/1/68
Or the completely unexpected stagnation region;
https://www.nasa....173.html
And contrary to the pile up claim, the increased strength magnetic fields are due to higher current density. Magnetic fields don't "pile up", there is a series of double layers and the stagnation region is one example.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2018
And contrary to the pile up claim, the increased strength magnetic fields are due to higher current density. Magnetic fields don't "pile up", there is a series of double layers and the stagnation region is one example.


Wrong. No double layers seen at comets, but magnetic pile up is seen, as predicted, at both Halley and 67P. It is rather idiotic to keep denying things that have already been observed, or claiming they are due to some other idiocy that is not observed.
If you have a scientific model for this, then link to it. I'm guessing there isn't one.
And the IBEX ribbon has been pretty much explained. Apart from anything else, it was never predicted by EU wooists, and what have energetic neutrals got to do with their woo?

A Possible Generation Mechanism for the IBEX Ribbon from Outside the Heliosphere
Grzedzielski, S. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3917.pdf

I see nothing from EU wooists in the literature.

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2018
and what have energetic neutrals got to do with their woo?

That question goes to show your absolute ignorance of even the basics of plasma physics or the EU theory.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
and what have energetic neutrals got to do with their woo?

That question goes to show your absolute ignorance of even the basics of plasma physics or the EU theory.



So describe it, woo boy.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
Jones...you are an interesting individual. They certainly do use the term "piling up" many times in the papers you linked in support of your POV at this time, (instead of flux intensification as a result of a newly formed boundary between 2 regions of flux) But lets check out a few other things mentioned in the papers YOU linked: "Due to the electrically conducting nature of the solar wind, a modification of the solar wind flow also leads to changes in the magnetic field. "...and " The magnetic field strength during this flyby increased towards the point of closest approach". Ironically...both of these links have been provided by an individual who has claimed numerous times that comets do not have magnetic fields. Sounds like a lot of "WOO" Jones...a lot of woo.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
Sounds like a lot of "WOO" Jones...a lot of woo.

His typical response to having that pointed out is the field is induced, which doesn't change a thing. The fields are induced by electric currents, they aren't magically frozen-in.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
Ironically...both of these links have been provided by an individual who has claimed numerous times that comets do not have magnetic fields. Sounds like a lot of "WOO" Jones...a lot of woo.


They don't, you idiot. The magnetic field is the IMF. The comet has no intrinsic field. Go read Alfven.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
His typical response to having that pointed out is the field is induced, which doesn't change a thing. The fields are induced by electric currents, they aren't magically frozen-in.


What currents? Where were they detected? You should go read Alfven too, you ignorant poser.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
Here - something that even EU thickos ought to be able to understand:

Cometary magnetospheres: a tutorial
T.E. Cravens, & T.I. Gombosi
https://pdfs.sema...0720.pdf
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
And one from their hero Alfven:

On the Theory of Comet Tails
https://onlinelib...b01855.x
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2018

"They don't, you idiot. The magnetic field is the IMF. The comet has no intrinsic field. Go read Alfven."

I had read the paper before you ever linked it. Cantdrive is correct about the field of the comet being induced (they detail how this happens in your link) and if you understood a tiny shred of what you claim to you would be able to comprehend that the only way to create " piling up" of flux is one field interacting with another. So no, IDIOT...the field that causes the draping is induced into the comet via it's interaction with the electrically conducting solar wind. Again, the only way to "drape" a magnetic field is with another one. So take your stupidity and archaic understanding of these processes to another comment section where you aren't completely outclassed by the people you are attempting to debate from your limited comprehension of the science.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
^^^^^Lol! What an idiot! Alfven would tell you that a comet has no intrinsic magnetic field you dope. Have a look in cosmic plasma under comets and Venus. Which also has no intrinsic magnetic field, and where the IMF also piles up. Let me see - how can I put this so that even an idiot can understand it? THE COMET HAS NO INTRINSIC MAGNETIC FIELD. AS MEASURED. UNDERSTAND? Jesus. All these EU loons must have been blacklisted by Google Scholar! Idiots.

The nonmagnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-­Gerasimenko
Auster, H-U. et al
https://spiral.im...3201.pdf

Read the comet tutorial paper. It tells you how the IMF is excluded, and piles up. Even a dummy could understand it.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
So take your stupidity and archaic understanding of these processes to another comment section where you aren't completely outclassed by the people you are attempting to debate from your limited comprehension of the science.


Says the thick b***ard that can't even understand basic plasma physics, even when he's linked to it.

Again, the only way to "drape" a magnetic field is with another one.


