LOFAR radio telescope reveals secrets of solar storms

solar storms
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An international team of scientists led by a researcher from Trinity College Dublin and University of Helsinki announced a major discovery on the very nature of solar storms in the journal Nature Astronomy.

The team showed that solar storms can accelerate particles simultaneously in several locations by combining data from the Low Frequency Array, LOFAR, with images from NASA, NOAA and ESA spacecraft.

The sun is the closest star to Earth, and like many stars, it is far from quiet. Sunspots many times the size of Earth can appear on its surface and store enormous reservoirs of energy. And it is within these regions that huge explosions called solar storms occur. Solar storms are spectacular eruptions of billions of tonnes of hot gas traveling at millions of kilometres an hour. The Nature Astronomy paper reports on a particularly large solar storm that occured on September 10, 2017, soon after the LOFAR station in Ireland came online.

How to predict space weather

"Our results are very exciting, as they give us an amazingly detailed insight into how solar storms propagate away from the sun and where they accelerate fast particles with speeds close to the speed of light," says Dr. Diana Morosan, the lead author on the publication, and affiliated with Trinity College Dublin and the University of Helsinki.

These results may in the future help researchers to produce more accurate forecasts of solar radio bursts and determine how solar storms impact the Earth—they can produce beautiful displays of the aurora, but they can also cause problems with communication and navigation systems and power grids. Society is now even more dependent on technology, and solar storms have the potential to cause significant effects on their performance.

In 1859, the largest solar storm ever observed – the so-called Carrington Event – occurred. Within hours, it generated displays of aurora as far south as Italy and Cuba and caused interruptions in early telegraph systems in Europe and the U.S.

During a 2003 event, transformers in South Africa were damaged, and Swedish air traffic control systems were closed down in 2015 for more than an hour due to effects associated with a solar storm. More than 50 satellites reported problems. More recently, emergency response communications were interrupted during hurricane season in September 2017 in the Caribbean.

"We used data from the Low Frequency Array, LOFAR, together with images from NASA, NOAA and ESA spacecraft to show where accelerate fast particles," says Morosan.


Explore further

Radio observatory helps identify missing link between solar storms and radio bursts

More information: Diana E. Morosan et al. Multiple regions of shock-accelerated particles during a solar coronal mass ejection, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0689-z
Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Citation: LOFAR radio telescope reveals secrets of solar storms (2019, February 19) retrieved 19 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-lofar-radio-telescope-reveals-secrets.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
235 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 19, 2019
Perhaps this information will lend itself to the understanding of how the ionosphere collects plasma, and how this plasma 'wrap' affects the Earth.

Feb 19, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses reporting that double layers accelerate charged particles, where have we heard that before?

Feb 19, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses reporting that double layers accelerate charged particles, where have we heard that before?


Liar. No mention of DLs in the paper nor the article.

Feb 19, 2019
A shock is plasma ignoramus speak for double layer.

Feb 19, 2019
A shock is plasma ignoramus speak for double layer.


No it is not. Idiot.

Feb 19, 2019
A plasma DL is in fact what the plasma ignoramuses who use MHD call a shock. They are plasma ignoramuses and don't comprehend what is happening, but it is a DL.

Feb 19, 2019
A plasma DL is in fact what the plasma ignoramuses who use MHD call a shock. They are plasma ignoramuses and don't comprehend what is happening, but it is a DL.


No it is not. Stop talking shit. You don't know anything about plasma physics, and nor does anybody else in your cult.

Feb 19, 2019
cant & the other plasmaloons will be shitting thunderbolts when they discover that slicing a grape almost in half. Then heating it in a microwave oven can produce a plasma discharge.

A century of woomongering bombastic failures.
& it took Cambridge students to explain how the petty phenomena, actually works.

Feb 19, 2019
And here goes Jonesdumb using bad language in an argument he can not win.

Feb 20, 2019
@DN - Fuck the argument - it's science that wins hands down. Every time.

The EU pushes unworkable, untenable, baseless pseudoscience to its' dumbo adherents, who swallow the lot like mother's milk. Want some sugar with that?

Feb 20, 2019
@DN - Fuck the argument - it's science that wins hands down. Every time.

Science may win but jonesdave is making us, people who believe in science, look bad. Nothing justifies using bad language and calling names. If it's too hard to handle oneself in an argument, one should step away and calm down. What would it be like if big names like Einstein would just mock others and be angry to everybody opposing their ideas. Respect one another even if you don't agree

Feb 20, 2019
The article would be considerably better if it actually said where and how things are accelerated, which it does not.

Feb 20, 2019
And here goes Jonesdumb using bad language in an argument he can not win.


Have won. Read the paper.

Feb 20, 2019
Nothing justifies using bad language and calling names.


Trust me - when you've been dealing with these lying, scientifically illiterate idiots as long as some of us have, then that is all they deserve. People who call me dumb, and all scientists ignoramuses? You think it is possible to have the slightest respect for idiots like that? People who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn? You really think these cretins give a damn about science? They are anti-science trolls, with a dumb cult to promote. They can f*** right off as far as I'm concerned.

Feb 20, 2019
@Cortezz;

Here, how much respect do you think this tosser deserves?

https://web.archi...rse.html

That is the head honcho of the electric universe cult. A Velikovskian fruitloop. How much respect would you show him and his acolytes?

Feb 20, 2019
@cortezz
Science may win but jonesdave is making us, people who believe in science, look bad. Nothing justifies using bad language and calling names
Well, I'd agree with you, up to a point. But only up to a point.

I myself have in the past chided @jonesdave about his strong language, but I do understand where he is coming from and I unhesitatingly forgive him every one of his sweary words. @jones is a human being, just like you and me: he is also a bona fide scientist, unlike these EU loons, and the other scientific unwashed who post unsubstantiated rubbish here.

We all have our breaking point, and I know I myself - a trained scientist - have been driven past it myself here in this forum by idiots spreading unscientific gibberish, and have launched into vicious invective against those idiots. It's no more than they deserve.

So, let's cut @jd some slack: he's performing a great, occasionally thankless task in keeping the forces of unreason at bay, and he's OK in my book.

Feb 20, 2019
The article would be considerably better if it actually said where and how things are accelerated, which it does not.

The way "shocks" accelerate charged particles is via the electric fields which are created by the double layers associated with them.

Feb 20, 2019
The article would be considerably better if it actually said where and how things are accelerated, which it does not.

The way "shocks" accelerate charged particles is via the electric fields which are created by the double layers associated with them.


Wrong.

Feb 20, 2019
The way "shocks" accelerate charged particles is via the electric fields which are created by the double layers associated with them.
And how is that exactly? And where do these "electric fields" come from?

Feb 20, 2019
The way "shocks" accelerate charged particles is via the electric fields which are created by the double layers associated with them.
And how is that exactly? And where do these "electric fields" come from?


@DaSchneib,

Cantthink is making stuff up. The paper is paywalled, but isn't overly explicit in describing the mechanism, but references other papers that present two different mechanisms. Their observations favour one of these mechanisms, and are referenced as;

Quasi-periodic acceleration of electrons by a plasmoid-driven shock in the solar atmosphere
Carley, E. P. et al. (a co-author on the paper referenced in the article)
https://arxiv.org...0743.pdf

and;

Type II radio bursts: 2. Application of the new analytic formalism
Schmidt, J. M. & Cairns, I. H.
https://agupubs.o...JA017932

Notice the successful use of an MHD simulation as is now observed per the article above!

Feb 20, 2019
Plasmoids have electric fields, it is what accelerates charged particles within them. Lerner and other have already described this mechanism.

The second paper describes an electron foreshock set up in front of the ion dominated shock, IOW the are describing a separation of charges and a series of DL's. Once again, electric fields drive the acceleration.


Feb 20, 2019
BTW, if anyone can explain how electron beams are created without an electric field it would be swell for you to explain it.

Feb 20, 2019
IOW the are describing a separation of charges and a series of DL's.


No, they are not. Stop lying. You have zero understanding of what they are talking about. And Lerner has never published on CMEs to my knowledge. Not that anyone would take much notice if he did.

Feb 20, 2019
BTW, if anyone can explain how electron beams are created without an electric field it would be swell for you to explain it.


WTF are you talking about? Nobody is denying electric fields, you tosser. I am talking about you lying about DLs, idiot.

Feb 20, 2019
And Lerner has never published on CMEs to my knowledge.

Lerner has published on plasmoids, since that is what was claimed to cause the CME's then his findings are valid.

I am talking about you lying about DLs, idiot.

You linked to the paper in which they remarked on the electron foreshock, clearly it is you who is deficient on the understanding.

Feb 20, 2019
And Lerner has never published on CMEs to my knowledge.

Lerner has published on plasmoids, since that is what was claimed to cause the CME's then his findings are valid.

I am talking about you lying about DLs, idiot.

You linked to the paper in which they remarked on the electron foreshock, clearly it is you who is deficient on the understanding.


Lerner had a dumb idea that has sat mostly ignored for decades, trying to explain AGNs as plasmoids! Nobody took it seriously. And there are no references to DLs anywhere in the literature about this mechanism. Zilch. If you think there is, download all the refenced papers on the subject and do a word search. Zilch. Nowt. Nada. You made it up.

Feb 20, 2019
The following paper shows that there are differences between DL's and shocks, but they not dramatic and they do very much the same thing. They are boundary layers between two or more plasmas of varying characteristics.

https://agupubs.o...05p03307

Feb 20, 2019
The following paper shows that there are differences between DL's and shocks, but they not dramatic and they do very much the same thing. They are boundary layers between two or more plasmas of varying characteristics.

https://agupubs.o...05p03307


And none of the authors on this mechanism are invoking DLs. They would explicitly state it if so.


Feb 20, 2019
Here is a paper that discusses ambipolar diffusion as being observed in shocks;
https://academic....P/954883

And if you care to look at the wikistupidia page on DL's you will see ambipolar electric fields are considered DL's...
https://en.m.wiki...physics)

Once again, jonesdumb is deficient in knowledge.

Feb 20, 2019
Quasi-perpendicularity is an essential aspect of the shock drift acceleration (SDA) mechanism, a process believed to be responsible for particle acceleration in planetary magnetospheres and solar radio bursts. This mechanism involves an adiabatic reflection of particles from the shock, with the energy gain sourced in the V × B electric field, where V and B are the upstream flow speed and magnetic field, respectively. A single reflection from the shock has limited energy gain, however multiple reflections may produce relativistic energies, which is particularly important for low Mach number shocks such as that reported here (MA = 2.4−0.8).


Feb 20, 2019
Here is a paper that discusses ambipolar diffusion as being observed in shocks;
https://academic....P/954883

Once again, jonesdumb is deficient in knowledge.


Nope, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, due to having not a clue about plasma physics. Not a single mention in any of the papers. You are making shit up, as usual. Show me the mention of DLs in the papers. Liar.

Feb 20, 2019
So an ambipolar electric field is not a DL?

Feb 20, 2019
Here is a paper that discusses ambipolar diffusion as being observed in shocks;
https://academic....P/954883

Once again, jonesdumb is deficient in knowledge.


Bullshit. Ambipolar diffusion is not a DL, you cretin. Nor does the Wiki page say that, idiot.

Feb 20, 2019
In ***laser*** physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.


From the Wiki page, you ignorant twat.

Feb 20, 2019
Generally, double layer as used in pseudosciences as in comments (but obviously not the article) here is a pattern search mechanism:

"Unlike experiments in the laboratory, the concept of such double layers in the magnetosphere, and any role in creating the aurora, suffers from there so far being no identified steady source of energy. The electric potential characteristic of double layers might however indicate that, those observed in the auroral zone are a secondary product of precipitating electrons that have been energized in other ways, such as by electrostatic waves. Some scientists have suggested a role of double layers in solar flares.[55][56] Establishing such a role indirectly is even harder to verify than postulating double layers as accelerators of auroral electrons within the earth's magnetosphere. Serious questions have been raised on their role even there.[57]"

[ https://en.wikipe...physics) ]

TL;DR: No evidence.

Feb 20, 2019
Also note why plasma pseudoscientists have to claim their peculiar concept of "double layer", as opposed to ones observed, has to generate energy to be a perpetual motion machine: we see no steady energy source that would maintain them.

Feb 20, 2019
Also note why plasma pseudoscientists have to claim their peculiar concept of "double layer", as opposed to ones observed, has to generate energy to be a perpetual motion machine: we see no steady energy source that would maintain them.

Here's that "peculiar concept" of a "perpetual motion machine" being directly measured in near-Earth space;
https://www.ncbi....4476280/
I guess you are under the impression they turn the Sun off at night to turn off your "steady energy source".

Feb 20, 2019
In ***laser*** physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.


Some feel as if ***laser*** physics are relevant to the study of astrophysics. You know, because it's physics.
https://ima.org.u...physics/

Feb 20, 2019
Here are two of your favorite subjects in one, ***lasers***, and Z-pinches (or woo as you would call it).

https://journals....s.78.755

Feb 20, 2019
"Unlike experiments in the laboratory, the concept of such double layers in the magnetosphere, and any role in creating the aurora, suffers from there so far being no identified steady source of energy.

The Sun.
The electric potential characteristic of double layers might however indicate that, those observed in the auroral zone are a secondary product of precipitating electrons that have been energized in other ways, such as by electrostatic waves.

Have these waves been measured? Is there any experimental support? Occam's Razor anyone?
Some scientists have suggested a role of double layers in solar flares.[55][56]

Nobel winner to boot.
Establishing such a role indirectly is even harder to verify than postulating double layers as accelerators of auroral electrons within the earth's magnetosphere. Serious questions have been raised on their role even there.[57]"

But conjuring faerie dust, infinite gravity monsters, and 20K rpm stars is A-OK!

Feb 21, 2019
In ***laser*** physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.


Some feel as if ***laser*** physics are relevant to the study of astrophysics. You know, because it's physics.
https://ima.org.u...physics/


Bullshit, liar. You were wrong. You never read the paywalled paper, made a claim, and have been caught out lying. Now you are running around like an idiot trying to justify your lies. You are pathetic, and have no understanding of the subject matter. You lost. Loser. Go away.

Feb 21, 2019
Here are two of your favorite subjects in one, ***lasers***, and Z-pinches (or woo as you would call it).

https://journals....s.78.755


Irrelevant. Nobody is saying such phenomena do not occur. I am saying that you lied in regard to this particular article. And I am saying that the idiot Thornhill hasn't got a clue when trying to explain a supernova as a DL. It is an exploded star, and nobody is claiming otherwise, except that clueless tosspot. And nobody is claiming the nebula M2-9 is a z-pinch other than the other clueless tosspot, Scott.

Feb 21, 2019
Trust me - when you've been dealing with these lying, scientifically illiterate idiots as long as some of us have, then that is all they deserve. People who call me dumb, and all scientists ignoramuses? You think it is possible to have the slightest respect for idiots like that? People who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn? You really think these cretins give a damn about science? They are anti-science trolls, with a dumb cult to promote. They can f*** right off as far as I'm concerned.

I actually remember when you started on this forum. First, you were polite and since then it has gotten worse and worse. Now it just name calling in every single post. I don't care even if they are flat earthers or simple believe that they are living gods. You can just correct where they are wrong and after that leave them be if they don't believe the scientific explanation. Why have an argument which lead nowhere? Best way is to ignore the trolls. They are here for attention after all.

Feb 21, 2019
You can just correct where they are wrong and after that leave them be if they don't believe the scientific explanation


Been there, done that. Still do it. Anybody that wants to claim all these scientists are ignoramuses, are only interested in grant money, and are even covering up data, has no right to any respect. F*** them. They are ignorant posers.


Feb 21, 2019
And I am saying that the idiot Thornhill hasn't got a clue when trying to explain a supernova as a DL

Now you are making stuff up, I never said that. I did say an ambipolar electric field is a DL, as physicists also have said. I also linked a paper that discussed the differences between shocks and DL's, which aren't very different at all.

Feb 21, 2019
So, @cantthink, tell us about Earth orbiting Saturn.

Feb 21, 2019
And I am saying that the idiot Thornhill hasn't got a clue when trying to explain a supernova as a DL

Now you are making stuff up, I never said that. I did say an ambipolar electric field is a DL, as physicists also have said. I also linked a paper that discussed the differences between shocks and DL's, which aren't very different at all.


No, I am making nothing up. That is what the idiot claimed. And DLs have nothing to do with these observations.

Feb 21, 2019
Been there, done that. Still do it. Anybody that wants to claim all these scientists are ignoramuses, are only interested in grant money, and are even covering up data, has no right to any respect. F*** them. They are ignorant posers.

Yeah f*** them indeed but the best way to f*** them is by ignoring them. What are you trying to actually achieve with your posts repeating the same stuff in many different articles? Do you really think someone like cd85 would all the sudden change their mind and agree with science? If not, why bother?

Feb 21, 2019
So, @cantthink, tell us about Earth orbiting Saturn.

Change subject much? Just sayin'...
No, I am making nothing up. That is what the idiot claimed.

Where was that?
And are you intentionally avoiding the SW/water creation factory article over here?
https://phys.org/...ory.html

Feb 21, 2019
cd85 would all the sudden change their mind and agree with science?

I fully agree with real empirically supported science, the faerie tales of the dark astrophysicists not so much.

Feb 21, 2019
@cahtthink, if you espouse Thornhill and Scott you own their views.

Are you repudiating them now?

Feb 21, 2019
@cahtthink, if you espouse Thornhill and Scott you own their views.

Are you repudiating them now?

It is where they stand as well, EE concepts and empirical science.

Since you espouse Einstein, you must agree with him that BH's are not possible in GR?

Feb 21, 2019
Where was that?
And are you intentionally avoiding the SW/water creation factory article over here?
https://phys.org/...ory.html


https://ieeexplor.../4287093

And what has the SW water thing got to do with the price of fish? If you are talking about the idiot's claims about comets, then that is totally debunked. Nowhere near enough water could be produced in that way, by many orders of magnitude. And the SW D/H ratio is considerably different from that measured at comets. And the SW is getting nowhere near the comet for long periods.


Feb 21, 2019
It is where they stand as well, EE concepts and empirical science.
Except for the Earth orbiting Saturn part, since you won't stand behind it. So they lie and you admit it. Good, glad we got that cleared up.

Since you espouse Einstein, you must agree with him that BH's are not possible in GR?
That's not what he said. He said singularities are not possible in GRT, and most physicists agree with him.

Now you've both espoused known liars and lied yourself about what Einstein said.

Care to try for the trifecta?

Feb 21, 2019
Where was that?


https://ieeexplor.../4287093

Yep, nowhere does is say "a supernova is a DL". It does say it has a morphology that is identical to a Z-pinch along a Birkeland current. But a z-pinch and a DL are two different things, not even remotely similar like a DL and shock are very similar. So once again, lies, obfuscation, and vulgarity is all you got.

Feb 21, 2019
I fully agree with real empirically supported science, the faerie tales of the dark astrophysicists not so much.


But that isn't true, is it? Magnetic reconnection is proven in the lab, and observed in-situ. No scientist is claiming otherwise. Yet the electric idiots deny it.
There is a huge amount of observation that says the Sun is powered by fusion, but the electric idiots dismiss it.
There is a huge amount of evidence that comets are composed of ice and dust, and that sublimation of those ices occurs, but the electric idiots dismiss it.
Et cetera.


Feb 21, 2019
Except for the Earth orbiting Saturn part

The evidence says what it says, regardless of how difficult it is to accept.
That's not what he said. He said singularities are not possible in GRT,

Benni? da schnied needs it explained to him once again.

Feb 21, 2019
Where was that?


https://ieeexplor.../4287093

Yep, nowhere does is say "a supernova is a DL". It does say it has a morphology that is identical to a Z-pinch along a Birkeland current. But a z-pinch and a DL are two different things, not even remotely similar like a DL and shock are very similar. So once again, lies, obfuscation, and vulgarity is all you got.


So he believes in supernovae? In which case he doesn't believe in the electric sun, correct? No, I think you'll find that he and Scott think that supernovae and planetary nebulae, despite all the evidence to the contrary, do not exist. They stupidly claim that they are z-pinches conjured out of nowhere.

Feb 21, 2019
The evidence says what it says, regardless of how difficult it is to accept.
What "evidence?"

Meanwhile @cantthink claims "Einstein said X" but when called on to produce it cantthink.

If you got it bring it. If you cantthink you lied.

Feb 21, 2019
Benni? da schnied needs it explained to him once again.


The idiot Benni hasn't got a clue. Einstein didn't like the implication of where his maths led, and came up with an explanation that was a bit silly, really. Oppenheimer, Tolman and Volkoff shortly thereafter showed him to be wrong.

Feb 21, 2019
Magnetic reconnection is proven in the lab, and observed in-situ.

Bzzzt! Wrong again! High energy event do occur in plasmas, but it doesn't involve the pseudoscientific claptrap of MRx.
There is a huge amount of observation that says the Sun is powered by fusion,

More lies, Eddington's model of the Sun is an absolute failure from the start.
There is a huge amount of evidence that comets are composed of ice and dust,

The dirty snowball is dead!
http://www.scienc...0017.jpg

Feb 21, 2019
@cantthink tries to change the subject again.

No Einstein paper?

No Saturn?

You're a filthy liar. Liar liar pants on fire. Get out of here, liar. No one wants to listen to your lies.

Feb 21, 2019
So he believes in supernovae? In which case he doesn't believe in the electric sun, correct? No, I think you'll find that he and Scott think that supernovae and planetary nebulae, despite all the evidence to the contrary, do not exist.

No, that is your own strawman argument due to your inability to think.

Feb 21, 2019
Liar liar pants on fire. Get out of the physics site, liar. Go lie someplace else, maybe on your whacko Velikovski sites. Maybe Thornhole and Scott will give you a reacharound.

Feb 21, 2019
Bzzzt! Wrong again! High energy event do occur in plasmas, but it doesn't involve the pseudoscientific claptrap of MRx.


Show me one scientist dismissing those observations. You can't.

No, that is your own strawman argument due to your inability to think.


So, show me one qualified scientist claiming that supernovae and planetary nebulae are z-pinches. You can't. Neither Thornhill nor Scott are even qualified in the relevant areas, and have never worked in the relevant areas. One, at least, is a Velikovskian which, by definition, renders him scientifically illiterate.


Feb 21, 2019
No, that is your own strawman argument due to your inability to think.


If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "supercondensed" objects are not fulfilled, and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae. If the bipolar Z-pinch pattern is introduced to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae, a new electrical theory of stars is required.


From the cretin's 'paper'.

Feb 21, 2019
You lied and claimed he said they don't exist, that has a completely different meaning from there being a different explanation. You use the same childish argument regarding MRx, an explosive event occurs and there is a valid explanation that doesn't require the pseudoscientific claptrap of the plasma ignoramuses.

Feb 21, 2019
Who said what now?

And where is the Einstein paper?

Not to mention the Saturn thing.

You're so tangled up in your lies you've forgotten what you said.

Pitiful, like usual for @cantthink.

Feb 21, 2019
You lied and claimed he said they don't exist, that has a completely different meaning from there being a different explanation. You use the same childish argument regarding MRx, an explosive event occurs and there is a valid explanation that doesn't require the pseudoscientific claptrap of the plasma ignoramuses.


No there is not. Where is it written up, and where is the evidence for it? And I'm not talking about Alfven's erroneous beliefs - he died before PPPL and the in-situ detections. Just one scientist denying the findings. Get on with it.
And a supernovae is an exploded star. Thornhill denies that. Therefore he says they don't exist. He wants to call them a z-pinch. Lol. He is an idiot.

Feb 21, 2019
And a supernovae (sic) is an exploded star. Thornhill denies that. Therefore he says they don't exist. He wants to call them a z-pinch. Lol. He is an idiot.

Strawman again, a supernova is an explosive event. The claim it is an exploded star as the standard guesswork suggests is just a claim. Just as a planetary nebula isn't in fact a planetary nebula. It has happened numerous times where an object or phenomena is named based upon ignorance only to be shown later to be incorrect, yet the original name remains. Like planetary nebulae and MRx.

Feb 21, 2019
And a supernovae (sic) is an exploded star. Thornhill denies that. Therefore he says they don't exist. He wants to call them a z-pinch. Lol. He is an idiot.

Strawman again, a supernova is an explosive event. The claim it is an exploded star as the standard guesswork suggests is just a claim. Just as a planetary nebula isn't in fact a planetary nebula. It has happened numerous times where an object or phenomena is named based upon ignorance only to be shown later to be incorrect, yet the original name remains. Like planetary nebulae and MRx.


Wrong. Planetary nebulae, supernovae and MRx are all proven beyond doubt. No scientists are questioning them. Just a bunch of unqualified Velikovskian fruitloops. And they are completely ignored. Quite rightly.

Feb 21, 2019
Still waiting for the Einstein paper.

Still waiting for the Saturn "evidence."

Still watching @cantthink lie.

Meanwhile @cantthink is still trying to divert the discussion from its lies. Transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt standing over the broken cookie jar and repeating "I dint do it" over and over.

And getting spanked.

Feb 21, 2019
Still no Moon water factory commentary jonesdumb? I already got the thread prepped for the string of vulgarity you will undoubtedly leave.
https://phys.org/...ory.html

Feb 21, 2019
Still no Einstein paper.

Still no Saturn "evidence" of any kind whatsoever.

Still watching @cantthink lie, deny, twist, turn, and squirm.

Bring it, @cantthink. I'm right here. And everyone's watching.

Before long you'll be telling me I'm "gay."

Feb 21, 2019
Planetary nebulae are proven beyond doubt.

Errr, ummmm. Revise history much? From wikistupidia;

"The term "planetary nebula" is arguably a misnomer, since this phenomenon is not associated with observations of actual planets, and perhaps was derived from the planet-like round shape of these nebulae as observed by astronomers through early telescopes. The term may have originated in the 1780s with the English astronomer William Herschel who described these nebulae as resembling planets"

Feb 21, 2019
Still no Moon water factory commentary jonesdumb? I already got the thread prepped for the string of vulgarity you will undoubtedly leave.
https://phys.org/...ory.html


I already commented on that. For the hard of reading;

And what has the SW water thing got to do with the price of fish? If you are talking about the idiot's claims about comets, then that is totally debunked. Nowhere near enough water could be produced in that way, by many orders of magnitude. And the SW D/H ratio is considerably different from that measured at comets. And the SW is getting nowhere near the comet for long periods.



Feb 21, 2019
Bring it, @cantthink. I'm right here. And everyone's watching.

Before long you'll be telling me I'm "gay."

Jussie Smollett much da schnied. And I am not responding to you because you are exceedingly boring and will lie as all Jussie neolibs do.

Feb 21, 2019
Planetary nebulae are proven beyond doubt.

Errr, ummmm. Revise history much? From wikistupidia;

"The term "planetary nebula" is arguably a misnomer, since this phenomenon is not associated with observations of actual planets, and perhaps was derived from the planet-like round shape of these nebulae as observed by astronomers through early telescopes. The term may have originated in the 1780s with the English astronomer William Herschel who described these nebulae as resembling planets"


They are well known to be stars. What they are called due to an ancient misinterpretation is irrelevant. They are not z-pinches. Only an idiot would propose such a thing. And did.

Feb 21, 2019
@cantthink has no Einstein paper.

@cantthink has no Saturn evidence.

It claimed both these things then tried to cover up like a cat in a catbox.

It still stinks.

Still waiting, @cantthink. Not gonna go away.

Feb 21, 2019
I already commented on that. For the hard of reading

On the wrong thread, and thoroughly incorrectly as well.

What they are called due to an ancient misinterpretation is irrelevant.

Exactly the point, just as with MRx and supernovae.

Feb 21, 2019
I already commented on that. For the hard of reading

On the wrong thread, and thoroughly incorrectly as well.

What they are called due to an ancient misinterpretation is irrelevant.

Exactly the point, just as with MRx and supernovae.


Wrong. Show me the scientist who is saying MRx doesn't happen, and that supernovae aren't exploded stars. I keep asking, you keep lying. You have no support for your idiotic woo. And what has the SW story got to do with anything? I keep asking, you keep avoiding.

Feb 21, 2019
@cantthink has no Einstein paper and no Saturn "evidence."

This is a liar denier with an agenda.

You can't believe a single thing it says.

Feb 22, 2019
cortezz, you are wondering what it would be like if "public figures" uttering "offensive insults"?

well, fuehrer putin appointed the chief offender as chief gauleiter of the USA.

Hows that working for your delicate sensibilities?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more