Higgsy wrote:Note the goalpost creep from the ubiquity of helically wound plasma filaments to the ubiquity of filaments.
If you recall, I wrote that helically wound filaments “
seem almost ubiquitous”. I still stand by that because I’ve offered example after example after example, so far, and you’ve yet to offer anything to prove me wrong. For example, this source (
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-bor ... weigh.html ) contains an image of the L1641 clouds in Orion A:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... orninf.png
Expand that image and you can see helically wound filaments distributed throughout it. And other scientific articles on this cloud confirm that the filaments in these clouds are helically wound. For example,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... lback=true “Evidence for a rotating helical filament in L1641, part of the Orion cloud complex”. And that article states that “our viral analysis infers that the magnetic field in at least several filamentary clouds is probably helical and toroidally dominated.” And this cloud is by no means unique. Here, for example, is a helical filament in cloud L1251:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2 ... 83-15.html “A rotating helical filament in the L1251 dark cloud”. Everywhere they turn, they are finding helically wound filaments. Here’s a 2017 paper (
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04713.pdf ) on structures which they call molecular “tornadoes”. They start off the paper saying “Recent observations near the Galactic Center (GC) have found several molecular filaments displaying striking helically wound morphology that are collectively known as molecular tornadoes”.” Amazingly, they don’t mention the word “plasma” even once, even though the material comprising these structures is clearly plasma. Tell us, Higgsy, do you understand the phrase “Garbage In, Garbage Out”?
Also, Higgsy, you apparently didn’t actually bother to look at the presentation about the Herschel results that I linked you earlier. If you had, then you’d know that they did note helical winding as being VERY common … they just didn’t use that specific term. But what do you think they were talking about in a presentation (
http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ) titled “Understanding the internal substructure of Herschel filaments” where the cover page of the presentation clearly shows helically wound wiring as a representation of a filament? Hmmmmmm? Did you miss the statement that “filaments are not ‘monolithic objects’ but complex bundles of fibers”? And mind you, Higgsy, that's a report/presentation coming from people like yourself who are trying studiously to ignore the helical wound geometry of the filaments they are studying because that would cause problems for their gravity/shock only models. They talk solely about “gas” when they in fact are dealing with plasmas. It’s a huge mistake in terms of modeling and understanding. How big a mistake? Well this article might give our readers an idea:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02132.pdf . No mention of the helical shapes in those photos I linked. Not one mention of plasma. And no mention of electromagnetism. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Higgsy wrote:And as far as the ubiquity of filaments at all scales up to 100Mpc goes, I just say Millenium Run.
Yeah … you can call forth a calculation (LOL!) based on the God of Gnomes (:rolleyes:), but you are clearly not able to explain how gravity and shock create the many helically wound filaments that I showed you … or you would have. Why is that, Higgsy? You led us to believe that a degree in physics means you can explain everything with gravity and shock.
But Higgsy is perfectly ok with believing that a half dozen magical gnomes (or more) ... not one of which has been proven to exist ... explain the structure ... 
