Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:18 pm

Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
And yet six years later, and I've still never seen Clinger's mythical non-existent math formula to describe a non-zero *rate* of "magnetic reconnection" inside of his vacuum contraption as promised, nor did a single EU/PC hater "self correct" his bonehead mistakes during the whole year of that particular debate, or explain it to him since that debate. You guys and gals talk a good talk about your so called "education", but you don't seem to understand even the most rudimentary and basic aspects of plasma physics, starting with the need for plasma! Oy Vey!

I am not going to comment on your ancient discussion with some third party that I don't know, but I have said before and I will say again that the EU's obsessional (and entirely impotent) vendetta against the concept of magnetic reconnection is blind, wrongheaded and ignorant.


No, it's not as that discussion with your clueless counterpart demonstrates. It's *very easy* to misunderstand the term 'magnetic reconnection" and to falsely believe as Clueless Clinger did that it somehow relates to the concept of "disconnecting" and "reconnecting" tiny little "magnetic lines' which like any lines on a *topology map* do not actually represent "physical" things to start with! If he can be so clueless, and the *whole hater posse* at ISF/JREF can be so ignorant as to believe the term applies to refrigerator magnets in a vacuum, then the term is *confusing* them, and it should be called *circuit reconnection*, or *particle reconnection* to ensure they remember to include charged particles. It should not be called "magnetic reconnection". The confusion factor of that term is off scale in the absence of monopoles. It leads to blatant misconceptions as that conversation clearly demonstrated.

And the idea that the people on this forum collectively understand plasma physics while professional plasma physicists do not is just, well, silly.


If the "crowd over at ISF/JREF is any indication of the average level of understanding of the so called "professionals", it's damn clear they aren't very "professional" to begin with! It's no wonder they're confused because they keep trying to put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and they don't understand why it doesn't work right. As long as they deny or minimize the electrical aspects of the process they're trying to describe, they'll be mystified forever. The mainstream can't even easily transfer their conceptual understanding of a physical process in plasma back and forth between E (particle) oriented circuit theory and a B (wave) orientation of the very same physical process! If they did, they'd already understand that Alfven's double layer paper made the term "magnetic reconnection" mathematically irrelevant and obsolete *decades* ago.

MHD is a mathematically heavy theory, and I am yet to meet one EU promoter on this forum who has the mathematical toolkit to quantitatively solve problems in plasma physics.


Apparently you haven't met Peratt or Lerner or Scott I assume? Why does anyone have to bark math for you on command on a public message board to "impress" you in the first place? What difference would it make in terms of the mathematical and physical legitimacy of *Alfven's* or *Peratt's* work? This is like requiring anyone discussing or supporting evolutionary theory to hold a biology degree.

FYI, I just started a link to a Python based community project that should simplify the process greatly.

Indeed, it has been clear since I joined this forum with a genuine interest in understanding what the EU brings to the table, that no EU supporter is interested in quantifying anything at all.


You've never read Lerner's work or Peratt's work I assume?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:52 pm

Observation: I understand that some "hard" science is being contested here. But I wonder if all the naysayers understand the distinction some make between "plasma cosmology" and "electric universe"?

If I understand the usage correctly, PC is the laboratory plasma physics—including mavericks like Alfvén, Lerner, Peratt, and more recently people like Donald Scott. Meanwhile "EU" is the somewhat more tenuous purple dawn and polar configuration material. (Things are always more tenuous on the frontier.) Even within the strictly PC side of things, there are differences of opinion (e.g. anode or cathode Sun).

Which are the detractors attacking with such venom?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:54 pm

Metryq wrote:Observation: I understand that some "hard" science is being contested here. But I wonder if all the naysayers understand the distinction some make between "plasma cosmology" and "electric universe"?

If I understand the usage correctly, PC is the laboratory plasma physics—including mavericks like Alfvén, Lerner, Peratt, and more recently people like Donald Scott. Meanwhile "EU" is the somewhat more tenuous purple dawn and polar configuration material. (Things are always more tenuous on the frontier.) Even within the strictly PC side of things, there are differences of opinion (e.g. anode or cathode Sun).

Which are the detractors attacking with such venom?


I don't think any of them even correctly understands the difference and between Alfven's solar model, Birkeland's solar model and Juergen's solar model, the options associated with each model, or any of the predictions that they make. Hell, the hater posse still claims that EU theory predicts no neutrinos from the sun! How frigging clueless can they be? How knowledgeable can they even be when no so called "professional" even corrects Koberlein's bonehead claims, or Clinger's bonehead claims? They're clueless.