Tell that to Alfven, you moron, because he says you can. And we see it in-situ. Piled up field one side of boundary, zero nT within the cavity. If the comet has a magnetic field of its own, you prawn, why is it 0 nT inside the cavity? We've known this since 1986. And earlier, from theory. We saw it in 1984-5 with the AMPTE artificial comet experiments. Just an exploded cannister of Barium. Field piles up, cavity created. No magnetic field in sight, other than the IMF. Dummy.

cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
We saw it in 1984-5 with the AMPTE artificial comet experiments. Just an exploded cannister of Barium. Field piles up, cavity created.

Induced jonesdumb, the fields are induced by electric currents in the plasma as it wants to remain quasi-neutral. All the interesting activity and energy transfer (electric discharge) occurs during the equalization processes where the cloud of barium first protects itself from the solar wind through a series of layers then creates magnetic fields with all the electric currents that arise as the cloud equalizes to the SW. Just like when you reach for your intellectual superior, the doorknob.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2018
"^^^^^Lol! What an idiot! Alfven would tell you that a comet has no intrinsic magnetic field you dope."

I also said it doesn't you illiterate duphous...try reading a comment before responding to it.

"Piled up field one side of boundary zero nT within the cavity"
Yes, but since the boundary is NOT the surface of the comet, it is a boundary between fields, one induced into the atmosphere of the Coma via interaction with solar wind (IMF) as per your link and the other being the solar wind itself.

So your response to making yourself look like a caveman's dumber brother is to repeat something that I acknowledged as though I didn't, several times, and then base your argument on your own blatant misunderstanding. If you want to calm down, read what is actually written and maybe try thinking a little and then responding, that won't happen.

But we all know that is impossible for you don't we?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2018
THE COMET HAS NO INTRINSIC MAGNETIC FIELD. AS MEASURED. UNDERSTAND?

The moron missed the part where it was pointed out the fields are induced, by electric currents.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2018
"Just like when you reach for your intellectual superior, the doorknob."

Amen to that. There's no point in discussing science with a doorknob...especially one who can't understand words that are typed in what appears to be his native language.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
Yes, but since the boundary is NOT the surface of the comet, it is a boundary between fields, one induced into the atmosphere of the Coma via interaction with solar wind (IMF) as per your link and the other being the solar wind itself


Sorry, but you are too thick for words. Can't you read scientific papers, you cretin? There is only ONE magnetic field. Understand? The induced field is that of the IMF. It is not coming into contact with any other field you thick burke. That is why I linked you to that very easy to understand tutorial, you dick.
The solar wind gets mass-loaded with cometary ions; it gets deflected. Eventually, it stops reaching the comet surface. As it carries the IMF, eventually that stops reaching the comet. It meets no other field, anywhere, anytime. This has been in the literature for over 3 decades, noob. Try reading some of it, you plank.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
"Just like when you reach for your intellectual superior, the doorknob."

Amen to that. There's no point in discussing science with a doorknob...especially one who can't understand words that are typed in what appears to be his native language.


Says the idiot that can't even understand the basics of the science. Lol.

The moron missed the part where it was pointed out the fields are induced, by electric currents.


No they aren't. Please download the RPC-MAG data and show us where the currents are. The field, you thick tosser, is due to it piling up, so that it becomes stronger than its usual ~ 5 nT. Perhaps you could just link to the papers that you are getting this crap from, hmm? So far you have nothing other than ignorance and baseless assertion.

Birth of a comet magnetosphere: a spring of water ions
Nilsson, H. et al.
https://spiral.im...d_CC.pdf

theredpill
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2018
"Says the idiot that can't even understand the basics of the science. Lol."

Every comment I have made regarding "piling up" references what you linked and what is said there...you don't even understand what your own link says and you cannot stop demonstrating that. The first paragraph of your second link copied and pasted: " This neutral gas escapes from the nucleus and forms an extended cometary neutral atmosphere, which acts as an obstacle for the impinging solar wind ions and electrons. By means of photoionization and charge-exchange, these neutral molecules are ionized and the interaction between the comet and the solar wind is enhanced. Within this interaction region, the solar wind flow is modified and various structures and boundaries form. "

Magnetic structures and boundaries...or do you think they are made of bricks? The ones you are thick as?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2018
Yes, but since the boundary is NOT the surface of the comet, it is a boundary between fields, one induced into the atmosphere of the Coma via interaction with solar wind (IMF) as per your link and the other being the solar wind itself


I mean, seriously, how thick do you have to be to write the above? Lol. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field piles up, and gets stronger due to mass-loading of the solar wind. Then another solar wind comes along, with a different IMF and........................whaaaat? Jesus, the stupid among EUists is hilarious. No wonder they have no plasma physicists in their ranks.

Here, read about the diamagnetic cavity you pillocks. Sod all chance of you understanding it, though;

First detection of a diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Goetz, C. et al.
https://spiral.im...2016.pdf

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
Magnetic structures and boundaries...or do you think they are made of bricks?


No, VARIOUS structures and boundaries, you blind fool. The only magnetic field in play is the IMF. If you can't understand that, then you really are as thick as you sound. No wonder you fell for the Saturnist crap.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
Every comment I have made regarding "piling up" references what you linked and what is said there...you don't even understand what your own link says and you cannot stop demonstrating that.


No, every comment you make is utter drivel, you loon. Read the diamagnetic cavity paper. I know one of the co-authors. If you'd like to ask him on a physics forum about how the induced magnetosphere forms, I'm sure he'll be only too happy to kick another thick EUist up the arse. Give me the word, and I'll put you in touch.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2018
Methinks our ignoramus EUists are having trouble understanding that an induced magnetosphere is not the same thing as an induced magnetic field. Hardly surprising, given the crap that they believe in.
There is no induced magnetic field. There is only the IMF.
HannaB
not rated yet Sep 25, 2018
the equator of the Sun rotates about 10 percent faster than its mid latitudes, while equators of Sun-like stars spin up to two and a half times faster than their mid latitudes
The similar effect manifest itself at the case binary stars, globular clusters and whole galaxies - where it is generally connected with dark matter.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
induced magnetosphere is not the same thing as an induced magnetic field

Please jonesdumb, do elucidate. Other than the fact a magnetosphere is generally considered to be the magnetic field of an astronomical object, what is the difference between an induced magnetic field or a magnetosphere? A simple explanation will do.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
induced magnetosphere is not the same thing as an induced magnetic field

Please jonesdumb, do elucidate. Other than the fact a magnetosphere is generally considered to be the magnetic field of an astronomical object, what is the difference between an induced magnetic field or a magnetosphere? A simple explanation will do.


Are you incapable of understanding a very basic paper? As well as the other clown? Why do you need me to explain it? Banned from Google Scholar? Can't ask Wal because he's clueless? I would suggest reading the relevant (but short) part of Cosmic Plasma. The magnetospheres of Mars, Venus, Titan and Comets are all induced. There is a bloody tonne of material on it.

Cometary magnetospheres: a tutorial
T.E. Cravens, & T.I. Gombosi.
https://pdfs.sema...0720.pdf

The bodies themselves are not magnetised. Everything that forms is due to the SW and IMF interaction with the atmospheres.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
From your paper, an example of the pseudoscientific claptrap within;

"The magnetic field strength increases in this region and a magnetic barrier, or pile-up region, forms. The field lines associated with this barrier wrap around the comet and form a magnetotail. In essence, this is the cometary ''magnetosphere'' or induced magnetosphere."

Magnetic field lines don't do a thing, let alone wrap things and make tails. But since you still believe field lines are frozen-in you think this pseudoscience is legit. Induced magnetic fields and induced magnetospheres are the same things and created by the same phenomenon, electric currents. No matter how much you want it to be so, magnetic fields are not magic they are created by electric currents and changing electric fields only.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2018
^^^Sorry, idiot boy, but right there you are calling Alfven a pseudoscientist!

On the Theory of Comet Tails
Alfven, H.
https://www.tandf...9i1.9064

Induced magnetic fields and induced magnetospheres are the same things and created by the same phenomenon, electric currents.


Totally ignorant crap. WTF are your currents, you idiot? Who has written this sh1t up, and where is it. In regard to comets? You are bloody clueless, you clown. Where the hell are you getting currents from, woo boy? And the magnetic field is not induced you prat, it is the IMF! Carried by the solar wind. As bloody observed, you lame brained poser.
Jesus you people are stupid. A prerequisite for being an EUist, by definition, I guess.

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
And the magnetic field is not induced you prat, it is the IMF! Carried by the solar wind. As bloody observed, you lame brained poser.

Fields are not frozen-in the SW, it's merely a modeling technique and Alfvén understood this fact. You don't, you believe it is actually happening like that. In real life where we live currents generate the magnetic fields, just like Maxwell's equations state. The induced magnetosphere is caused by electric Birkeland currents in the SW impinging on the comet.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
And the magnetic field is not induced you prat, it is the IMF! Carried by the solar wind. As bloody observed, you lame brained poser.

Fields are not frozen-in the SW, it's merely a modeling technique and Alfvén understood this fact. You don't, you believe it is actually happening like that. In real life where we live currents generate the magnetic fields, just like Maxwell's equations state. The induced magnetosphere is caused by electric Birkeland currents in the SW impinging on the comet.


Lol. What a load of crap. Alfven's model is proven by in-situ observation. On the other hand, the crap you have dreamed up is not. You are wrong, woo boy. As usual. You simply don't understand the subject. Birkeland currents! What a burke! Where were they? 2 Years, you idiot. Not a single one.
Please; you are sh1t at plasma physics, yes? So, if you believe the unevidenced crap you wrote, then tell me where it is written up. Or did you just make it up? You did. didn't you?
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Fields are not frozen-in the SW


Sorry, but you keep repeating this like some religious mantra. In an ideal plasma, yes they are. No plasma is ideal, however. So, there is a way of calculating how frozen-in the field is. For the SW it is as good as frozen-in as makes no difference. It depends on the relative strengths of the plasma and the field. Alfven knew this, and had no trouble accepting the extrapolations from his work that showed, theoretically, the formation of a piled-up field, and the exclusion of the magnetic field from the nucleus. And that is precisely what was seen at Halley and 67P.
You, on the other hand, have to resort to making sh1t up. Give it a rest. You haven't got a clue. Stick to Earth orbiting Saturn.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2018
Jones claims a magnetosphere isn't a magnetic field, claims the only field in play is the IMF while acknowledging the presence of a magnetosphere and obviously doesn't even know the content of the papers he links because they contradict his own statements....and he feels perfectly at home preaching to others about how wrong they are with his turrets syndrome posting style .

Keep em coming oh wise one...I haven't quite laughed my tear sacks dry yet.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Jones claims a magnetosphere isn't a magnetic field, claims the only field in play is the IMF while acknowledging the presence of a magnetosphere and obviously doesn't even know the content of the papers he links because they contradict his own statements....and he feels perfectly at home preaching to others about how wrong they are with his turrets syndrome posting style .

Keep em coming oh wise one...I haven't quite laughed my tear sacks dry yet.


No, thicko. Do you want to pose your question to one of the members of the plasma team from Rosetta? Have you got the balls? I can easily arrange it on Cosmoquest or ISF. Take your pick, and say the word. You are talking out of your arse, you uneducated moron, and have nothing to back you up.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Jones claims a magnetosphere isn't a magnetic field, claims the only field in play is the IMF while acknowledging the presence of a magnetosphere


What a thick bast*rd! Lol. Having been linked to numerous papers that say that the IMF is the only field in play, the idiot still can't understand it! No wonder he's an EUist. Type of thick buggers they tend to attract.
It is very easy you moron. The solar wind carries the IMF. It is frozen-in, as near as makes no difference. It is ~ 5 nT. Initially, bugger all happens, because the comet isn't outgassing. And it isn't magnetised. When it starts to out-gas, the cometary ions mass-load the SW, slowing it and the IMF, down. At high activity, the SW is so mass-loaded that it is not reaching the comet. Neither is the IMF. It piles-up in front of it, causing an enhanced field, and a diamagnetic cavity, within which the field is ~ zero. There are no other fields in play. Want me to pose the question on a physics forum?

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
and obviously doesn't even know the content of the papers he links because they contradict his own statements..


No they don't, moron. I know what I'm saying is correct, because I have studied comets for years. This is the same stuff that happened 3 decades ago at Halley. I also happen to know that the authors of those papers would agree with me. Want to email them? Post the replies here? I'll do it if you are too much of a pussy. And I am prepared to pose the question on a forum where one of the RPC team members posts. Have you got the cojones for that, woo boy? Put your money where your mouth is, you thick sod.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
.....claims the only field in play is the IMF


What other field would there be in play you prawn? Jupiter's field? Saturn's? Does it just get magicked out of thin air? Appear from nowhere? Show us the 'science' (lol) behind that pile of fail, fruitloop.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2018
"Keep em coming oh wise one...I haven't quite laughed my tear sacks dry yet."

Out of the above 4 posts...this line finally did it:

" I know what I'm saying is correct,"

Gotta go hydrate now. I am sure we will find something else to talk about here@ Physorg, so there will be more opportunities for you to showcase your brilliance. In the meantime...try not to get your car stuck in neutral....

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
"Keep em coming oh wise one...I haven't quite laughed my tear sacks dry yet."

Out of the above 4 posts...this line finally did it:

" I know what I'm saying is correct,"

Gotta go hydrate now. I am sure we will find something else to talk about here@ Physorg, so there will be more opportunities for you to showcase your brilliance. In the meantime...try not to get your car stuck in neutral....



And what is your problem, thicko? You know you're wrong, just as I know I'm right. Want to join up at Cosmoquest or ISF and argue it there? With a real plasma physicist as part of the conversation? Haven't got the balls, nor the knowledge to do that, have you, poser? Just another uneducated EU blowhard. Correct?
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
.....claims the only field in play is the IMF


What other field would there be in play you prawn? Jupiter's field? Saturn's? Does it just get magicked out of thin air? Appear from nowhere? Show us the 'science' (lol) behind that pile of fail, fruitloop.


This was a specific question. Any chance you could answer it? Scientifically?
Nope, thought not. Just a bag of uneducated hot air, eh?
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Gotta go hydrate now. I am sure we will find something else to talk about here@ Physorg,....


