Magnetic Stars: Rebuttal to Max Planck Institute (Advanced Draft Release: The Grant Chronicles) | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 57053 United States 12/26/2005 01:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35822 United States 12/26/2005 02:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/26/2005 02:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 52209 United States 12/26/2005 02:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 57113 United States 12/26/2005 02:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 57120 United Kingdom 12/26/2005 02:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "This paper first released on Bad Astronomy's BB yesterday is incomplete and still has some incomplete thoughts, spelling and grammar errors in it until its final release later this week." And I expect that even after that it'll have incomplete thoughts (i.e. total gibberish) and plenty of pelling and grammar errors in it, since you hardly ever check things, and your knowledge of science could be written on te back of a postage stamp in inch-high letters... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12494 United States 12/26/2005 02:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Deacon Blue User ID: 57134 United States 12/26/2005 03:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ===== This paper first released on Bad Astronomy's BB yesterday... ===== 1) It's the Bad Astromomy Universe Today BAUT) BB. 2) So far, your "paper" has gotten 48 viewings and 0 replies! 3) Your "paper" shows your usual misunderstanding of physics. One minor example: "Currie temperature" applies ONLY to solids, but "I am astrophysics" Grant thinks9???) that it applies to plasmas! |
Deacon Blue User ID: 57134 United States 12/26/2005 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Dang! Maybe I should register, just so I can edit my posts. That should have read: ===== This paper first released on Bad Astronomy's BB yesterday... ===== 1) It's the Bad Astromomy Universe Today (BAUT) BB. 2) So far, your "paper" has gotten 48 viewings and 0 replies! 3) Your "paper" shows your usual misunderstanding of physics. One minor example: "Currie temperature" applies ONLY to solids, but "I am astrophysics" Grant thinks(???) that it applies to plasmas! |
Grant NLI (OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/26/2005 03:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Do you have a answer for the flaws in current theories or just a babbling mouth? Deacon go back to sleep The Curie point is a term in physics and materials science, named after Pierre Curie (1859-1906), and refers to a characteristic property of a ferromagnetic material. The Curie point, or Curie temperature, Tc, of a ferromagnetic material, is the temperature above which it loses its characteristic ferromagnetic ability: the ability to possess a net (spontaneous) magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field. At temperatures below the Curie point the magnetic moments are partially aligned within magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials. As the temperature is increased from below the Curie point, thermal fluctuations increasingly destroy this alignment, until the net magnetization becomes zero at and above the Curie point. Above the Curie point, the material is purely paramagnetic. At temperatures below the Curie point, an applied magnetic field has a paramagnetic effect on the magnetization, but the combination of paramagnetism with ferromagnetism leads to the magnetization following a hysteresis curve with the applied field strength. The destruction of magnetization at the Curie temperature is a second-order phase transition and a critical point where the magnetic susceptibility is theoretically infinite. [link to en.wikipedia.org] |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/26/2005 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18760 United States 12/26/2005 08:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18760 United States 12/27/2005 12:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Bored Huge Krill nli User ID: 55138 United States 12/27/2005 01:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant, in reply to Deacon's point that: "3) Your "paper" shows your usual misunderstanding of physics. One minor example: "Currie temperature" applies ONLY to solids, but "I am astrophysics" Grant thinks(???) that it applies to plasmas!" you posted a link to Wikipedia on ferromagnetism, along with a quote from it. As it turns out, a little further reading of that page, and in particular, the link to the page on ferromagnetic materials, confirms Deacon's point, specifically: All ferromagnetic materials are crystalline (ie solid) or in rare cases amorphous alloys (solid). There are no instances of anything non-solid being ferromagnetic. As it happens, I also have a rather good book on the subject in front of me: "Electricity and Magnetism" third edition, B. I. Bleaney and B. Bleaney. It's an undergraduate engineering text. Here's a quote from chapter 6, page 171: "Ferromagnetic substances are all solids, and each is characterised by a certain temperature known as the Curie point at which its properties change abruptly." Regards Krill |
Deacon Blue User ID: 57314 United States 12/27/2005 08:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2782 United States 12/27/2005 09:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Grant NLI (OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 09:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You seem to be ignoring the facts Hydrogen plasma does not retain a magnetic field, yes it can be energized but does not hold one without being influenced by another field or organized particle movement. |
Grant
(OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 09:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Krill & Deacon, Please tell us how a nebula retains a magnetic field to provide the basis for a magnetic white dwarf? Better yet show us how an experimental chamber of compressed hydrogen plasma could hold a magnetic field without the introduction of another field or charged particles? |
