A two-year look at “proplyds,” or protoplanetary disks in the constellation Orion has provided astronomers with a new high-resolution time-lapse movie that reveals the process of how massive star form. The birth of the largest stars has been mysterious, in part, because massive stars are rare and tend to spend their youth enshrouded by dust and gas hiding them from view. “We know how these stars die, but not how they are born,” said Lincoln Greenhill, a principal investigator for team using radio images a thousand times sharper and more detailed than any previously obtained.
Using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) as a powerful “zoom lens, astronomers studied a massive young protostar called Source I (pronounced “eye”) in Orion. The youthful cluster cannot be seen with traditional telescopes because of the surrounding gas and dust, but this new look shows that massive stars form like their smaller siblings, with disk accretion and magnetic fields playing crucial roles.
The team observed Source I at monthly intervals over two years and then assembled the individual images into a time-lapse movie. Click here to watch the movie.
The VLBA detected thousands of silicon monoxide gas clouds called masers – naturally occurring laser-like beacons often associated with star formation. Some masers were as close to the protostar as Jupiter is to our Sun, which is also a record. Many of the masers existed long enough for their motions to be tracked across the sky and along our line of sight, yielding their 3-d motions through space.
“Source I is the richest source of masers in the Galaxy, that we know of,” said Lynn Matthews, lead author of the new work, who is now a researcher at the MIT Haystack Observatory. “Without the masers, we couldn’t track the gas motions in such detail so close to this massive star, and would be relatively blind to its formation.”
“In astronomy, it’s rare to see changes over the course of a human lifetime. With this new movie, we can see changes over just a few months as gas clumps swarm around this young protostar,” added Smithsonian astronomer and co-author Ciriaco Goddi.
The resulting movie reveals signs of a rotating accretion disk, where gas is swirling closer and closer to the protostar at the center. It also shows material flowing outward perpendicular to the disk in two large V’s – actually the edges of cone-shaped streams of gas. Such outflows foster star formation by carrying angular momentum away from the system.
Intriguingly, the outflow streams appear to curve as they leave the disk. “The bending path of these masers provides key evidence that magnetic fields may be influencing gas motions very close to the protostar,” pointed out Claire Chandler of NRAO, a co-principal investigator of the study.
Magnetic field lines are familiar from their effect on iron filings sprinkled around a bar magnet, outlining loops extending from one pole of the magnet to the other. In the case of Source I and other massive protostars, magnetic field lines may extend outward into space, wrapping in a helix that is shaped much like Twizzlers candy. Outflowing gas streams along those field lines.
“Magnetic fields are supposed to be weak and unimportant to the birth process for massive stars,” said Matthews. “But masers would not travel along gentle arcs unless they experience some sort of force – probably a magnetic force.”
The data don’t show whether the magnetic field arises in the star or in the accretion disk. Future observations by the Expanded Very Large Array (E-VLA) and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) may be able to distinguish between competing hypotheses. The team plans to look for other fingerprints of magnetic fields around Source I.
“Our two-year movie is just the beginning,” said Smithsonian astronomer and co-principal investigator Elizabeth Humphreys.
Source: Harvard Smithsonian
Wow, what’s with all this sudden outbreak of woo in the comments?
Great to see that more and more evidence comes in to show that we can really understand the universe.
I wasn’t sure, if X-winds (what Nancy described as “two large V’s”) have been observed directly. This is spectacular evidence for it. I wonder, if they also observed a jet (or a Herbig-Haro-object) emerging from the star (most likely perpendicular to the disk).
Amazing to see all of these very critical steps in the formation of stars right in one star at a time.
Orion is such an amazing object! A friend of mine works on it for his master’s thesis. He has the deepest VLT view for his work that has ever been made. He’ll write about star formation, in fact, but of sun-like stars (a little easier to observe). He has found LOTS of accretion disks, really amazing!
Take a look at this image of the Milky Way’s galactic center at 90 CM… http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/gc_1meter_big.jpg Do you see any resemblance to the image above?
Note the feature marked “Arc” and how it relates to the feature marked “New feature, the cane”. These two features are apparently part of the same torus which surrounds Sgr. A?
Now visualize the entire assemblage rotating about an axis defined as perpendicular to the Torus. At each ‘pole’ of the torus (bipolar) jets of matter are being injected into local space time.
Visualize those jets as manufacturing galactic arms as they spew matter while rotating about the above mentioned axis – thus creating the spun ‘yin-yan’ looking shape of a spiral galaxy.
Imagine the jet to the left having a left-handed chirality and the jet to the right having a right handed chirality… both artifacts of the polarization created by interacting perpendicular dimensional vortices.
Now visualize this happening to the star imaged above.. and also the atoms in this period.
Imagine matter emerging/being created as it enters our local space time as energy being slowing below the speed of light, from other dimensions, where that rule does not apply. Or put another way, as the result of the frictional confluence generating plasma at the intersection of unseen multiple dimensions. That plasma then cooling into elemental matter.
Bottom line? Its electric, its gravitational AND its interdimensional…
How would you test that?
There is no likelihood that a plasma forms a star. There is a great likelihood that gravitation spontaneously contracts matter that can form stars.
In fact, that is what the standard cosmology predicts. So, not only is anything like EU unlikely from the start, and EU especially not even wrong (not a hypothesis), it is now superfluous.
Cold you go and bother 5 year olds instead of wasting space on science blogs? I hear they are fond of fables.
I’d like to see a computer simulation attempting to create a star using a Z-pinch.
The full paper in pdf:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.2473v1
Their conclusion?
Magnetohydrodynamic Winds
Along with MHD, including Marklund convection and the Bennett relation for a z-pinch column will answer their, as yet, unresolved questions of star formation, I believe. 😉
I see spamming has begun.
You know, a big huge red flag about a BS theory like EU is when you need spamming in order to convince people that your theory is true and all else fails.
Mix in some words like “scientists does not know all”. “Scientists cannot explain it all” and you see that the EU theory is a pure religion just like creationists.
ZERO scientific evidence for EU theory, it already fails if you do some basic calculations.
Time to do something else interesting then reading this BS.
@solrey: stringing together words may make great stories, but it makes terrible science … unless there are quantitative models to back up the words (given your professional training, I’m sure you’d be among the first to agree with this).
Do you know of any papers on star formation, in which “MHD, including Marklund convection and the Bennett relation for a z-pinch column” are modelled? Also, how what is the relationship between these processes and accretion disks?
Comment: intellectual honesty is rather important in science-based discussions; may I ask why you chose to pick just one (of four) sub-headings (in the section entitled “What Drives the SiO Maser Emission from Source I?”), and call it “their conclusion”?
Why, for example, did you leave out the (many) caveats in this sub-section, and omit the previous one (key phrase “Although we cannot yet exclude this general class of model for driving the Source I
wind”)?
It’s nice to see that this real science is so inspirational for you guys.
@nereid
Forget to finish the sentence, there nereid?
“Although we cannot yet exclude this general class of model for driving the Source I wind, several of the previous assumptions made by Elitzur (1982) require revision as a result of more recent, high-resolution observations.”
Their summary statement for this model?
“Given these new developments, the dust-driven wind scenario for Source I now faces a number of challenges.”
You forgot to mention the conclusions for the other options:
Disk Photoionization:
In addition to this discrepancy, the outflowing material is predicted to be mostly ionized, raising the problem of how to maintain sufficient quantities of dense, molecular material in the disk wind and how to account for the SiO maser emission in the bridge regions.
Line Driven Winds:
It thus appears that line-mediated radiation pressure is unlikely to play a significant role in powering the outward migrations of the SiO maser-emitting gas around Source I.
Radiatively-Driven (Dust-Mediated) Winds:
Given these new developments, the dust-driven wind scenario for source I now faces a number of challenges.
The other options were eliminated, MHD was the most likely candidate. Here is their conclusion:
We note that even if magnetohydrodynamic forces are not the main driving mechanism for the Source I wind, magnetic forces may still play a key role in shaping the outflow, similar to what has been proposed for planetary nebulae (e.g., Blackman 2008 and references therein). In addition, magnetic fields may provide a mechanism to enhance the coupling between gas and dust grains, thereby increasing the efficiency of a possible dust-driven wind
(Hartquist & Havnes 1992).
Nereid, forget to mention that the other models were eliminated?
Look in the mirror and repeat…
Since one of the comment policies is to not promote your personal theories, I’m going to start deleting comments from Anaconda. We’ve let this go on for awhile, but starting off this post with four straight comments on your personal theory and then going on to insult others is just getting too much.
So censorship has arrived:
@ Nancy Atkinson:
These are not “personal” theories.
These theories are supported by Dr. Anthony Peratt and 1970 Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven and many others.
My comments were reasonable interpretation of the posted material.
Is that what it come to?
Censorship?
I respectfully request that you repost those comments.
Curriculum vitae of Dr. Antony Peratt:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
It seems that an interpretation that doesn’t fit the party-line gets deleted.
The comments were strung together because multiple links get held up in “moderation”.
Sad, very sad, indeed.
The detail discovered in these series of theory/observations is important in common astrophysical processes, that go beyond just star formation. The similar dynamics of such processes include planetary nebulae, contact binaries and active galaxies with black holes in their cores.
No doubt discovering of the the cause of the fields either from the star or the accretion disk – especially towards understanding the methods of dissipation of angular momentum – will by a huge new step. I certainly await their future developments.
Thanks for this really interesting story.
Nancy thank you very much for intervening and for the need moderation.
To be serious for a moment, for once I like to read something stories about really interesting stellar phenomena without having to be bombarded with ancillary theories quite irreverent to the subject at hand.
Anaconda is clearly not being censored, because he keeps pushing the exactly the same empty rhetoric, just in the hope of erasing any realistic and sensible discussion so you can promote your own ideas and supporting some personal agenda.
Anaconda, Universe Today has a stated policy and has shown incredible tolerance (to both you and me.) These professional people producing these great up-to-date news articles spend much time and considerable effort to bring stories relevant to the the advancements of astronomy and space science – all free, mind you.
It about time, I think we all bury the hatchet and allow others to contribute and learn about the current advancements in science and not having to be distracted by irrelevances.
There is a great saying that I have always adhered to.
“For things to change, I must change.”
Perhaps the time to do so is now, especially Anaconda..
@solrey: I think you and I have rather different understandings of the (draft?) paper, how science (astrophysics, in this case) works, and so on.
When I have time, I’ll write a more detailed comment, explaining what I understand is in the paper, and providing some background (context), wrt the nature of science.
In the meantime, do you have any references for models of star formation in which “MHD, including Marklund convection and the Bennett relation for a z-pinch column” play a key role? Also, how what is the relationship between these processes and accretion disks?
@Anaconda: if that is so, then I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing the relevant references.
And, for avoidance of doubt, in this case the references need to be to papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, explicitly on star-formation (and high-mass stars to boot).
Oh, and they also need to be “theories” in the scientific sense of that word, rather than the ordinary, every-day meaning (“guess”, or “speculation”); i.e. complete with equations, citations, and so on.
I did provide references. Those were deleted when the comments were deleted.
[blockquote]These are not “personal” theories.
These theories are supported by Dr. Anthony Peratt and 1970 Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven and many others.[/blockquote]
Appeal to Authority.
[blockquote]I’d like to see a computer simulation attempting to create a star using a Z-pinch.[/blockquote]
I’d settle for anything demonstrating that a Z-pinch can be stable for the periods of time required for star formation. All of the information i’ve seen, including Annaconda’s own sources, suggest that z-pinches are inherently unstable, and tend to ‘fall apart’ rather rapidly.
But since you asked:
Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation
Published: Astrophysics and Space Science
Abstract:
“A generalized form of the Bennett pinch is studied in both cylindrical geometry and plane-parallel geometry. In this kind of pinch electromagnetic forces, kinetic pressure gradient forces, centrifugal forces, and gravitational forces may act. For each one of the two geometries considered a generalized Bennett relation is derived. By means of these relations it is possible to describe among other things the pure Bennett pinch, Jean’s criterion in one and two demensions, force-free magnetic fields, gravitationally balanced magnetic pressures, and continuous transitions between these states. The theory is applied to electric currents in the magnetosphere, in the solar atmosphere and in the interstellar medium. It is pointed out that the currents in the solar atmosphere and in the interstellar medium may lead to pinches that are of vital importance to the phenomena of solar flares and star formation, respectively.”
To highlight:
“…and star formation…”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1988Ap&SS.144…73C
The full paper was vailable in the reference I provided on Z – pinch.
As is the full paper available in the link above.
@Anaconda: I’m sorry, but I read the (now deleted) four comments by you, and they were like so many others of yours, here in UT story comment sections.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: you do not understand most of the material you write, in terms of the (astro)physics it is based on, and is about. And unless and until you put the time and effort into understanding the basics – especially concerning electromagnetism and plasma physics – you will continue to fail to see just how ridiculously wrong (and even silly) much of what you write is.
In closing, let me repeat an offer I’ve made many times before: I’m more than willing to engage in a discussion with you on the fundamentals of modern science, starting with the central role of consistency and objective (and independently verifiable) evidence. However, until we can take the time to come to mutual understanding on these foundational aspects, there will be no discussion taking place in whatever exchanges of comments there may be …
Your paper says nothing about z-pinches as a causal mechanism for individual stars, it ‘merely’ states (in effect) that IF currents of the magnitude proposed by Birkeland exist in the gaaxy THEN they are sufficiently large to produce Giant Molecular Clouds (such as Orion) through the z-pinch phenomenom.
This is an interesting article. It think that the comments bring about more confusion. The driving force for this is of course gravity. Now the system has some angular momentum, which by certain well known conservation laws prevents further contraction. However, with enough contraction the material is heated and ionized. Nuclei and electrons have different masses, and so they have different transport properties. The energy of the system is converted into electrical currents, which by Maxwell’s equations will produce magnetic fields. From this the charged species may be removed from the system and carry away angular momentum.
There is no need for any EU silliness here. What I describe is some general qualitative outline of the physics as I understand these things. This is not an area I study particularly. There is no need for any exotic claims of plasma universe quasi-physics here.
LC
@ Anaconda;
The abstracts you give says;
“It is pointed out that the currents in the solar atmosphere and in the interstellar medium may lead to pinches that are of vital importance to the phenomena of solar flares and star formation, respectively.”
Did you notice the word “may”?
Why did they use this word do you think?
The problem is they don’t have the direct observational evidence to say either way. You can’t prove it, and nor can they. Your words are then really speculation.
Yet, when Nereid says; ” relevant references”, you give an extract quote IS NOT RELEVANT. Why?
1) The paper is more than twenty years old.
2) It has no relevance to “star formation” in this article.
3) The article doesn’t mention at all at what stage this “generalized Bennett relation” occurs in star formation.
4) It has no relevance to “interstellar medium”, because, in this Universe Today story, the outflow is from the star or the accretion disk, and not from the interstellar medium.
I could go on….
So in the end, you are really are just “clutching at straws”, and are just promoting some “personal theory” which has absolutely no relationship to comments towards this story or the observed phenomena. QED.
Therefore Nancy was absolutely right to delete it – for; directly contravening the comment policy here.
Face it, why is it that trained and highly intelligent astrophysicists doing original research, observations, then write a paper (that went to create this current story) don’t know how to reduce their observations properly. While you, an basic untrained novice, know so much better and can explain the phenomena better than they?
It just doesn’t make sense, does it?.
Nereid said: “And, for avoidance of doubt, in this case the references need to be to papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, explicitly on star-formation (and high-mass stars to boot).
Oh, and they also need to be “theories” in the scientific sense of that word, rather than the ordinary, every-day meaning (“guess”, or “speculation”); i.e. complete with equations, citations, and so on.”
I really don’t think that the site policies call for this sort rigor in the comments section at all (I don’t have any peer-reviewed papers to support what I just said though, sorry).
The policies merely call for brevity and no promotion of personal theories—not that every assertion must be backed up with peer-reviewed papers. If Anaconda has broken any rules, it’s the brevity rule, because I agree that 4 comments in a row to start things off was quite cumbersome. PC/EU may be ridiculous to you, but I really don’t think it’s “personal,” especially since he’s not giving links to own website or blog or anything like that.
Might as well just post a “no EU/PC” rule or a “no Anaconda” rule, because that seems to be what’s enforced.
@ Trippy:
Trippy wrote: “[The paper says]…IF currents of the magnitude proposed by Birkeland exist in the gaaxy THEN they are sufficiently large to produce Giant Molecular Clouds (such as Orion) through the z-pinch phenomenom.”
It says a wee bit more than that:
“When a cloud has become sufficiently condensed [as a result of z – pinch] stars may be formed in it.”
And the paper concludes: “Another interesting possibility is that the filaments or slabs may be subject to instabilities of various kinds. For instance the sausage instability [a kind of plasma flow instability] may occur in cases where B subscript “z” = 0 or kink instability where B subscript “z” does not equal 0. Such instabilities might be of importance in the processes of star formation. A more thorough discussion of this interesting subject is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.”
It seems that the instant paper potentially is furtherence of this “interesting subject”.
@Anaconda: did you read what I wrote?
Did you see the words “explicitly on star-formation (and high-mass stars to boot)”?
The paper you cite contains a mention of star formation, sure, but it is tangential, and the idea is not developed to any extent (and there’s certainly nothing in it about high mass stars); worse, the strongest mention of star formation is in the abstract.
Further, it is cited by 14 others (according to ADS), none of which are explicitly about star formation!
One more thing.
An important component in writing a scientific paper for publication is doing what is called a literature search; basically, this means checking whether there are other papers, of direct pertinence to the you are writing, and if so, making sure your paper at least references them (and, as appropriate, addresses the key aspects of relevance).
In this particular case, the researchers are examining some aspects of star formation, specifically proplyds in one particular star forming region. If Carlqvist’s 21 year old paper has direct relevance, then it should have been cited; if not, then it won’t be …
@ Crumb:
Good science tends to the use of the word “may” because no theory is final.
@ cipater :
Just to inform you, Anaconda has been doing the same things here for months and months.
The problem is not that he is being treated unfairly, but he persists in trying to disrupt any general discussion but supplanting his EU agenda. Most have been kind and willing to discuss science, but the fellow keeps coming back with the same irrelevance arguments.
Tolerance can only go so far, and Anaconda makes sure he turns things around s he is the centre of the attention and not the genuine story being presented. It’s both irritating and frustrating when most want to just grasp mainstream science.
In the end, EU of course isn’t the problem, Anaconda is the problem.
It is like cancer. You either have to cut it out or try and treat it. Obviously the treatment has worked, so perhaps it is better to just remove the cancer. Either way, it is not pleasant, but you have to survive it somehow. Is there a better way? We’ve been asking that for months!
Frankly, it is the attitude displayed, here, in various guises, that has retarded exploring the possibilities.
And isn’t that what Science is about?
@ cipater: I don’t know how closely you’ve been reading the UT story comments, and those by Anaconda in particular … nor do I know how familiar you are with “PC/EU”, but what Anaconda presented was not “PC/EU”, but his own, personal theory.
Now if Anaconda – or you, or anyone else – would like to have a discussion (science-based, of course) on “PC/EU”, I’d be more than willing to participate.
@Anaconda: of course it is … within the fundamental constraints of consistency and objective evidence.
You see, unless and until you are prepared to at least discuss these fundamental aspects (and, preferably, ensure that your comments are aligned with them), there cannot be any exploration (if only because there would be no discussion …)
@ Anaconda said;
@ solrey
,,,and of course, the major question before all your magnetic field theory, what actually formed the accretion disk or the winds superwinds created by the star formation?
Were it not for the collapse proplyds by gravitational forces, you would have no magnetic fields or other such phenomena. Most of the energy in the system is in the angular momentum. The way you speak, its whole importance is in your mind is inconsequential. Even basic physics tells me you are overdramatising the role of the magnetic fields here. It influences the phenomena, yes that is true, but it is not the only story nor the most significant part of the investigation. Making wild sweeping statements, llike Anaconda, just doesn’t help .
Do you know what is so striking about having comments deleted that discuss magnetic fields and the electric currents that cause them in relation to star formation?
A Universe Today post not three months old discusses the same thing:
(Universe Today) Magnetic Fields Have Key Influence on Star Formation, September 9, 2009 by Brian Ventrudo:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/09/magnetic-fields-have-key-influence-on-star-formation/
So what was this really about?
@ Anaconda (a.k.a. James F. Evans),
Why is it that nearly all the papers that you provide links to are more than 20 years’ old? Why is it that Plasma Cosmology does not have any up-to-date papers? Is it because Dr. Anthony Peratt, et al., are trying to flog a dead parrot?
@anaconda said;
Playing the victim card now, yet again!
You cause the problems here by not respecting others, and when things go against you, well it everyone else fault but your own
Take some really basic advice, and don’t just take my word. ACTUALLY LISTEN to those who formally study science and understand its precepts, and you might get an inkling about how scientists draw conclusions and advance our overall knowledge.
It takes great insight and good learnt analytic skills to be able to make some conclusion based on the evidence without resorting to idol speculation or irrelevancies. Stop mocking them!
Your stupidity is your own doing, not anyone else’s!
This is what happens when “moderation” is one sided…
@Anaconda: I have, at least once, tried to show you that key terms in (astro)physics carry with them a staggering amount of observational and experimental evidence, together with strong, multiple, cross-linked chains of logic and math (a.k.a. theories of physics).
I have also invited you – more than once – to discuss these fundamental aspects, and help you understand that there can be no meaningful, science-based discussion unless and until you at least acknowledge this.
In this case, the core of deleted comments is your own, personal, idiosyncratic, subjective meanings embedded in “magnetic fields and the electric currents that cause them in relation to star formation”.
To take just one example: “and the electric currents that cause them” … no such words appear in the UT story, nor (AFAIK) any papers directly related to it. So where do these words come from (if not your own, personal, theories)?
@ Anaconda.
I remember a number extraordinary direct quotes from you, aim towards your insights on science on a different subject in July 2009;
“But you don’t have a chance to predict something until you have a grasp of its physical structure and processes.”
“Your characterization of the Sun being electrical in nature is correct based on the evidence I have seen.
That not necessarily mean that I am correct. For time being let us just call it ‘inspired guess work’.”
“Such is the high priesthood of mathematics: Trust the mathematical equations and not the empirical experience.”
“And, when you dig into it, the supposed rigorous and consistent application of terms is not as rigorous and consistent as
advertised.”
As to you behaviour, well it appears the ways you do actually promote your agenda, and those who disagree. where you will even make personal attacks. It like the moderator Anthony Watts of “Watts Up With That”; said;
REPLY: “Anaconda”, I suggest that you dial back your rhetoric and accusations a bit if you wish to continue posting. I have a low tolerance level for cowards whom use made up silly names, all the while attacking a person who puts his name behind what he says. You may have some valid points, but your approach is not at all impressive. If you think your opinion is worth something, use your name and stand behind it. ”
Finally, if anyone wants to read how this presumed “gentleman” operates in his own environment, You only have to read this online thread, where all these quotes above come from;
I.e. Solar Cycle 24 lack of sunspots caused by “sluggish solar jet stream” – returning soon?.
Clearly Anaconda is not interested in this story, he is interested in his agenda.
… and Anaconda then dares to say here , “This is what happens when “moderation” is one sided…” Bah!!
@solrey: how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Specifically, what do Galileo, Lemaître, and Alfvén have to do Anaconda’s personal theories?
Further, since you introduced it (well, cipater too), what is “EU/PC theory” (in a scientific sense)?
Nereid wrote: “To take just one example: “and the electric currents that cause them” … no such words appear in the UT story, nor (AFAIK) any papers directly related to it. So where do these words come from (if not your own, personal, theories)?”
Crowell wrote: “The energy of the system is converted into electrical currents, which by Maxwell’s equations will produce magnetic fields.”
No, Nereid, it is not my “personal theories”.
It is an established law of physics.
@ Nancy Atkinson:
Look at this thread.
Who is offering analysis & interpretation and who is engaging in personal attacks?
Your call.
Got the guts to talk smack to my face, crumb?
No, Nereid, let’s stay on topic, not take it off in a global discussion which apparently is your want.
Topic: Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation, as per the instant post.
Let’s see if you can discuss the topic at hand.
Oh Dear.
Folks someone’s rattled ol’ solrey, bigtime.
Again. Why bring up the distant past to make a point, involved in religion and dogma of all things, when it is clearly nothing to do with science at all.
What everyone should question here is when you carefully explain how science works and draws conclusions, you suddenly get such an out of control tirade?
Could it be that the underlying truth is the supporters of EU real hates any science because it gets in the way of their agendas?
Coud it be also that the removal of posts by Nancy standing up to these people with their agendas, has got them worried?
(I.e. We hadn’t seen Solrey or Anaconda for ages, have we?)
Frankly, I’m far more interested in the motivation of their strange behaviour here. Whatever it is, it’s clearly not about science or anything to do with formation of massive stars .
I wouldn’t be surprised if ALL the comment here weren’t totally deleted… but sadly, Solrey and Anaconda would see it as a victory.
What an extraordinary thread!!
Not rattled, crumb, just calling you out on your ridicule and insults.
Sorley said;
Amazingly, Sorley wants to pick a fight!!!
Clearly, these two are now only engaging to kill the debate by now trying to kill the simple message.
I wouldn’t bite.
It doesn’t matter what you actually say. You are proven to be pushing an unjustified EU agenda.
The science presented in this article, and paper, is clear cut.
What you have said does not relate to the story here Your views are not supported by either the evidence, the observations and nor in the conclusions made by those who created the movie.
End of story.
Relax everybody! The only person who is correct on here 100% of the time is me. There’s no shame in that…
Sorley said;
What else is left?
You roughshod over everyone here spouting things that are irrelevant to the story, you won’t listen to reason, logic or even basic comprehension.
You try again and again to promote you unsupported ideas and theories, and every time you meet exactly the same barriers
Yet you won’t let it be. You see something that might resemble some remotely related phenomena, then its all guns blazing to promote exactly the same agenda.
If people don’t respond to it, then you employ tactics of diversions, either by bamboozling us with words designed to confuse us or to promote as much chaos as possible.
We ask for proof, we get rhetoric and spin, and unrelated information based on hero worship for people decades ago.
Yet of course all these problems are either me, or someone else, or a failing of science, (now, apparently even Jesus or Galileo) etc, etc. It is never you guys , of course.
I’ve even give you evidence of your behaviour and tactics beyond this site, which clearly shows the methodology of passing on the message.
You have an agenda of promoting personal theories for your own means. Anaconda denies it, but the truth is for all to see.
Hopefully these replies here survive the length of time, to be shown to all and sundry of what is going on.
Enough is enough! Is what is being said here.
If you can’t play nicely and show some moderate respect, ridicule and insults is the very least you deserve!
crumb explained a certain disability to me, remember that crumb? I was compassionate and understanding, yet I’m supposed to tolerate insults from this person?
Disagree with the ideas all you want, just drop the personal smears, then we be cool…got it?
There are lots of bullets flying here. Crumb is right in principle over this. Solrey and Anaconda use this as a way to promote their quasi-scientific ideology, and frankly they destroy what ever useful discussion might be going on. This particular thread was ruined before I even got to it. I am not sure that HSB Crumb’s approach to this works terribly well, but I can understand the sentiment.
LC
@ solrey
Another nice tactic. Accuse the accuser…
Anaconda has been the problem here. He claims he is the victim, and when things get tough, and his obvious agenda is falling around his ears.
It is Anaconda who is making EU ridiculous and ludicrous propositions – which clearly is stated in the site I linked too.
I stand by my only response I said to you;
NOTE: The truth be known – I sometimes confuse your words with the crazy EU ideas of Anaconda’s. There is little evidence to support these extreme views, views that are not scientific based, are provable. After you showing the silly EU version of the H-R Diagram, well I doubt your sincerity. What you think of me, I couldn’t care.
Solrey said;
“Crumb explained a certain disability to me, remember that crumb?”
Nice. How despicable are you?
Say what you want, do what you want. Either way, you just lost any credibility.
People on this website are smart — there are sharp disagreements, for sure — but that is nothing new to Science.
And, smart people know when there are double standards.
It’s pretty clear Crumb knows he won’t be held to account as he is on the favored side.
Double standards are the rot of a discipline.
Why?
Because when double standards are allowed to prevail, it sets the tone and signals what is okay in the discipline.
Intellectual integrity is exposed as a fraud.
And notice, when I attempt to put the thread back on topic by requesting Nereid to address, “magnetic fields play a ‘crucial’ role in star formation, as per the instant post”, Nereid is nowhere to be found.
Instead, Crumb acts as a provocateur, totally derailing the topic thread with his personal attacks.
The topic: Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation.
And, I add, electric currents cause magnetic fields per Maxwell’s equations.
What is Crumb’s purpose here?
Be a tar baby and drag as many of the opposite number into the mud as possible — afterall, he’s not presenting any theories — just being unpleasant is all.
it’s sad that is allowed and presenting alternative theories is not.
@ Anaconda said;
Oh you have just got to be kidding me.
You are the one state the wildest most ridiculous nonsense everywhere you can, and you expect everyone to listen to you and expect to be “be treated like an equal.”
Also the statement that;
“The topic: Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation.”
Is an out an out misrepresentation. Is nothing of the sort. Quotes have actually context. So what has that got to do with the formation of protostars and what is seen in the video?
Let’s see; Quoting the article;
“Magnetic fields are supposed to be weak and unimportant to the birth process for massive stars,” said Matthews. “But masers would not travel along gentle arcs unless they experience some sort of force – probably a magnetic force.”
Where does it say here it is “probably a magnetic force.” So where does it say IT IS ACTUALLY CAUSED BY A MAGNETIC FIELD
Where are the observations, not just your wild assumptions?????
Where does it come from? (the accretion disk or the massive protostar?)
Where are the polarisation measurements?
How strong is the field?
Forget what might or might not be be true, what EVIDENCE IS THERE TO SUPPORT IT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE HERE!
Holly molly!
And I thought it could not get any worse. This is like a marriage therapy session gone wrong!
As has been pointed out many times before, there is EU/PC etc and then there is Anaconda.
Anaconda, your style messes things up. You have committed yourself intellectually and emotionally (this being the major mistake) completely to a hypothesis that you do not fully understand because of your ignorance of physics. When it comes to EU/PC you’ve blurred the chasm between an idea and established scientific theory. To you EU/PC is so obvious (if it’s not 10^39 it’s crahp!) that it might as well be real. This makes you feel justified in attacking people when they disagree or when you become frustrated with scientific concepts that have been explained to you.
And please, if there was no EM in space, we would not see stars with our eyes and there would be no daylight.
Anaconda, how old are you anyway?
Oh please!
“it’s sad that is allowed and presenting alternative theories is not.”
You are NOT placing alternative theory, you are placing here YOUR OWN THEORIES HERE!!!
Play the victim all you want, but the bottom line is you continue to forward non-standard that have been mostly rejected or as yet have have no direct evidence to support it.
Just because you say something doesn’t make it so!
@ Anaconda said;
I’m going to post this again, in case you missed it!!!
*****************************************
“Good science tends to the use of the word “may” because no theory is final.”
That is so wrong. They say “may” because there is no direct observations to draw a sufficiently accurate conclusion.
Making observation of any phenomena means that by experimentation you may explain what is happening by predicting its past, present or future behaviour – and via mathematics – make a proof that shows it to be correct. If the behaviour doesn’t match the prediction, then you do further observations (or repeat them) and attempt the refine your original predictions. Eventually you create a fundamental insight to the underlying principles of that phenomena and apply it to broader issues.
The real problem is science doesn’t know all the answers, and so it must devise new and elaborate experiments to make phenomena directly explainable.
If there is doubt or don’t know, you cannot say X observation ACTUALLY explains Y outcome. It just doesn’t happen, as you so commonly write, oh that looks like X, so it must be Y must be true.
Science really doesn’t work like that.
In fact, science is a very rigid discipline, whose rules must be adhered too. Claiming something without evidentiary proof is not how it works, and making very silly statements (in ONE sentence) like the one you just made here, shows you still don”t even get the basics.
Anaconda Says:
November 16th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation.”
“And, I add, electric currents cause magnetic fields per Maxwell’s equations.”
You simply won’t find any argument against either of these points in the mainstream scientific community. Magnetism has almost without doubt shown to be crucial in star formation. And nobody here would ever argue that an electric current generates a magnetic field. You can read a million papers supporting these points in the journals.
So what is this all about then? It is because your claims overstep these simple points by an enormous margin. You are not simply stating that magnetic fields are important in star formation, and that Maxwell’s equations are a true description of nature. You are constantly either directly or indirectly claiming that modern astronomy and physics is completely wrong in pretty much every way. You present ideas that could only be described as ‘out there’, and then when they are sctrutinised, you claim in a huff that we don’t believe that electromagnetism is real, or that we reject some other basic tenet of physics or astronomy that we all well know is the case, or one of many of your other obscuring tactics when debate heats up a bit.
That is what generates the fierce opposition, ridicule and personal attacks that you encounter here. You are accorded the amount of respect that you have shown others in your own presentations on this forum, and your ideas are met with the same measure of ridicule that you freely hand out. Others are just as bad as you, myself included. I love throwing insults around just as much, and probably a great deal more, than anyone. But if this site is to work then all of that must be limited. There are rules in place to prevent the sort of disintegration that we just saw kill this thread completely, and which almost killed the entire site six months ago. One of those is don’t promote personal theories. Having said that, you would be amazed what a humble attitude may get you. Perhaps a ‘could suchandsuch be the case in this situation? or ‘did you consider that instead of being this, the evidence may point to this?’ rather than ‘modern astronomy is all wrong. You’re all ignorant, all against me and you all stifle debate. THIS is what you obviously believe, and it is ridiculous LOL’.
Or you could ignore a bit of humility and common courtesy, and be accorded the same in return.
Anaconda:
And I ask: What causes those ‘electric currents’, then?
“Gravity doesn’t act that fast, on the other hand, electric force, the coulomb attraction, is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity and explains why “changes over just a few months” can be observed & measured.”
Please be more specific here. What does it mean “Gravity doesn’t act that fast”. Please put this in established scientific concepts. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here. You’re speaking from vague gut based understanding of physical forces.
It has been mentioned to you repeatedly that the 10^39 arises when comparing the charge and gravitational influence between an electron and electron or a proton and proton. How does this 10^39 ratio work in the macro world? You’re stuck on this ratio. This appears to be what you’re basing your convictions on.
“I understand, nobody likes to have somebody come and tap you on the shoulder and say, “you’re wrong”.”
That depends on how this is done.
“Have I defended my position.
Yes.”
You have also been dishonest and lied. “Anti-matter is only a theory.”
From Space.com:
“The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/proto_stars_050301.html
“The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.”
ND, perhaps you should direct your question to Kenji Hamaguchi, a NASA-funded researcher at the Goddard Space Flight Center, or Michael Corcoran, they seems to share my view about gravity having insufficient strength to act this fast.
This comment is mainly for cipater (most others who’ve written comments already know this), and Nancy.
Earlier, here, I said “what Anaconda presented was not “PC/EU”, but his own, personal theory”, and a bit later I elaborated, by saying:
To which Anaconda responded:
Now readers who are not familiar with Anaconda’s personal theories could be forgiven for being puzzled … after all, Maxwell’s equations do describe how electric currents and magnetic fields are related, and indeed such currents do produce magnetic fields.
However, in Anaconda’s personal theory, *all* magnetic fields in plasmas are produced by electric currents in those plasmas.
And his personal theory gets much, much stranger …
… you see, in this, a movement of an equal number of homogeneously distributed positive and negative charges, in the same direction is an electric current! (source)
That being so, Maxwell’s equations become complete nonsense (or at least need dramatic revision).
Now just to be sure, I checked to see if Anaconda had changed his personal theory after August this year, and I discovered that he hasn’t (at least, not in this regard), as this extract demonstrates (source in my next comment): “charged particles flowing in motion constitute an electric current”.
(the full context of this extract makes for fascinating, if rather shocking, reading).
And just to close the circle: whatever may be said about “PC/EU”, and however much the ideas are pseudo-science (or worse), the idea that ‘a movement of an equal number of homogeneously distributed positive and negative charges, in the same direction is an electric current’ is not accepted.
Anaconda said;
“No, Astrofiend, the problem is that astronomy has banked on the gravity “only” model and it looks to be incomplete, to say the least.”.
WHERE IS YOU EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS?
Gravity amazingly seems to work pretty well. It explains the orbit of the planets, stellar evolution, nucleosynthesis, expansion of the universe, shape of galaxies, binary stars, why I am fixed to the ground, relativity, special relativity, mass, stellar formation, pulsating variable stars, supernova, black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc. etc.
.
All EU has ever says about astrophysical phenomena is that it might – based on some IEEE electricians fooling around with the light switches and power point. If electric voodoo works here on Earth, then, I know it works across the universe.
You’re not only wrong, Anaconda, you don’t even have the knowledge to prove it. Worst if you can’t understand science and how it works, you have no means of proving your claims. So why prattle on about it all the time?
I can tell you one thing, when it comes to understanding even EU. “You’re Dead Wrong”
Let’s stay on topic, not take it off in a global discussion which apparently is your want.
Topic: Magnetic fields play a “crucial” role in star formation, as per the instant post.
Nereid, let’s see if you can discuss the topic at hand.
And if Nereid won’t, what does that tell you?
Anaconda said;
From Space.com: “The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”
… and this means what?
Could the observations be wrong?
Has the observation been repeated?
Are there other kinds of phenomena that do this?
Could it be an effect of gravitational lensing?
Could you devise another experiment to verify the result?
Gravity acting “fast”? How fast? The speed of light, fast as my granny can run, faster than a speeding bullet?
Sorry. Pure guess work wouldn’t help you at all?
Critical thinking… no that’s someone else’s problem. “I just report what I see.” Is that right Anaconda?
Lastly. What his this got to do with the formation of massive stars somewhere in the Orion Nebula?
Anaconda said;
“Let’s stay on topic, not take it off in a global discussion which apparently is your want.”
from ehat he posted;
From Space.com:
“The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/proto_stars_050301.html
“The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.”
… and this is on topic, how.
(Do you know how to spell hypocrite?)
While I may take issue with the incoherent ramblings of Anaconda and his fellows I also take issue with censorship. Banning them and their comments merely reinforces their belief that ‘we’ are out to get them and silence the ‘truth’ as they see it. Far better to engage and point out their mistakes and eventually their stupidity. Driving them underground serves no purpose other than for the lucid thinkers to pat ourselves on the back and say “job done”. After a while when they don’t get it we can ridicule them. I know it’s a bit like the aristos did in the18th century and going down to the local asylum and poking the inmates but it does provide innocent amusement.
This is so sad,
I don’t like to suggest this, but perhaps any article that has to do with black holes, magnetic fields or other stellar active phenomena should be just closed to comments.
Another possibility is to has a specialised blog page with dedicated moderators who can pull dissenters into line when required.
In this way these derisive issues regarding EU could be avoided or reduced.
The hardest thing I find is where do you discuss issues on relating to accretion disks and dense objects without being hijacked every time some one touch on the subject.
I think their aim is to stop realistic discussion so they can focus on their schemes to make much of this EU mainstream.
How newcomers or those interested in learning about the sciences, heaven knows. But some kid doing a school project, say on black holes, without the experience to know better hasn’t got a chance.against the purposeful disinformation the speak.
This is where it is sad part lies pseudo-science masquerading as truth. No wonder the younger generation is so screwed up, Marginalised by those planning an agenda..
Comments are now closed on this article and I’ve deleted anyone’s comments that are longer than the article itself.