Translation: 'Whoops, I've been shown up for the idiot that I am, and am too embarrassed to carry on.'
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2018
Jones, the continued insults are indicative of your child like mentality. You don't even know what magnetosphere is. But if you want to keep dropping 3 or 4 posts to attempt to direct attention away from your lack of understanding of how these processes work that's your call. Noticeably lacking here are the usual cronies who come to attempt to rescue you because even they know you are off your rocker on this one...I am embarrassed for you.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
You don't even know what magnetosphere is.


Yes I do, thicko. Hence why I know that you are an uneducated blowhard.

I am embarrassed for you.


Wanker. Grow a pair you posing tosspot, and get your sub-human IQ onto a physics forum. Haven't got what it takes, have you, woo boy?

Let me spell it out for you, you uneducated burke - you do not understand cometary processes. You do not know what an induced magnetosphere means. You are as thick as two short planks. You have no science to back you up, you believe in Velikovskian woo, and you lack the bollocks to even take the question to a physics forum. You are a coward, as well as being thick. Go away, EU nutjob. Get an education.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
.....claims the only field in play is the IMF


What other field would there be in play you prawn? Jupiter's field? Saturn's? Does it just get magicked out of thin air? Appear from nowhere? Show us the 'science' (lol) behind that pile of fail, fruitloop.


This was a specific question. Any chance you could answer it? Scientifically?
Nope, thought not. Just a bag of uneducated hot air, eh?


Any chance of this deranged loon answering this? The blowhard seems to keep avoiding it.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2018
What other field would there be in play you prawn?

The comet's magnetic field you moron.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
What other field would there be in play you prawn? Jupiter's field? Saturn's?


I'll add your anus. Because that is what theredprat is talking out of.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
What other field would there be in play you prawn?

The comet's magnetic field you moron.


The comet doesn't have a magnetic field, you moron. As already linked. Christ you people are thick.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
An induced magnetic field was detected, do you know what induced means?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
An induced magnetic field is identical to a magnetic field, may be CD, you need to hold that magnet closer, or purchase a neodymium magnet, thick skulls are impervious to induced magnetic fields!
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
An induced magnetic field was detected, do you know what induced means?


No, it wasn't. Learn to read, dumbo. An induced magnetosphere was predicted and detected. Just as when they detonated a cannister of Barium in the SW. There is no magnetic field other than the IMF. Try reading the papers, you burke. Maybe take a look at the induced magnetospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan, while you're at it. Sorry, but you are bloody clueless.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
An induced magnetic field was detected, do you know what induced means?


No, it wasn't. Learn to read, dumbo. An induced magnetosphere was predicted and detected. Just as when they detonated a cannister of Barium in the SW. There is no magnetic field other than the IMF.

So you agree comets have a magnetic field, but not a "magnetic field"....Wow, can you say moron? Clearly you haven't a clue.

Here is a guy who has an iota of a clue,
https://briankobe...rs-wind/
He says; (to follow in next post)
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
"Comets like 67P don't have a strong intrinsic magnetic field, so by themselves they don't have a magnetosphere to protect themselves against solar wind. It's icy surface is therefore bombarded by ions and magnetic fields. But as the comet approaches the Sun, volatiles such as water sublime to produce a thin atmosphere. Some of the water vapor is then ionized by ultraviolet sunlight, and these ions interact with the magnetic fields of interplanetary space. As the atmosphere of the comet gets thicker, and more of it is ionized it becomes conductive. The solar wind accelerates some of the atmospheric ions at high speed, and the resulting current induces a magnetic field around the comet. Eventually the magnetic field is strong enough that it pushes back against the solar wind, creating a magnetosphere."

You got that jonesdumb? Currents induce the magnetic field of the comet, they aren't magically like you believe.
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2018
"You got that jonesdumb?"

No..he doesn't...and never will. He has contradicted himself so many times here he could be in politics. He claims to have studied comets but with his complete ignorance to boundary conditions, cometary magnetospheres and the information in his own links, along with the foaming at the mouth, I can only assume he means he stared at pictures of comets for years and calls it "studying". So far he's the biggest loser I have seen commenting at this site by a couple of factors.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
Chances are he will slink away and pretend this never happened.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
"Chances are he will slink away and pretend this never happened"

Either that or 4 more posts of rage and confusion....
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
Y'all are talking past each other rather than with each other. Jonesdave thinks the nucleus is the comet because that is where 99.999...% of the mass is, and in fact virtually all of the ions, gas, and dust you see around the nucleus have achieved escaped velocity and thus no longer belong to the comet, but are merely co-orbiting with it. The induced magnetization has little to no effect on the nucleus, and once it slides back out into the cold outer solar system and the coma and tail disappear, the nucleus will have no magnetic field.

Cd85 and trd consider the coma and tail, which after all the most visible and most voluminous sign of a comet, to be part of the comet. And since the induced magnetic is within the comet and tail, the magnetic field, however, transitory it is, is part of the comet.

So the argument is now over semantics and definitions, not actual physics, and it's gotten silly and abusive on both sides.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
"Comets like 67P don't have a strong intrinsic magnetic field, so by themselves they don't have a magnetosphere to protect themselves against solar wind. It's icy surface is therefore bombarded by ions and magnetic fields. But as the comet approaches the Sun, volatiles such as water sublime to produce a thin atmosphere. Some of the water vapor is then ionized by ultraviolet sunlight, and these ions interact with the magnetic fields of interplanetary space. As the atmosphere of the comet gets thicker, and more of it is ionized it becomes conductive. The solar wind accelerates some of the atmospheric ions at high speed, and the resulting current induces a magnetic field around the comet. Eventually the magnetic field is strong enough that it pushes back against the solar wind, creating a magnetosphere."

You got that jonesdumb? Currents induce the magnetic field of the comet, they aren't magically like you believe.


Nonsense. What paper is that from?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
So the argument is now over semantics and definitions, not actual physics, and it's gotten silly and abusive on both sides.


No, it isn't. There is no induced magnetic field at a comet. And you won't find a plasma physicist conversant with comets who will tell you otherwise. I've already explained how the magnetosphere forms, and linked to papers that say the same thing. The increased magnetic field is due to the IMF piling up, due to the solar wind being slowed and deflected by mass loading from the cometary ions. Simple as that. You will not find any paper on the subject saying otherwise.
As one of the more intelligent posters around here, perhaps you can understand this very simple tutorial, as it seems to be beyond the EUists;

Cometary magnetospheres: a tutorial
T.E. Cravens & T.I. Gombosi
https://pdfs.sema...0720.pdf

There is only one field in play, and that is the IMF.

theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2018
" it's gotten silly and abusive on both sides."

"No, it isn't".

The guy has a mental disorder if he is disagreeing with you on this statement.

"There is only one field in play, and that is the IMF."

Repeated like a broken record even when his own links demonstrate otherwise. And as a result I lowered myself to his level with the insults and goading remarks. My apologies to the forum and anyone offended by the above exchange but as far this child (jones) is concerned, the ignore function is the only way to deal with him unless you feel like arguing with someone who thinks the sky is plaid and his only recourse when you tell him to look up and he sees it is blue is to call you names and sling shit.

As to his above comment, again fully admitting the formation of a magnetosphere around the coma with no understanding of what that means. You belong in an institution Jones (under care, not providing it just to clarify).

"
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Here, for anybody interested is a dissertation that explains what is happening in language that surely anyone can understand;

Plasma and Dust around Icy Moon Enceladus and Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Engelhardt, I. A. D.
https://uu.diva-p...XT01.pdf

Section 8.1.4 is the relevant section. And figure 8.2 shows it graphically for those that might be struggling with the text.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Repeated like a broken record even when his own links demonstrate otherwise


Nope. Not a single paper says anything about an induced magnetic field. Only the IMF piling up, causing it to increase in strength. End of story. Want to discuss it with the plasma physicist I mentioned previously? Of course you don't, and we all know why that is. You are wrong.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
As to his above comment, again fully admitting the formation of a magnetosphere around the coma with no understanding of what that means.


I know precisely what it means. That is why I am having to explain it to ignorant people like you and cantthink. Who are too chicken to ask the question on a physics forum. Which tells us everything we need to know. The offer is still open. Want to pose the question? Instead of making baseless, uneducated assertions? On a subject you know nothing about? Be my guest.

https://forum.cos...-Answers

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018

You got that jonesdumb? Currents induce the magnetic field of the comet, they aren't magically like you believe.

Nonsense. What paper is that from?


And I still want to know which paper that is from, because it is wrong, and I can then alert somebody, who can point it out the relevant people, who can then reply. If it isn't in a paper, then forget it. It's wrong.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
"No, it isn't".

The guy has a mental disorder if he is disagreeing with you on this statement.


I was saying that the argument isn't over. In reality, it is, because you don't have an argument. Just a very poor grasp of the relevant science.
theredpill
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
OK. I will take one more shot at this even though it was mentioned above. The IMF is "piling up" against what exactly? The answer, as per your link is a newly created atmosphere composed of Ions generated through photoionization and charge exchange right? This is called a magnetosphere because it deflects the IMF to form the bi-lobed tail or "magnetic drapes" on the side of the comet pointed away from the sun (exactly like earths magnetosphere). Common knowledge regarding a magnetic field is that you need another one to change it's morphology. There is no kinetic transfer from the comets surface to the IMF to deflect it around the comet because the deflection happens "above" the comet where the boundary regions form. It is a magnetic boundary due to it's location and how it forms. I never said the comet had an intrinsic magnetic field, my point is that one had to be induced in order to deflect the IMF...a neutral "surface" will not do that. Your plasma guy will agree.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Your plasma guy will agree.


Oh no he won't. Trust me. The solar wind is slowed due to mass-loading of cometary ions. As the IMF is, to all intents and purposes, frozen-in to the SW, then it too must be slowed. The faster travelling field behind it causes it to pile up. Therefore, it is condensed,. And the field strength will subsequently be higher. It is a boundary, because it defines the limit of the IMF, and separates purely cometary non-magnetised material, from the magnetised material of both cometary and SW origin outside the boundary (upstream). In reality the IMF gets closer to the nucleus than the solar wind. So it obviously diffuses somewhat, as expected. The SW isn't getting with 1500 km at active periods. The diamagnetic cavity forms at ~ 200 km at 67P. No other field is need to stop the SW/ IMF. As explained by Ip & Axford in 1987.

The formation of a magnetic-field-free cavity at comet Halley
https://ui.adsabs...abstract

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Common knowledge regarding a magnetic field is that you need another one to change it's morphology.


Wrong. As Cravens also explained in 1987.

Theory and observations of cometary ionospheres
https://ui.adsabs...abstract
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
If we want to get really technical (i.e. mathematical) then one could look at Equation (1) from this paper:

First detection of a diamagnetic cavity at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Goetz, C. et al.
https://www.aanda...8-15.pdf

As you can see, there is only one occurrence of B in that equation, and it relates to the IMF. And my 'plasma guy' was a co-author on that paper.
theredpill
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
"Oh no he won't. Trust me. "

The second paper you linked several posts above flat out says that the SW is deflected by the cometary ions. So no I do not trust you, and yes I will go to any physics forum and ask if a neutral surface will cause flux intensification at the boundary where it "meets" a magnetic field. Because I just pulled a magnet off my fridge and despite ever increasing proximity to my coffee cup, there was no additional resistance from the + end and no additional attraction to the - end. As pointed out above: One of you other links states the following: ""The magnetic field strength increases in this region and a magnetic barrier, or pile-up region, forms. The field lines associated with this barrier wrap around the comet and form a magnetotail. In essence, this is the cometary ''magnetosphere'' or induced magnetosphere."

I am only saying what I am because I have read the same or similar papers you have. Barakn is right...it's just semantics at this point.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
I am only saying what I am because I have read the same or similar papers you have. Barakn is right...it's just semantics at this point.


No, it isn't semantics. There is only one field. The IMF. You are calling for a second one to arise from....................somewhere to deflect the IMF. There is no such field. As explained in all those papers, it is due to ion-neutral friction. I would suggest looking through the scientific literature on "comets; diamagnetic cavity", on Google Scholar. There is no other field than the IMF involved. This isn't semantics, it is a total inability on your part to understand the process described in the literature.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
I can't put it any better than this:

The cometary, plasma in the magnetic barrier just outside the diamagnetic cavity which surrounds the nucleus of comet Halley is virtually stagnant. The oufflowing neutral gas exerts an outward ion-neutral drag force on this plasma, which balances the inward magnetic pressure gradient force in the vicinity of the contact surface


If this doesn't make sense, then all I can suggest is a crash course in plasma physics as it relates to the cometary environment;

Ion energetics in the inner coma of Comet Halley.
Cravens, T. E.
https://deepblue....quence=1
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
As for comets, they have two tails, one of which is mostly on their orbital path as shown by the evaporation of gasses and the dust and debris carried with it. The Other tail happens to be the result of the radiation from the sun ionizing the materials that Can be ionized by the high UV and X-Ray flux of the normal Sun's operation.

Those ionized gasses and dust particles are then highly affected by the magnetic fields of the solar wind and form the more visible tail with the ionization colors. This is visible due to the ionization produced not only from the sun but also electric current produced by the passing magnetic fields of the solar wind just as an electric neon sign does,

Otherwise there would not be the greens, blues and tinges of red we are used to seeing in the more spectacular comets.

JD, Give Up, you obviously don't understand Mainstream Science, or have it mis-figured somewhere, so badly that you are gaining new commenters calling you out.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
The second paper you linked several posts above flat out says that the SW is deflected by the cometary ions.


Correct, more or less. The vast majority of cometary gas is neutral at shortish distances. However, there is some photo-ionisation, and also ionisation due to electron impact. These ions head outward at slow speed (< 1 km/.s) in comparison to the SW speed (~ 350 km/s). They are 'picked up' by the solar wind, and accelerated. This means that the SW loses momentum from this mass-loading. As the mass-loading gets more intense as the comet becomes more active, the SW is deflected at an angle to the normal comet-SW line. Eventually, this reaches almost 180 degrees. In other words, it is turned back on itself.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
This is visible due to the ionization produced not only from the sun but also electric current..


Complete bollocks. What electric current? The ionisation, as noted above, is due to photo-ionisation and electron impact ionisation. Nothing to do with currents. Where on Earth did you get that nonsense from? Link, please, otherwise you are making it up.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
JD, Give Up, you obviously don't understand Mainstream Science, or have it mis-figured somewhere, so badly that you are gaining new commenters calling you out.


No, I understand it just fine, thank you. Go ask the question on a physics forum. Or are you another EUist who is all talk and no trousers?

jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
This is visible due to the ionization produced not only from the sun but also electric current..


Is there anyone associated with EU woo who understands anything about comets? If so, I've yet to encounter them.
Some ions in the tail emit in the visible. Without looking it up, this will be due to the vibrational states of the ions. From memory, one of the states of CO emits at ~ 400nm, which puts it in the visible. For the hard of thinking, this is the emission as an excited electron relaxes/ or jumps from one quantum level to another.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018

And I still want to know which paper that is from, because it is wrong, and I can then alert somebody, who can point it out the relevant people, who can then reply. If it isn't in a paper, then forget it. It's wrong.

It's not a paper, it was from a blog by an astrophysics professor. Given you can't even grasp basic definitions of such words as "induced", magnetic field, and magnetosphere I will still respect the plasma ignoramus' opinion over yours as you are the ultimate in plasma ignoramuses.

https://briankobe...m/about/
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018

And I still want to know which paper that is from, because it is wrong, and I can then alert somebody, who can point it out the relevant people, who can then reply. If it isn't in a paper, then forget it. It's wrong.

It's not a paper, it was from a blog by an astrophysics professor. Given you can't even grasp basic definitions of such words as "induced", magnetic field, and magnetosphere I will still respect the plasma ignoramus' opinion over yours as you are the ultimate in plasma ignoramuses.

https://briankobe...m/about/


Well, as much as I enjoy BK's blog and forum, he screwed up there. I'll drop him a line.

p.s.

You should see what he thinks about EU nonsense!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
Given you can't even grasp basic definitions of such words as "induced", magnetic field,


Oh, I can, as I keep demonstrating with links to the relevant science. You fail to understand the difference between magnetosphere and magnetic field. The field is already there. It is the IMF. It piles up.....etc, etc, etc. As I keep having to explain to the hard of thinking who know Jack about plasma physics, and even less about comets. Just link to a paper that says how a magnetic field is induced. It isn't, so you won't find one. Bore off.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018

And I still want to know which paper that is from, because it is wrong, and I can then alert somebody, who can point it out the relevant people, who can then reply. If it isn't in a paper, then forget it. It's wrong.

It's not a paper, it was from a blog by an astrophysics professor. Given you can't even grasp basic definitions of such words as "induced", magnetic field, and magnetosphere I will still respect the plasma ignoramus' opinion over yours as you are the ultimate in plasma ignoramuses.

https://briankobe...m/about/


Well, as much as I enjoy BK's blog and forum, he screwed up there. I'll drop him a line.

p.s.

You should see what he thinks about EU nonsense!


https://briankobe...niverse/
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
You should see what he thinks about EU nonsense!

I intentionally referred to a plasma ignoramus to show you are on your own island of ignorance.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
You should see what he thinks about EU nonsense!

I intentionally referred to a plasma ignoramus to show you are on your own island of ignorance.


Nope. You have yet to show anything from the scientific literature to back up your unobserved woo. Brian is a good guy, he just got this one wrong. As I said, I'll drop him a line. Although I doubt he is overly bothered about a 3 year old article. Unless it is pointed out that EU loons are using it as ammunition in their ever failing battle against real science.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
Well, as much as I enjoy BK's blog and forum, he screwed up there. I'll drop him a line.

That is an exchange I would actually like to see, the moron explaining to an astrophysics (plasma ignoramus) professor that he is wrong. That should be amusing!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
Well, as much as I enjoy BK's blog and forum, he screwed up there. I'll drop him a line.

That is an exchange I would actually like to see, the moron explaining to an astrophysics (plasma ignoramus) professor that he is wrong. That should be amusing!


I'm hardly going to do it on the forum, am I?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
I'm hardly going to do it on the forum, am I?

Of course you won't, you will get your ignorance handed to you and you obviously have pride issues.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2018
I'm hardly going to do it on the forum, am I?

Of course you won't, you will get your ignorance handed to you and you obviously have pride issues.


No, I won't. I've told you - grow a pair, and I'll put you in contact with a plasma astrophysicist - which Brian isn't - who was/ is part of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium team. Either at Cosmoquest or ISF. Find a pair, and just say the word. You are the one who doesn't want to put his ignorance to the test on physics forums, which is why you spew your constant tirade of ill-informed anti-science on a place like this. Some people would call that cowardly.

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.