Spiraling giants: Witnessing the birth of a massive binary star system

**++Spiraling giants: Eitnessing the birth of a massive binary star system
The background image shows dense, dusty streams of gas (shown in green) that appear to be flowing towards the center. Gas motions, as traced by the methanol molecule, that are towards us are shown in blue; motions away from us in red. The inset image shows a zoom-in view of the massive forming binary, with the brighter, primary protostar moving toward us shown in blue and the fainter, secondary protostar moving away from us shown in red. The blue and red dotted lines show an example of orbits of the primary and secondary spiraling around their center of mass (marked by the cross). Credit: RIKEN

Scientists from the RIKEN Cluster for Pioneering Research in Japan, Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and the University of Virginia in the USA and collaborators have made observations of a molecular cloud that is collapsing to form two massive protostars that will eventually become a binary star system.

While it is known that most possess orbiting stellar companions it has been unclear how this comes about—for example, are the born together from a common spiraling gas disk at the center of a collapsing cloud, or do they pair up later by chance encounters in a crowded star cluster.

Understanding the dynamics of forming binaries has been difficult because the in these systems are still enveloped in a thick cloud of gas and dust that prevents most light from escaping. Fortunately, it is possible to see them using radio waves, as long as they can be imaged with sufficiently .

In the current research, published in Nature Astronomy, the researchers led by Yichen Zhang of the RIKEN Cluster for Pioneering Research and Jonathan C. Tan at Chalmers University and the University of Virginia, used the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) telescope array in northern Chile to observe, at high spatial resolution, a star-forming region known as IRAS07299-1651, which is located 1.68 kiloparsecs, or about 5,500 light years, away.

The observations showed that already at this early stage, the cloud contains two objects, a massive "primary" central star and another "secondary" forming star, also of high mass. For the first time, the research team were able to use these observations to deduce the dynamics of the system. The observations showed that the two forming stars are separated by a distance of about 180 astronomical units—a unit approximately the distance from the earth to the sun. Hence, they are quite far apart. They are currently orbiting each other with a period of at most 600 years, and have a total mass at least 18 times that of our sun.

According to Zhang, "This is an exciting finding because we have long been perplexed by the question of whether stars form into binaries during the initial collapse of the star-forming cloud or whether they are created during later stages. Our observations clearly show that the division into binary stars takes place early on, while they are still in their infancy."

Another finding of the study was that the binary stars are being nurtured from a common disk fed by the collapsing cloud and favoring a scenario in which the secondary star of the binary formed as a result of fragmentation of the disk originally around the primary. This allows the initially smaller secondary protostar to "steal" infalling matter from its sibling and eventually they should emerge as quite similar "twins".

Tan adds, "This is an important result for understanding the birth of massive stars. Such stars are important throughout the universe, not least for producing, at the ends of their lives, the heavy elements that make up our Earth and are in our bodies."

Zhang concludes, "What is important now is to look at other examples to see whether this is a unique situation or something that is common for the birth of all massive stars."


Explore further

Massive twin star discovered snuggling close to its stellar sibling in its cradle

More information: Dynamics of a massive binary at birth, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0718-y , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0718-y
Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Provided by RIKEN
Citation: Spiraling giants: Witnessing the birth of a massive binary star system (2019, March 18) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-spiraling-giants-witnessing-birth-massive.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.
598 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 18, 2019
Our observations clearly show that the division into binary stars takes place early on, while they are still in their infancy."

More nonsense assumptions from committed merger maniacs. Other observations have shown massive ejections. And this would observation includes an extremely massive system. More likely that the secondary mass is condensing from an earlier ejection of the very high mass parent star, having grown sufficiently massive and therefore internally active to birth a daughter through division, rather like cells of life.

Mar 18, 2019
okay tux,
Specifically please...
which observations?
of which massive ejections?
by which accredited observers?
From which professional observatory?

Your comment starting at
"... And this would ...to...
rather like cells of life ..." is rather an incoherent rant but acceptable hyperbole.
I've told you before, you need to get yourself an editor!

because this mess could be interpreted to mean that you actually favor a theory of merger mania?
we know you are a looneytick but hadn't realized you are also a maniac!

Larger. more massive star?
Which one?
Can you specify which super-duper star is to be credited with ejecting complete proto-stars?
Please to list the observers of this fabulist star-birth process?

Who are alive, with links.
So that we may inquire of their opinion of your claims.

Mar 18, 2019
Our observations clearly show that the division into binary stars takes place early on, while they are still in their infancy."

More nonsense assumptions from committed merger maniacs. Other observations have shown massive ejections. And this would observation includes an extremely massive system. More likely that the secondary mass is condensing from an earlier ejection of the very high mass parent star, having grown sufficiently massive and therefore internally active to birth a daughter through division, rather like cells of life.


Complete nonsense.

Mar 18, 2019
Interesting proposition, Tuxford. You seem to be saying that a protostar is ejected from the main Star - similar to how an amoeba or a bacterium divides and the new cell moves away from the parent cell - is that correct? But cell division is an organic phenomena, not one of inorganic materiel.
Still, the premise is fascinating.
It could mean that Stars are not what they seem, but something completely different from what scientists have thought. If it were possible for Stars to mimic organic Matter such as bacteria in their power to divide - that would certainly throw a spanner into scientific beliefs and turn it on its proverbial ear. It is something to consider anyway.

Mar 18, 2019
It is something to consider anyway.


Only if one is clueless about the relevant science.

Mar 18, 2019
Our observations clearly show that the division into binary stars takes place early on, while they are still in their infancy."

More nonsense assumptions from committed merger maniacs. Other observations have shown massive ejections. And this would observation includes an extremely massive system. More likely that the secondary mass is condensing from an earlier ejection of the very high mass parent star, having grown sufficiently massive and therefore internally active to birth a daughter through division, rather like cells of life.


Complete nonsense.
says jonesy, the great know-it-all

And what is YOUR evidence that what Tux has said is complete nonsense? Do avail us of each piece of knowledge that you have and its corresponding literature that such a division could never occur in protostar formations.
BTW, science has been built on 'assumptions' from the very beginning, until proven to be true or false. You reject new ideas much too easily.

Mar 18, 2019
@SEU:
Since you don't believe in math as proofs for theories, Tuxford's suggestion is not a good one for you. It relies on math manipulations to create matter from nothing, which has absolutely never been observed. If you are interested, It is by LaViolette (sp?). Good luck!

Mar 18, 2019
a protostar is ejected from the main Star - similar to how an amoeba or a bacterium divides and the new cell moves away from the parent cell

And just as cells divide once an energy threshold is achieved, so too will a star divide due to similar effects.

Mar 18, 2019
Two Baby Starlets in orbital spin

This Starry Starlet Nursery
is so large
Two Starlets 16.7billion miles apart
formed in this nursery
in binary orbit
of
570 hundred years
5.5thousand Lys from Earth
it only goes to show
when these Stellar Starry Starlet Nurseries
get above a certain size
individual Starlets form
which as these two Starlets are in binary orbit
this massive Starry Starlet Nursery was in orbital spin
before this cloud began to collapses
as these 18 solar mass binary Starlets prove
Every Galactic object in our Galactic Vacuum is in orbital spin

Mar 18, 2019
Evidence you ask?

from:
https://phys.org/...net.html

"In this case, the star and disc we have observed is so massive that, rather than witnessing a planet forming in the disc, we are seeing another star being born."


The researchers note that newly-discovered young star MM 1b could also be surrounded by its own circumstellar disc, which may have the potential to form planets of its own—but it will need to be quick.


Not that merger maniacs are always wrong, just closed-minded to other possibilities.

And it is not that matter does not form from nothing, just from nothing that we can possibly observe. From something that is ever present everywhere you look, even though being unobservable in an undetectable state. Sound familiar?? Dark thoughts anyone!


Mar 18, 2019
Or for more, see my several comments under:

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

Mar 18, 2019
@SEU:
Since you don't believe in math as proofs for theories, Tuxford's suggestion is not a good one for you. It relies on math manipulations to create matter from nothing, which has absolutely never been observed. If you are interested, It is by LaViolette (sp?). Good luck!


Yep, LaViolette. A complete fruitcake. To paraphrase somebody else on a science forum - started off quite promisingly, and then became insane.

Here is his website;

https://etheric.com/

Block javascript, or blood will spurt from your eyes and ears!

Mar 18, 2019
@SEU:
Since you don't believe in math as proofs for theories, Tuxford's suggestion is not a good one for you. It relies on math manipulations to create matter from nothing, which has absolutely never been observed. If you are interested, It is by LaViolette (sp?). Good luck!
says 691Boat

I have never said that I don't BELIEVE in math. It has its purpose and uses, but is not the defining reality of any given problem or theory. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding" and math is certainly NOT the proof, that proof which lies in the "pudding". Math is always manipulated for the purpose of making it fit nicely into the reality of what the math is supposed to represent. If the proof shows that the math is wrong - why, then the math needs to be revised (manipulated) until it does fit the reality. This is why photographic evidence of Black Holes are required as absolute proof of their existence. Simulations and artist's impressions are not proof.
-contd-

Mar 18, 2019
There are some very complicated issues of galaxy formation. Unfortunately, here is the same problem as with the stars. The origin of galaxies remains unclear, in spite of huge activity in the field. What the "formation" means? It means that we have the material that is assembling into galaxies.
https://www.acade...ome_From

Mar 18, 2019
Off or On Topic:

https://news.nati...science/

When a star dies in a violent supernova, some of its planets may survive the blast but be ejected from orbit and sent wandering the galaxy, a new study suggests.

LOL The quote above is similar to what I had proposed in another phorum not too long ago - and was roundly laughed at and denigrated for it.
But there it is - from National Geo, no less.
I think I will keep the link and the quote to show the baboons who didn't think it possible - that ejected planets can wander into other systems.

Mar 18, 2019
Oh Boy! Whack-A-Mole! I get another swing with a bat at the fuzzy-minded noggins of tux & seu....

Okay boys, you really do need an editor to help you avoid contradicting yourselves in such a publicly humiliating position.

So. make up your (chuckle) minds.
Is it stars born from massive eruptions out of maternal giant stars?
Or is it planets & stars created by amalgamating primordial accretion disks?
Is it newborn stars, once formed, are violently ejected out of their birth system into interstellar space? Why?

Cause what the Real Astronomers are talking about are stars & planets being gravitationaly accrued out of clouds of gas & dust.
Or planetesmal disks.
With random occurrences of Newtonian equal & opposite force.
Or not being ejected at all.

If you whack jobs insist on a birth process? What is the mechanism of procreating stellar masses?
Asexual? Cloning?
Parthenogenesis?
Artificial Insemination?
Or Non-Consensual?
You boys considering spermatogenesis?

Mar 19, 2019
These two stars may be on two adjacent Birkeland currents which are twisting about one another, the stars are only along for the ride. They even remark on the electric currents flowing into the stars.

Mar 19, 2019
there you go again cant.
Another continuity error.

If your magical faerie-dust "EUwoo currents were flowing
into the stars?
Only gravitational attraction would have the power to be dragging those in, kicking & screaming.

So,make up your simpleton mind?
Going in or coming out?
Your push-me/pull-me is a fabulist beast of antiquarian nonsense
& abandoned-conjectures!

In addition, your criminally deliberate misstatements of Birkeland's work?
Pretending to quote a dead man is disgusting.
Who, when alive, asked politely that you fakirs not use his efforts for your fraudulent schemes to swindle the gullible!

& the proof?
Name a modern, actually living accredited scientist of a reputable institution.
With degrees in astronomy or Cosnology,
To review your claims & issue a public statement agreeing with you.
Go ahead, just one.

With a contact link to validate your claims.

Cause yeah cant.
You ain't got no credibility,
no how!

Mar 19, 2019
These two stars may be on two adjacent Birkeland currents which are twisting about one another, the stars are only along for the ride. They even remark on the electric currents flowing into the stars.


Lol. No doubt accompanied by z-pinches and double layers!

Mar 19, 2019
These two stars may be on two adjacent Birkeland currents which are twisting about one another, the stars are only along for the ride. They even remark on the electric currents flowing into the stars.
says CD85

"Electric currents flow INTO the Stars"? Interesting concept if it were true. But where do these electric currents emanate FROM, and WHY are they going INTO Stars? Are these electric currents similar to Brainwaves that flow through axons between brain cells? That I can relate to. Have you and your EU friends considered that possibility? IOW - brain activity on a cosmic scale. You need to talk to them about it, CD.

Mar 19, 2019
They even remark on the electric currents flowing into the stars.


No they do not. Stop lying.

Arxiv preprint is here;

https://arxiv.org...7532.pdf


Mar 19, 2019
No doubt accompanied by z-pinches and double layers!

Yep, as those two phenomena are ubiquitous in plasma it is blatantly obvious.

Only took 5-years for jonesdumb to catch up.

Mar 19, 2019
No they do not. Stop lying.

Arxiv preprint is here;

https://arxiv.org...7532.pdf

Actually it is throughout the paper, one just needs to know how to translate plasma ignoramus speak. The "unfailing streams" is plasma ignoramus for electric currents.

Mar 19, 2019
Unfailing = infalling
Damn autocorrect...

Mar 19, 2019
No doubt accompanied by z-pinches and double layers!

Yep, as those two phenomena are ubiquitous in plasma it is blatantly obvious.

Only took 5-years for jonesdumb to catch up.


I was being obtuse. There is not a chance that these observations are of bloody currents. That is a really dumb idea.

Mar 19, 2019
No they do not. Stop lying.

Arxiv preprint is here;

https://arxiv.org...7532.pdf

Actually it is throughout the paper, one just needs to know how to translate plasma ignoramus speak. The "unfailing streams" is plasma ignoramus for electric currents.


No, it is not. You are lying again. And given that neither you, nor anybody else in your cult, knows anything about plasma physics, you are hardly in a position to second guess those who do understand it. Go get an education.

Mar 19, 2019
I suppose I should have expected a bunch of woo about star formation too.

Mar 19, 2019
No doubt accompanied by z-pinches and double layers!

Yep, as those two phenomena are ubiquitous in plasma it is blatantly obvious.

Only took 5-years for jonesdumb to catch up.


I was being obtuse. There is not a chance that these observations are of bloody currents. That is a really dumb idea.
says Castrato

Exactly HOW do you KNOW they are not currents. The more that you fail to make your execrations against the possibility that they are, indeed, electric currents - the more they seem to be possible. Do impress us with your vast knowledge of science.

Mar 19, 2019
@cantdrive85.

The article referred to inflating "matter" per se, mate; it did NOT say what form that infalling matter took; so your "streams" overlay on what was written is not objective reading/understanding, @cd. If you want to be taken seriously you should avoid making self-serving 'overlays' on what is written by others....else you will only justify the attacks on your own credibility/understandings by those with whom you have been feuding.

Anyhow, re "infalling matter" per se, the authors obviously IMPLY Gravitational AND Turbulence (PLUS, as we all now know, E-M/PLASMA) dynamical interplay 'breaks up' the INITIAL accretion disc (DESTABILISED by the presence of TWO massive stars accreting material in 'competition').

TO BE FAIR, @cd, they DID (out of habit?) restrict their 'modelling/explanations' to the gravitational and turbulence/destabilising factors, leaving out the now well acknowledged (by other recent mainstream articles) E-M/Plasma factor in the dynamics. :)

Mar 19, 2019
Read the paper jonesdumb linked RC, they refer to infalling streams numerous times.

Mar 19, 2019
per cant ... one just needs to know how to translate plasma ignoramus speak ...

Must be those super-psychic powers he gains, whenever he inserts the stripped end of an ekectric cord into his mouth & plugs it into a hot wall socket.

It would be a great joke to play on the looneyticks like cant, if someone was to produce a hoax article using a randomizer generator.

A big headline that says, oh? Howabout?
FINAL PROOF ELECTROPLASMICAETHER ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMED!
Then a page of gibberish the looneytooners so adore. At the end in tiny print "final proof electroplasmicaether absolutely confirmed to be fraudulent nonsense & utter bunkum"

What? Oh yeah, I guess that would work also? Since cant cant read the articled?
Makes it all up anyway?
I guess your right , that posting a blank page would be sufficient to make my point?
When cant bleats that nothing proves his cant is correct.

That'd finally be getting some truth out of him!

Mar 19, 2019
@cantdrive85.
Read the paper jonesdumb linked RC, they refer to infalling streams numerous times.
True. I was only referring to the article above. Your point is taken, though, and I stand corrected.

Having said that, the paper DOES (in a way) acknowledge the plasma factor by the 'euphemism' (so to speak) of "IONIZED GAS". But still, the destabilised disc breaks up into differing density volumes which may be captured by either star OR be stretched out BETWEEN their respective gravitational influences to form "streams" without any 'electric' causation. Yet again, to be fair to you, @cd, the authors SHOULD HAVE ALSO stressed the possible interactions which the PLASMA FORCES might have with those features formed by the TWO-STAR gravity/turbulence dynamics. Maybe someday they will call a spade a spade; ie, drop the IONIZED GAS term and use PLASMA term, hey? After all, some of their contemporaries ALREADY acknowledge the PLASMA factor in these formation dynamics. Cheers. :)

Mar 19, 2019
Let's get to some more verifiable claims. That seems to be the way to deal with these EUdiots.

Here's a pretty thorough debunking by a real astrophysicist: https://briankobe...niverse/

The replies to the article run the gamut of what we've seen here, with the exception of some of the nastier personal insult trolling that is allowed on this site. The points about the "electric Sun" both with respect to neutrinos and with respect to spectra generated by plasmas vs. spectra generated by heat are quite compelling. He defends it from the "fusion on the surface" conjecture quite well, in the comments to the article.

He neglected to mention that if the fusion were on the surface then there wouldn't be enough heat at the core to prevent collapse.

He also neglected to mention that if the Sun were not electrically neutral we'd easily be able to detect the electric field on Earth; we're a long way past the sensitivity needed.
[contd]

Mar 19, 2019
[contd]
But that's aside from the point. This was posted five years ago, and in all that time (and there is a comment from 2018) no EUdiot has been able to shake any of its claims; and they've tried everything from posting a series of logical fallacies (always followed by an unsupported assertion) to attempting to challenge his credentials. None of these claims holds water.

So, if we know there's fusion, because of the neutrinos, and the fusion can't be on the surface because the temperature isn't high enough, and we know the Sun is giving a spectrum that cannot be explained by plasma but is fully explained by heat, where's the heat coming from? Astrophysics explains that too: from fusion in the core. So if there's fusion in the core, what do we need an electric Sun for? And if there's no heat streaming out from the core, why doesn't the Sun collapse?

Good luck.

Mar 19, 2019
Look, here's the deal, getting back to this article:

We can see several stars in the process of forming inside the Orion Nebula. They all have protostellar (and in some cases protoplanetary) disks. We can see them with infrared, which seems to work fine for soldiers, guards, and security systems, not to mention hunters.

So it seems that stars form inside nebulae due to collapse in the gas and dust in those nebulae. And it seems we can explain the collapse with gravity.

So what do we need the electricity for? It seems to be an unnecessary conjecture, to explain something that's already explained. The motion of the protostars in the Orion Nebula indicates the gravity present; and this gravity measurement agrees with the prediction of the collapse of the nebula needed to form stars. Generally two such strong observations will confirm a theory. So what's your theory?

In detail, please, with observations and theories cited.

Again, good luck.

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
...if the fusion were on the surface then there wouldn't be enough heat at the core to prevent collapse.
At the risk of walking into the crossfire between you and EU proponents, I'd like to clarify your above statement if I may, mate. It was long mainstream understanding that the initial heat of compression during star formation process was what kept the forming star from continued collapse to NS densities; and that LATER initiation of Fusion causes the protostar to go 'Nova' and shed some of the material it had accumulated while forming up to Fusion stage. If that is correct, then obviously the star does not collapse before fusion initiates; hence the grav-compression heat of formation was sufficient to prevent collapse UNTIL that heat was ALSO sufficient to initiate Fusion. Is that not correct, DS? If not, could you please link to mainstream references where that longstanding mainstream understanding was changed to reflect what you just said above, DS?

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
...if the fusion were on the surface then there wouldn't be enough heat at the core to prevent collapse.
At the risk of walking into the crossfire between you and EU proponents, I'd like to clarify your above statement if I may, mate. It was long mainstream understanding that the initial heat of compression during star formation process was what kept the forming star from continued collapse to NS densities; and that LATER initiation of Fusion causes the protostar to go 'Nova'
Gah. No. You apparently have this vision of fusion starting off all at once and causing a phase change. It's not like that at all. As the pressure and temperature increase, fusion becomes more and more likely, and happens more and more. So the "ignition" isn't like lighting a stick of dynamite; it's more like starting a fire in the wilderness, where you get a bit of lint burning, then little sticks burning, then big sticks, then branches, then (if you want to make a big fire) logs.

Mar 19, 2019
If you put the logs on the burning lint, you just put it out. Then you get to eat cold dinner.

A nova is a completely different thing and has nothing to do with star birth.

Where do you come up with this bullshit, @109LiarRC?

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You apparently have this vision of fusion starting off all at once and causing a phase change. It's not like that at all. As the pressure and temperature increase, fusion becomes more and more likely, and happens more and more. So the "ignition" isn't like lighting a stick of dynamite; it's more like starting a fire in the wilderness, where you get a bit of lint burning, then little sticks burning, then big sticks, then branches, then...
You mischaracterise what I said (nothing new, hey DS?). As for 'pre-main-fusion' throughout forming star, It was ME that LONG AGO pointed out to YOU that 'distributed' PLASMOID-compression FUSION 'events' occur throughout such plasmas. :)

Now please address the POINT that heat of grav-compression is what INITIALLY STOPS further collapse; and that, when heat-of-compression rises enough, it triggers the MAIN 'runaway fusion' STAGE that provides the sudden overwhelming heating surge that results in the protostar GOING NOVA. :)

Mar 19, 2019
You mischaracterise what I said
How, exactly? You've got novae in forming stars. Looks like putting logs on the lint to me.

And that's not mentioning no one has ever reported these novae. If you say I'm wrong produce a peer-reviewed paper by an accredited, respected scientist.

Then there's the whole making up what I said bullshit. For which you get another five threads you lied on.

Mar 19, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC forgets that doppler shift is not visible to the human eye then denies forgetting it: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @109LiarRC tells the Steinhard-doesn't-believe-in-the-BB lie again: https://phys.org/...rby.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims that dark matter should visibly influence Solar System dynamics: https://phys.org/...ong.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims math doesn't work: https://phys.org/...nal.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims plasma is a "force:" https://phys.org/...ism.html

Mar 19, 2019
So here's the deal:

You don't lie and troll and I don't troll you back. Get it?

I won't troll you for being wrong, but I will for being wrong and arrogant. Get it?

Mar 19, 2019
And just for shits and grins, your exact lie was that I agreed fusion was happening in solar plasmoids. That is a straight-up obvious lie. This is both trolling and lying in the same statement. If you think I will not respond, you are an idiot.

If you say different produce a link and quote you claim prove I did.

Don't troll. Don't lie. Get it?

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
...no one has ever reported these novae.
Please first read this wiki excerpt:
...a molecular cloud fragment first collapses under the force of self-gravity and an opaque, pressure supported core forms inside the collapsing fragment. It ends when the infalling gas is depleted, leaving a pre-main-sequence star, which contracts to later become a main sequence star at the onset of Hydrogen fusion.
See that last bit? That's what I AM trying to point out to you (ie, gravity-compression heat initially prevents further collapse); which contradicts what YOU said earlier, ie:
...if the fusion were on the surface then there wouldn't be enough heat at the core to prevent collapse
Can you see it now, DS? :)

As for NOVA, that is generic (Latin) for NEW. Whenever ANY 'stellar object' BRIGHTENS EXTREMELY due to sudden EXPLOSIVE fusion, it is termed a NOVA; and 'categorized' as to TYPE of NOVA. In THIS context: a 'MAIN FUSION INITIATION in a new star' NOVA.

Mar 19, 2019
I don't see any novae there. What they seem to be describing is gradual onset of fusion over millions of years. Eventually this replaces the original heat of contraction, because if it didn't our own Sun would have gone dark long ago. But the fusion doesn't explode into life; it gradually becomes more and more prevalent over a period of millions of years.

Novae are suddenly brighter stars; "suddenly brighter" ≠ "millions of years."

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I don't see any novae there. What they seem to be describing is gradual onset of fusion over millions of years. Eventually this replaces the original heat of contraction, because if it didn't our own Sun would have gone dark long ago. But the fusion doesn't explode into life; it gradually becomes more and more prevalent over a period of millions of years.

Novae are suddenly brighter stars; "suddenly brighter" ≠ "millions of years."
Didn't you read/understand this part at the end, ie, wiki:
...which CONTRACTS to LATER become a main sequence star at the ONSET of Hydrogen fusion.
Get that now, DS? The ONSET does NOT imply a millions-of-years-long period, does it? And the "CONTRACTS to LATER become"...implies that the forming star gravity-compression is heating it up AND is enough to have prevented it from collapsing into NS densities. :)

ps; re:
I hope you understand that ≠ means "not equals," since you are innumerate.
Insults again, DS?

Mar 19, 2019
I hope you understand that ≠ means "not equals," since you are innumerate.

The ONSET does NOT imply a millions-of-years-long period, does it?
Seems like a process that builds up over millions of years implies an onset of millions of years. As the pressure increases, the heat increases, and as the heat increases, the probability of fusion increases, and then it enters positive feedback until the star stabilizes. Do you know what "stabilizes" means?

Mar 19, 2019
Here's a pretty thorough debunking by a real astrophysicist: https://briankobe...niverse/

We can start with his first objection regarding neutrinos. He claims straight off the ES will not produce neutrinos at , per the theory. His first point is patently false, there is no doubt fusion occurs at stars and there is no doubt neutrinos are to be expected in the ES model. Just at a lesser value than the ST, along the lines of what is actually observed unlike the ST's contrived ad hoc patch.
Since he can't get his first point factually accurate it would be a waste of time commenting further on this plasma ignoramus' opinions. IOW, he debunked nothing and immediately resorted to lying or he is woefully ignorant. Probably both.

Mar 19, 2019
Previous post should read;
"will not produce neutrinos at all,"

Mar 19, 2019
We can start with his first objection regarding neutrinos. He claims straight off the ES will not produce neutrinos at all, per the theory. His first point is patently false, there is no doubt fusion occurs at stars and there is no doubt neutrinos are to be expected in the ES model. Just at a lesser value than the ST, along the lines of what is actually observed unlike the ST's contrived ad hoc patch.
There are easily enough neutrinos. You forgot about flavor fluctuations, which have been proved on Earth in particle accelerators. This isn't theory. It's fact. Experimental fact.

Since you can't get your first point factually accurate it would be a waste of time commenting further on this EUdiot ignoramus' opinions. IOW he debunked nothing and immediately resorted to lying or he is woefully ignorant. Probably both.

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The ONSET does NOT imply a millions-of-years-long period, does it?
Seems like a process that builds up over millions of years implies an onset of millions of years. As the pressure increases, the heat increases, and as the heat increases, the probability of fusion increases, and then it enters positive feedback until the star stabilizes. Do you know what "stabilizes" means?
No no, mate. You are obviously conflating the LONG PERIOD OF CONTRACTION process with the SUDDEN ONSET of EXPLOSIVE initiation of MAIN FUSION process. Please try to read/understand in context, DS; it's long been your main failing and led to most of your faux pas against me, especially the unwarranted accusations of lying etc, due to your own misreading/misunderstanding what is actually written in context. I trust you now get the point: newly forming/contracting stars are sufficiently heated by Gravity-Compression HEAT sufficient to prevent collapse even before main fusion. Ok? :)

Mar 19, 2019
SUDDEN ONSET of EXPLOSIVE initiation of MAIN FUSION
Produce a paper that asserts this.

You're lying again, @109LiarRC. Or bring the paper.

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
SUDDEN ONSET of EXPLOSIVE initiation of MAIN FUSION
Produce a paper that asserts this.

You're lying again, @109LiarRC. Or bring the paper.
This has been mainstream model/explanation for many decades, DS. That's the reason I asked you to clarify what you meant by that comment which contradicted the understanding of mainstream all these years. Even the wiki excerpt I quoted was written with that longstanding mainstream understanding in mind. As for 'papers', I'm sure you have the time to waste searching the literature for papers which are (collectively) the basis on which the above wiki/mainstream explanation/model is based. I do not need to waste my time on doing that; especially as it is obvious to any reasonable readers that the wiki is the mainstream understanding of the processes involved. Enjoy your (unnecessary) search, DS. :)

ps: Why all the insults (yet again), DS? Don't you ever learn, mate?

Mar 19, 2019
There are easily enough neutrinos. You forgot about flavor

I am aware of the convenient ad hoc explanations. Sure, neutrinos may change flavor, whether they change to the exact ratios to save Eddington's mutilated model is pure conjecture based on maths gymnastics.

Mar 19, 2019
Off Topic:
@RealityCheck
Does this article and the comments look familiar to you?

https://phys.org/...ery.html

Experts cast doubt on Big Bang bolstering discovery
June 14, 2014 by Jean-Louis Santini

Mar 19, 2019
So what do we need the electricity for? It seems to be an unnecessary conjecture, to explain something that's already explained.

Because it is not explained by a gravity dominated hypothesis without resorting to faerie dust and leprechaun energy.

"And even if one regards the electric fields as merely another postulate, it has the great advantage that it is the one postulate which, in my view, renders all the others unnecessary." C. E. R Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science, 1968

Oh, and an electrical gradient is present in the SS, it has been measured.

Mar 19, 2019
faerie dust and leprechaun energy.

I should point out those labels are only place holders.

Mar 19, 2019
@cantdrive85.
faerie dust and leprechaun energy.

I should point out those labels are only place holders.
Hehehe. Very good. Very subtle.Very funny. Thanks for the quiet chuckle. :)

Mar 19, 2019
So, no paper. You're lying again, @109LiarRC.

Thread where @109LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
Thread where @109LiarRC claims not to have an agenda: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
No one can possibly look at all these lies and believe that.
Thread where @109LiarRC claims again to have been "right all along:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims BICEP2's first findings were "bogus" (i.e. a conspiracy by degreed credentialed professional scientists): https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims gravity and EM can engage in "feedback loops" with no evidence: https://phys.org/...tar.html

Mar 19, 2019
@S_E_U.
Off Topic:
@RealityCheck
Does this article and the comments look familiar to you?

https://phys.org/...ery.html

Experts cast doubt on Big Bang bolstering discovery
June 14, 2014 by Jean-Louis Santini
Yes it does, mate. And it should, since I commented in that thread. If you go to the other threads I linked in my posts, you'll get a wider picture of my response to that and other 'big bang-support' claims by those not yet up to speed with recent mainstream discovery/reviews which support my observations which falsify big bang claims. Thanks for the reminder, mate. :)

Mar 19, 2019
recent mainstream discovery/reviews which support my observations which falsify big bang claims
You're lying again, @109LiarRC. You know what comes next.

I won't even bother to ask for links and quotes because they don't exist. Just like the fusion in the solar plasmoids.

Mar 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
Perhaps this article would better represent your comments on the 4 fatal flaws that Captain Dumpy was/is constantly referring to.

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

I had been searching for those flaws in the hope that you just might have forgotten where you put it. After all, the Cap's incessant barking at you in the phorums wrt the flaws is a bit nauseating, wouldn't you say?

Mar 19, 2019
@Forum.

Looks like the obsessive-compulsive 'internet tragic' is at it again, spamming his own 'version' of what is contained in the links he lists. The poor thing still hasn't realised that he is doing me a great favour because posts of mine previously hidden/buried by his/others sneaky/dishonest/juvenile DOWN-bot-voting 'gang members' will now be seen by any readers following poor DS's list! Unfortunately, DS seems to like shooting himself in the foot, because those same links will tell that it is DS who is wrong/deluded while I was correct all along, as recent mainstream discovery/reviews increasingly confirm. Oh well, it's an ill wind that brings nobody any good; and DS is doing a great (but tragic) impression of a particularly nasty 'ill wind'. Sad.

Mar 19, 2019
@RC
That June 14, 2014 article was a bit later, it seems.
But I thought I would try to help you out so that some peace and quiet would come over the phorums wrt your 4 fatal flaws shindig with the Cap Dumpy guy continually harping on it. I do hope that you will find those flaws ASAP, RC.

Uh RC, why don't you just ignore the lout and laugh it off. He belongs in a looney bin and everyone knows it but are too afraid to say it.
Just chill, RC

Mar 19, 2019
@S_E_U.
Perhaps this article would better represent your comments on the 4 fatal flaws that Captain Dumpy was/is constantly referring to.

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

I had been searching for those flaws in the hope that you just might have forgotten where you put it. After all, the Cap's incessant barking at you in the phorums wrt the flaws is a bit nauseating, wouldn't you say?
I have later mentioned the flaws in various (aside) conversations in various threads with various interlocutors (the last one I recall was with @imfromcanada; which CS said he "couldn't find"...despite him being IN that thread trolling/insulting as usual!). Anyhow, I have long ago stopped caring what CS demands etc; especially since he missed everything due to his own (BOASTED) penchant for NOT READING before insulting. Apparently his 'patented' CS-TL;DR research method has a MAJOR flaw...CS DOESN'T READ before claiming "NOT FOUND'!

Mar 19, 2019
Thread where @Thread where @109LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
claims engineering was invented in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...dio.html
Thread where @109LiarRC defends @Zeph, who has been kicked off physorg more times than anyone: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @109LiarRC goes paranoid (this is not unusual for @109LiarRC) and starts accusing other posters of being "bots:" https://phys.org/...ace.html
Thread where @109LiarRC denies math works again: https://phys.org/...low.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims energy in space can somehow create charge from nothing: https://phys.org/...cle.html

Mar 19, 2019
Go you beauty! Thanks, DS. :)

ps @S_E_U, taking your advice; chilling out. Cheers. :)

Mar 19, 2019
You already tried that troll too, @109LiarRC.

It didn't work the first time either.

Mar 19, 2019
@S_E_U.
Perhaps this article would..

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

I had been searching for those flaws in the hope that you just might have forgotten where you put it. After all, the Cap's incessant barking at you in the phorums wrt the flaws is a bit nauseating, wouldn't you say?
I have later mentioned the flaws in various (aside) conversations in various threads with various interlocutors (the last one I recall was with @imfromcanada; which CS said he "couldn't find"...despite him being IN that thread trolling/insulting as usual!). Anyhow, I have long ago stopped caring what CS demands etc; especially since he missed everything due to his own (BOASTED) penchant for NOT READING before insulting. Apparently his 'patented' CS-TL;DR research method has a MAJOR flaw...CS DOESN'T READ before claiming "NOT FOUND'!
says RC

Yes I have noticed that also. That could be counted as a flaw in his character. A fatal flaw.

Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You already tried that troll too, @109LiarRC.

It didn't work the first time either.
What "hasn't worked" (for you) is that your list only highlights my (correct all along) post which you/others previously bot-downvoted to hide them from readers' 'filter setting'. It's "working" for me just fine, DS. Go you beauty! Thanks. :)

Mar 19, 2019
@109LiarRC lies again.

Why do you keep trying this bullshit? No one is fooled by it.

Mar 19, 2019
@S_E_U.
I have later mentioned the flaws in various (aside) conversations in various threads with various interlocutors (the last one I recall was with @imfromcanada; which CS said he "couldn't find"...despite him being IN that thread trolling/insulting as usual!). Anyhow, I have long ago stopped caring what CS demands etc; especially since he missed everything due to his own (BOASTED) penchant for NOT READING before insulting. Apparently his 'patented' CS-TL;DR research method has a MAJOR flaw...CS DOESN'T READ before claiming "NOT FOUND'!
Yes I have noticed that also. That could be counted as a flaw in his character. A fatal flaw.
I see what you did there, with that "fatal flaw" allusion! Funny and sadly all too true simultaneously. Anyhow, I'm chilling out now. Thanks for the chuckle. :)

Mar 19, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC claims there haven't been any lab experiments in plasma physics before 2015: https://phys.org/...lds.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims the galactic magnetic field has a net effect on uncharged, non-magnetic asteroids not to mention supernova remnants: https://phys.org/...ova.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims magnetic fields can create plasmas: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims the Big Bang doesn't have any supporting physical evidence: https://phys.org/...sal.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims DM and DE are "aether:" https://phys.org/...mic.html

Mar 19, 2019
@109LiarRC lies again.

Why do you keep trying this bullshit? No one is fooled by it.
Whatever you say, mate. :)

ps: Go you beauty! Thanks, DS. :)

Mar 19, 2019
@lying criminal fraud and pseudoscience cult preaching sam fodera
@imfromcanada; which CS said he "couldn't find"
for starters, you're lying
the conversation - me:
you have to substantiate your first claim and show, written in the BICEP2 papers, where the 4 fatal flaws are
you
I already mentioned them in discussions/exchanges with others since
uh oh! You can't actually prove this part, but you say
I even mentioned one most crucial flaw in my response to @imfromcanada
to which I reply
and then all (or any of) the other threads where you mention the other three fatal flaws
(make sure i get a quote i can search for)
and anyone can read that here: https://phys.org/...ter.html

one thing you never do: link any proof that you've listed all 4 fatal flaws, let alone all 8 flaws

that makes you a proven, blatant liar still arguing that you've given evidence that you can't prove you actually produced
2Bcont'd

Mar 19, 2019
@lying criminal fraud & pseudoscience cult illiterate sam fodera cont'd
in the canada thread I stated
to date, you've posted 6,471 times without validating your 4 fatal flawsvfor BICEP2 alone

(and before you bring up your singular point to imfrimcanada...
https://phys.org/...rgy.html

the count is now past 8,700 posts because I don't include the past 10 hrs of your bs diversion from reality

I am not the only one who can't find your 4 fatal flaws claim either

the MODS can't find it
the ADMIN can't find it
no user on PO has *ever* found it
no user in any forum has *ever* been able to link to it
Google can't find it

hell - you couldn't even find it

so, at this point, there is only one thing left to do, since you can't even abide by your own request - reported for lying, pseudoscience, baiting and trolling

the exact same reason you were permabanned twice from sciforums and permabanned from Sapo's Joint

Mar 19, 2019
Sure, sure, whatever you say, CS! :)........[smiling and nodding and backing away slowly].

Mar 19, 2019
Run away and hide, troll. Here we got a toad-sticker.

Or, to put it another way, "Thou standest between me and my kin. Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, ere I set this troll's bane in thee."

Mar 19, 2019
Nice trolls, niiiice trolls...whatever you say, DS and CS!......[smiles and nods and backs away slowly from the two 'troll kin'].

Mar 20, 2019
@lying criminal fraud & pseudoscience cult illiterate sam fodera
Sure, sure, whatever you say, CS! :)
actually, it's whatever *you* said - hence the quotes

all of it is a matter of public record

I'm not asking for someone to take my word like you are with your "I have later mentioned the flaws" comment where no one has ever been able to verify it

anyone can follow the links above and see the quotes
or they can check the ban lists for the sites you've been kicked off of
or they can google your comments
or count your total comments (8,722 including deleted comments that can be found on archives)
or check with ACORN about investigating you
or check with AUS public records regarding your criminality
or appeal to the site admin to verify the information

it's not a matter of subjective interpretation - it's a proven, validatable fact that anyone can check to verify

per your request...

Mar 20, 2019
^^
Absolutely.

Repeat: "it's not a matter of subjective interpretation - it's a proven, validatable fact that anyone can check to verify".


Mar 20, 2019
There is not a chance that these observations are of bloody currents.

But since this is plasma, they are most certainly electric currents. It is the only way to achieve the morphology, structure, and observed magnetic fields.

RNP
Mar 20, 2019
@cantdrive85
It is the only way to achieve the morphology, structure, and observed magnetic fields.


Just making up wild claims such as this is one of the things that identifies you as a scientifically illiterate troll.

Mar 20, 2019
There is not a chance that these observations are of bloody currents.

But since this is plasma, they are most certainly electric currents. It is the only way to achieve the morphology, structure, and observed magnetic fields.


No they are not. Stop lying. Plasma does not = current. Lern to scienz.

Mar 20, 2019
There are easily enough neutrinos. You forgot about flavor

I am aware of the convenient ad hoc explanations. Sure, neutrinos may change flavor, whether they change to the exact ratios to save Eddington's mutilated model is pure conjecture based on maths gymnastics.


Wrong. Proven beyond doubt.

Mar 20, 2019
If the prerequisite of being "scientifically literate" is being a plasma ignoramus, then I am okay with that.

RNP
Mar 20, 2019
@cantdrive
If the prerequisite of being "scientifically literate" is being a plasma ignoramus, then I am okay with that.


No. It means you don't know enough about science to hold a reasoned conversation about it. So, your pride is COMPLETELY misplaced.

Mar 20, 2019
If the prerequisite of being "scientifically literate" is being a plasma ignoramus, then I am okay with that.


You know as much about plasma physics as you do about the rest of physics - zilch.

Mar 20, 2019
I am deficient at plasma ignoramics.

Mar 20, 2019
I am deficient at plasma physics.


FTFY.

Mar 20, 2019
I am deficient at plasma ignoramics.


FTFY.

No need, it is accurate.

Mar 20, 2019
I am deficient at plasma ignoramics.


FTFY.

No need, it is accurate.


Nope, you are demonstrably ignorant of plasma physics. As has been shown repeatedly. Anybody that thinks a star can be formed by non-existent Birkeland currents is clearly clueless.

Mar 20, 2019
Yet the currents are right there, the "infalling streams" as the purveyors of plasma ignoramics call them.

Mar 20, 2019
Yet the currents are right there, the "infalling streams" as the purveyors of plasma ignoramics call them.


Stop lying. What the hell is wrong with you? They are not currents, you idiot. You know nothing about the subject.

Mar 20, 2019
Yet the currents are right there, the "infalling streams" as the purveyors of plasma ignoramics call them.

As far as this article is concerned, there is no mention of "infalling streams".
Only of "infalling matter"...
No mention of it's "structure"...

Mar 20, 2019
As far as this article is concerned, there is no mention of "infalling streams".
Only of "infalling matter"...
No mention of it's "structure"...

From this article above;
"The background image shows dense, dusty streams of gas (shown in green) that appear to be flowing towards the center."
The dusty streams would be a dusty plasma.
And they mention the dusty streams of ionized matter repeatedly in the paper jonesdumb linked. They also discussed the structure as well.

Mar 20, 2019
As far as this article is concerned, there is no mention of "infalling streams".
Only of "infalling matter"...
No mention of it's "structure"...

From this article above;
"The background image shows dense, dusty streams of gas (shown in green) that appear to be flowing towards the center."
The dusty streams would be a dusty plasma.
And they mention the dusty streams of ionized matter repeatedly in the paper jonesdumb linked. They also discussed the structure as well.


None of which has anything to do with Birkeland currents. You are making stuff up due to having zero knowledge of the subject.

Mar 20, 2019
A dusty "stream" of plasma with magnetic fields wrapping around it are most assuredly Birkeland currents.

Mar 20, 2019
A dusty "stream" of plasma with magnetic fields wrapping around it are most assuredly Birkeland currents.


No they are not. And nobody is saying they are, and nobody believes such idiotic nonsense as Birkeland currents creating stars. It is pure pseudoscience. No such model exists.

Mar 20, 2019
magnetic fields wrapping around it


Which is another lie. Where is the reference to that?

Mar 20, 2019
Somebody needs to write a java that makes jargon generator technobabble from EUdiocy. It will sound just like them and be just as ridiculous.

Suggested terms:
Birkeland currents
pop science
electric Sun
plasma ignoramuses
invisible thunderbolts

That'll do for starters. We'd need about 16 terms to get a really good one. We could use it to post nonsense that they'd all upvote for about a hundred threads, then comes the reveal, just like the Sokal Affair.

Mar 20, 2019
@CS
@Ojorf.

@CS:
Sure, sure, whatever you say, CS! :)
actually, it's whatever *you* said - hence the quotes
It speaks volumes to the intelligent PO readers that you don't comprehend the "sure, sure, whatever you say" is used by reasonable person when attempting to humour/placate a disturbed individuals; such as yourself and DS have (yet again) been demonstrating yourselves to be.

@Ojorf.
^^
Absolutely.

Repeat: "it's not a matter of subjective interpretation - it's a proven, validatable fact that anyone can check to verify".
Your troll-asslicking predilection is (yet again) noted by the intelligent readers. You appear to have missed the memo that I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/reviews; whilst you and those trolls you have been asslicking are a disgrace to character, intellect, reason and objective scientific method.

Try polite, objective, fair, on-topic science/logics discussion. :)

Mar 21, 2019
Try polite, objective, fair, on-topic science/logics discussion.
So RC, since reality ain't cutting it for you?
Do you intend to change your tag to something less unbelievable?

You want decent people to ignore the crappy behavior of hustlers & grifters.
Cause even the flagrant liars & deliberate plagiarists need love?
Since you haven't been paying attention?
I'll explain the facts of the case to you. These bots infest the science sites in a deliberate agitprop campaign against the Sciences.
They are attempting extortion by defaming Real Scientists, with vile lying denunciations against
to tear down their reputations.

Why? The Real Scientists denied these frauds access to the laboratories for the woomerchants to run their fake experiments.
In addition to trying to extort access to suborn the Peer Review system.

An offshoot of these sordid usurpers are the antivaxxers who have corrupted innocent but ignorant, gullible parents into letting their children die.

Mar 21, 2019
asslicking
And this individual claims not to be trolling. Another thread to add to the list. @111LiarRC.

Mar 21, 2019
@Forum.

Note yet again how the unfortunate DS individual chops out full context which would have given any reasonably intelligent/objective person the understanding that the ONE word (obviously 'selected' with malice aforethought by the unfortunate DS individual above) was an integral part of my fuller response to the relevant poster who was trolling/insulting me first. Fairness is not, and apparently never has been, one of the above unfortunate DS individual's traits. Obviously.

Mar 21, 2019
Two Baby Starlets in orbital spin

This Starry Starlet Nursery
is so large
two Starlets 16.7billion miles apart
formed in this nursery
in binary orbit
of
570 hundred years
5.5thousand Lys from Earth
it only goes to show
when these Stellar Starry Starlet Nurseries
get above a certain size
individual Starlets form
which as these two Starlets are in binary orbit
this massive Starry Starlet Nursery was in orbital spin
before this cloud began to collapses
as these 18 solar mass binary Starlets prove
Every Galactic object in our Galactic Vacuum is in orbital spin

These two starry starlets
in their starry plasmatic cloud of plasma
condense this plasma
to starry balls of plasma
two electrified balls of plasma
in plasmatic magnetic fields extending Lys
ejecting streams of plasma
flowing within these plasmatic magnetic fields extending Lys
all in all
a plasmatic cloud
two plasmatic starlets
In magnetic plasmatic winds

Mar 21, 2019
magnetic fields wrapping around it


Which is another lie. Where is the reference to that?

You want to conveniently forget what is known about these types of "clouds" to save face? There have been several articles just recently about these types of "clouds" and they say just that.

Mar 21, 2019
@rrwillsj.
[qTry polite, objective, fair, on-topic science/logics discussion.
So RC, since reality ain't cutting it for you? The reality works for me fine, mate; since I am the one increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream, astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews; while your 'preferred' so-called "decent people" have been wrong while trolling/bot-voting me for being correct. Perhaps you should DISCERN better who is correct and who not IN EACH CASE depending on the facts rather than making generalised misinformed conclusions/insults tarring me with the same brush you tar others.
You want decent people to ignore the crappy behavior of hustlers & grifters. Cause even the flagrant liars & deliberate plagiarists need love?
It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Those pretending to respect/defend science SHOULD SET THE EXAMPLE of GOOD BEHAVIOUR and OBJECTIVE DISCOURSE at ALL times; else don't complain when others use your trolling/insulting tactics against you.

Mar 21, 2019
magnetic fields wrapping around it


Which is another lie. Where is the reference to that?

You want to conveniently forget what is known about these types of "clouds" to save face? There have been several articles just recently about these types of "clouds" and they say just that.


No they don't. There is no current, so there is nothing for the field to spiral around. A magnetic field in a current will spiral helically around the current in the direction of travel. That is not seen. And, apart from anything else, there isn't a single scientifically viable model of how currents could create and sustain a star. It is pure pseudoscience.

Mar 21, 2019
@rrwillsj..cont:
These bots infest the science sites in a deliberate agitprop campaign against the Sciences.
I know, mate; that is why I have been calling such people out for years now, on ALL 'sides'. The problem is that some of those trolls/bot-voter 'gangs' are those very same posters whom you 'prefer' over the other 'gangs' of trolls/bot-voters! No-one should be allowed to get away with that sort of nasty lying, personal attacks, trolling, bot-voting etc.
...suborn the Peer Review system.
You're a relative newly compared to me, mate, so you may not have realised yet that the CS, DS, UI etc 'gang' have been 'gaming' the rating system HERE (and other now-defunct forums) for almost TWO DECADES (go see how they bot-vote-skew MY ratings in Climate Change/Other threads DESPITE me being correct on science/behaviour! Hypocrites.
...the antivaxxers
Treat them like you would AGW deniers. Call them out with facts. Don't troll/bot-vote etc and so sink to their level.

Mar 21, 2019
@rrwillsj.
Try polite, objective, fair, on-topic science/logics discussion.
So RC, since reality ain't cutting it for you?
The reality works for me fine, mate; since I am the one increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream, astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews; while your 'preferred' so-called "decent people" have been wrong while trolling/bot-voting me for being correct. Perhaps you should DISCERN better who is correct and who not IN EACH CASE depending on the facts rather than making generalised misinformed conclusions/insults tarring me with the same brush you tar others.
You want decent people to ignore the crappy behavior of hustlers & grifters. Cause even flagrant liars & deliberate plagiarists need love?
It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Those who TRULY respect/defend science/humanity SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE of BEST BEHAVIOUR/OBJECTIVE DISCOURSE at ALL times; else you can't complain when others use your trolling/insulting tactics against you.

Mar 21, 2019
As far as this article is concerned, there is no mention of "infalling streams".
Only of "infalling matter"...
No mention of it's "structure"...

From this article above;
"The background image shows dense, dusty streams of gas (shown in green) that appear to be flowing towards the center."
The dusty streams would be a dusty plasma.
And they mention the dusty streams of ionized matter repeatedly in the paper jonesdumb linked. They also discussed the structure as well.

I usually don't read the captions of the pictures...

Mar 21, 2019
@RC, your entire style is based on trolling. I've never seen you make a post without trolling with your arrogance. Certainly not ever one addressed to me. If you troll, I will troll you back and I told you so long ago. If you don't like it, don't do it. This constitutes a double standard where you do something nasty, get it stuffed up your nose, and whine about how it's not fair.

I'll stop trolling you when you stop trolling me. The end.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
your entire style is based on trolling. I've never seen you make a post without trolling with your arrogance. Certainly not ever one addressed to me. If you troll, I will troll you back and I told you so long ago. If you don't like it, don't do it. This constitutes a double standard where you do something nasty, get it stuffed up your nose, and whine about how it's not fair. I'll stop trolling you when you stop trolling me.
Seriously, mate? How can you have 'forgotten' the all-too-many instance where I was the scientist and you the troll?

Example: our exchange re 'plasmoids in sun', wherein you trolled/insulted while I tried to get you to listen/learn instead of making your ego-tripping faux pas as usual; link:

https://phys.org/...per.html

You finally admitted I was correct on the science (not to mention behaviour) after you trolled and accused me of "lying". So be honest and stop the denial/projection, DS. :)

Mar 21, 2019
How can you have 'forgotten' the all-too-many instance where I was the scientist and you the troll?
More trolling. More arrogance. That's your style.

I now have over a hundred threads on which you've lied, and the count seems to be growing almost daily.

There's no point in arguing with a trolling liar; but there is a point in trolling them back.

If you ever stop I will. But you never will. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Mar 21, 2019
ps @Da Schneib.

And how many times have I 'offered the olive branch' and prepared to let bygones be bygones and start afresh between us. mate; only to be rebuffed with more trolling and insults every time, accompanied by a face-saving spam campaign of twisted misrepresented claims about where I supposedly "lied" but actually did not since it was your misrepresentation/spamming campaign that was doing the lying about what I actually said in those linked threads/discussions? I'm sure the @Forum has lost count by now, DS. Please, once more I am offering the olive branch, mate; if you can desist reverting back ti type at the drop of a hat, maybe this time we can succeed in putting the past behind us. Ok? The ball is, as ever has been, in your court, DS. :)

Mar 21, 2019
I offered you an olive branch on plasmoids and you have beaten me up with it ever since.

Asshole.

You blew that one and you'll never get another. Stop trolling and lying, @110LiarRC.

Ya gets what ya pays for.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
How can you have 'forgotten' the all-too-many instance where I was the scientist and you the troll?
More trolling. More arrogance. That's your style.

I now have over a hundred threads on which you've lied, and the count seems to be growing almost daily.

There's no point in arguing with a trolling liar; but there is a point in trolling them back.

If you ever stop I will. But you never will. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
The link I gave above is all that is needed to hopefully make you realise the situation re your own failings, DS. No amount of projecting/denying and diversion tactics will change those facts, DS.I have again offered the olive branch above. If you want to accept it then all will be forgiven and forgot. Choose well, mate, for your own sake as well as the sake of science and humanity. Good luck. :)

Mar 21, 2019
No, the link you provided above proves you are a trolling liar, and that there's no point in admitting when I'm wrong. So, since you've proven you have no integrity, I no longer care. And I troll you mercilessly. I proved my integrity; I admitted to being wrong. You never have and never will.

You're a lying sack of shit troll, @110LiarRC. Soon to be 111 no doubt.

Prove me wrong. Admit you were wrong.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I offered you an olive branch on plasmoids and you have beaten me up with it ever since.

Asshole.

You blew that one and you'll never get another. Stop trolling and lying, @110LiarRC.

Ya gets what ya pays for.
What "olive branch", DS? You admitted error (which was inevitable according to the science I pointed out for you)...but YOU NEVER APOLOGIZED for TROLLING ME and CALLING ME "LIAR" while YOU were in the wrong all along and me correct. How is that an 'olive branch', DS? Not only that, but you thereafter FOR YERAS and until now STILL kept trolling and accusing me of "lying" when I was correct and you incorrect. Please, DS, stop digging and just apologise and we can forget all this and start afresh. Try.

Mar 21, 2019
I admitted I was wrong to see what you would do.

You failed. That's because you're an arrogant lying sack of shit troll.

You get one shot. It's to evaluate your character. Your character stinks, and I don't like you, and since then you've lied on 110 threads. You always lie and you are always arrogant and you always troll. Your character is evident, and disgusting.

Showing someone trolled you on one thread- and you never showed I lied, only that I was incorrect- is not the same as showing lies on 110 threads. The first is a mistake; the second is a habit. I don't have a habit of lying; you do. Simple as that.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, the link you provided above proves you are a trolling liar, and that there's no point in admitting when I'm wrong. So, since you've proven you have no integrity, I no longer care. And I troll you mercilessly. I proved my integrity; I admitted to being wrong. You never have and never will.

You're a lying sack of shit troll, @110LiarRC. Soon to be 111 no doubt.

Prove me wrong. Admit you were wrong.
Admitting error BUT keeping on trolling/calling me 'liar" ever since, is the action of a schizophrenic, DS. Can you not see that? It's obvious to every objective/fairminded observer here (your 'trolling/botvoting 'enabler' friends don't qualify, obviously). Why can't you learn from your mistakes and faux pas against me, DS? Is your ego such a controlling monster that you are helpless to resist its dictates over your reason/honesty? Shed some ego and get some strength of character, DS. Then just apologize for your unwarranted attacks and we'll forget all this

Mar 21, 2019
And I admitted mine. Where's your admission?

I keep on trolling you because you were offered the olive branch and used it as a weapon.

You are a lying, stinking, arrogant sack of shit troll. Prove me wrong.

Whatever others do isn't my responsibility. I vote once and once only. Your paranoid fantasies also are not my responsibility. Sorry if a lot of people concluded what they did about you based on your behavior and you don't want to admit it.

Try not being an arrogant sack of shit troll for a while in ALL your posts and see how that works out for you. Not that you can.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Scneib.
I admitted I was wrong to see what you would do.
So even your admission of error is 'part of a tactic' and not genuine. DS? Why does that not surprise anyone, especially me (who has got to know your character/ego all too well over the years of your trolls/insults while you were wrong and me correct all along).

You failed. That's because you're an arrogant lying sack of shit troll.
You failed, DS; you reverted to type for years, so there went all hope for your redemption. Your present farce is tragic proof of that, DS.

You always lie and you are always arrogant and you always troll. Your character is evident, and disgusting.
Projection and denial, DS. You need to own your mistakes/failings, DS; that's the only way forward for recovery of your self-esteem.

Showing someone trolled you on one thread- and you never showed I lied,
It was YOU accused ME of "LYING" while I was CORRECT and you NOT, DS. TELL IT STRAIGHT for once, mate. :)

Mar 21, 2019
You should never, ever, ever have rejected my admission and trolled me for it. It was a very bad mistake. I will never trust you again. I know about people like you. Met a lot of them. Test them every time and they always fail.

And I always test peoples' tactics. It gives the key to their character. If they're upright and honest, that's good. If not, if they beat you up with the olive branch, that's bad and it's time to grab the sword and hit them with it. And keep on until they die. Like after they tell lies on 110 threads.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You should never, ever, ever have rejected my admission and trolled me for it. It was a very bad mistake. I will never trust you again. I know about people like you. Met a lot of them. Test them every time and they always fail
What trolled, mate? I only ever alluded to that instance as proof of your untrustworthiness cos YOU trolled me again and again thereafter. I many times asked you politely to desist, but you just kept on unheeding and nasty. My only DEFENCE was to remind you and the @Forum what YOU have been doing all along that forced me to respond in kind in self-defence. Had you not kept trolling/attacking I would not have needed to remind of that instance. Your incessant heedless trolls and insults, plus your juvenile bravado making threats and silly misrepresentations, only makes things worse for YOU, DS, not me. So be honest for once, DS; and try to stop your manic trolls/attacks, especially when someone is polite/on-science in the first instance.

Mar 21, 2019
The stupid will keep opening his mouth every time for the dirt.

I am not a stupid. Once does it for me. After that you are an enemy.

What trolled, mate?
It's on the very thread you linked, @110LiarRC.

Give it up asshole. Everyone can see what you are from your own evidence.

You should never have wielded the olive branch of peace as a weapon. That you continue to do so makes it clear what you are.

Mar 21, 2019
YOU have been doing all along that forced me to respond in kind in self-defence
But of course it's not OK for me to respond the same way.

Double standard.

I have offered another olive branch, but this one has conditions: you stop and I will. You never will.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The stupid will keep opening his mouth every time for the dirt.

I am not a stupid. Once does it for me. After that you are an enemy.
There, right there, DS; you keep making these silly juvenile threats and dares posts empty of science or reason. Is it any wonder you have been making a fool of yourself all this time while projecting your failings on me, DS? Stop with the childish and meaningless trash talk, mate; start being a genuine, polite, objective, fair-minded scientist and human being. It's never too late, mate. Just apologize and start fresh with less trash talk/insults and you should be fine. Just don't revert to type at the drop of a hat again, ok? :)

Mar 21, 2019
You stuffed dirt in my mouth, @110LiarRC, the one time I gave you a chance, and tried to do it again.

I know what you are from this and so does everyone else who counts and those who matter don't count, and those who don't count don't matter.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
YOU have been doing all along that forced me to respond in kind in self-defence
But of course it's not OK for me to respond the same way.

Double standard.

I have offered another olive branch, but this one has conditions: you stop and I will. You never will.
It has been you and your 'enabler' friends that started it each time, DS! I defended.

Tell it straight for once in your life, DS. As for the olive branch, it was ME that has been offering it all along FOR YERAS; now all of a sudden you put CONDITIONS on your own offering? Can't you see how weasel that is, DS? Either you stop unwarrantedly attacking/insulting me and start behaving properly, or else don't pretend that you are offering anything of value to anyone, DS.

Now, IF you accept my longstanding 'love branch' offering, just say so, DS; and then act accordingly instead of placing conditions, making bravado threats/assertions which devalue said offering. Ok? Can you do it properly, DS? :)

Mar 21, 2019
Your comment rating is 1.9 and mine is 3.7.

Next?

Mar 21, 2019
I doubt you have the integrity, but I will treat you as honorably as you deserve. So far you lie and cheat and troll.

If you want any cred here it's time and past time to stop but I doubt your false pride will allow you to.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Scheib.
Your comment rating is 1.9 and mine is 3.7.

Next?
Mate, did you miss the fact that the ratings system has been corrupted for years now by bot-voting gangs rating based on personal animus and ego agendas rather than correctness of science/behaviour? Everyone has known this for years, DS. So your appeal to CORRUPT METRICS does you no credit and actually confirms all the things that everyone has seen here about your character and ego needs. Depending on such corrupted metrics is akin to making a false claim, DS. No real scientist or honest person would have done that, DS. Please stop gaming the metrics and reverting to tactics unbecoming a scientist and gentleman, DS. Just come clean; apologize; accept my longstanding olive branch offer; and we can all move on. :)

Mar 21, 2019
Still lying and cheating and trolling, @110LiarRC.

You can't make arguments so you lie and cheat and troll. Everyone can see it. You deny it yet your ratings get worse and worse.

Beating someone up with the olive branch makes it obvious what you are.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I doubt you have the integrity, but I will treat you as honorably as you deserve. So far you lie and cheat and troll.

If you want any cred here it's time and past time to stop but I doubt your false pride will allow you to.
Projecting still, DS? Why keep doing this to yourself? I don't "want" anything from you, DS; except for you to abide by the science and humanity principles dictating honesty and objectivity and fair play and polite respect for interlocutors (oh, and not bot-voting/attacking just because you were shown ton be in error). If you can Dom that bat least, then I'm sure the whole @forum will respect you more and you can be the best you can be on the science and the behaviour. Good luck. :)

Mar 21, 2019
I wasn't the one who rejected the olive branch by using it to beat the shit out of you.

What you are is obvious, and that's a treacherous lying sack of shit troll.

Proven by your own link.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Scneib.
Still lying and cheating and trolling, @110LiarRC.

You can't make arguments so you lie and cheat and troll. Everyone can see it. You deny it yet your ratings get worse and worse.

Beating someone up with the olive branch makes it obvious what you are.
Really. mate? Is that it? I thought we covered all that, DS, when I linked the thread earlier wherein it was YOU Accusing ME of "lying" despite me being correct all along. Try to get off your defensive bravado, DS; it's making you look desperate and foolish as ever. Just own your past and present failings and let yourself get on with your better character/life. Do it. :)

Mar 21, 2019
More arrogant lying sack of shit trolling.

What's the matter with you, @110LiarRC? You got the peace offering and rejected it. Did you expect anyone would trust you after that? Are you really that stupid?

You rejected it when honestly offered. No one will believe any offering from you is honest after that.

Mar 21, 2019
The correct answer is, "I'm sorry I kept lying about you after you offered peace. I'd like to take that back now and I won't troll you any more."

But that's not something you'll ever say or do. You're more interested in being an arrogant lying sack of shit troll.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I wasn't the one who rejected the olive branch by using it to beat the shit out of you. What you are is obvious, and that's a treacherous lying sack of shit troll.
Proven by your own link.
You keep twisting it back-to-front, mate. I was polite and correct; you attacked and accused FALSELY; then you went on a YEARS LONG campaign (aided/abetted by your troll-bot-voting 'gang' pals) of unwarranted attacks/accusations, misrepresentations. You/they are STILL at it. At no stage have you actually looked at yourselves to see the REAL troll/liar problem. You still deny and project instead. That's been unhealthy for more than just the @Forum ambience and discourse; it has been disastrous for your/their reputations and mental health because of cognitive dissonance and malicious intent pervading all your internet nastiness campaign against me. I am correct still; you/they incorrect still; I was your/their victim; you/they the perpetrators. Own it, DS et al.

Mar 21, 2019
Simple as this: I admitted I was wrong. You never have.

My reputation appears better than yours. Just sayin'.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Simple as this: I admitted I was wrong. You never have. My reputation appears better than yours. Just sayin'.
IF I were wrong, I would admit same. That is the difference between you and me, DS; I have been correct while you have been attacking me while you were not correct. The facts are recorded. No need for me to admit error when it is you and your mates that are demonstrated to be in error. Anyhow, your bot-voting/trolling and insulting me while I was correct and you finally had to admit error, is all that is needed to tell whose reputation remains intact and whose doesn't. So, DS, how do you wish to proceed? :)

Mar 21, 2019
IF I were wrong, I would admit same.
Prove it. I have and you have beaten me up with it. Link and quote please. You already proved mine yourself.

I wouldn't post links to you trolling me after I made a mistake and admitted it if I were you since you've lied a lot and never admitted it. Lying is an entirely different thing from making a mistake.

Mar 21, 2019
And you're proven to have lied on 110 threads. Got them all here, shall I post some more?

Mar 21, 2019
Meanwhile, if you're not 'bot voting, who's voting me down for telling the truth?

You're lying again, @110LiarRC.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Meanwhile, if you're not 'bot voting, who's voting me down for telling the truth?

You're lying again, @110LiarRC
First, you only need to call up your ratings page and see who is downvoting you, DS. Since I DON'T VOTE AT ALL, it can't be me. Second, your claim to be" telling the truth" has long been busted (I recall I even pointed out one of your linked "Liar" spam items wherein YOU MISATTRIBUTED @Benni's claims to ME; and even AFTER I brought that to your attention, you just IGNORED and continued with that 'list' of misrepresented claims by you as to what I actually said. That you still have no clue how INCORRECT your 'listing' has been, DS, is proof that you are CAVALIER WITH THE TRUTH and don't really care about objective facts but only your own ego-driven 'need' to 'win at all costs', even if it means knowingly lying/misrepresenting me and what I have said in those links. To this day you still put your ego before objectivity/fairness, DS. Bad.

Mar 21, 2019
You're the one who started it, @RC. I admitted a mistake, you have been beating me over the head with it ever since.

You are a lying trolling sack of shit troll and you have been since that minute. As far as I know any of these accounts are your sockpuppets, and I don't trust you enough to believe your claims they're not.

If you ever wanted anything different, you should never have trolled me when I honestly admitted error.

Bad mistake. One you'll pay for as long as you post here unless you apologize and take it back. Because I ain't goin' anywhere.

Mar 21, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You're the one who started it, @RC. I admitted a mistake, you have been beating me over the head with it ever since.
What is wrong with your character, mate, that you still make that false claim? I only ever reminded you/forum of it whenever YOU started trolling/attacking while I was correct and you incorrect...just like that instance I reminded of to prove that YOU hadn't changed at all your old trolling/attacking in error ways, DS. Mate, if you can't get the recorded history here straight, it says a lot about your cognitive dissonance and knee jerking in self-imposed ignorance of the reality. Please rethink your whole 'strategy' here, DS; the one you've been following is disastrous to you and your 'friends' and the science/humanity discourse. Isn't there any REAL friend or even a family member who can review all your history here and tell you where you've been going disastrously wrong by letting your ego rule your eyes/mouth/mind/character/actions?

Mar 22, 2019
Nothing is wrong with my character. When I offer the olive branch and someone beats me up with it, I hit back as hard as I can forever until you surrender. Bad mistake, @110LiarRC. It's not a false claim; your response is right there on the very thread you linked.

You're lying again, @110LiarRC.

You're afraid to admit you're wrong because you fear I'll hit you over and over again for the admission just like you've done to me.

You're a lying sack of shit troll. And a coward.

Now you have to trust me, like I did you. And you're a yellow-bellied sap sucking coward so you never will.

Mar 22, 2019
If you had any balls, you'd take me up on that and then you could beat me up about it if I betrayed you like you did me.

But you don't have any balls. You're a scum-sucking yellow bellied troll.

Integrity, asshole. You got none and you know you'll just pull the same shit again and look even worse.

Mar 22, 2019
The door is open, O gonadless one.

Mar 22, 2019
Meanwhile, if you're not 'bot voting, who's voting me down for telling the truth?

You're lying again, @110LiarRC.

SEU or Benni. I get the same....

Mar 22, 2019
I can smell the shit filling the pants of a coward a hundred yards off.

Mar 22, 2019
I usually don't read the captions of the pictures...

Well then, read the paper. They discuss the electric currents (infalling streams) at some length, they mention the rotation, and that this system retains its structure. Just as all other HI or HII clouds these too will be wrapped by magnetic fields, it is how the structure is retained.

"A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth." Carl-Gunne Fälthammar

Mar 22, 2019
"A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth." Carl-Gunne Fälthammar


More lying. No discussion whatsoever of currents or magnetic fields. You are a pathological liar.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I can smell the shit filling the pants of a coward a hundred yards off.
What about the shite coming from your potty mouth all these years, mate; its been pretty awful stinky stuff. :)
Nothing is wrong with my character. When I offer the olive branch and someone beats me up with it, I hit back as hard as I can forever until you surrender. Bad mistake, @110LiarRC. It's not a false claim; your response is right there on the very thread you linked.
So you heedlessly and improperly attacking/trolling/calling me liar for YEARS was "me starting it"? And when you admitted error in that instance previously linked, you did NOT APOLOGIZE for calling me liar despite you being the liar and wrong; so where was this :olive branch" you offered, DS? And since then you have been colluding with your trolling/bot-voting 'friends' in a campaign against me despite me being correct and you/they wrong? Is that the behaviour of someone who admits error and wants to be fair? :)

Mar 22, 2019
These must be special molecular clouds, unlike every other molecular cloud ever analyzed. We can pretend that since these researchers decided not to mention the obvious that these are ***special*** clouds. Electric currents, check. Magnetic fields, check.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
If you had any balls, you'd take me up on that and then you could beat me up about it if I betrayed you like you did me.
Now you are playing the victim, DS? Do you even have clue one how despicably juvenile that is to try on, even on the internet? Where is the common sense and self-awareness, DS; when did it desert you and left you in this tragic condition? Get help, mate.
But you don't have any balls. You're a scum-sucking yellow bellied troll
Projection again, DS. Try something else to try and save face and deny your failings, DS.
Integrity, asshole. You got none and you know you'll just pull the same shit again and look even worse.
I defended against your and your 'friends' campaigns against me; which all posters here have witnessed for years now, DS; yet in your/their twisted mind it's all the fault of your victim? Not a good sign, DS. Get help.
The door is open, O gonadless one.
For what, more insults from you?

Just apologize, DS. :)

Mar 22, 2019
These must be special molecular clouds, unlike every other molecular cloud ever analyzed. We can pretend that since these researchers decided not to mention the obvious that these are ***special*** clouds. Electric currents, check. Magnetic fields, check.


What the hell are you talking about? Of course there will be a magnetic field. It just isn't spiralling helically around non-existent Birkeland currents. The whole galaxy has a magnetic field. And there are no currents. Certainly not on the idiotic scale you want them on. You have no hypothesis. No model. No science. No evidence. No bloody clue whatsoever.

Mar 22, 2019
These must be special molecular clouds, unlike every other molecular cloud ever analyzed. We can pretend that since these researchers decided not to mention the obvious that these are ***special*** clouds. Electric currents, check. Magnetic fields, check.
says cantdrive85

Just curious, CD. If those "electric currents" exist, what are they powering? An 'electric current' has a magnetic field anyway - but what is on the other end? Or either end?

Mar 22, 2019
LOL, not a chance, @110LiarRC. You're the one who lied about me first.

You have no honor, no integrity, no balls, no courage, and you are an empty shell of trolling.

The very thread you quote as evidence against me proves what you are.

Bring it MF. I don't need you and neither does anyone else. I say this knowing that you cannot and will not do what's necessary to make peace. It's all just another troll to you. And you are thoroughly pwnt, no matter what you do. Because you cannot and will not act with integrity, the only thing left you could do now to save the shattered shreds of your reputation.

Mar 22, 2019
Meanwhile, the paranoid psychotic tells me I need help.

ROFFLMFAO

Sorry, me and "my friends" aren't getting together off-site to figure out how to troll you. The ones you think are "my friends" or possibly my socks are just random people who see the same things in you I do. Guess it burns your ass pretty good since you keep bringing it up. Good. You should see yourself as others see you. Most people have had to deal with assholes and look for the same indicators I do. You're not very hard to spot.

Mar 22, 2019
If those "electric currents" exist, what are they powering? An 'electric current' has a magnetic field anyway - but what is on the other end? Or either end?

Is there an end? Have you seen images of the galactic web? Sometimes these filaments connect two different regions of plasma, the currents are there due to the equalization process. Sometimes the currents form loops, similar to the looping magnetic fields lines that leave one pole and return to the other. There are any number of other examples.

Check out this FUGIN map of the MW, where are the beginning or end of these filaments?
https://phys.org/...lky.html

And always remember, the currents aren't there to power anything, instead interesting phenomena arise along the currents because the energy is available and the Universe has any number of different ways to dissipate and recycle said energy.

Mar 22, 2019
Is there an end? Have you seen images of the galactic web?


The filaments are not currents, and nobody is claiming that they are. Stop lying.

Mar 22, 2019
The filaments are not currents, and nobody is claiming that they are

Of course they are, it is the only legitimate way to explain how these filaments exist over such vast scales. Unless, of course, you believe magical faerie dust is the cause. Oh, right, that is what you believe. LOL!

Mar 22, 2019
The filaments are not currents, and nobody is claiming that they are

Of course they are, it is the only legitimate way to explain how these filaments exist over such vast scales. Unless, of course, you believe magical faerie dust is the cause. Oh, right, that is what you believe. LOL!


No it is not, you liar. Read the literature, and then show me the idiot that is suggesting they are currents. Stop making stuff up. It is pathetic and childish.

Mar 22, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
Read the literature, and then show me
you're dealing with a religious fanatic

there is a quote from @TuringTest that applies here - I've said it before, though differently, but this was so eloquent and cogent I had to share it, even though my sense of humour got the best of me in the thread (linked for reference)
I don't believe there is any amount of evidence or reasoning that will convince them because their argument is based on emotions and paranoia, and not evidence or reasoning.
https://phys.org/...wer.html

Mar 22, 2019
I usually don't read the captions of the pictures...

...They discuss the electric currents (infalling streams) at some length, they mention the rotation, and that this system retains its structure. Just as all other HI or HII clouds these too will be wrapped by magnetic fields, it is how the structure is retained.

The 'infalling streams" are matter.
A "current" (or more accurately - charge) is observed as the density of interacting infalling matter increases.
They're not "wrapped", they "exhibit". Ergo, a structure develops, not retained.


Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
LOL, not a chance, @110LiarRC. You're the one who lied about me first.
Reversing the reality won't help you, DS. Stop it, for your own sake, if nothing else.
You have no honor, no integrity, no balls, no courage, and you are an empty shell of trolling.
Projecting like that won't help you, DS. Stop it, for your own sake, if nothing else.
The very thread you quote as evidence against me proves what you are.
It proves you're the one who falsely accused me of lying despite me being correct on the science, as you were finally forced by reality to admit, DS. Stop twisting, for your own sake, if for nothing else.
Bring it MF. I don't need you and neither does anyone else. I say this knowing that you cannot and will not do what's necessary to make peace.
So, you keep insulting and twisting and denying and yet try to pretend to yourself that it is me who "doesn't have what it takes to make peace", DS? Stop lying to yourself, DS. Just apologise, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
@110LiarRC, I ain't the one reversing reality. This is a standard troll tactic, and anyone can verify you're doing it just by looking at what you claim now, and what you claimed on the very thread you linked.

You are a lying sack of shit arrogant troll.

And as predicted, you don't have the courage to take a chance when you will win if you're betrayed.

You are determined to troll and will continue as long as you post.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Meanwhile, the paranoid psychotic tells me I need help. ROFFLMFAO Sorry, me and "my friends" aren't getting together off-site to figure out how to troll you. The ones you think are "my friends" or possibly my socks are just random people who see the same things in you I do. Guess it burns your ass pretty good since you keep bringing it up. Good. You should see yourself as others see you. Most people have had to deal with assholes and look for the same indicators I do. You're not very hard to spot.
DS, YOU WERE CAUGHT COLLUDING IN OPEN FORUM with CS and the rest of the 'gang' re CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES for trolling/attacking/bot-voting your 'targets'. It's quite remarkable (in a tragic way) that you/your 'fiends' have been SO INCOMPETENT re hiding your MALIGN personal/ego-tripping INTENTIONS having nothing to do with whether a poster is correct on science or not. It's all in PO record for all to see, DS. Projection and denial is futile. Just apologize, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
My expectation is that you will agree then violate the agreement and troll or lie, then try to whine about it.

You are a lying sack of shit arrogant troll.

Mar 22, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? (Never mind it is the rhetoric type of question). I am doing just fine and dandy (I bought me a new fishing boat this week so I am extra dandy.), thanks for asking.

Cher I take the six or five days off of the physorg and come back and see you have the week long meltdown. Have you run short on your medicines again? If that is what it is I would be glad to send you a few dollars to tidy-you-over. It would have to be American money though because I don't think there is any place around here to get Australian dollars (or what ever it is you guys use.) Let me know and if you do need some help, let me know if the address of the Earthman Playhouse is the right place to send him.

It is two whole hours it took for me read every thing you have posted up in the last six or five days.

Mar 22, 2019
Yes; I and many others dislike your arrogant trolling, you sack of shit.

And I note you don't seem to have any link or quote that substantiates what you claim.

You're lying again, @110LiarRC.

Mar 22, 2019
See, the point is to get you to stop trolling and lying.

So now trolling and lying are good according to you and anyone who tries to stop them is evil.

See how that works? Everyone else can.

When I say you lied, I provide links and explicit accusations; you on the other hand provide no links or even any explanation of what you accuse me of.

You're a chickenshit arrogant lying sack of shit troll, @110LiarRC.

Mar 22, 2019
Hey @Ira, hope you and yours aren't being affected by the floods yet. Be safe my friend.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
My expectation is that you will agree then violate the agreement and troll or lie, then try to whine about it.

You are a lying sack of shit arrogant troll.
See? Earlier) you placed 'conditions' on your 'offer'; and NOW you preclude things by attaching 'expectations' to your 'offer'!

How can you NOT see your EGO twists everything you try to do/say, DS?

It is apparent to intelligent unbiased readers here; but your ego blinds you to that obvious thing, DS.

As for 'expectations': How often I tried to point out how GOOD a scientist YOU WOULD MAKE if you stopped ego-tripping/insulting at the drop of a hat and just read/understood properly in context and give comments and engage with objectivity and fair-mindedness at all times?

Every time I offered the olive branch in hopes you'd be/do better than you had been doing (knee jerking, insulting etc while YOU were in error), I EXPECTED that YOU WOULD be/do BETTER. But here we are are again. Just apologize, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
Have you not noticed RealityCheck
@Da Scheib.
Your comment rating is 1.9 and mine is 3.7.

Next?
Mate, did you miss the fact that the ratings system has been corrupted for years now by bot-voting gangs rating based on personal animus and ego agendas rather than correctness of science/behaviour? Everyone has known this for years, DS. So your appeal to CORRUPT METRICS does you no credit and actually confirms all the things that everyone has seen here about your character and ego needs. Depending on such corrupted metrics is akin to making a false claim, DS. No real scientist or honest person would have done that, DS. Please stop gaming the metrics and reverting to tactics unbecoming a scientist and gentleman, DS. Just come clean; apologize; accept my longstanding olive branch offer; and we can all move on

RealityCheck
Concerning your obsession with these ratings
Your losing your memory, RealityCheck

Mar 22, 2019
You could surprise me, but I doubt it @110LiarRC. You always lie, cheat, lie some more, whine, hide, run away, hide some more, and use all the standard sack of shit troll tactics.

Surprise me and do something else. You'll get away with it until the first time you lie or troll. And that will add another thread to your litany of lies. And that serves me, and you fear it. Coward.

Mar 22, 2019
@granville583762.
@Da Scheib.
Your comment rating is 1.9 and mine is 3.7.
Mate, did you miss the fact that the ratings system has been corrupted for years now by bot-voting gangs rating based on personal animus and ego agendas rather than correctness of science/behaviour? Everyone has known this for years, DS. So your appeal to CORRUPT METRICS does you no credit and actually confirms all the things that everyone has seen here about your character and ego needs. Depending on such corrupted metrics is akin to making a false claim, DS. No real scientist or honest person would have done that, DS. Please stop gaming the metrics and reverting to tactics unbecoming a scientist and gentleman, DS. Just come clean; apologize; accept my longstanding olive branch offer; and we can all move on
obsession with these ratings,
Note Da Schneib APPEALED to 'authority' of CORRUPT metrics as 'support'. :)

ps: Corrupt Metrics on Science Sites don't bother you, Granville?

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You could surprise me, but I doubt it @110LiarRC. You always lie, cheat, lie some more, whine, hide, run away, hide some more, and use all the standard sack of shit troll tactics.
And therein lay the great difference between you and me, mate; I always expected the BEST from YOU every time I offered the olive branch; whereas you expect the worst from EVERYONE, hence you 'project' your propensities onto me. Take a good long break and think about the why's and wherefores of that stark difference, mate. :)
Surprise me and do something else. You'll get away with it until the first time you lie or troll. And that will add another thread to your litany of lies. And that serves me, and you fear it. Coward.
There you go again, pre-concluding/insulting based purely on your 'projection' of your own 'propensities' on me.

The record shows I have always done my best to forgive and forget once an issue was resolved amicably. You, DS, not so much. Just apologize, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
Does it bother me
RealityCheck> Corrupt Metrics on Science Sites don't bother you, Granville?

What is more bothersome, RealityCheck
is seeing everyone's memory failing
but
RealityCheck, it is advantageous
failing memory that is
as
it can be put to good use
to
counter deception
that is RealityCheck
Perceived deception, not unlike monsters under every stone
because
RealityCheck, if your failing memory still serves you well
not all monsters under rocks are actually monsters
since the quantum fluctuations, these monsters have been tamed
they are only a shadow of their former self
Tis time to lay these monster to rest

They are sorely tired and need a long rest in the quantum fluctuations

Mar 22, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Cher I take the six or five days off of the physorg and come back and see you have the week long meltdown. Have you run short on your medicines again? If that is what it is I would be glad to send you a few dollars to tidy-you-over. It would have to be American money though because I don't think there is any place around here to get Australian dollars (or what ever it is you guys use.) Let me know and if you do need some help, let me know if the address of the Earthman Playhouse is the right place to send him.
You'd do better to help your friend DS by NOT enabling him in his all too obvious meltdown witnessed by all here during the week, Ira.
It is two whole hours it took for me read every thing you have posted up in the last six or five days.
Correctness/substance of my posts is more relevant than their number, Ira. And, Ira, note that the number of posts were even higher from those whom you enable/prefer.

ps: Bot-voting is still stupid, Ira.

Mar 22, 2019
@granville.
Corrupt Metrics on Science Sites don't bother you, Granville?
What is more bothersome,
You didn't actually answer that important question, granville. Please do so before your next prose contribution if you will, mate.
since the quantum fluctuations, these monsters have been tamed
they are only a shadow of their former self
Tis time to lay these monster to rest
Where you been for last two decades, granville? The internet has spawned 'monsters' and gangs of same; which also infected Science sites that should have no tolerance at all for such trolling, lying, ganging, insulting foulmouthed types who, in one breath claim to respect science, yet in their next breath engage in and enable/encourage/applaud the actions/words of such as Uncle Ira (bot-voting and corrupting the metrics while egging on his preferred monsters of like mentality). Not to mention the campaigns against CORRECT SCIENCE posted. Objectivity/Fairplay is crucial to Science/Humanity.

Mar 22, 2019
Meanwhile, if you're not 'bot voting, who's voting me down for telling the truth?

You're lying again, @110LiarRC.

SEU or Benni. I get the same....
says Whyde

You get the same what?

Mar 22, 2019
Bot-voting is still stupid, Ira.
It ain't stupid unless you cheat. A lot Skippys here cheat when they vote four or three times using different names. I don't do that, I follow the rules the nice peoples at physorg make about the voting. Now if you got a problem with that, take it up with the management, I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

See Cher, this is what it is down here in Louisiana,,,, people are free to use their vote any way they like to as long as they follow the rules and only vote the one time.

Mar 22, 2019
Is there an end? Have you seen images of the galactic web?


The filaments are not currents, and nobody is claiming that they are. Stop lying.
says Castrato

If the filaments are not currents, as you say - then what are they? Do YOU know?

Mar 22, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Bot-voting is still stupid, Ira.
It ain't stupid unless you cheat. A lot Skippys here cheat when they vote four or three times using different names. I don't do that, I follow the rules the nice peoples at physorg make about the voting. Now if you got a problem with that, take it up with the management, I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
You miss the point: ALL actions to CORRUPT metrics are stupid. That you would even try to downplay your own culpability by saying basically "Look, they are doing stupid/bad things too, so lay off!" is emblematic of just that kind of lack of character/principle/self-awareness etc that leads ANYONE to do ANYTHING AGAINST the METRICS of a SCIENCE site, regardless of their 'rationalisations' for being so stupid.

Ira, as your friend in science/humanity, I am asking you to start setting a new and better example for all those whom you mentioned. Maybe if they see your own enlightenment they might follow suit.

Mar 22, 2019
The 'infalling streams" are matter.

Matter consisting of ions, electrons, ionized matter and dust, with free-free emission, IOW plasma. As such, they are most certainly electric currents.

Mar 22, 2019
If those "electric currents" exist, what are they powering? An 'electric current' has a magnetic field..

Is there an end? Have you seen images of the galactic web? Sometimes these filaments connect two different regions of plasma, the currents are there due to the equalization process. Sometimes the currents form loops, similar to the looping magnetic fields lines that leave one pole and return to the other. There are any number of other examples.

Check out this FUGIN map of the MW, where are the beginning or end of these filaments?
https://phys.org/...lky.html

And always remember, the currents aren't there to power anything, instead interesting phenomena arise along the currents because the energy is available and the Universe has any number of different ways to dissipate and recycle said energy.
says CD

No mention of 'electric currents' in your link.
Perhaps "currents" is the wrong word to adequately explain its characteristics?

Mar 22, 2019
every time I offered the olive branch
Never happened. You're lying again, @110LiarRC. Link and quote.

Mar 22, 2019
Where you been for last two decades, granville?
RealityCheck> Where you been for last two decades, granville? The internet has spawned 'monsters' and gangs of same; which also infected Science sites that should have no tolerance at all for such trolling, lying, ganging, insulting foulmouthed types who, in one breath claim to respect science, yet in their next breath engage in and enable/encourage/applaud the actions/words of such as Uncle Ira (bot-voting and corrupting the metrics while egging on his preferred monsters of like mentality). Not to mention the campaigns against CORRECT SCIENCE posted. Objectivity/Fairplay is crucial to Science/Humanity.

That's simple, RealityCheck
Inhabiting these Shires old bean
as
even now
these monsters of which you speak
inhabit another world
which granville does not inhabit
does not come into contact
does not know of its existence
I do not count myself lucky, RealityCheck
It is just the way life is in these Shires!

Mar 22, 2019
Ira, as your friend in science/humanity,
Yeah, I am nice to scientists and humans too me.

I am asking you to start setting a new and better example for all those whom you mentioned.
I think you got me mixed up with somebody else Cher. You are the only one I mentioned with name, and if you haven't gotten any better by now, I don't think there is much I can do for you (except the offer of a loan still stands.) Oh yeah, I almost forget, I mention the nice peoples at the physorg. I mention them too, but they are doing okay and it's not my place to set them to do better.

Maybe if they see your own enlightenment they might follow suit.
Non Cher, I am not the leader of mens, I am a singular sort of Skippy. I can't believe you would suggest anybody to do what I do, considering how you are always complaining about what I do.

Mar 22, 2019
Is there an end? Have you seen images of the galactic web?


The filaments are not currents, and nobody is claiming that they are. Stop lying.
says Castrato

If the filaments are not currents, as you say - then what are they? Do YOU know?


Why don't you go read the scientific literature, just as I do? Nobody, and I mean nobody, is claiming that these filaments are anything to do with currents.

https://en.wikipe...filament

Mar 22, 2019
The 'infalling streams" are matter.

Matter consisting of ions, electrons, ionized matter and dust, with free-free emission, IOW plasma. As such, they are most certainly electric currents.

No. They are localized charge.

Mar 22, 2019
The 'infalling streams" are matter.

Matter consisting of ions, electrons, ionized matter and dust, with free-free emission, IOW plasma. As such, they are most certainly electric currents.


Wrong. Stop lying. Nobody is claiming this has anything to do with currents. Stop lying, it is getting tiresome.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
every time I offered the olive branch
Never happened. You're lying again, @110LiarRC. Link and quote.
Denial of recorded events that have transpired many times over years here is not healthy for you, DS. Just apologize so you can move on from this tragic episode, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
Coward. Liar. Link and quote.

Mar 22, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Ira, as your friend in science/humanity, I am asking you to start setting a new and better example for all those whom you mentioned. Maybe if they see your own enlightenment they might follow suit.
Non Cher, I am not the leader of mens, I am a singular sort of Skippy. I can't believe you would suggest anybody to do what I do, considering how you are always complaining about what I do.
It's what you should be doing that I was suggesting. What you are currently doing (bot--voting trolling and corrupting the Science site metrics) is stupid, anti-science and anti-humanity, Ira. Be a smart leader, instead of a stupid internet tragic, Ira.

Mar 22, 2019
Just to refresh your memory, I have links and quotes:

Thread where @111LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
Thread where @111LiarRC claims that GRT is "only a theory" despite extensive experimental evidence: https://phys.org/...ory.html
Thread where @111LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @111LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @111LiarRC claims science can be done by non-scientists, ignoring all the training real scientists receive: https://phys.org/...per.html

Mar 22, 2019
@granville583762.
Where you been for last two decades, granville? The internet has spawned 'monsters' and gangs of same; which also infected Science sites that should have no tolerance at all for such trolling, lying, ganging, insulting foulmouthed types who, in one breath claim to respect science, yet in their next breath engage in and enable/encourage/applaud the actions/words of such as Uncle Ira (bot-voting and corrupting the metrics while egging on his preferred monsters of like mentality). Not to mention the campaigns against CORRECT SCIENCE posted. Objectivity/Fairplay is crucial to Science/Humanity.
Inhabiting these Shires old bean
as
even now
these monsters of which you speak
inhabit another world
which granville does not inhabit
does not come into contact
does not know of its existence
I do not count myself lucky, RealityCheck
It is just the way life is in these Shires!
But you also 'inhabit' internet-world. When did you first 'enter' that world?

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Coward. Liar. Link and quote.
How long are you going to keep trying on these lame delaying tactics trying to delay the inevitable (just as you inevitably had to admit error in that earlier linked instance, despite your doing everything nasty-possible to delay that inevitable denouement), DS? Everyone else knows what has been transpiring for years re that. Just stop it, mate. Just apologize so you can move on from this tragic episode in your internet life, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
The only thing that matters from you is links and quotes, or admissions you've been lying.

The rest is cowardly lying and trolling.

Mar 22, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The only thing that matters from you is links and quotes, or admissions you've been lying. The rest is cowardly lying.
It's gone well past that, DS. Your 'modus operandi' (making false and unwarranted accusations of 'lying'; you not reading in context before kneejerking to self-confused attacks based on your own errors and ignorance). The example of the earlier-linked instance well demonstrated what you have been doing which has led you to massive and multiple faux pas which no amount of diversionary/delaying tactics now will erase from the PO record or from the intelligent objective readers' memory, DS. For pity's are stop doing this to yourself, mate. Just stop your manic attempts at delaying the inevitable and just apologise so you can move on from this tragically-long episode in your internet life. Apologise and forget it, DS.

Mar 22, 2019
It's what you should be doing that I was suggesting.
Don't take it personal Cher, I don't mean to be mean,,,, I really don't think I will take your suggesting. I have a really good life, good family, good job with more pay then I need each month, nice house, good neighbors and a new fishing boat. And you seem only to have a life full of bot-gangs-of-trolls.

How about I just keep doing what I am doing and you just do what you suggest doing and we'll call it even?

Laissez les bon temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: "I'm pretty sure I would rather be me than you.")

Mar 22, 2019
No, it's not "well past that." You've made statements and failed to back them up with links and quotes. It's stopped right there.