The moment you include the term "universe" in electric 'universe' theory, you'll have to include Alfven's cosmology views and circuit theory, and Peratt's cosmology theories and Lerner's work or it's nothing more than a theory about the solar system.

Scott seems to prefer a different solar model than Alfven, as do I, but we all rely upon the same overall cosmology model.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:10 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
I don't think any of them even correctly understands the difference and between Alfven's solar model,...

Are you aware of the work by van der Holst and Sokolov to develop Alfven's coronal model, and which has resulted in many papers published in mainstream journals?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:38 pm

Higgsy wrote:And the idea that the people on this forum collectively understand plasma physics while professional plasma physicists do not is just, well, silly. MHD is a mathematically heavy theory, and I am yet to meet one EU promoter on this forum who has the mathematical toolkit to quantitatively solve problems in plasma physics.

Indeed, it has been clear since I joined this forum with a genuine interest in understanding what the EU brings to the table, that no EU supporter is interested in quantifying anything at all.


Well then come on, Higgsy. Come on Bob. Show your stuff. Surely one of you will take my challenge and do some "quantifying" regarding my questions about filaments that I posted to each of you. Surely you're not both cowards who will go on trying desperately to ignore my posts. I'm offering you myself on a platter. Now is your chance to demolish a "EU supporter." Me. Remember, NO GUTS NO GLORY. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Metryq » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:28 am

No electricity, no filaments either!
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:11 am

Here's the running tally (not including myself):

Physics degree holders here: 1
Physics degree holders here who accept EU: 0

Non-physics-degree holders here: 9

Please take the time to read my original comment again (the first in this thread). Those of you who are littering my post with things unrelated to the topic need to chill out. I am trying to find out how many people with physics degrees frequent this forum, and who of those actually accept EU claims.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:37 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Here's the running tally (not including myself):


Pluck, pluck, pluck. NOT GUTS, SO NO GLORY. :lol:
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:14 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Here's the running tally (not including myself):

Physics degree holders here: 1
Physics degree holders here who accept EU: 0


Er, so what? What point are you even trying to make? We all know that EU/PC theory is a non-standard theory which is mostly championed by 'amateurs'. However, Hannes Alfven, the Nobel Prize winning author, literally wrote the book on MHD theory so I think he qualifies as a 'physicist'. He also first proposed the EU/PC cosmology model. His student, Anthony Peratt works(ed) at Los Alamos, so I think he also qualifies as a professional physicist too and he's built computer models to test various aspects of EU/PC theory.

How many of those 1 physics degree holders (not including yourself) here also has a Nobel Prize under their belt like Hannes Alfven?

I don't have to have a degree in biology to hold opinions about, or to be correct about some point related to evolutionary theory while I'm having a discussion with a "creationist' who happens to hold a degree in biology. Likewise I don't have to have a degree in particle physics simply to prefer the *standard* particle physics model and to "lack belief" in non-standard models of particle physics while I'm having a conversation with an LCDM proponent who happens to hold a degree in physics.

What exactly are you hoping to demonstrate in this thread?

Bob, I'd *love* to see you or anyone else demonstrate that that their physics degree is somehow superior to Alfven's Nobel Prize physics skills by pointing out *actual errors in his work*. We both know however that they never will do such a thing because they can't do such a thing, so this thread is really just a round about personal attack on a whole community rather than anything that might demonstrate your "physics superiority" to anyone who posts here.

If you're trying to demonstrate something, show us where Alfven made mistakes, or Peratt made mistakes, or Birkeland made mistakes, or something relevant.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Maol » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:21 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:Here's the running tally (not including myself):

Physics degree holders here: 1
Physics degree holders here who accept EU: 0

Non-physics-degree holders here: 9

Please take the time to read my original comment again (the first in this thread). Those of you who are littering my post with things unrelated to the topic need to chill out. I am trying to find out how many people with physics degrees frequent this forum, and who of those actually accept EU claims.


Whoever y'all are with the credentials, why don't you take an example of an EU postulate you are familiar enough with you feel a rigorous ciphering will confirm or deny, whichever is the desired premise you wish to illustrate, and demonstrate the mathematics, so that the Illiteratti here may learn from your example.
Maol
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:23 pm

Maol wrote:Whoever y'all are with the credentials, why don't you take an example of an EU postulate you are familiar enough with you feel a rigorous ciphering will confirm or deny, whichever is the desired premise you wish to illustrate, and demonstrate the mathematics, so that the Illiteratti here may learn from your example.


Don't be so easy on them. Don't let them cherry pick an example. Let's see how they respond to something really fundamental with regards to PC/EU ... the helical winding seen almost ubiquitously in cosmic plasma filaments. Surely if they know so much about the universe that they can discount anyone without one of their precious physics *credentials*, then can rationally explain something as basic as that without resorting to magical gnomes. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:38 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Don't be so easy on them. Don't let them cherry pick an example. Let's see how they respond to something really fundamental with regards to PC/EU ... the helical winding seen almost ubiquitously in cosmic plasma filaments. Surely if they know so much about the universe that they can discount anyone without one of their precious physics *credentials*, then can rationally explain something as basic as that without resorting to magical gnomes. :D

Oh - the ubiquitous helical winding of filaments, which you claim exists based on eye-balling a tiny random set of astronomical images, mostly in false colour? Of completely different things at completely different scales, including things that are patently not filaments like the shock boundary of planetary nebulae? Without any other support than looking at a pretty pictures? For example, no consideration of line of sight particle velocities in the different strands of the putative helix? Temperatures and densities? Sources of electrical potential?

I'm not saying that cases of plasma flowing in helical structures are never seen. Clearly they are. But I am saying that your examples of helical structures are not all actually helical structures. I am saying that they are not ubiquitous. And I am saying that you have to make an infinitely stronger case than looking at a few false colour piccies to persuade anyone with any physics knowledge that the dominant force in structure formation is electromagnetic.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby celeste » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:14 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:If you have a physics degree, please comment whether or not you accept EU.

B.A. Physics, Oakland University, Rochester Michigan,USA. Grad school in physics (observational astronomy under the physics department), Central Michigan University.
Yep, when you insulted us EU members as not having bothered to learn the mainstream ideas, I was laughing my butt off.

You way underestimate the crowd you are dealing with here. Do we all agree? Heck no. Agreement comes from letting the "experts" tell us what to believe. If you accept that Stephen Hawkings was right when he stated that black holes existed, and now that black holes don't exist,...well you are ready to be a mainstream astrophysicist.

What you don't know, is that some of us here in EU, came to the same conclusions (no blackholes)BEFORE Stephen Hawking gave us permission to so.
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:21 pm

Higgsy wrote:... that the dominant force in structure formation is electromagnetic.

This is pure bullshit.
A force does not need to be larger to have a major effect.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:25 pm

Higgsy wrote:Oh - the ubiquitous helical winding of filaments, which you claim exists based on eye-balling a tiny random set of astronomical images, mostly in false colour?


LOL! I finally got a response. But seriously, Higgsy? THIS is going to be your tactic? To deny that everywhere we turn out there we encounter helically wound plasma filaments? Seriously? LOL! You really are *old school*. I thought that tactic went out the window after the Herschel Observatory went up and found them literally everywhere.

Higgsy wrote: Of completely different things at completely different scales, including things that are patently not filaments like the shock boundary of planetary nebulae?


And how does “shock” create such perfectly wound helical filaments? Can you point us to any modeling that you *physics degreed* chaps have done of these planetary nebulae to show shock and turbulence produces the sort of structures that are commonly seen in those photos? Hmmmmmm?

Higgsy wrote:Without any other support than looking at a pretty pictures? For example, no consideration of line of sight particle velocities in the different strands of the putative helix? Temperatures and densities? Sources of electrical potential?


No, no, no, Higgsy. The ball is in your court. You claim to be the expert … “The PHYSICIST”. I asked you to explain how YOUR physics produce such helically wound filaments. You don’t get to complain about my reasons for suggesting Birkeland currents are responsible and then wave your hands to explain how gravity and “shock” does it.

Higgsy wrote:I'm not saying that cases of plasma flowing in helical structures are never seen.


Please, you came very close to saying just that. Be bold. Stand up for your convictions.

Higgsy wrote:But I am saying that your examples of helical structures are not all actually helical structures.


The links I provided all indicate the presence of helical structures and where there are no linked articles, my eyes readily tell me there are helical structures. Do you and Bob have trouble discerning spirals?

Higgsy wrote:I am saying that they are not ubiquitous.


Then I suggest you argue that with mainstream physicists … especially those who ran the Herschel Space Observatory program because they concluded that filaments are ubiquitous. Here, start with this mainstream source: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-born ... weigh.html , which states that “the Herschel Space Observatory has revealed that the star forming sites across the Milky Way are riddled with filaments: tube-like structures of gas and dust that span tens of parsecs [1 parsec = 3.26 light-years] within molecular clouds. Although the existence of such structures has been known for quite a few years, this is the first time that we can resolve them and start exploring their nature and properties, thanks to this ESA satellite.” RIDDLED, sir, in my book, is another word for “ubiquitous.” But here’s an even better mainstream article about Herschel results:

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-herschel-f ... milky.html
 
Herschel's hunt for filaments in the Milky Way
 
Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous. The Herschel data have rekindled the interest of astronomers in studying filaments, emphasising the crucial role of these structures in the process of star formation. (BAC - which is EXACTLY what plasma cosmologists predicted would be observed if mainstream astronomers took the time to look.)
 


Gee ... did THEY use the term UBIQUITOUS? Or are my eyes deceiving me, Higgsy?

The article goes on to say this:

In the search for answers, astronomers observe giant molecular clouds, the cosmic incubators where gas and dust are transformed into stars. While these studies are performed using a variety of techniques, one crucial approach is the observation of infrared light, since the interstellar material shines brightly at these long wavelengths.
 
In this context, ESA's Herschel space observatory has been a true game changer. Probing the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that ranges from the far-infrared to sub-millimetre wavelengths, it has collected unprecedented data during its three and a half years of observing. One of the key aspects that emerged from these observations is the presence of a filamentary network nearly everywhere in our Galaxy's interstellar medium. The picture that is emerging is that these structures are closely linked to the formation of stars. (BAC - Which is EXACTLY what plasma cosmologists have been saying for 30 years to the sound of crickets from mainstream astrophysicists.)
 
Prior to Herschel, astronomers had already identified several filaments in interstellar clouds and recognized their potential importance for star formation. However, only with the increased sensitivity and spatial resolution granted by this observatory, combined with its large-scale surveys, could they reveal the full extent of filamentary patterns in the Milky Way.
 
One of the surveys performed with Herschel – the Gould Belt Survey – focussed on a giant ring of star-forming regions, all located no more than 1500 light-years away from the Sun. The vicinity of these clouds allowed astronomers to obtain exceptionally detailed images using Herschel, unearthing intricate webs of filaments in each region that they examined.
 
"The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation," explains Philippe André from CEA/IRFU, France, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey. (BAC - it shouldn't have been a surprise since plasma cosmologists had been trying to tell mainstream astrophysicists for 30 years that is what they'd find if they only looked.)
 


Oh my goodness ... :o ... "the UBIQUITY of filaments". Those aren't my words, Higgsy, they are the words of the PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey. Say it isn't so? Could he be a "degreed physicist"?

"But there is more: these observations revealed that filaments, which may extend to several light-years in length, appear to have a universal width of about one third of a light year. This suggests that something fundamental is lurking underneath." (BAC - yeah, what do you suppose that might be, folks?  Perhaps something to do with electromagnetic effects?)
 
The astronomers are still trying to understand the details of the star formation processes taking place in these clouds, aided by the abundance and variety of data collected with Herschel.
 
While most filaments are dotted with compact cores, suggesting that stars are readily taking shape in these dense 'fibres' of the interstellar medium, there are also regions that exhibit complex tangles of filaments but no signs of on-going star formation. A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation. (BAC - just as plasma cosmologists said.)
 
The scenario that has emerged from the new Herschel data suggests that star formation proceeds in two steps: first, turbulent motions of the interstellar gas and dust create an intricate web of filamentary structures; then, gravity takes over, causing only the densest filaments to contract and fragment, eventually leading to the formation of stars.  (BAC - "gas, dust, turbulence, gravity ... but the biggest force of all ... electromagnetism ... and the effect that has on plasma is not mentioned.   It's almost like these scientists have horse blinders on.)

Indeed, the universal width of filaments seems to correspond, at least in the nearby clouds of the Gould Belt Survey, to the scale at which interstellar material undergoes the transition from supersonic to subsonic state.
 
In addition, the material along filaments is not at all static: astronomers have detected what appear to be accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter from their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments. A striking example of such processes is seen in the Taurus Molecular Cloud, where the B211/B213 filament exhibits a series of so-called 'striations' perpendicular to the main filament.
 
This pattern is very similar to that predicted from numerical simulations that model the process of star formation in molecular clouds. According to these simulations, interstellar material flows towards dense filaments along routes that are parallel to the direction of the local magnetic field, as was observed, so the new data indicate the importance of interstellar magnetic fields in shaping these structures. (BAC - well gosh, folks, aren't magnetic fields a product of electromagnetic effects? Gee ... don't you think there might be a clue for these *scientists* to grab on to?)
 
However, star formation does not appear to take place only in filaments. While these structures seem to be the preferred sites for stellar birth, the extraordinary data from Herschel confirmed that a small fraction of stars may also form far away from dense filaments.
 
In particular, a detailed study of the L1641 molecular clouds in the Orion A complex suggests that star formation along filaments is the preferential channel to produce typical solar-type stars, while stars that are born away from these dense, elongated structures tend to have lower masses. This dichotomy could be a result of the greater availability of raw material to protostars that are forming on a filament compared to those that take shape in less dense environments.
 
Another of Herschel's key findings is that the presence and abundance of filaments are not limited to our immediate neighbourhood. In fact, these structures appear everywhere also in the Herschel infrared Galactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL), which scanned the distribution of the interstellar medium in the huge disc – about 100 000 light-years across – where most of the Milky Way's stars form and reside.
 
"We detected a wealth of huge filaments, with lengths ranging from a few to a hundred light-years, revealing what seems to be the 'skeleton' of our Galaxy,
" explains Sergio Molinari from IAPS/INAF, Italy, Principal Investigator for the Hi-GAL Project.
 
"While it is possible that these structures arose from different physical processes than those giving rise to the small-scale filaments observed in the Sun's vicinity, the omnipresent aspect of filamentary structures in the Milky Way is beyond doubt."
 
In the post-Herschel era, one thing is certain: filaments play a leading role in the build-up of galactic material, creating favourable hubs for the formation of stars. This is likely a hierarchical process, starting on very large scales and propagating onwards, to smaller and smaller scales, funnelling interstellar gas and dust into increasingly denser concentrations and thus fostering stellar birth across the Galaxy.
 
Large-scale filaments fragmenting into compact cores that later evolve into stars have been detected all across the Galactic Plane, even in its outermost, peripheral regions. As filaments grow more massive, the material within them contracts and forms smaller structures, preserving the filamentary pattern on all length scales.
 
Further investigation of the Hi-GAL survey has revealed new and even more prominent filaments, extending over hundreds of light-years and weaving their way through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The study revealed nine filaments in some very dense, inner regions of the Galactic Plane, detecting these for the first time through the direct emission of dust within them, allowing an accurate determination of their mass, size and physical characteristics. Astronomers believe that almost a hundred similar, gigantic structures are still hiding in the data.
 
"The intricate distribution of filaments in the interstellar medium revealed by Herschel has definitely revolutionised our view of how stars form in the Milky Way and, presumably, also in other similar galaxies," comments Göran Pilbratt, ESA Herschel Project Scientist.


In case you haven't guess by now, Higgsy, the above proves that you are TOTALLY WRONG. You don’t know what you are talking about. The above proves that filaments are indeed “ubiquitous” and even the mainstream’s top astrophysicists have been forced to admit it. I’m surprised you didn’t know this, Mr “Physicist.” I’m surprised you were completely unaware of the Herschel programs findings. I’m surprised that you haven’t seen presentations like this (http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ) where someone from the Herschel organization stated that filaments are directly involved in the star formation process and that filaments are present in “ALL” star forming clouds. Given those two claims, how can filaments not be ubiquitous, Higgsy? Hmmmmmmm? That presentation goes on to note, like the article I quoted above, the presence of filaments within filaments. In fact, it concludes that fibers (filaments) are “FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCKS” which are “present in all kinds of environments”. How can a fundamental building block in all environments not be ubiquitous?

Now, you want to go on claiming that filaments are not ubiquitous? Or will you finally set yourself to the task of explaining their tendency to be helically wound at all scales and in all circumstances with just gravity and shock to work with? Hmmmmmmm? :P
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest