Magnetic waves create chaos in star-forming clouds

September 13, 2018, University of Texas McDonald Observatory
Offner’s research will shed light on the processes inside star-forming regions such as 30 Doradus, seen in this view from Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/ESA/F. Paresce/R. O’Connell/WFC3

New research by Stella Offner, assistant professor of astronomy at The University of Texas at Austin, finds that magnetic waves are an important factor driving the process of star formation within the enormous clouds that birth stars. Her research sheds light on the processes that are responsible for setting the properties of stars, which in turn affects the formation of planets orbiting them, and, ultimately, life on those planets. The research is published in the current issue of the journal Nature Astronomy.

Offner used a supercomputer to make models of the multitude of processes happening inside a cloud where are forming, in an effort to sort out which processes lead to which effects.

"These clouds are violent places," Offner said. "It's an extreme environment with all kinds of different physics happening at once," including gravity and turbulence as well as radiation and winds from forming stars (called stellar feedback). The fundamental question, Offner said, is: "Why are the motions in these clouds so violent?"

Some astronomers attribute the observed motions to gravitational collapse, while others attribute it to turbulence and stellar feedback. Offner wanted to test these theories and study how stars shape their birth environment, but it's virtually impossible to use telescope observations of these clouds to separate the influence of the various processes, she said.

"That's why we need computer models," Offner explained.

After comparing models of clouds with gravity, magnetic fields, and stars, Offner noticed extra motions.

Cloud models. Credit: University of Texas McDonald Observatory

Her models showed that stellar winds interacting with the cloud generated energy and influenced gas at far greater distances across the cloud than previously thought: These local magnetic fields caused action at a distance.

"Think of the magnetic fields like rubber bands that stretch across the cloud," Offner said. "The winds push the field—it's like rubber bands being plucked. The waves outrun the wind and cause distant motions."

This research has implications for the tug-of-war between feedback—that is, the effect that the newly formed star has on its environment—and gravity on the scale of solar systems up to entire galaxies, Offner said.

Magnetic waves from a young star. Credit: University of Texas McDonald Observatory

As for the next step, Offner says she plans to study this process on larger scales, both in time and space. Her current study focused on one area within star-forming ; she said future studies will study the effects of magnetic fields and feedback on scales larger than a single cloud.

Explore further: Magnetic fields in interstellar clouds

More information: Stella S. R. Offner et al. Turbulent action at a distance due to stellar feedback in magnetized clouds, Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0566-1

Related Stories

Magnetic fields in interstellar clouds

March 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Magnetic fields play an important role in the formation and evolution of stars, as they stretch around a hot medium like a rubber band and help to determine the flow of material onto or away from the star.

How disc galaxies work

July 23, 2018

Disc galaxies like our own Milky Way, characterized by a flattened disc of stars and gas (often with a central bulge of material as well) have a wide range of masses, spatial extents, and stellar content. Nonetheless all ...

Why is massive star formation quenched in galaxy centers?

November 29, 2017

The current cosmological model to explain the universe, the "Big Bang" model, aims to describe all observable phenomena, including the evolution of galaxies from earliest times to the present day. One of the major problems ...

Recommended for you

A new classification scheme for exoplanet sizes

September 24, 2018

There are about 4433 exoplanets in the latest catalogs. Their radii have generally been measured by knowing the radius of their host star and then closely fitting the lightcurves as the planet transits across the face of ...

First to red planet will become Martians: Canada astronaut

September 22, 2018

Astronauts traveling through space on the long trip to Mars will not have the usual backup from mission control on Earth and will need to think of themselves as Martians to survive, Canada's most famous spaceman half-jokingly ...

205 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steelwolf
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2018
Here we go again, More information to back up my previous statements of ideas that magnetism has much greater effect on things like star building and that electric fields created by action on magnetic fields can create changes at longer distances than just gravity can due to the connections due to plasma interactions and wider field magnetics.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2018
Queue an abusive rant from Jones at Steelwolfe (or myself) in 3....2....1.....
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2018
Well, here is EVIDENCE to back up what some of us EU folks have been telling you all along, Magnetism and electromagnetic effects are a part of star building

People want papers as evidence on widespread electric effects ongoing with the magnetic fields and other forces mixed to produce stars. Everybody such as JD and Cpl Stump keep nay-saying such, saying no information/proof pointing to such when papers like this are springing out all over. I would say Confirmation Bias for those folks who closed their minds 30 years ago.

Well JD and Stump, here is proof,in form you want, and it specifically states that magnetic fields and their feedback in creating current via solar wind and transporting that energy to larger distances in the field to help build the star along with gravity. Not just by gravity alone. HAS BEEN PROVEN NOW SO YOU CAN STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT
barakn
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 13, 2018
Magnetism has been recognized as a player in star formation for decades. What Stumpy and jd have an issue with is the idea of large scale electric fields and inexhaustible supplies of electric charge powering everything. Really it is (prior to the start of fusion) gravitational potential energy that gets converted into these other forms of energy.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2018
Magnetic waves create chaos in star-forming clouds

Of course there are no magnetic waves without electric currents or changing electric fields creating them, but leave it to the plasma ignoramuses to try to explain them without them anyway. The really amusing thing, the above paper is really bad, a bunch of crank inspired pseudoscientific MHD claptrap but it still goes to show how pathetically inadequate the standard theory is in explaining star formation. When bad science shows your models to be worthless, like the standard theory, it reveals how bad their guesses really are.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 13, 2018
Really it is (prior to the start of fusion) gravitational potential energy that gets converted into these other forms of energy.

Bzzzt, dreadfully wrong. The weakest force (gravity) is responsible for kickstarting the strongest force (EM)? Ummm, no.
theredpill
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2018
"Really it is (prior to the start of fusion) gravitational potential energy that gets converted into these other forms of energy."

Straight out of the flat earthers book of astrophysics. The notion that gravity can produce any kind of energetic event other than a collision between massive bodies (IOW causes matter to begin to react electromagnetically) has never been observed. It is theorized in several observations...however the assumptions combined with the math only work for those who want them to. Perhaps until gravity is fully understood, the assumptions should stop.

" What Stumpy and jd have an issue with is"....

For Jones, anything that is not contained in the flat earthers book of astrophysics. And also anyone here willing to post ideas that conflict with the status quo. Captain Stumpy and I have had few interactions here and none as over the top ridiculous as the filth that comes from Jones. Although he has the only gravity powered computer on earth...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2018
@steel
Well, here is EVIDENCE to back up what some of us EU folks have been telling you all along, Magnetism and electromagnetic effects are a part of star building
well, I cannot answer better than barakn so I will simply reply with a quote

What I, personally, have issue with is
the idea of large scale electric fields and inexhaustible supplies of electric charge powering everything. Really it is (prior to the start of fusion) gravitational potential energy that gets converted into these other forms of energy
on top of that, I have issue with claims without evidence (see cd/rossim: https://phys.org/...met.html )

I also have an issue with the fact that there is *nothing* that yall can refer to other than the posted opinion (or interpretation) and the occasional link to known pseudoscience site (cd is the worst about this)
rossim22
2.8 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2018
Magnetism has been recognized as a player in star formation for decades.

Ok... so why did this scientist, and their peers, and the journal editor feel that these findings were new, different, and important?

This is what I have an issue with.

Every time an article is written that describes how some astrophysical event was unprecedented, or surprising, or requires a change in thinking, it's like those observations are brushed off without any investigation into WHY they were surprising.

If what this scientist is claiming is true, why and how have all other models of star formation been accepted without the pivotal long-distance role of local magnetic fields?

Her models showed that stellar winds interacting with the cloud magnetic field generated energy and influenced gas at far greater distances across the cloud than previously thought: These local magnetic fields caused action at a distance.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2018
Well JD and Stump, here is proof,in form you want,............. HAS BEEN PROVEN NOW SO YOU CAN STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT


Lol. Sorry, where have the EU fruitloops written this up? You know, field strengths, duration, the whole shebang? Nowhere. The don't even believe that stars are powered by fusion! Give me a break. This is just a paper saying that the magnetic fields may play a larger role than posited previously. This has been part of mainstream astrophysics for donkey's years. To wit;

A theory of the role of magnetic activity during star formation (1962)
Schatzman, E.
http://adsabs.har...25...18S

Self-similar collapse of isothermal spheres and star formation (1977)
Shu, F. H.
http://adsabs.har...14..488S

I could go on, but research should be something even EU dullards can manage. Now, what year was your cult formed in? And what has it published on this subject?
In other words, you have told us nothing.

Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2018
Sorry Stumpy, but there have been articles about this for some time, with wider magnetic fields interacting at longer distances, and doing a lot more than the 'just gravity with a Little magnetism' idea that some perpetuate, there is a Large electric-magnetic field potential anytime you have any sort of mass moving through a magnetic field. Some earlier articles:
https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

Notice the dates go back to 2006, so this is something that has been worked on pretty heavy since, with a LOT of really new defining evidence on just how much more effect that electromagnetism and the charging of particles from radiation, creating a charge potential field that can either flow like a current itself, or induce currents of smaller mass and different charge about them.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2018
Really it is (prior to the start of fusion) gravitational potential energy that gets converted into these other forms of energy.

Bzzzt, dreadfully wrong. The weakest force (gravity) is responsible for kickstarting the strongest force (EM)? Ummm, no.
http://chandra.ha...312.html

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2018
Notice the dates go back to 2006, so this is something that has been worked on pretty heavy since, with a LOT of really new defining evidence on just how much more effect that electromagnetism and the charging of particles from radiation, creating a charge potential field that can either flow like a current itself, or induce currents of smaller mass and different charge about them.


Hmmm. Just downloaded paper. Opened in Foxit PDF reader. Did word search on 'current'. Zero occurrences.

Steelwolf
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2018
And yes, this is something that Has been studied for decades, theorized etc, but the big thing here is How Much Greater Effect that is being found than had been previously allowed for, apparently by multiple orders.

The funniest thing I find with JD is that he presents the evidence against himself and then triumphantly shouts, SEE, they knew this so far back...when we been trying to tell him the upgrades on what was found and how much stronger the effect, by multiple orders, really is. How those very same theories point out that the EU view of the Universe is the correct one seeing as how not only are we finding direct electromagnetic connection between our star and planets, but that we are also part of the Galactic current and it's magnetic field, which is joined to the Andromeda Mag Field, and we see chains of active galactic nuclei jets that are lined up along their connecting filament lines...overwhelming evidence of major electromagnetics at work.

Yet you fail to see it.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2018
And yes, this is something that Has been studied for decades, theorized etc, but the big thing here is How Much Greater Effect that is being found than had been previously allowed for, apparently by multiple orders.


And the effect is only seen due to MHD modelling. Ergo, according to EUists, it doesn't exist. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either the sims are correct, and MHD is perfectly valid or, as contended by CD, MHD is nonsense, in which case your effect disappears.
I thought you loons believed the Sun was a giant lightbulb, anyway, so how do this help the EU cause at all? Surely it renders it wrong. Correct? Make your minds up guys.

Steelwolf
2 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2018
Consider me a rational EU type.

While there is plenty of evidence for electric activity in the areas around the grand canyon, that is due more to completely terrestrial events possibly augmented by solar radiation, but during the times when some of the massive basalt volcanoes were going, the amount of ash and dust moving about in the clouds, with the amounts of iron in then (basalt being iron rich) it would have formed heavy electrical potential clouds and extremely heavy lightning storms. But that is more towards congealing the ash into the harder tuff and accumulating on high spots due to charge effects. But no canyon digging.

But major arcing between planets, well, they would likely come apart due to Schwartzchild radius problems first. Now, we DID see an electrical discharge when the recent comet went past Mars and there was some sort of ionic discharge that they got from the back glow, no orbiter being in position to catch the event directly. (Continued)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2018
.....EU view of the Universe is the correct...


Nope. They have never got anything right about astrophysics. They have nobody qualified in that area, so it isn't surprising. And the rest of what you wrote is just plain garbage.
Please show us these quantified EU hypotheses. Based on observation and evidence.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2018
Just downloaded paper. Opened in Foxit PDF reader. Did word search on 'current'. Zero occurrences.

Exactly why I said;
Of course there are no magnetic waves without electric currents or changing electric fields creating them, but leave it to the plasma ignoramuses to try to explain them without them anyway.

The plasma ignoramuses can pretend EE (Maxwell and such) aspects of plasma don't relate to their "ionized gases", but the fact is plasma is plasma and the EE concepts developed over years of applied science in the use of plasma processes is absolutely essential in understanding cosmological plasmas.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2018
Consider me a rational EU type.


No such thing. One of the core beliefs of EU woo is that the Sun is not powered by fusion, and is due to some electric woo or other, depending on which particular loons' model one is discussing.

Now, we DID see an electrical discharge when the recent comet went past Mars


Nope. I read that paper. No electric discharges. Stop making stuff up.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2018
The plasma ignoramuses can pretend EE (Maxwell and such) aspects of plasma don't relate to their "ionized gases", but the fact is plasma is plasma and the EE concepts developed over years of applied science in the use of plasma processes is absolutely essential in understanding cosmological plasmas.


Utter nonsense. Most EEs haven't got a clue about astrophysical plasmas. Take Don Scott as a prime example. They aren't qualified. That is why plasma astrophysics exists.

Steelwolf
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2018
(Contd)
As far as the sun being an electric lightbulb, well, we DO measure a lot of radio and X-ray flux, which comes from the field lines, so it certainly Acts like a lightbulb as far as some surface features, but it is more of a fluid-core magnet with all of the dynamics of the high proton zones of elemental fusion, but this also gives rise to charge-separation, and with North and South magnetic fields being projected into the heliosphere and THAT most certainly creates current sheets within the solar wind, the Parker Spiral deal is a current FLOW Sheet several thousand miles across. And yes, MHD has a lot to do with things, esp closer to the sun.

Do not go placing me in a stereotype, not all of us EU types have the same understandings. Mine is more based in the Standard Theory, but just gives heavier weighting towards the electromagnetism, which is now being validated since we have the equipment to be able to detect it now, and detecting it we are, all over the place.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2018
Jonsie, your major problem is in lumping all of the people that consider Electromagnetism to be a stronger force than previously accepted as loons and lump us in with debunked folks to try to connect US to Them. And jd, all it does is continually make you look like the hind end of a donkey.

I very well accept fusion, but there is also a fair amount of arcing on the sun (known as solar flares) that ARE Electrical Discharges that produce copious X-Rays and energy release on other spectra too. MHD, on large scale, actually induces further magnetics, and can help to produce a self-sustaining system, our Van Allen belts are actually MHD effects.

We know that even our satellites do an internal charging in high flux events, and then can hold this charge until it gets to an area of different charge where it can dissipate, or it can cause arcing internally. Asteroids too would do the same charging, by the same mechanics, and so arcing and EDM from them IS a possibility.
rrwillsj
3.6 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2018
Hooray! Another bit of evidence for the "Drunkard's Walk" of my Theory of Stupid Design.

What annoys me the most on the EU woohooey is their insistence that invisible attributes are somehow proof of their garbage polemics.

Unable to produce any evidence for their nonsense. They plagiarize other peoples work. Mangle it to fit into their superstitions and pretend they actually accomplished anything.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2018
Jonsie, your major problem is in lumping all of the people that consider Electromagnetism to be a stronger force than previously accepted as loons and lump us in with debunked folks to try to connect US to Them. And jd, all it does is continually make you look like the hind end of a donkey.


Have you even read the paper? Or the others I linked to? No, your lot don't do papers, do they? Just crap on Youtube and dunderdolts. If you believe the Sun is powered by fusion, you are not an EUist. It is one of their core beliefs, and from it springs all sorts of other garbage, like electric comets. It is pure woo. Maybe you need to come up with a different name for what you believe, that dissociates you from the neo-Velikovskian idiots.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2018
Well, there is this report:

https://www.jpl.n...ure=4366

Where they note, specifically:

"Data from observations carried out by NASA's Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) mission, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and a radar instrument on the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Mars Express spacecraft have revealed that debris from the comet added a temporary and very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere, the electrically charged layer high above Mars. In these observations, scientists were able to make a direct connection from the input of debris from a specific meteor shower to the formation of this kind of transient layer in response; that is a first on any planet, including Earth."

And

"SHARAD scientists used this smearing to determine that the electron density of the ionosphere on the planet's night side, where the observations were made, was five to 10 times higher than usual."

And there Was a lot of UV and visible light.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2018
What annoys me the most on the EU woohooey is their insistence that invisible attributes are somehow proof of their garbage polemics.

He is a guy who thinks electric and magnetic fields should be visible. LOL!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2018
Do not go placing me in a stereotype, not all of us EU types have the same understandings. Mine is more based in the Standard Theory, but just gives heavier weighting towards the electromagnetism, which is now being validated since we have the equipment to be able to detect it now, and detecting it we are, all over the place.


Nope . They modelled it, using MHD, and known 'mainstream' plasma physics. It hasn't been observed. It is a hypothesis, and fits fairly well with observation. It is nothing to do with what you seem to think it is. It is a model using magnetosonic waves, (which are not currents, by the way), from stars in a region where there is vigorous star formation.
Such waves were considered previously from an external source;

Alfvén-wave Driven Turbulence in Molecular Clouds
Heitsch, F. & Burkert, A.
http://adsabs.har...85...13H

and were found to be insufficient. The current work looks at the waves created within the cloud.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2018
Well, there is this report:

https://www.jpl.n...ure=4366

Where they note, specifically:

"SHARAD scientists used this smearing to determine that the electron density of the ionosphere on the planet's night side, where the observations were made, was five to 10 times higher than usual."

And there Was a lot of UV and visible light.


And says nothing about electric discharges. What were you expecting to happen when the magnetosphere of a comet interacts with the magnetosphere of a planet? From memory, the observations were in line with predictions.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2018
From memory, the observations were in line with predictions.

jonesdumb's attempt at revisionist history.
http://earthsky.o...ast-mars
He has to lie to be correct.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2018
And says nothing about electric discharges.

jonesdumb doesn't know what electric discharge is, wouldn't know if he saw it anyway.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2018
From memory, the observations were in line with predictions.

jonesdumb's attempt at revisionist history.
http://earthsky.o...ast-mars
He has to lie to be correct.


Sorry? What am I supposed to be seeing in that article?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2018
And says nothing about electric discharges.

jonesdumb doesn't know what electric discharge is, wouldn't know if he saw it anyway.


So, where is the discharge, dummy?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2018
Perturbation of the Mars atmosphere by the near-collision with Comet C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring)
Yelle, R. V. et al.
https://www.scien...14001560

Modelling of the encounter, prior to the encounter.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2018
@steel
Sorry Stumpy, but there have been articles about this for some time
so?
...a lot more than the 'just gravity with a Little magnetism' idea that some perpetuate
1- you're attempting to perpetuate the same BS fallacy that cd regularly makes

don't

it makes you look bad

2- that first link (news article) references the second link (with an arXiv paper) and the third is a press release

More to the point, those three links validate something I've been telling cd for years (and directly invalidates your claim quoted): mainstream astrophysicists incorporate plasma physics, which includes EM
Notice the dates go back to 2006, so this is something that has been worked on pretty heavy since
it's been more recent that we've had the ability to field better equipment to clear up the noise and make better observations

Jones and others have linked many a study that is pre-2000 on these topics

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2018
@steel cont'd
but the big thing here is How Much Greater Effect that is being found than had been previously allowed for, apparently by multiple orders
What analysis can you point to validating this statement other than your opinion?

have you read any of the historical papers or theory?
What are the error margins?

do you see where I am going with this?
...How those very same theories point out that the EU view of the Universe is the correct one seeing as how...
and again: those papers don't say what you think they say
More to the point, when you make a definitive statement that has no empirical evidence while tying that to an ASSumption that is the foundation of a vague belief and is seeking evidence to support said belief (confirmation bias) then you're not doing science
https://en.wikipe...oscience

ya may not like his style, but Jones has continually made a few points that no one has ever addressed with actual evidence...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2018
@rossim
so why did this scientist, and their peers, and the journal editor feel that these findings were new, different, and important?
public image perceptions are all about how you advertise
This is what I have an issue with
as do I and most other scientifically literate people

this is the primary reason you should never accept news articles, press releases, claims or statements to be considered scientific without direct correlation to the evidence, and definitely shouldn't accept any singular studies as "scientific fact" as a singular study isn't validated

.

.

Jonsie, your major problem is in lumping all of the people that consider Electromagnetism to be a stronger force than previously accepted as loons and lump us in with debunked folks to try to connect US to Them
@steel
erm... actually, as you have claimed to be an eu advocate then Jones can lump you with common eu claims unless you provide specifics

there is a difference
TorbjornLarsson
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2018
The reason magnetism is a bad hypothesis is precisely why the EU cult likes it, it is a lazy ad hoc hypothesis that fills most any gap in the absence of observation. It takes a lot of research to weed out erroneous hypothesis, so lazy hypotheses are not popular.

That said, magnetism is behind many medium to small scale effects, driven by large scale gravity as everything else in the universe. The reason is obvious, gravity can sum up while EM cannot due to its bipolar (positive and negative) charges so the universe is neutral on large scales. For an interesting example protoplanetary systems are heavily influenced by magnetic winds carrying momentum.

[tbctd]
TorbjornLarsson
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2018
[ctd] Here are some articles on magnetism in nature - nomor, no less - outside of cult erroneous beliefs:
"In reality, magnetic fields are the sturdy unsung workhorses of astrophysics. It's true that, most of the time, they just play follow-the-leader, tied to the plasmas from which they are born. But occasionally, they can bundle themselves up and become the dominant player in the physics game, unleashing their pent-up energies in spectacular displays such as coronal mass ejections and active galactic nuclei jets.

It's no surprise that our universe is teeming with magnetic fields. Almost all the normal (that is, nondark) matter that makes up our cosmos exists in the form of plasma, a high-energy state of matter where the electrons are separated from their host nuclei. Only rarely do materials cool and condense enough to form neutral atoms.

[tbctd]
TorbjornLarsson
3.8 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2018
[ctd] Where there are plasmas, there are charged particles zipping around. And where there are charged particles zipping around, there are magnetic fields. So we see magnetic fields threading our own planet and sun, the solar system, distant nebulas and even the galaxy itself.

We even see them extending millions of light-years beyond that, forming a tangled web between the galaxies."

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

[tbctd]
TorbjornLarsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2018
[ctd]"Although we know all this, there remains a huge amount to find out about cosmic magnetic fields. We don't know where the seed fields came from that generated the magnetic fields in the interstellar medium of spiral galaxies and the intergalactic gas in clusters of galaxies. Detailed field patterns are poorly known, especially so in our own Milky Way Galaxy, where our view from inside makes it hard to see the big picture. Even in the best-studied cases such as the Sun, the complexity of magnetic phenomena such as reconnection leaves many questions still to answer. For this reason 'The origin and Evolution of Cosmic Magnetism' is one of the Key Science projects for the Square Kilometre Array."

http://www.jodrel...gnetism/

So useful - too useful in the cultish sense - and researched. But not the phenomena that makes the universe evolve as such, that is - ta da - gravity [LCDM physics].
danR
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2018
There seems to be some confusion here.

A computer model is not 'proof'. Models are targets you can shoot at with a scientific gun called "falsification."
Secondly, magnetic fields and their potential as a factor in stellar genesis are hardly lacking in the theoretical and experimental literature
gculpex
2 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2018
[ctd] Where there are plasmas, there are charged particles zipping around. And where there are charged particles zipping around, there are magnetic fields. So we see magnetic fields threading our own planet and sun, the solar system, distant nebulas and even the galaxy itself.

We even see them extending millions of light-years beyond that, forming a tangled web between the galaxies."

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

[tbctd]

Too bad, it seems you haven't heard of ball lightning or of the baseball type fusion reactors.
https://phys.org/...all.html
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2018
Too bad, it seems you haven't heard of ball lightning or of the baseball type fusion reactors.
https://phys.org/...all.html


And what relevance does that have to anything?

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2018
"Although we know all this, there remains a huge amount to find out about cosmic magnetic fields. We don't know where the seed fields came from that generated the magnetic fields in the interstellar medium of spiral galaxies and the intergalactic gas in clusters of galaxies.

This is why they are plasma ignoramuses. There are no "seed fields", there are electric currents or changing electric fields. Period! The plasma is moving, that is charged particles are flowing which creates the magnetic fields and generates electrical energy.
Old_C_Code
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
cant says: "Of course there are no magnetic waves without electric currents"

Where are the currents in a permanent magnet exactly?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2018
"Although we know all this, there remains a huge amount to find out about cosmic magnetic fields. We don't know where the seed fields came from that generated the magnetic fields in the interstellar medium of spiral galaxies and the intergalactic gas in clusters of galaxies.

This is why they are plasma ignoramuses. There are no "seed fields", there are electric currents or changing electric fields. Period! The plasma is moving, that is charged particles are flowing which creates the magnetic fields and generates electrical energy.


Wrong. As usual.
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2018
Th very basic assumption that stars can form from clouds of gas has not been substantiated.
So anything that builds on this nebulous assumption is bound to come crashing to the ground soon.

There's the tiny little problem of the Jeans limit - so far no one has offered ANY explanation as to how it can be overcome naturally.

Magnetic fields tend to disrupt the concentration of clouds into units able to ignite and sustain nuclear fusion.

There is basically at present absolutely ZERO scientific justification for saying that stars form from clouds of gas all by themselves. It's all absolute rife speculation founded on the necessary Atheistic religious principle that there is no Creator.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2018
This is why they are plasma ignoramuses.


So you are the only person on the planet that understands plasma astrophysics? Is that what you are saying? If so - hahahahahahahaha! If not, point out to us who is saying it, and where they are saying it. It won't be any of the EU fruitloops, will it, given that they have nobody qualified in the relevant science.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2018
Th very basic assumption that stars can form from clouds of gas has not been substantiated.
So anything that builds on this nebulous assumption is bound to come crashing to the ground soon.

There's the tiny little problem of the Jeans limit - so far no one has offered ANY explanation as to how it can be overcome naturally.

Magnetic fields tend to disrupt the concentration of clouds into units able to ignite and sustain nuclear fusion.

There is basically at present absolutely ZERO scientific justification for saying that stars form from clouds of gas all by themselves. It's all absolute rife speculation founded on the necessary Atheistic religious principle that there is no Creator.


And just when you thought we were all cranked-out, along comes a religious nutter! Give me strength.
gculpex
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Too bad, it seems you haven't heard of ball lightning or of the baseball type fusion reactors.
https://phys.org/...all.html


And what relevance does that have to anything?


What relevance do you have to this article?
I decided not to learn anything from you.
We go forward by standing on the backs of others not by wondering if they missed something.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
Too bad, it seems you haven't heard of ball lightning or of the baseball type fusion reactors.
https://phys.org/...all.html


And what relevance does that have to anything?


What relevance do you have to this article?
I decided not to learn anything from you.
We go forward by standing on the backs of others not by wondering if they missed something.


So it has no relevance? Just as I thought. You'd be better off posting on Thunderdolts, if that is the level of discussion you are going to bring.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
Wrong. As usual.

We all know you subscribe to the magic of the frozen-in condition regardless of how moronic it is jonesdumb.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2018
Wrong. As usual.

We all know you subscribe to the magic of the frozen-in condition regardless of how moronic it is jonesdumb.


As does every working plasma astrophysicist, when it is applicable. Given that you aren't even close to being any kind of physicist, your views are irrelevant. As are those of EU loons generally.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2018
cant says: "Of course there are no magnetic waves without electric currents"

Where are the currents in a permanent magnet exactly?

First, we are discussing space plasmas, so the comment you raise is a strawman.
But to answer your question, the magnetism is due to electrons spinning and orbiting around positive nuclei. The resulting current loops can be oriented to generate the exterior magnetic field. The currents are called amperian currents. So even ferromagnetism is the result of currents.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2018
As does every working plasma astrophysicist

Hence their alternate title, plasma ignoramuses! They, along with you, are morons for thinking it is valid given the volumes of research and the utter failures of their guesses.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2018
As does every working plasma astrophysicist

Hence their alternate title, plasma ignoramuses! They, along with you, are morons for thinking it is valid given the volumes of research and the utter failures of their guesses.


What failures, woo boy? And what the hell would you know? Ever studied plasma physics? Ever worked with astrophysical plasmas? No, would be the answer to that, eh? Has anybody in the EU cult? Another resounding no, methinks. Your cult dogma is an irrelevance to real science, and your cult contributes precisely zero to the sum of scientific knowledge, due to having nobody who is any good at it. Correct? Yes, would be the answer to that.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
What failures, woo boy?

Those fusion reactors using these guesses peppering the countryside with their clean energy are so awesome. Oh wait, they don't exist.
Ever worked with astrophysical plasmas?

Plasma is plasma, astrophysical or otherwise. Your claim that astrophysical are somehow different is based on a completely erroneous belief. Astrophysicists need to believe they're special and that they have a unique understanding of the Universe, sadly they are but plasma ignoramuses that believe in faerie dust a pontificate fanciful about matter and conditions that don't exist. A historical perspective on how dramatically different the current guesswork is from the starting point reveals the utter failures, you however prefer to revise history and facts to compliment your skewed historonics.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2018
Those fusion reactors using these guesses peppering the countryside with their clean energy are so awesome. Oh wait, they don't exist.


And the solution put forward by the scientifically illiterate nobodies at EU is? Nothing.

The rest of your post is just redolent of somebody who would have liked to study plasma physics, but was too dumb, and has a chip on his shoulder about it. Correct?

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
@cultdrive85
But to answer your question, the magnetism is due to electrons spinning and orbiting around positive nuclei
so... just a few quick questions (seriously):
What is the net charge of an atomic particle?

why isn't *everything* magnetic if magnetism is directly caused by "electrons spinning and orbiting around positive nuclei"?

Why does the eu ignore plasma physics from plasma physicists (not astrophysicists) if they don't like it?
(Example: https://www.pppl....HEET.pdf

https://www.swart...esis.pdf

https://www.psfc....ty-flare

http://www.physic...dex.html

mind you - that is 4 separate labs! it's validation on a global scale as well and I can provide links to other national labs too)

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2018
But to answer your question, the magnetism is due to electrons spinning and orbiting around positive nuclei.


Errrr, no. An electron in the solar wind, for example, is not orbiting around an ion. Both are travelling outwards, whilst they gyrate around the magnetic field, Electrons gyrate around the field lines in the opposite direction to ions.

Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Plasma is as electrically conductive as a metal. You can't ignore this basic fact about 99% of the universe Jonesy.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
Plasma is as electrically conductive as a metal. You can't ignore this basic fact about 99% of the universe Jonesy.


What has that got to do with anything? Just show us what you are on about in the scientific literature, yes? Buggered if I can figure it out. This is the same crap we hear from the EU loons; 'the universe is 99% plasma.' Annnnnnnd?
That's usually where they run out of ideas.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Errrr, no. An electron in the solar wind, for example, is not orbiting around an ion.

Hey moron, that comment was in response to Old C's strawman comment about permanent magnets. Try to keep up, will ya?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
And the solution put forward by the scientifically illiterate nobodies at EU is? Nothing.

Obviously you aren't aware of Eric Lerner and his Focus Fusion. He has progressed far further in a shorter period of time than the plasma ignoramuses. And he uses the same plasma principles as Alfvén and the EU.
https://lppfusion.com
And there is the Safire Project that also likely resulted in fusion.
http://www.safirefilm.com

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
'the universe is 99% plasma.' Annnnnnnd?

Annnnnnd, plasma responds to EM forces, which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity.
hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2018
@cd
Annnnnnd, plasma responds to EM forces, which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity.

Please provide a reference I would like to see this information it is quite intriguing.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
And the solution put forward by the scientifically illiterate nobodies at EU is? Nothing.

Obviously you aren't aware of Eric Lerner and his Focus Fusion. He has progressed far further in a shorter period of time than the plasma ignoramuses. And he uses the same plasma principles as Alfvén and the EU.
https://lppfusion.com



Lerner is way out on the fringe,has nothing to do with EU, and is pretty much ignored. SAFIRE is a joke, and has nothing to do with any astrophysical processes.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
'the universe is 99% plasma.' Annnnnnnd?

Annnnnnd, plasma responds to EM forces, which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity.


And drops off exponentially, whilst also cancelling itself out (+ and -). At large scales it is pretty much irrelevant. Gravity dominates.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Lerner is way out on the fringe,has nothing to do with EU,

Same physics, based on real laboratory plasma physics.
SAFIRE is a joke, and has nothing to do with any astrophysical processes.

jonesdumb believes this plasma is different than that plasma, and needs it to be for the perceived relevance of the plasma ignoramuses. Fact is, as has been shown by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, et al. plasma responds to EM forces wherever it may be found given the fact it is still electrons and ions. If your beliefs were correct Birkeland's aurora model would have never been shown to be correct, but they are and your beliefs have been shown by direct measurements to be wrong.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
And drops off exponentially, whilst also cancelling itself out (+ and -). At large scales it is pretty much irrelevant. Gravity dominates.

Wrong poopsie, EM is the longest and strongest (by many orders of magnitude) than gravity. Gravity is a short range force that works on solar system scale, but fails miserably on the galactic scale. Hence your need to invent faerie dust to salvage the failed guesses.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
And drops off exponentially, whilst also cancelling itself out (+ and -). At large scales it is pretty much irrelevant. Gravity dominates.

Wrong poopsie, EM is the longest and strongest (by many orders of magnitude) than gravity. Gravity is a short range force that works on solar system scale, but fails miserably on the galactic scale. Hence your need to invent faerie dust to salvage the failed guesses.

Lols! Gravity dominates at planetary scales, solar system scales, and anything larger. The larger the area under consideration, the less relevant EM is. EM can explain precisely nothing about galaxy rotation.
Place a bog standard pin on the floor. Get a bog standard magnet. Can it overcome gravity at ~ 1 cm? Yes. 1 m? Unlikely. 1 km? Not a bloody chance. Same applies in the Universe. I don't believe anyone is saying any different.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The Electric and Magnetic Universe - EMU
Did every one think the stellar cloud of dust stretching millions of light years was a uniform field of dust, if these's dreamers did the saying in your dreams is applicable, the reason for all the instability, winds, magnetic fields is that the cloud is collapsing into uneven clumps, which is the cause of all this necessary instability!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The Electric and Magnetic Universe - EMU
Did every one think the stellar cloud of dust stretching millions of light years was a uniform field of dust, if these's dreamers did the saying in your dreams is applicable, the reason for all the instability, winds, magnetic fields is that the cloud is collapsing into uneven clumps, which is the cause of all this necessary instability!


Do that in plain English and somebody may, or may not, respond.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Gravity dominates at planetary scales, solar system scales, and anything larger.

Merely a claim, not at all a fact. The need for faerie dust to support the claim on large scales shows it to not be true. EM drives galactic formation and rotation, as shown by Peratt's models.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
Gravity dominates at planetary scales, solar system scales, and anything larger.

Merely a claim, not at all a fact. The need for faerie dust to support the claim on large scales shows it to not be true. EM drives galactic formation and rotation, as shown by Peratt's models.


Lol. Peratt's model is trivially falsified, and has nothing to do with actual observation or evidence. It is moribund. Not even Peratt can be arsed with it anymore. It failed. Zero mechanism, zero evidence, and only made it into an engineering journal (of which he was an influential member).
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
only made it into an engineering journal.

Right, a little too real for an astrophysical journal refereed by plasma ignoramuses. Very few applied science articles are published by astrophysical journals, they prefer unfalsifiable hypothetical conjecture to real science. It's why they require the established parochialism of the astrophysicists, their shame and ignorance would then be revealed for all to see.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Peratt's model is trivially falsified...

Let me fix that for ya,

"Peratt's model is trivially ignored by the plasma ignoramuses...."

It has never been vetted, only "falsified" by morons such as yourself.
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
@CD85:
Magnetic fields fall off at 1/r^3.
Gravity falls off at 1/r^2.
You and your YouTube videos make the following goofy roundabout circle-jerk explanations:
Ions flowing in plasma is a current. Current creates electric field. electric field has associated magnetic field. EM field causes plasma to flow, creating a current. etc. etc. etc.
and you see nothing wrong with that?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The Electric and Magnetic Universe – EMU
Did every one think the stellar cloud of dust stretching millions of light years was a uniform field of dust, if these's dreamers did the saying in your dreams is applicable, the reason for all the instability, winds, magnetic fields is that the cloud is collapsing into uneven clumps, which is the cause of all this necessary instability!

Do that in plain English and somebody may, or may not, respond.

A comment written in plain sight, and an EMU one at that, and not an EMU respondent in sight.

So now it has to be written in even plainer English for the EMU acolytes, this electric universe never cease's to amaze!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The Electric Magnetic Universe – EMU -
Everywhere we look the universe is ruled by the electron:- with its electric and magnetic fields,
The atoms are the electrical beasties in their femto-world, where their electric field in their femto-world is exerting a force of 230 Newton's on each electron and proton, where as gravity at its best is only exerting 1x10-15 Newton's on every electron and proton
There is no contest, the EMU wins hands down without question!

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Peratt's model is trivially falsified...

Let me fix that for ya,

"Peratt's model is trivially ignored by the plasma ignoramuses...."

It has never been vetted, only "falsified" by morons such as yourself.


Nope, he implicitly said that his impossible, non-existent Mpc long Birkeland currents would be seen in the surveys of the CMB. COBE, Plank and WMAP failed to detect them. The galactic magnetic fields of galaxies have since been constrained. Not even close to providing what he fantasised. The orbits of the stars at the galactic centre cannot be explained by any part of his silly model. It is junk, and has been rightly ignored. Even Peratt quit on it. Literally no serious scientist takes it seriously. It is deceased. Gone to meet its maker. Traipsing round the back of beyond, looking for plasma woo in rock art. Really dumb idea.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
It has never been vetted, only "falsified" by morons such as yourself.


He didn't want it seen! Why do you think he published the crap in IEEE?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
Electrical and magnetic, the only two dominate force's
Whereas gravity at its best is only exerting 1x10-15 Newton's on every electron and proton - this is the force exerted in the suns solar core by gravity where it has already condensed the hydrogen nuclei - Where as this collapsing cloud is no where near the density of the sun, as this is still a tenuous cloud of dust, the gravitational force is so small on each electron and proton, that it is close to zero it is practically zero, which leaves the only two remaining forces, electrical and magnetic as the only two dominate force's.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Electrical and magnetic, the only two dominate force's
Whereas gravity at its best is only exerting 1x10-15 Newton's on every electron and proton - this is the force exerted in the suns solar core by gravity where it has already condensed the hydrogen nuclei - Where as this collapsing cloud is no where near the density of the sun, as this is still a tenuous cloud of dust, the gravitational force is so small on each electron and proton, that it is close to zero it is practically zero, which leaves the only two remaining forces, electrical and magnetic as the only two dominate force's.


Sorry? Where has this been written up? By somebody that undestands science? Are you telling us that the Sun doesn't exist? Take a hint, Granny - stop commenting on sh!t that you have no grasp of.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
@CD85:
Magnetic fields fall off at 1/r^3.
Gravity falls off at 1/r^2.
You and your YouTube videos make the following goofy roundabout circle-jerk explanations:
Ions flowing in plasma is a current. Current creates electric field. electric field has associated magnetic field. EM field causes plasma to flow, creating a current. etc. etc. etc.
and you see nothing wrong with that?


Why would he? It is the Truth, as taught to the cultists of the High Priest Wal the W****r!
IIRC, and can't be arsed looking it up; magnetic field created by the Sun, via currents (yikes!)
due to alpha-omega dynamo. Plasma beta much higher than magnetic field strength. Plasma dominates. Field frozen-in, to all intents and purposes. Time varying magnetic field produces electric field perpendicular to magnetic field.
There is the solar wind. Net neutral. As observed. As is bleedin' logical.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Electrical versus gravitational forces in the tenuous cloud
To give an idea of the tenuous forces on the proton that exist in the tenuous clouds of dust, a proton resting on the table has a force exerted on it by gravity at 10m/s* of 1.67x10-26N.
Two protons floating in the tenuous cloud 1m apart exert a force on each other of 1.9x10-64N.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Electrical versus gravitational forces in the tenuous cloud
To give an idea of the tenuous forces on the proton that exist in the tenuous clouds of dust, a proton resting on the table has a force exerted on it by gravity at 10m/s* of 1.67x10-26N.
Two protons floating in the tenuous cloud 1m apart exert a force on each other of 1.9x10-64N.


Dafuq are you on about? And what is surrounding the protons, numpty? And what is surrounding what is surrounding the protons? Mate, just give up, yes? This stuff is basic, but is waaaaay beyond you. Yes?
What makes you want to comment on stuff that you obviously don't understand, and have never studied? Bizarre.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
Magnetic fields fall off at 1/r^3.
Gravity falls off at 1/r^2.

It's not as simple as that, the maths derivation of the Birkeland current reveals the following results;

"This solution reveals the primary effect of the force-free parameter, α, as being a scale factor of radial distance. We show that: 1) both the axial and azimuthal magnetic and current density components cyclically reverse their directions with radial distance from the central axis of the current; 2) the magnetic field extends farther from the central axis within a force-free field than it would if produced by a current in a long straight conductor. The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r. These results are shown to be consistent with laboratory and astronomical observations."

As stated, EM fields are by far the longest and strongest force laws.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
^^^^What Birkeland currents? Where are they in synchrotron in the CMB measurements? How are they shifting a star, an electron, an ion and a neutral, all in the same direction at the same velocity? Total woo.
And where is that text from?
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Jones says: "What has that got to do with anything?" .. in response to plasma is as electrically conductive as metal.

Spoken like a true blue Mechanical Astrophysicist!!!
(it makes 99% of everything theoretically electric, you dope)
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The Evolution of JDs Crankiness is an acquired taste like a fine wine

Dafuq are you on about? And what is surrounding the protons, numpty? And what is surrounding what is surrounding the protons? Mate, just give up, yes? This stuff is basic, but is waaaaay beyond you. Yes?
What makes you want to comment on stuff that you obviously don't understand, and have never studied? Bizarre -

Classic JD at his crankiest though he's working on it as this is cranky work in progress, JD is like a fine wine where he is an aquired taste, bitter sweet to palette where you need the vivid vocabulary of JD to describe describe its aroma's!
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
What Birkeland currents? Where are they in synchrotron in the CMB measurements?

If jonesdumb's argument was valid the Birkeland currents entering the Earth's poles should also be visible in those surveys. We certainly know they are there, but they don't show up in the data until we fly right through them. Just another example of jonesdumb thinking he has a clue but doesn't even grasp the basics.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
What Birkeland currents? Where are they in synchrotron in the CMB measurements?

If jonesdumb's argument was valid the Birkeland currents entering the Earth's poles should also be visible in those surveys. We certainly know they are there, but they don't show up in the data until we fly right through them. Just another example of jonesdumb thinking he has a clue but doesn't even grasp the basics.


Nope, thicko. The f***ing satellites that did the measurements were well outside the Earth's atmosphere, you idiot! Jesus, how thick can one be? Or did this stuff pass you by? Loon! Lol.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Jones says: "What has that got to do with anything?" .. in response to plasma is as electrically conductive as metal.

Spoken like a true blue Mechanical Astrophysicist!!!
(it makes 99% of everything theoretically electric, you dope)


Hey, thicko! What is your point, you loon? Have you got one? Anything I can read in the scientific literature? No? In which case, STFU, yes? There's a good chap, because science really isn't your thing, is it? Say 'no', after me...........
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
What Birkeland currents? Where are they in synchrotron in the CMB measurements?

If jonesdumb's argument was valid the Birkeland currents entering the Earth's poles should also be visible in those surveys. We certainly know they are there, but they don't show up in the data until we fly right through them. Just another example of jonesdumb thinking he has a clue but doesn't even grasp the basics.


Lol. That is just so pathetically funny! Seriously! How sad! What a wazzock. Science not really your thing, is it cantthink? Not good on orbital parameters, no? Where the aurorae happen? Nope. Bit thick in that regard, aren't we dear?
Keep digging, you cretin. It is fun to watch, you clueless clown.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
What Birkeland currents? Where are they in synchrotron in the CMB measurements?

If jonesdumb's argument was valid the Birkeland currents entering the Earth's poles should also be visible in those surveys. We certainly know they are there, but they don't show up in the data until we fly right through them. Just another example of jonesdumb thinking he has a clue but doesn't even grasp the basics.


Here's a question, thicko; where is the f****ng L2 point? Is it in Luxembourg? Or is it 1.5m km away? Take your time, dear. Lol.
Jeez these EU dicks get tiresome after a while. Combined IQ of a brain damaged trilobite. If one wants to be nasty to brain damaged trilobites, and I personally have nothing against them. EUists, on the other hand.............
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Every time an EU-Type enthusiast shows a post with actual proofs in the prescribed manner Jones suffers a recurrent rectocranial inversion and breaks down in rant by posing strawmen or quibbling over nomenclature and eventually swearing at people. It has become boringly regular, as more and more articles and papers show the more electrodynamic side of the Universe and fewer and fewer papers showing any sign of dark matter. All of Jones hopes and big money bets were on Dark Matter and the plain simplicity of electromagnetism and electrodynamics throws him into fits of keyboard rage, which thankfully he keeps to Twitter length, most of the time. Sounds like another raging lamebrain in the news these days, although that one is orange. You can google Lagrange points yourself, I knew what they were in the 60's, thanks.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
Every time an EU-Type enthusiast shows a post with actual proofs in the prescribed manner Jones suffers a recurrent rectocranial inversion and breaks down in rant by posing strawmen or quibbling over nomenclature and eventually swearing at people. It has become boringly regular, as more and more articles and papers show the more electrodynamic side of the Universe and fewer and fewer papers showing any sign of dark matter. All of Jones hopes and big money bets were on Dark Matter and the plain simplicity of electromagnetism and electrodynamics throws him into fits of keyboard rage, which thankfully he keeps to Twitter length, most of the time. Sounds like another raging lamebrain in the news these days, although that one is orange. You can google Lagrange points yourself, I knew what they were in the 60's, thanks.


Huh? What are you talking about, you dick? I was talking to the idiot cantthink. Do you not see the problem with what the tosser posted?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2018
I'm beginning to think that there is a maximum IQ level for people wanting to be EUists. I reckon the idiot Thornhill sets it just below his own level. Somewhere around 50-60. Yes? Can't be much higher. Lol.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2018
The f***ing satellites that did the measurements were well outside the Earth's atmosphere

Why can't we see them from the surface of Earth? They should be bleeding obvious?
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2018
With your greater emphasis on four-letter epithets and personal attacks, jd, I think that your 50-60 IQ estimate is a matter of projectionism instead.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2018
According to Big Bang hypotheses, the 'original' state of universal energy/mass was in 'extremely hot plasma' form. Only later did (the hypothesized expansion/inflation) cause 'cooling' to allow matter to form and start the 'gravitation' effect which added that gravitational factor to the original universal plasma dynamics. Hence the dynamics/phenomena has involved 'hybrid forces/factors' for the spatio-temporal evolutionary trajectory of variously scaled local/long-distance phenomena/features since gravitation arose as a dynamical driver *in addition to* the original plasma dynamics. And at all scales, the CHAOS THEORY principles apply to the 'patterns' of interactions/aggregations/dissolutions/recycling etc of the
'structures/masses/energies' of whatever forms they take over the universal spatio-temporal extent. In short, its hybrid and complex interplay of forces/factors involving reinforcing/destructive feedback-loops smetimes dominated by plasma/gravity 'in turns'. :)
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Plasma is as electrically CONDUCTIVE as a metal.

Yo dumbazz, it makes everything theoretically ELECTRIC.

You and the astrophysics community are truly ignoramuses.

My point is; you are a stupid genius Jonesy.

Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Only 1% ionization of a plasma is required for it to be as CONDUCTIVE AS METAL.
One f**king percent.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
P.S. The gas is not a plasma if it's not at least 1% ionized, i.e. all plasma is electrically conductive.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2018
Observing Dunger Kruger in action
Steelwolf> Every time an EU-Type enthusiast shows a post with actual proofs in the prescribed manner Jones suffers a recurrent rectocranial inversion and breaks down in rant by posing strawmen or quibbling over nomenclature and eventually swearing at people. It has become boringly regular, as more and more articles and papers show the more electrodynamic side of the Universe and fewer and fewer papers showing any sign of dark matter. All of Jones hopes were on Dark Matter and the plain simplicity of electromagnetism and electrodynamics throws him into fits of keyboard rage, You can google Lagrange points yourself, I knew what they were in the 60's, thanks.

JD, as a sufferer of Dunger Kruger, is prey to his cranky expletive ramblings – his expletive ramblings will have to be counted to assess the degree of his Dunger Kruger syndrome!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Plasma is as electrically CONDUCTIVE as a metal.

Yo dumbazz, it makes everything theoretically ELECTRIC.

You and the astrophysics community are truly ignoramuses.

My point is; you are a stupid genius Jonesy.



And my point is that you are clueless. You have no theory, no mechanism and no evidence. Correct? If you think otherwise, point us to this in the scientific literature. Can't, can you?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Jones says: "What has that got to do with anything?" .. in response to plasma is as electrically conductive as metal.

Spoken like a true blue Mechanical Astrophysicist!!!
(it makes 99% of everything theoretically electric, you dope)


And you still refuse to answer. What is your point? What is this pseudoscience that you believe in? Where is it written up? I'd like to read it, because you seem incapable of communicating precisely what it is you want to say. You sound like a typical EU wooist; 'everything's electric! There's lots of plasma!' Yippee. So tell us what you think it is doing, FFS, and write it up.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2018
The f***ing satellites that did the measurements were well outside the Earth's atmosphere

Why can't we see them from the surface of Earth? They should be bleeding obvious?


Read Peratt's paper, loony tunes. He tells you where these currents will be detectable, and predicts that they should be seen in the CMB measurements. They weren't. Why do you think he is no longer bothered with this nonsense? And that nobody else has ever bothered with it? It was junk then, it is still junk now.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
I will repeat the question jonesdumb;
Why can't we see them from the surface of Earth? They should be bleeding obvious?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
It's a simple question jonesdumb;
Why can't we see the Earth's Birkeland currents from the surface of Earth?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2018
It's a simple question jonesdumb;
Why can't we see the Earth's Birkeland currents from the surface of Earth?


Hey, woo boy, it was Peratt that suggested his non-existent currents would be visible. Go ask him. Why do you think he has dumped this nonsense?

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe
Peratt, A. L
http://adsabs.har...44...89P
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Jackass, I am asking you a simple question. Stop changing the subject. Why can't we see Earth's Birkeland currents from the surface of the Earth.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Jackass, I am asking you a simple question. Stop changing the subject. Why can't we see Earth's Birkeland currents from the surface of the Earth.


I have no idea. Not something I'm particularly interested in. Are they relativistic? Go ask Peratt, or pose your question on a physics forum. We all know that won't happen, eh?

And this Peratt paper is more specific than the one I linked earlier:

Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents
Peter, W;& Peratt, A. L.
http://plasmauniv...ratt.pdf

He said it would be there. It wasn't. He dropped the model. Happens all the time. No more model, and still no evidence.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
"You have no theory, no mechanism and no evidence"

You dope, 99% of the universe is electrically CONDUCTIVE!
How can you ignore a conductive gas that envelops the entire universe?
The next step is to create a freaking theory using that conductivity, which astronomers ignore.

You are truly a Mechanical Astronomer.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
I'll repeat Jonesy, How can you ignore an electrically CONDUCTIVE material that envelops the entire universe?

It really is like astronomers haven't had EE 101.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
"You have no theory, no mechanism and no evidence"

You dope, 99% of the universe is electrically CONDUCTIVE!
How can you ignore a conductive gas that envelops the entire universe?
The next step is to create a freaking theory using that conductivity, which astronomers ignore.

You are truly a Mechanical Astronomer.


Listen, woo boy,; you are repeating stuff that has been known for bloody decades. I keep asking you - so what? What is your hypothesis? How can scientists be accused of ignoring something that doesn't exist? WHERE IS THIS HYPOTHESIS?
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
Known for decades, ugh...

Huge conductive swaths, thousands of lights years wide, everywhere.

Hypothesis? It's common sense based on the NATURE OF A CONDUCTOR a 5th grader can figure out.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
It's like it's political... like AGW. They still have to worship gravity, when clearly there's major E&M going on.

https://phys.org/...uds.html
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Known for decades, ugh...

Huge conductive swaths, thousands of lights years wide, everywhere.

Hypothesis? It's common sense based on the NATURE OF A CONDUCTOR a 5th grader can figure out.


So spell it out. Where is it written? Who wrote it? What are the mechanisms? What is the evidence? What are its predictions? How does it differ from mainstream science? If you can't tell us that, then you have nothing, do you?
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: It's an oversight by good scientists and bad managers for a century. How can the universe not be electric when 99% of it is buzzing with free charge?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: It's an oversight by good scientists and bad managers for a century. How can the universe not be electric when 99% of it is buzzing with free charge?


So, you have nothing, other than the usual EUist nonsense about 'the universe is electric'? Brilliant. Thanks for that. Highly illuminating. You might want to write it down somewhere, so all these hopeless scientists can see it and say, 'Oh, yeah! Why didn't we think of that!'
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
The universe is an electrical conductor, not an electrical insulator. That is truly an amazing fact.

This is not EU, this is simple common sense.

Start with the evidence, the universe is 99% free charge. Astronomers ignore this simple basic starting point.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
The universe is an electrical conductor, not an electrical insulator. That is truly an amazing fact.

This is not EU, this is simple common sense.

Start with the evidence, the universe is 99% free charge. Astronomers ignore this simple basic starting point.


No, they don't ignore it! Stop talking crap. The whole of MHD is based on conductivity. It has been around for bloody decades. Your problem is that you have no idea about the relevant science, as is obvious from your posts. You want to accuse scientists of ignoring things upon which the very models they use are based! You don't know enough to criticise. Which is why you post on here, instead of writing up whatever it is that you believe. Whatever the hell that is!
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
You dope, they ignore Alven and his work to this day. You clowns think you are only ones smart enough to understand simple astronomy principles. I could run circles around you in development. You fool Jones.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
You dope, they ignore Alven and his work to this day. You clowns think you are only ones smart enough to understand simple astronomy principles. I could run circles around you in development. You fool Jones.


You don't know crap about the subject, you poser. Alfven came up with MHD, you frigging clown! Jesus, talk about thick! You are clueless. Give it a rest.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
You clowns think you are only ones smart enough to understand simple astronomy principles.


Well, you sure as hell aren't, as proven.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
Alfven is ignored you f**king liar!
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
It's sooooo simple, 99% of the universe is electrically conductive. You are idiots to not comprehend that this means the universe HAS TO BE ELECTRIC.

You don't think Jones, I've done deep analytical problem solving daily for over 30 years.
You have a lame brain Jones, no exercise.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
It's sooooo simple, 99% of the universe is electrically conductive.


Yes, we know. It is the basis of all plasma astrophysics. Please tell us something we don't know. Why do you keep repeating this? Are you stupid?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Alfven is ignored you f**king liar!


No, he isn't dipsh1t. You are bloody clueless, and have quite obviously not got a clue about the subject. Have you? Please tell us what we are ignoring, you ignorant poser.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
"99% of the universe is electrically conductive"

This is the very fundamental fact that is ignored, and is critical in the mindset determining WTF is going on. And very very few people know this.

E&M (electrical & magnetic, chaos) creates a huge amount of fusion reacting stars, I'm not saying stars are powered by the galaxy, but E&M definitely plays a role in creating them (read this article)..
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
"It seems that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of theoretical astrophysicists who have gotten their education from the listed textbooks." -- H. Alfven

"The multibillion dollar space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and, of course, modern plasma physics." -- H. Alfven

Nothing's changed since he said these quotes Jones, you dumbf***.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018


Nothing's changed since he said these quotes Jones, you dumbf***.


Yes, it has. Which just goes to show that you don't even follow the subject, let alone understand it. Far more is known now about astrophysical plasmas than Alfven could ever have dreamed of. Missions that he could have barely envisioned have taught us more than he ever knew, back in the day.
You are just another EUist who deifies the ancient texts of Alfven, without even understanding them, or modern astrophysics. You just keep spewing the same irrelevant dogma, and have no science nor evidence to back up whatever nebulous claims you are making. Whatever they may be.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: "Far more is known now about astrophysical plasmas than Alfven could ever have dreamed of. Missions that he could have barely envisioned have taught us more than he ever knew"

LOL, oh BS!!! Name one! name something for christ's sake.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
"Plasma is REALLY conductive" -- Jones at phys.org , this is what they've learned.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
10,000 umhos/cm? 200,000 umhos/cm? 10 Meg umhos/cm? How conductive is a sheet of space plasma exactly Jonsey?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: "Far more is known now about astrophysical plasmas than Alfven could ever have dreamed of. Missions that he could have barely envisioned have taught us more than he ever knew"

LOL, oh BS!!! Name one! name something for christ's sake.


He railed against reconnection. After his death, magnetic reconnection was demonstrated numerous times in the lab. It has since been seen numerous times in-situ. In this particular case, Alfven was wrong, has been shown to be so, and I'm sure that is what he would expect. He would not expect us to carry on following his beliefs when they have been shown to be wrong.
Ditto, he started to get cold feet about the applicability of MHD. It has since been shown to hold in far more circumstances than he envisaged.
He theorised a little on plasma processes at comets. We have since visited numerous comets, and have fantastic data from them.
This is just a little of the stuff that I'm sure he would have loved to have lived to see.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
"Plasma is REALLY conductive" -- Jones at phys.org , this is what they've learned.


I explained to you, you dickhead, that this has been known for bloody decades. It is the basis of MHD, you burke. Go find out when that was first proposed. Idiot.
Why do you think you are posting crap on here, and not confronting scientists in the scientific literature, or even on physics forums? Because you are stupid, and have no grasp of the subject, nor its history. In short, you are a blowhard. Another victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Prove me wrong. Go spout your puerile crap here:

http://www.intern...ndex.php

Not got the cojones to front up to actual scientists, have you? Like I said, just another blowhard.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2018
Hey man, I'm looking at the very first thing, which is always ignored, and very few people know about. I hate to say it again,ugh... but...

The universe is electrically conductive, and I know you have to sadly agree Jones.
But you say so what!??! So that means huge electric circuits with charge traveling around thousands of light years everywhere. That's HUGE, and incredible, but very credible.

Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Jones says: "I explained to you, you dickhead, that this has been known for bloody decades. It is the basis of MHD, you burke. Go find out when that was first proposed. Idiot."

lol, you are an unaccomplished buffoon Jones, you really are. Why you are always on here with nothing real to do day in day out. Dumbazz loser Jones. Now we know.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
The universe is electrically conductive, and I know you have to sadly agree Jones.


Jesus, what an idiot. As I keep telling you, you thick sod, of course plasma is electrically conducting! This has been known for bloody decades, you pillock. It is at the core of plasma physics/ astrophysics. If you have only just discover that plasmas are electrically conduting, then well done. Everybody else knew this already. Why you feel the need to keep repeating it is beyond me. Mental illness is a possibility.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Jones says: "I explained to you, you dickhead, that this has been known for bloody decades. It is the basis of MHD, you burke. Go find out when that was first proposed. Idiot."

lol, you are an unaccomplished buffoon Jones, you really are. Why you are always on here with nothing real to do day in day out. Dumbazz loser Jones. Now we know.


Sorry? Care to show what was wrong in what I said? Idiot.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
I have no idea. Not something I'm particularly interested in. Are they relativistic?

Well, at least you admit to your willful ignorance. It has relevance to your claims about the non-detection of Peratt's radiation. I have already explained how Verschuur found the connection to local currents, the reason why they aren't visible is the local fog created by electric currents in space. It's has nothing to do with anything regarding the BB.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Decades of ignorant dopes, ignoring basic concepts. That's all you are saying Jones.
The dumbest geniuses in history.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
cant: Those currents would have magnetic fields right? can't they detect magnetic fields, or are birkeland current magnetic fields hidden somehow?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
It has relevance to your claims about the non-detection of Peratt's radiation.


No, it doesn't. As Peratt himself predicted, we should see the currents, and he never backed away from that claim, and dumped the model. It was rubbish anyway, which is why nobody takes it any more seriously than his plasma rock art woo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Decades of ignorant dopes, ignoring basic concepts. That's all you are saying Jones.
The dumbest geniuses in history.


Christ you're thick! How can you ignore conductivity in plasmas? It bloody well defines plasmas. If they weren't conductive, they'd be composed solely of neutrals. In which case it wouldn't be a plasma! Loon.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: that's it? So what does that mean then...goofy.

Huge electric circuits with charge traveling around thousands of light years everywhere.

You know that right? But it's all neutral, oh ok...lol
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
Huge electric circuits with charge traveling around thousands of light years everywhere.


Where are these huge electric circuits? What are the currents involved? What is their scale? Where are they seen?
Don't try to explain it, just link to the literature.
Old_C_Code
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2018
Jones: your only good answer is to say that most all plasma is bound up in stars (Sun 99%), not huge swaths of plasma.

But there is huge swaths as you look toward the center of the galaxy, in star making regions.

But way out here, 2/3rds of the way out, a galaxy powered Sun doesn't work, the current density is way too low locally.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2018
"Where are these huge electric circuits?"

It's a conductor, what do you think the free charge do? (then add a little voltage diff or E-field).
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2018
It's a conductor, what do you think the free charge do? (then add a little voltage diff).


Nope. I can't put it better than an actual plasma astrophysicist:

This leads immediately to the explanation of a rather confusing term in plasma physics, and that is quasi-neutrality. Overall, when a plasma is created, either in the lab or in space, from a neutral gas, there will be equal amounts of electron charge and ion charge and the total sum over the whole cloud will be zero. However, this does not mean that variations in the net charge in small regions of the cloud cannot occur. We have just seen that the influence of a small local disturbance of the charge neutrality gets screened off. This means that deviations of charge neutrality of the plasma can take place on length scales on the order of the DeBye length. So, the plasma is neutral on the whole, but in small portions there can be a net charge


jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2018
Link for the above quote:

https://forum.cos...=dummies

Link to who said it:

https://www.resea..._Volwerk
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2018
"...So, the plasma is neutral on the whole, but in small portions there can be a net charge"

So any voltage differential or E-field will make it not neutral, and create a current, excuse me, net charge, I see the word current is a curse word. DeBye length, impressive.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2018
But way out here, 2/3rds of the way out, a galaxy powered Sun doesn't work, the current density is way too low locally.


The current density is way too low everywhere. See above.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2018
DeBye length, impressive./


And long since known.

https://en.wikipe...e_length
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2018
DeBye length, impressive./


And long since known.

https://en.wikipe...e_length


jonesdumb doesn't understand that the v × B force from the Lorentz equation is independent of the Debye length and can induce an electric field in another region of plasma well beyond the Debye limit.

As such, his argument of using the Debye length as some kind of limiting factor is a meaningless moot point.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2018
DeBye length, impressive./


And long since known.

https://en.wikipe...e_length


jonesdumb doesn't understand that the v × B force from the Lorentz equation is independent of the Debye length and can induce an electric field in another region of plasma well beyond the Debye limit.

As such, his argument of using the Debye length as some kind of limiting factor is a meaningless moot point.


Nope. Go ask a plasma physicist. Whoopss, you haven't got any have you? Try a physics forum.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2018
Nice hand waved denial, but that is a fact jonesdumb. As a matter of fact, I certain you don't even understand what that means.
Aquilan
4 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Unable to produce any evidence for their nonsense. They plagiarize other peoples work. Mangle it to fit into their superstitions and pretend they actually accomplished anything.

If at all. Most times they just vomit some nonsense & post a or a few links, hoping no reader will follow the link(s)! Well, I DON'T! I just BLOCK the EU-diots! Life is too short to waste on ID10Ts!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Nice hand waved denial, but that is a fact jonesdumb. As a matter of fact, I certain you don't even understand what that means.


Really? So show us the currents produced, and how they pertain to astrophysical plasmas. Who is suggesting this, and where have they written it up, and what is the evidence?
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Really? So show us the currents produced, and how they pertain to astrophysical plasmas

The "flux ropes" (otherwise known as Birkeland currents) which connect the Sun and Earth. These 93 million mile long electric currents are but one example of currents that reach well beyond the Debye length.
https://science.n...oct_ftes
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Really? So show us the currents produced, and how they pertain to astrophysical plasmas

The "flux ropes" (otherwise known as Birkeland currents) which connect the Sun and Earth. These 93 million mile long electric currents are but one example of currents that reach well beyond the Debye length.
https://science.n...oct_ftes


Nope. Absolutely nothing to do with currents from the Sun, Birkeland or otherwise. I'm not aware of any scientist claiming otherwise.
You've got it arse about face. As usual.

Modeling a force-free flux transfer event probed by multiple Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) spacecraft
Zhang, H. et al.
https://agupubs.o...JA013451
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2018
Modeling a force-free flux transfer event probed by multiple Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) spacecraft
Zhang, H. et al.
https://agupubs.o...JA013451

LOL! Thanks for once again proving my point while exemplifying your own willful ignorance.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Modeling a force-free flux transfer event probed by multiple Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) spacecraft
Zhang, H. et al.
https://agupubs.o...JA013451

LOL! Thanks for once again proving my point while exemplifying your own willful ignorance.


So, you didn't understand the paper? Though it might be beyond you. Try reading it. Idiot.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
A flux transfer event (FTE) develops when a discrete bundle of newly reconnected magnetic flux is transported along the dayside magnetopause.


Pretty bloody obvious, I'd say.

Here's another:

Crater FTEs: Simulation results and THEMIS observations
Sibeck, D. G. et al.
https://agupubs.o...GL033568

Like I said, you've got it arse about face. Reconnection occurs first within the magnetosheath. This is nothing to do with currents in the solar wind, you numpty. Mind you, you could always email the authors. Eh?

gculpex
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2018
DeBye length, impressive./


And long since known.

https://en.wikipe...e_length


jonesdumb doesn't understand that the v × B force from the Lorentz equation is independent of the Debye length and can induce an electric field in another region of plasma well beyond the Debye limit.

As such, his argument of using the Debye length as some kind of limiting factor is a meaningless moot point.

@CD, Correct, he really needs to read his own stuff. '...although this is only valid when the mobility of ions is negligible compared to the process's timescale.' As mentioned in one of his links for plasma.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
@CD, Correct, he really needs to read his own stuff. '...although this is only valid when the mobility of ions is negligible compared to the process's timescale.' As mentioned in one of his links for plasma.


Really, Mr. Plasma Physicist? Tell you what, there is a Q & A section at Cosmoquest. I know with a fair degree of certainty that if you post your contention on there it will be seen by a plasma physicist. Ask him. Or not got the cojones?

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

Or would you prefer me to post the question, and link back to it here?

cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
I understood it just fine, clearly you did not. The scope of the paper in no way attempts to suggest where the flux tubes originated. It does clearly point out electric currents well beyond the 10m Debye length of the solar wind however. But thats what happens when a high school educated anthropologist tried to understand plasma physics.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Tell you what, there is a Q & A section at Cosmoquest.

LOL, science by Cosmoquest... jonesdumb continuously demands "where is it in the scientific literature?", then does his "science" by forum commentary. Laughable moron!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
I understood it just fine, clearly you did not. The scope of the paper in no way attempts to suggest where the flux tubes originated. It does clearly point out electric currents well beyond the 10m Debye length of the solar wind however. But thats what happens when a high school educated anthropologist tried to understand plasma physics.


Nope, you obviously didn't understand it loony tunes. The flux magnetic flux ropes are formed reconnection. And this is why nobody in EU is a plasma physicist. None of them can even understand a couple of pretty straightforward papers. Want me to email those authors, and post any reply I may get here?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Tell you what, there is a Q & A section at Cosmoquest.

LOL, science by Cosmoquest... jonesdumb continuously demands "where is it in the scientific literature?", then does his "science" by forum commentary. Laughable moron!


And, thick arse, I said the question would be answered by a plasma physicist. Understand? Or are you too scared to confront actual scientists who understand the subject in which you feign knowledge? Yes, would be the answer to that. Correct?
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
The flux magnetic flux ropes are formed reconnection

First of all, do you Engrish much, because that string of words is meaningless. Regardless, several other papers describe how those "flux ropes" (aka, Birkeland currents) reach all the way back to the Sun.
Want me to email those authors, and post any reply I may get here?

I can almost guarantee if you post something like that it will be a complete fabrication.

And you rely on people at Cosmoquest who only claim to be plasma physicists, but are only plasma ignoramuses. Why don't you try explaining it yourself, you're so sure it's not correct but can't explain why.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
I can almost guarantee if you post something like that it will be a complete fabrication.


Chicken! So why don't you email them, lame brain? I'll happily take a screenshot of any email reply I get, and upload it to a file host. You just haven't got the cojones to put your idiotic beliefs to actual scientists, because you know you'll get a severe arse kicking. Correct, yellow boy?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Why don't you try explaining it yourself, you're so sure it's not correct but can't explain why.


Because, just like you, I am not a plasma physicist. I am sure there are plenty out there who can explain your dumb misconceptions far better than I can, which is why I suggested Cosmoquest. Hell, post the question and I'll even pm him on ISF to make him aware of it.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
You can't tell anyone in your own words why it's wrong, but you are so sure it is wrong. Then your response is to just go ask a plasma ignoramus. Why don't you get a clue so you can at grasp which you are claiming is impossible. Moron!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Because, just like you, I am not a plasma physicist.

Ok, then STFU until you get yourself a clue.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Because, just like you, I am not a plasma physicist.

Ok, then STFU until you get yourself a clue.


I've got more of a clue than you woo boy, otherwise you'd be quite happy to back your claims up. However, you are too chicken, eh?
You are a scientifically illiterate poser and blowhard, who belongs to a totally irrelevant neo-Velikovskian cult, who bang on about plasma this, plasma that, yet don't have anyone within the cult who is qualified in that area.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Because, just like you, I am not a plasma physicist.

Ok, then STFU until you get yourself a clue.


And the same applies to you, given that you are not even close to being a plasma physicist, yet insist on using your feigned knowledge of the subject to slate real plasma physicists, but lack the balls to confront them. Coward.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
They can visit this public forum as well, they too are cowards and plasma ignoramuses to boot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
They can visit this public forum as well, they too are cowards and plasma ignoramuses to boot.


See, there you go again, you cowardly prick. You are bloody clueless about plasma physics, yet seem to think you are a world expert who knows more than all the plasma physicists on the planet. What a fraud. Grow a pair. Why would actual scientists bother with the cranks on here? If you are too scared to go to a physics forum, then that tells us everything we need to know. Coward.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Well, I know electrochemistry can occur in a plasma, unlike yourself. What did you say? Where is the electrolyte? In a sea of free ions/electrons, your response was;
"Where's the electrolyte?"
What a moron!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
Well, I know electrochemistry can occur in a plasma, unlike yourself. What did you say? Where is the electrolyte? In a sea of free ions/electrons, your response was;
"Where's the electrolyte?"
What a moron!


You forgot to mention, you loon, that the 'electrochemistry' you were invoking was to explain H2O at comets. Which is an impossible mechanism, isn't it? Idiot.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
So you're claiming electrochemistry is an impossible mechanism in a plasma? LOL!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2018
So you're claiming electrochemistry is an impossible mechanism in a plasma? LOL!


Sorry? Are you claiming this 'electrochemistry' is creating water at comets? Lol.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Yep, molecular oxygen (O2) meet solar wind hydrogen (H). Put them together and what do ya get? Sometimes water, sometimes OH, and even H2O2 among others.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
Yep, molecular oxygen (O2) meet solar wind hydrogen (H). Put them together and what do ya get? Sometimes water, sometimes OH, and even H2O2 among others.


Lol.
1) Nowhere near enough.
2) SW is moving far too quickly to combine with anything.
3) The D/H ratio of the water is not close to being solar.
4) The SW is getting nowhere near the comet when it is at its most active.

Apart from that.....................it was just a dumb idea dreamed up by an idiot. i.e. Thornhill.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
1) No, there is plenty
2) It already been explained to you how the interaction region slows the SW
3) D/H ratio alter by the electrochemical processes
4) Already linked a paper (in this thread) which shows the SW ions are reaching the surface even during closest approach.

All your hand wavy denials are futile given in situ observations. Your crank dirty snowball nonsense has been debunked jonesdumb.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
1) No, there is plenty
2) It already been explained to you how the interaction region slows the SW
3) D/H ratio alter by the electrochemical processes
4) Already linked a paper (in this thread) which shows the SW ions are reaching the surface even during closest approach.


1) No, there isn't. Show us the maths.
2) No, it doesn't, to any significant degree. I'll find the link, if you don't believe me.
3) Lol. What 'electrochemical' processes. Evidence?
4) Not to my knowledge. Please link this paper again.

The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations
Behar, E. et al.
https://academic..../4036875

Your crank dirty snowball nonsense has been debunked jonesdumb.


Really? Where did this happen? Idiot. I think you'll find it is your mythology based crap that has been left with zero evidence to support it. Not that it has ever been written up. 'Tis the brainchild of total nutjobs.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
1) x+y=z....
2) As usual you don't know the first thing about plasmas
3) They are electrochemical processes, not 'electrochemical'.
4) Not to your willful ignorance you meant...
Really? Where did this happen?

Way back in 1986 after the first comet flyby, when it was clearly shown it weren't a dirty snowball.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
1) x+y=z....
2) As usual you don't know the first thing about plasmas
3) They are electrochemical processes, not 'electrochemical'.
4) Not to your willful ignorance you meant...
Really? Where did this happen?

Way back in 1986 after the first comet flyby, when it was clearly shown it weren't a dirty snowball.


So, a complete non-answer. What a surprise! So you are still in an evidence-free zone, correct? And 'dirty snowball' was a phrase picked up on by the media after Whipple's paper back in the 40's. No scientist believes it it is lump of snow with a bit of dust on it! Only idiots like you think that they still do.
It is ice and dust. As proven. No electric woo. As proven. No rock. As proven. Etc, etc.

Now, want to actually do that maths, and then present the evidence for this idiocy? I'll do the maths if it is beyond you. As for the evidence, you'll have to make it up. As usual.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
2) As usual you don't know the first thing about plasmas


Far more than you do, woo boy. Want me to find the paper that measures the solar wind speed around the comet, before it disappears? Say the word, and I'll have a search.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
No scientist believes it it is lump of snow with a bit of dust on it! Only idiots like you think that they still do.

http://www.lunart...ball.jpg
LOL!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Want me to find the paper that measures the solar wind speed around the comet, before it disappears?

Another papaer by plasma ignoramuses no less, why bother. It's just pseudoscientific claptrap anyhoo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
No scientist believes it it is lump of snow with a bit of dust on it! Only idiots like you think that they still do.

http://www.lunart...ball.jpg
LOL!


Lol, what a halfwit! Ancient picture = 0. Fool.

Another papaer by plasma ignoramuses no less, why bother. It's just pseudoscientific claptrap anyhoo.


What a w*nker! Anything that disagrees with your scientifically idiotic belief system, based on actual measurement and observation, only exists because the whole of the scientific establishment are ignoramuses! Consider this, woo boy; you know f all about science. Neither do Thornill and Talbott. Ever considered that you are the ignoramuses?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
And I'm still waiting to see this paper;

4) Already linked a paper (in this thread) which shows the SW ions are reaching the surface even during closest approach.


cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Ancient picture = 0

It equals the basis for your nonsense, since falsified only to be kept alive by ad hoc adjustments to agree with direct observations. It seems only plasma ignoramuses and AGWites are allowed to do "science" this way.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Ancient picture = 0

It equals the basis for your nonsense, since falsified only to be kept alive by ad hoc adjustments to agree with direct observations. It seems only plasma ignoramuses and AGWites are allowed to do "science" this way.


What observations? Like I said, nobody has believed what is being shown there for decades. The observations show that a comet is composed of dust and ice. No rock, no electric woo. So, what has been falsified? The stupid electric comet nonsense. Yes? Unless you have some evidence, of course. Must be near on a thousand papers on the Rosetta mission, and a shed load from other missions. Take your time.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
.....since falsified only to be kept alive by ad hoc adjustments to agree with direct observations.


Really? Do please tell us of these direct observations. You mean the solid ice ejected by the impact at Tempel 1? All the pretty ice floating around Hartley 2?
https://science.n...nowstorm

The total non-detection of rock? Or any electric woo on the surface? The measured density of comets? The various gases around comets? Etc, etc, etc. If these nasty scientists wanted to keep alive an idea of gleaming white snowballs, why did they release the Halley pictures?
Sorry, you are just talking crap, as usual.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
Do please tell us of these direct observations.

Show us a comet that looks like this;
http://www.lunart...ball.jpg
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
You mean the solid ice ejected by the impact at Tempel 1?

At quantities far below predicted, fail!
All the pretty ice floating around Hartley 2?

You mean dust.
The total non-detection of rock? Or any electric woo on the surface? The measured density of comets?

Interpretations based on lack of knowledge by plasma ignoramuses, not facts.
If these nasty scientists wanted to keep alive an idea of gleaming white snowballs, why did they release the Halley pictures?

They had to, public funding required it.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2018
At quantities far below predicted, fail!


No predictions were made about the amount of ice that would be ejected. It was ice, thousands of tonnes of it, which kills your electric comet woo stone dead.

You mean dust.


No, moron, I mean ice. Spectroscopically identified as such. Idiot.

Interpretations based on lack of knowledge by plasma ignoramuses, not facts.


Nope, real observation and measurement based on actual science. As opposed to mythology, by a bunch of uneducated loons, none of whom understand plasma physics, nor any other science.

They had to, public funding required it.


Lol. What a tosser.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
Do please tell us of these direct observations.

Show us a comet that looks like this;
http://www.lunart...ball.jpg


And we've know for a long time that comets don't look like that, idiot. So, your point is? Shouldn't you be looking through the data to find your impossible EDM? Your non-existent rock? Etc. Plenty of it out there from numerous missions. All publicly available. Get to it.
Steelwolf
not rated yet Sep 21, 2018
The funny thing jd, is that good ol water happens to freeze and form tiny crystals in space, and they are self-ionic crystals at that, and they Are considered 'dust due to their micron size. Heck, they are even considered 'metals' since they have Oxygen to them and a slight negative charge.

Water is not going to be a liquid out there jd, it is going to go from solid phase to gas phase and rapidly to separated plasma phase by UV or X-ray radiations. This is known fact, and that particles released at different speeds, such as ions and electrons, form different zones, usually one around the other, as far as the flow goes. Articles show that magnetic fields are impacted by plasma structures only to hand of that energy MUCH farther downline than had been previously believed possible, and they are investigating even larger, longer and bigger Currents and their associated magnetic fields. Most comets are showing black, non ice surfaces, known now to be deeply packed and charged.

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.