Circuit Breaker
User ID: 2782 United States 12/27/2005 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why don't you show us Grant. Invite us all up to your laboratory where you conduct all your experiments and obviously have tons of test equipment to verify your results. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6330 United States 12/27/2005 12:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Grant
(OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant -- before asking questions at others, perhaps you should defend your theory by andwering the criticism that has been levelled against it. Just a suggestion. I am defending it. If we are to believe Krill and Deacon the metal in its solid form once it passes the Curie temperature and melts ferromagnetic properties stabilize, BS. The molecular movement that disrupts magnetic properties in a solid is also present in an even hotter liquid. The point is gaseous nebulas can not be the basis for stellar magnetars, because they did not retain a magnetic field. CB shut up and go back to your postal job. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 02:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Bored Huge Krill nli User ID: 55138 United States 12/27/2005 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant, a magnetic field is caused by the movement of charged particles. It's hardly a surprise that a large dynamic cloud of anything with free charges generates electric and magnetic fields (they're directly connected, remember). Have you never seen a thunderstorm? In fact, it's precisely what you'd expect. You post refers to *ferromagnetism* which is a property of some materials which can retain a level of magnetism in a static, equilibrium state. This occurs in what you would commonly call "a magnet". It doesn't refer to clouds of gas or dust. Nobody except you has suggested that magnetism in stars or clouds of dusts is due to them being ferromagnets. It's due to them being electrically charged and in motion. Your description of magnetism not being possible in a cloud of gas and dust above the "Curie point" is nonsense, because ferromagnetism and Curie temperatures relate only to very specific solid magnetic materials. Hence, your whole article is nonsense. Regards Krill |
Grant
(OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 03:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You post refers to *ferromagnetism* which is a property of some materials which can retain a level of magnetism in a static, equilibrium state. This occurs in what you would commonly call "a magnet". It doesn't refer to clouds of gas or dust. Nobody except you has suggested that magnetism in stars or clouds of dusts is due to them being ferromagnets. It's due to them being electrically charged and in motion. Your description of magnetism not being possible in a cloud of gas and dust above the "Curie point" is nonsense, because ferromagnetism and Curie temperatures relate only to very specific solid magnetic materials. Hence, your whole article is nonsense. Is it nonsense, can you recreate conditions here on Earth, no. Have our instruments detected nebulas capable of creating immense magnetic fields without a source of energy? Are you trying to apply a dynamo theory to a cloud of gas? Is the motion organized in a nebula, no, what would the gravitational reference of rotation. If the cloud is expanding then charges would be dissipating. Listen to yourself Krill. Regards Krill |
Bored Huge Krill nli User ID: 55138 United States 12/27/2005 03:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Obviously we haven't recreated the conditions here on Earth - except in a simulation, which is the best we can practically do. You still haven't addressed the central point - your misapplication of ferromagnetism to a cloud. Everything you derive from that is nonsense. The two competing theories under discussion are dynamo based or fossil field based. One is based on a mechanically rotating charged cloud, the other (as far as I understand it, but I'm willing to be corrected) on a resonant stable electromagnetic wave (which itself moves the charged particles around, but in an oscillatory fashion). Incidentally, it doesn't show the overall electromagnetic energy increasing - it shows the overall energy decreasing due to resistive effects in the conductive cloud. Neither has anything to do with ferromagnetism, and hence your criticism of either as not conforming to the principles of ferromagnetism is nonsense. When are you going to stop blowing smoke and acknowledge this? Regards Krill |
Circuit Breaker
User ID: 2782 United States 12/27/2005 04:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "CB shut up and go back to your postal job." I don't work for the post office Grant. Judging by your response, I obviously struck a nerve. What's the matter Grant? You don't have a laboratory? No test equipment either? Ah, too bad. In the meantime, I'm going to sit back and watch as Krill tries, in vain to be sure, to educate you. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
Grant
(OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 05:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You still haven't addressed the central point - your misapplication of ferromagnetism to a cloud. Everything you derive from that is nonsense. Nonsense again, you cannot explain how a cloud maintains a charge with random movement, in the cold environment of space how much movement occurs in the cloud, How do the poles organize? All of which negates a cloud from holding ferromagnetic properties and thus transferring magnetic properties into white dwarfs as the institute proposes. |
Grant
(OP) User ID: 2199 United States 12/27/2005 05:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2782 United States 12/27/2005 06:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Atma
User ID: 57027 United States 12/27/2005 06:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |