Cause of Aurora Borealis Confirmed

An anonymous reader writes "There are reports that satellites have aided scientists in confirming why the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) exists. 'New data from NASA's Themis mission, a quintet of satellites launched this winter, found the energy comes from a stream of charged particles from the sun flowing like a current through twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun. The energy is then abruptly released in the form of a shimmering display of lights.'"

Comments

The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

The interesting new information is actually the following:

"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.

What happens within the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas is that the plasma will tend to form filaments of charged particles. It is a natural state of the plasma. Furthermore, multiple filaments will tend to possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another. In other words, they will twist around one another without fully combining. This can be observed by any layperson by looking closely at the point where your novelty plasma globe's filaments touch the glass. What appears as one filament from a distance is in fact two filaments twisting around one another like a rope that unwind with contact to glass. This roped structure within the laboratory constitutes a flow of charged particles, and as those charged particles move across the rope in response to voltage potentials, this flow of charged particles will in turn create helical magnetic fields around the filaments. Maxwell's Equations demand it.

The observation of a roped magnetic structure connecting the Sun and Earth is extremely important because we know from our laboratory experiences with plasmas that rope-like structures occur when the plasma is electrical. I'm very curious what the response will be from the astrophysical community about this *structure*. Will they argue that the similarity in morphologies is actually coincidental?

If so, somebody should share the talking points with NASA, because they appear to be off-message ...

From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html:

"THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and--Bang! We get an explosion."

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Kagura]

So to sum up your entire post for those that come after me, you are saying "electric universe rules".

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

Every single person who doubts that this is more than coincidental can surely be excused for the sole reason that the implications are kind of hard to get a full handle on. It's really kind of shocking. But, it's important that people be aware of the possibility of Birkeland Currents in space, and even more, I think perhaps people should just accept that there is a distinct possibility that we just live in interesting times.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at NASA, and I know the people involved with the nasa.gov release. Just exactly would you like your dumbed down science, such that it fills all peoples understanding of electromagnetism and astrophysics all at once? If you could tell me the proper way of dumbing science down so that all denominators are equally satisfied, let me know so I can forward your request to those scientists.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[ILuvRamen]

good thing you posted that cuz I was like "Yeaaaaaaaah I learned that in fifth grade"

Re:The More Important Discovery

[jnik]

What are you saying? What, to you, distinguishes an "electrical" plasma from any other type of plasma? (What other types do you assert exist?) The magnetic connection between the Earth and the Sun is not a new idea; it was first seriously proposed by Dungey in 1961 and has survived some very rigourous testing. What is "off-message"? The existence of large-scale currents in space? Those have been accepted for decades at least--otherwise there can't be a magnetopause. Field aligned currents? Again, long established. Parallel electric fields? Necessary in some form for auroral acceleration (although beyond that there's still some debate.) Oh, yes, and flux ropes aren't particularly new, either. The interesting thing here is their role in transferring solar wind energy to the magnetosphere.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Shining Celebi]

Every single person who doubts that this is more than coincidental can surely be excused for the sole reason that the implications are kind of hard to get a full handle on. It's really kind of shocking.

Why yes, I suppose it would be.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[afidel]

Actually I kind this kind of interesting, the explanation I had always heard was that a wave of charged particles boiled off of a sunspot and that it was electrical charge of that wavefront collapsing some field lines and streaming down the magnetic holes at the poles. Knowing that there is actually a continuous event from the sun to the earth is an interesting realization for me.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[GreenLED]

To sum up the whole story, the
universe is incredibly fascinating.
It's hard to believe all of this stuff
could possibly be made of of chance.

A magnetic rope, wow.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

Do you agree that these are Birkeland Currents?

Also, out of curiosity, what do you believe is the mechanism for the acceleration of the solar wind? Why does it continue to accelerate even as it passes the planets?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[davester666]

So they're finally sure it's not just some kids with flashlights?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

"So to sum up your entire post for those that come after me, you are saying "electric universe rules"." -Kagura

No, I think that what he's saying is something to the effect that this shouldn't be news to anybody, but the fact that it is happens to be disheartening.

Specifically, Kristian Birkeland predicted this in his book Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (section 2, I believe).

Specifically, if one references the images contained in the book, things become clear quite quickly:
Chapter VI: On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae

Take, for instance, an extreme case of his terella in operation:
Figure 259

How do you like them "flux ropes?"

This image hows the terella operating in a mode that exposes the electrical currents for what they are. In this shot, the currents are in "arc mode" (akin to sparks or lightning). Whereas the auroras around Earth are akin to a "glow mode" discharge. Birkeland currents in interplanetary space are a "dark mode" discharge (IE, not glowing, but still slowly transferring electric charges in a "dark" current, much like an electrical wire, but in this case a plasma filament). Look it up. Standard plasma physics.

In essence, the solar system can be likened to a virtual "plasma globe." In the "plasma globe" model of the solar system, the sun is the central electrode. The planets are akin to people pressing their fingers to the outer glass because it's cool to watch the filaments connect to the spot you touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are akin to the plasma filaments connecting the central electrode to the outer glass where fingers touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are a byproduct of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) connecting the sun to the Earth.

Here's a colorized version of a plasma globe I made for reference:
Plasma globe "sun"

So, yeah, it's something like that.

I really wish it would let me put images in this thing. Ohh well, I said it better over on BAUT anyway (assuming they don't immediately MOD it out of existence, for being presumptuous enough to mention astronomers' apparent blindspot regarding electricity in space).

Did I forget to mention NASA's own rather candid admission that there's an electrical link between the sun and the Earth? "Flux rope" pumps 650,000 Amp current into the arctic! (30 kV battery in space) (Noted on this page: Multimedia for the Press Event for THEMIS.)

In all, what Pln2bz says is quite sage, and I suggest that we listen to him... Rather carefully. He may not be quite as "insane" as some think. It's quite necessary to review the argument based on its merits, and see where it leads. Might just turn science on its ear.

After all, we've just re-learned that Birkeland currents power the magnetosphere. This was confirmed in t he 60s / 70s when we started shooting satellites into space, and it was predicted in the 1900s (appx 1902-1903 was when Birkeland went north; 1908 was when he published Norewgian Aurora Polaris Expedition, to great acclaim pretty much everywhere, except England and America, where an electrically neutral/sterile cosmology had already taken hold, unfortunately, setting us back a

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

True, the implications are as vast as the galaxy, nay, the universe.

Shocking, indeed! Very amusing! 8^)

Cheers, ~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

Maybe a 30 kV flashlight (pumping 650,000 amps into the arctic)?

Heck of a light show! Might burn out the bulb, tho'.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[falconcy]

Isn't this old information? AFAIK the ESA found most of this on the Cluster II missions http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=8 Funny how NASA seems to get a monopoly on discovering things, even if the do find out later ;-)

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

I vote "charged particles in an electric field." (Easiest way to accelerate charged particles in the lab...) What's the more technical term? "Voltage drop," I think?

I might also chime in with the term "heliospheric current sheet." Just to prod the conversation a bit.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh... I didn't realize this was such a big issue among astronomers. I just assumed this was how things worked... That is, I learned about plasmas, the magnetosphere and such, and information about the Aurora Borealis being caused by electrons moving about magnetic field lines and at some point made the connection that electrical currents fluctuated in this space plasma... What with all the magnetic fields and plasma about, it seemed logical.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

Okay then...

Here's a question for the astrophsycists, if they know of "things electric" (such as the Birkeland currents powering the auroras), has anyone drawn out the solar electric circuit(s)? If so, where are they diagrammed (can you point me to them, I'd love to see them, as they're never discussed in public; so far as I know)?

If not, why not. If astrophysicists realize this is essentially an electrical engineering problem, why has it not been diagrammed as such and "solved," so to speak? Why do scientists and/or news releases always seem to exclaim surprise about all things electrical they discover in the solar system?

Likewise, why do so many scientists, papers, and news releases still talk in terms of "winds," "rains," and "shock fronts," instead of Electrical Engineering terms like "plasma filaments," "Birkeland currents," "double layers," "closed circuits," "inductors," "capacitors," "relaxation oscillators," "plasma sheaths," "dark mode discharge" (Birkeland currents; while between the sun and Earth), "glow mode discharge" (auroras, sun's photosphere), "arc mode discharge" (lightning, solar prominences, coronal loops & flares), "anodes," "cathodes," etc.

It seems like the astronomers' language is still rooted in terms from the Victorian era. Or is there just a language barrier between various disciplines and they're all just talking about the same things (in their own specialized terms)? If so, how do we get everyone to use the same language for the same things, so we can recognize the same things in the same ways, when talking between disciplines?

Just wondering, please don't take offense. It's an interesting topic to me. =o]

Maybe the EE's and astrophysicists just need to sit down at the same table (a really big table, with the best and brightest), compare notes on "how things work in the lab" vs. "how things work in space," and come up with a set of standard terms and definitions? Where they can't agree, perhaps more research is needed... Frankly, I think that such a "meeting of the minds to compare notes across multi-disciplinary lines" should be a yearly thing. If it doesn't already happen. Just to keep everyone on the same page.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[aichpvee]

I thought it was Dust...

Re:The More Important Discovery

[GreenLED]

We're so smart, it took us, oh...
"millions" of years to figure this
out. Hmmm, if you figure that
the earth has been around for
6,000 years, that actually puts
us in a better "light" -- we must
be pretty stupid. I wonder how
much longer it will take to figure
out that it's impossible to throw
a boat-load of random plane
parts on a tarmark, come back
5 billion years later and find out
"It's A Plane!!!!!!" Om my goodness!

Even video gamers realize you have
to program a game before you can
have fun playing it. :)

Re:The More Important Discovery

[GreenLED]

I guess that depends on
whether you're using an
incandescent bulb, or
an LED, don't you think?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mollymoo]

Hmm. Modded down for mentioning plasma cosmology. A similar thing happens on Wikipedia. I find the vigour with which plasma cosmology (small p,small s) is shouted down rather worrying. And it is almost always merely shouted down, I rarely see scientific arguments used against it, which is more than can be said for total bullshit like creationism. I'm not saying I believe everything proponents of Plasma Cosmology (big p, big s) have to say, just that the debate doesn't semm to be in the best traditions of science.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[iantresman]

I believe that all plasmas are electrified by definition, in that they consist of moving charged particles that self-generate magnetic and electric fields. There are lots of different "types" of plasma, such as (a) cold, warm and hot plasmas, (b) magnetic and non-magnetic plasmas (all space plasmas are magnetic) (c) neutral and non-neutral plasmas (d) complex plasmas which includes dusty plasma. Some of these are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think she is saying "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo rules"

Re:The More Important Discovery

[KDR_11k]

They're finally sure it's not a communist conspiracy to... uh... ??? and Profit!?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[somersault]

I have no idea how you got modded troll there. I'm guessing it's from your talking about people expecting this is coincidental, which they then relate to you somehow talking about God and then want to ruin your karma. Teehee. Anyway, you forgot to say FRIST TOSP!!! up there :o

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're trolling or just being cute. By your choice of analogy, you've been reading "The Blind Watchmaker" in either case, I presume.

The real kicker is that you don't have to design a human to get a human. You're pretty unlikely to get any complex thing in particular, but you're guaranteed to get a complex thing of some sort. The "some sort" that are a bunch of ape descendants do like their video games though.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[arkhan_jg]

"It also fits well the model of the sun being a *source* of the solar
wind plasma, which will stretch out the magnetic field as seen. A nice
confirmation of the standard theory. However, if the sun is the focus
of an electrical discharge, then the solar wind should be in-bound
instead of out-bound. Or, more precisely, an electric current should be
in-bound. But such is not the case; protons and electrons both flee the
sun rapidly in all directions, consistent with a thermally driven wind,
and inconsistent with an electrical origin. The field and plasma
observation actually serves to *disprove* the electric star hypothesis,
and to confirm the standard theory."

http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html

You try to pretend that astro-physicists ignore the electro- side of electromagnetism. They obviously have a close relationship. Without going into the many other flaws of Electric Universe theory, where are the electrons flowing back towards the sun from this supposed electrical current between the sun and earth?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[phulegart]

You might be serious, you might be trolling. If you meant any of what you said, you really should pay attention to what you want to say before it spills out.

"We're so smart, it took us, oh...
"millions" of years to figure this
out."

Humans haven't been here on the planet for millions of years. If you believe that we evolved, it's been a couple of hundred thousand years at best. There is evidence we are still examining however, of creatures that did exist millions of years ago. Large, reptilian/avian creatures dubbed dinosaurs. There is even indirect evidence of all the life that existed in those millions of years, in the oil we draw from the earth and burn in our vehicles as gasoline.

Not quite something that can just come into existence in 6000 years.

Did you know that there is evidence that shows us that the ancient Babylonians in around 5000 B.C., were the first people to brew beer, with Hops (as a preservative, not as a flavor additive). This would mean that the Babylonians were making beer a thousand years before you say that mankind was created.

Now is the time for you to decide. Do you really want to believe that hooey of creationism (and the badly designed knees not made for upright walking was a purposeful decision, the appendix that we don't need because we don't eat what our ancestors ate was left in us for a purposeful reason, and the wisdom teeth we don't need for cracking bone anymore were left in our skull for a purposeful reason), or would you rather have a beer and kick back, and realize that we are not the product of random anything. We are the product of chance, COMBINED with an eon or five of research and development. If you don't follow, what I mean is that although the original spark of amino acids forming chains and making protein might have involved chance, all kinds of failures have occurred since then. We just happen to be a species that survived. Millions of species didn't.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for typing all that .
The comments here are sometimes more interesting than the article.
It makes sense that electrons are flowing through space really because of the way a vacuum tube works.
Also this idea reminds me of the article I saw yesterday about light being trapped in a magnetic fluid.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Ion01]

It seems to me that the inflow of current would be through the pole of the sun and then outward in all other directions as done experimentally by Birkeland and as illustrated with the plasma ball. Also, even if your statement that it does not confirm the Electric Universe theories your statements do not illustrate how it confirms or conforms to standard theory. How does thermal energy account for or explain the charge of the solar wind and the magnetic fields? Lets also remember that science is based upon experimentation. This is one of the first things we learn in elemenatry science class. Where are the experiments which also confirm the standard theory? Is it in computer models? I could produce a computer model which perdicts anything I want it to. You only get out of a computer what you put in. Thus the term all programmers have heard- "Garbage in = Garbage out."

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Mister Whirly]

Why can't you
seem to utilize
more that 20%
of your screen width?
It is a little
annoying to read.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[caramelcarrot]

I'd say that problem is that it's approached as a single model, whereas if you in fact look at normal cosmology, all these things are already taken into account. The explanation of the Aurora has been known for years, this is just some small fine detail confirmation. Also, it's hard to talk about terms in electrical engineering when cosmological currents are often relativistic and over vast differences, making the speed of light even more important - so it's better in some ways to discuss exactly what the particles are doing rather than trying to simplify it to small-scale electronics terms.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

If I may be so bold as to respond to myself...

I chastise me for forgetting to add this bit earlier!

A few code-words for electrical processes:

• Solar Wind: It's not quite so simple or homogeneous as all that. See below.
• Flux Tubes: These are tube-like magnetic fields, which generally find a counterpart in a flow of charged particles flowing in/along them (in fact, dynamic magnetic fields in light plasma REQUIRE such an electric current to be sustained; "frozen-in" field lines were repudiated by Hannes Alfven, who was the one who proposed them in the first place, recognized the mistake of not acknowledging electric currents, then spent most of his later life trying to rectify his mistake). A la "Birkeland currents." The terms may be synonymous? They are found persistently in the fast and slow "solar wind."
• Ion beams: There are electric currents in that there "solar wind." Ion beams are streams/beams of protons and/or ionized atomic nuclei found in the solar wind. Such a flow of charged particles constitutes an electric current (or just a current, for those who prefer to mince words), by the fairly standard definition.
• Strahl: The strahl is the exact polar [no pun intended] opposite of the ion beams. Specifically, it's a contiguous flow / stream / beam of free electrons in the solar wind. Like the ion beams before it, such a flow of like charged particles is also considered an electric current (or just a plain old run of the mill current).
• Heliospheric Current Sheet: Yes, that's right, there's a known sheet of current running through the equatorial plane of the solar system, centered at the sun! Look it up! It may not be "huge," but a little goes a long way...
• Interplanetary Magnetic Field: Yes, there's a magnetic field pervading the solar system. Look it up! How does one power a magnetic field in a light plasma? Were we paying attention in the flux tubes entry above? If not, let me say it again... Hannes Alfven noted that electric currents are REQUIRED to maintain a magnetic field in a light plasma. Field lines CANNOT be "frozen in" to light plasma. Mercifully, I've already mentioned the heliospheric current sheet. So, that resolves that little quibble.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[jnik]

I think Gene Parker got the solar wind about right. Hydrodynamics gets a lot of plasma behaviour about right. I recall Cravens has a pretty good treatment of the derivation.

"these are Birkeland Currents?" Which are? I don't know exactly what Dr. Sibeck's quote is referencing, so I'm not going to comment on that. But as I've said, field aligned currents are hardly a controversial matter. Two recent JGR publications. And here's a review paper.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[Finuance]

Such a brilliant post. Thank you, Michael Gmirkin.

And a Beatles quote to boot!

Re:The More Important Discovery

[jnik]

If astrophysicists realize this is essentially an electrical engineering problem, why has it not been diagrammed as such

Because it isn't essentially an electrical engineering problem. Fluid dynamics plays a major role. "Winds," "rains," and "shocks" are all fundamentally fluid dynamics concepts. BTW, this isn't an astrophysics field...we're space physicists. The lines are blurry--one space physicist in our department is doing heliospheric research, and one astrophysicist does a lot of work on magnetic processes (esp. magnetohydrodynamic shocks) beyond the solar system.

We do talk about double layers (and the plasma mantle, and the low latitude boundary layer....), and Birkeland currents, and current closure. We use the terminology that seems best to describe the processes. Sometimes we really are talking about different things and that needs different terminology.

There's a lot of crossover between lab plasma and space plasma research. One of the professors I work with started in fusion research; in the other direction, I know several space physicists who are doing lab work to try and pinpoint processes observed in space. As far as EE, these people build their own instruments. My advisor has dual appointments to astronomy and EE. We use Chen as one textbook.

If you're really interested in the field, Kivelson and Russell is a pretty good introduction, written at roughly an advanced undergrad level (i.e. real E&M). It is getting a bit dated, though; AGU monographs are a decent source of semi-digested information. I do like the Cravens text for something a little meatier (IMO) than K&R, although less applied. Gurnett and Bhattacharjee is up to date and rigorous, but somewhat dense.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

"these are Birkeland Currents?" Which are?

Any observation of a rope-like magnetic plasma structure, based upon laboratory plasma physics, is a legitimate candidate for a Birkeland Current. But this is somewhat semantical. I think the thing that a lot of EU Theory advocates would like to hear explained (and that somebody else on the forum hinted at), are the following questions:

If it is now normal to refer to structures within our solar system as electrical currents, then where does the charge differential come from? At what point does the system become conventionally viewed as a closed, quasi-neutral system?

The reason I ask this is because the largest scale observations we possess of the universe are in fact *filamentary*. If we see charge transfer on the smallest scales, the solar system, and if we also see filaments on the largest scales, then is it not possible that this is in fact a continuum of charge transfer? If not, *why* not?

These are the real burning questions at this point.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

Thanks for the references. :)

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

Actually I kind this kind of interesting, the explanation I had always heard was that a wave of charged particles boiled off of a sunspot and that it was electrical charge of that wavefront collapsing some field lines and streaming down the magnetic holes at the poles. Knowing that there is actually a continuous event from the sun to the earth is an interesting realization for me. ~ Afidel

You might also find these links to be of interest, then...

Solar Wind Origin in Coronal Funnels

Orbiting observatory SOHO finds source of high-speed "wind" blowing from the Sun

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[mgmirkin]

Seems the BAUT thread finally went up. Mods must have been sleeping or on vacation or something. At least over there, I can post a few choice images...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:The More Important Discovery

[APODNereid]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier ...

The irony, which I'm sure you did not intend mgmirkin, is that in many universities the researchers who study space science and plasma physics are to be found in the Department of Electrical Engineering!

In other words, pace your post, the people who have PhDs in EE, plasma physics, and space science (astrophysics is somewhat different) seem to have none of the difficulty with language that you seem to be having.

Perhaps it's because, as part of their PhD degrees, they need to learn the underlying physics, with all the math, equations, and numbers that you seem to avoid? Or that they are far more familiar with the actual lab-based and space-based research results - in all their quantitative glory - than you are?

Maybe it's your own ignorance that is on show here?

Of course, I could be completely off-base; it could be that you've written a dozen papers and had them published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, or Advances in Space Research, or Annales Geophysicae, etc.

May one enquire about your (plasma) science credentials?

Re:The More Important Discovery

[APODNereid]

The problem, dear pln2bz, is in trying to parse all this in a 'somewhat semantical' way.

May I suggest, if you are really interested in understanding what's going on in the universe, that you sign up for some university courses, in plasma physics, space science, and/or astrophysics? If they are good, such courses will require you to have covered all the parts of EE that you need (so you will be able to relate 'current' to the relevant physics equations, for example), and you can get beyond trying to divine the workings of the universe from the semantical equivalent of chicken entrails or tea leaves.

Oh, and what is this 'EU Theory' (capital 't')? In which peer-reviewed science journals may one read its seminal papers?

For answers to your questions, may I recommend Physics Forums' General Astronomy section (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71)?

FYI, they are certainly interesting questions, but I doubt that they are 'burning' to any serious space scientist, plasma physicist, or astrophysicist. Why? If you really want to know, sign up for a PhD in one of these fields ...

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

FYI, they are certainly interesting questions, but I doubt that they are 'burning' to any serious space scientist, plasma physicist, or astrophysicist. Why? If you really want to know, sign up for a PhD in one of these fields ...

Actually, I can identify some fundamental problems within astrophysics without having to get a degree. Can you explain, for instance, the root cause of the two flashes in the Deep Impact Mission? From what I've read -- and this is not a particularly complicated issue -- Wallace Thornhill was the only one who accurately predicted that there would be two separate flashes. I thought that accurate predictions were important within astrophysics, but it seems as though after-the-fact simulations are just as good, if not better.

I've been told that the second flash was in fact a "post-impact" flash, but one wonders how the two flashes could be distinguished when the probe was traveling at 6.3 miles per second? Are we to assume that the dust layer was *really* thick? Or, do we have to accept that the probe was slowed down by the first flash? Either way, it seems to me that Thornhill's *prediction* deserves just as much consideration as those two ad hoc explanations. I guess Thornhill could just be really lucky, but shouldn't we evaluate that within our conclusions rather than our assumptions?

These seem like completely legitimate questions to me, and I'm very concerned that they are not taken more seriously because they go to the heart of the issue of whether or not bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge. In recent years, we've seen volcanic lightning *precede* the outgassing of materials, lightning going to the edge of space and low-frequency electromagnetic precursors to large earthquakes. As you certainly realize, magma is a plasma. Is it not possible that we're observing a large leaky capacitor here? Is it not possible that the increase in electric field associated with storm clouds is the cause of thunderstorm lightning? Why would we continue to cling to the idea that the system is closed at the ground if we observe lightning going to the edge of space? All of these questions are *completely* legitimate.

I'm also somewhat curious, Nereid, what you think about this item:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071203lightningworship.htm

This object in the picture is called a kon-go, and translates from Japanese to "thunderbolt". As you probably already know, plasma physicists know this precise morphology to represent a z-pinch (you will likely recognize it as a bipolar supernova remnant), and the filaments that emanate from the z-pinch are actually Birkeland Currents. Now, that's a rather specific and unusual coincidence, don't you think? I bought one of these at a store and noticed that the filaments emanated out of the heads of dragons, which only adds to the intrigue. How in the world would people of the past know that *that's* the primordial morphology of lightning that we observe within a plasma laboratory?

I don't understand what it is about the astrophysical education that induces people to lose their curiosity about such things, but I certainly do not want to lose mine in the same way. I'd love to learn more about astrophysics, and I will spend the rest of my life doing so, but not at the expense of becoming close-minded to alternative cosmologies. Your invitation to "learn" sounds more like an invitation to stop asking these important and completely legitimate questions.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

By the way, you might want to correct these guys too ...

http://www.nofc.forestry.ca/fire/faq_lightning_e.php

They appear to have the *absurd* idea that the Earth can become electrically charged and that the Earth's surface can be described as a leaky capacitor. They must have misunderstood the literature they cite, huh?

I can't believe that they would try to understand the weather like that. I mean, they probably don't even understand quantum mechanics.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[APODNereid]

I can identify some fundamental problems within astrophysics without having to get a degree. Can you explain, for instance, the root cause of the two flashes in the Deep Impact Mission?

More 'semantical issues' I'm afraid.

First, for whatever reason, stuff which happens inside the solar system is (largely) the domain of 'space science', or 'plasma physics', or 'geophysics' (go figure) than 'astrophysics'.

Second, in whatever field you're working, calling the root causes of the two DI flashes a 'fundamental problem' shows either a profound ignorance of the fields, or crackpottery.

However, I've been reading some of your other Slashdot comments, and I gather that you have a view of the nature of science (well, physics anyway, which includes plasma physics, space science, astrophysics, and geophysics) different than that of those who actually do research (and publish papers, etc). I can't be sure, but it seems you take the naive falsificationist position ... if so, rather odd, since even Popper (whose idea it is) only proposed it as a foil.

Wallace Thornhill was the only one who accurately predicted that there would be two separate flashes. I thought that accurate predictions were important within astrophysics, but it seems as though after-the-fact simulations are just as good, if not better.

I see you trot this out quite a often, and perhaps you've already addressed my comment on it elsewhere ...

Not to worry, let's examine it, shall we?

Let's assume something resembling modern science, in terms of protocols and methods (we can look at alternatives later).

Let's assume that DT doesn't intend to base his ideas on 'new physics' (such as a fifth force, or branes, for example).

Let's further assume that DT has not extended plasma physics in radically new ways.

Finally, let's assume that DT's so-called prediction is based on nothing more than plasma physics.

OK so far?

In modern science, it doesn't count as a prediction if it isn't published, with the details of how it was made laid out in sufficient detail that others (with the relevant training in the relevant parts of plasma physics) can independently verify how it was made (logical consistency, no errors in the math, and so on).

Further, in modern space science (or plasma physics, or astrophysics, or ...), it's not a prediction unless it's quantitative, at least to an OOM (order of magnitude).

To the best of my knowledge, DT did not publish anything at all like this.

Ergo, DT did not make any predictions, in the sense of a (space science, plasma physics) scientific prediction.

But I could be wrong; can you point me to the issue of the relevant peer-reviewed journal in which DT published his prediction?

I guess Thornhill could just be really lucky, but shouldn't we evaluate that within our conclusions rather than our assumptions?

Actually, we should evaluate his so-called prediction as non-science ... unless and until he publishes it, showing in sufficient detail how he made it (so anyone can check), and including the necessary parts of plasma physics he used. And, such publication should be at least reviewed (by others working in the relevant fields of physics, etc).

These seem like completely legitimate questions to me, and I'm very concerned that they are not taken more seriously because they go to the heart of the issue of whether or not bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge.

I see, from reading some of your other comments, that you do indeed feel this way, consistently.

However, it's not clear to me - yet - whether you consider 'legitimacy' from the perspective of contemporary physics. I hope you'll clarify that in due course.

As to being taken seriously: it seems to me there are only two choices, either you are OK to work with standard physics, or you want to i

Re:The More Important Discovery

[APODNereid]

Sarcasm noted.

However, I really don't know what you're talking about ...

For starters, that page does NOT say "that the Earth's surface can be described as a leaky capacitor"! (Perhaps you should read it again?)

Second, "the Earth" in this article means something slightly different from what you mean by the term (in your comment); if you would like to re-read, and then re-write, you'll quickly see your misunderstanding.

Third, though moot now, I can't believe you'd cite a Canadian Forest Service webpage as an authoritative source for planetary science!

Re:The More Important Discovery

[pln2bz]

In modern science, it doesn't count as a prediction if it isn't published, with the details of how it was made laid out in sufficient detail that others (with the relevant training in the relevant parts of plasma physics) can independently verify how it was made (logical consistency, no errors in the math, and so on). ...

To the best of my knowledge, DT did not publish anything at all like this.

Ergo, DT did not make any predictions, in the sense of a (space science, plasma physics) scientific prediction.

But I could be wrong; can you point me to the issue of the relevant peer-reviewed journal in which DT published his prediction?

There are other mechanisms to validate timestamps for predictions. We could just as easily identify Internet cross-references to the prediction. And in fact, it's easy to do just that ...

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/03/1246254

The idea that Thornhill's prediction does not mean anything unless the people who are threatened by it in fact sanction it is hardly a strong argument.

Further, in modern space science (or plasma physics, or astrophysics, or ...), it's not a prediction unless it's quantitative, at least to an OOM (order of magnitude).

Actually, the quantitative nature of the prediction is readily apparent to most people: *two* flashes is a different number than *one* flash. Your requirements for his prediction are completely meaningless within the context of the number of flashes. How does order of magnitude make any sense whatsoever with respect to a prediction on the number of flashes?

Does the fact that Thornhill did not predict the exact magnitude of the flash or delay between the two flashes discount the fact that he got the number of flashes right? No, not at all, unless you can demonstrate how it is possible that he could have been so lucky. Does the existence of two flashes demonstrate that Thornhill's explanation of what happened deserves consideration in future missions? Yes, it does.

So, I've been patient so far, but you seem really desperate here. Rather than propose a reasonable mechanism for the two flashes, it seems that all you can do is to cast doubt on the actual prediction itself and argue that it wasn't stated properly. If I'm to believe that Thornhill got lucky, then by what mechanism do you credit the double flashes? If you cannot explain this, from what do you derive your confidence that Thornhill is so wrong? It seems to me that you are judging his prediction on the basis of his theory's conclusions -- which would seem to indicate that there is in fact no accurate prediction that Thornhill could ever make that would in your eyes be valid.

Re:The More Important Discovery

[leokor]

You seem to think that as long as something (finally!) becomes accepted by the mainstream, then it ceases to be a part of Plasma Universe. Not so. Do you remember Alfven vs. Chapman debate? How many years did it last? Chapman was already dead, and Alfven already a Novel laureate by the time space probes discovered Birkeland currents in the 70s, which settled it.

Plasma Universe is not a theory. It doesn't constitute a single model based on a set of hypotheses. It's an approach, with a distinct methodology and subject emphasis. Plasma Universe may, and indeed does, contain theories on the same subject that contradict each other. It is not a monolith. Methodologically, Plasma Universe is characterized by the following.

(1) General: Consistent application of plasma physics to space phenomena. Particular: Strong emphasis on the role of the electromagnetic force, so often neglected by the mainstream astrophysicists. It is conjectured that it may play a far more important part than does the gravity. Note that Plasma Universe is not limited to a specific set of people. Rather, it's defined by the subject and the approach.

(2) General: The principle of scalability of plasma, meaning that the basic properties of plasma are the same everywhere, at any scale. Particular: Extrapolation of laboratory and near-space experiments, as well as computer simulations based on those, to space phenomena long ago and far away, justified by the principle of scalability. Note that this principle is not an arbitrary assumption but a result of many years of observations, from the microscopic scale up to the planetary scale--as many degrees of magnitude of difference as between the planetary scale and the cluster scale.

(3) General: Preference is given to the "actualistic" approach, as defined by Alfven in opposition to the "prophetic" approach. The former starts in the here-and-now and works its way outward and back in time. The latter proposes a very detailed knowledge about the origin of the universe and works its way in the opposite directions. Particular: As a result, Plasma Universe is stronger in the near-space science, as evidenced even by the now-wide acceptance of the Alfven-Birkeland theory of auroras. But it is fuzzier in the department of cosmology (not to say that the greater detail of the Big Bang theory necessarily means that it's correct). For more on this dichotomy, see the Alfven's paper where he introduces it:

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

(4) Normally, I wouldn't have to say it, since experiment is a necessary part of scientific method--remove experiment, and you've got no science (and I mean it). But seeing the prevalence of purely theoretical approach in the mainstream astrophysics, I want to emphasize that Plasma Universe places a heavy emphasis on experiment. No matter who's the author of a theory--even Alfven himself--even a couple of contrary experiments may be grounds for reconsidering the theory's hypotheses. Plasma Universe does not construct no epicycles. No does it care how beautiful a theory is. As someone once said, the greatest tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.

Finally, I'd like to emphasize that "mainstream astrophysics" is far from being the same as "mainstream science." Plasma physicists are generally on the side of Plasma Universe. It is supported by IEEE (the largest scientific institution on the planet), the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and elements of NASA. LANL has an entire website devoted to Plasma Universe (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science links to it from its main page (http://www.ieeetps.org/). More importantly, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. has already devoted seven Special Issues to Plasma Universe, the latest one in August 2007. Here's the editorial:

Obviously

[Mr Bubble]

it's dust.

Re:Obviously

[Walt Dismal]

You've RUINED my Christmas. I always thought it was Santa who caused the lights.

Sincerely,

Billy Widget, Age 8, Cleveland Ohio

P.S. I bet you're going to tell me next that there is no Easter Bunny, storks don't deliver babies, and Microsoft sells flawless software. I'm not THAT dumb.

Re:Obviously

[zolaar]

Did you ever stop to think that, maybe, Santa made the Sun? When Santa and the Y'ter Bunny (having returned to Santa seeking guidance from its "creator") merged consciousnesses and ascended to a higher plane of existence?

As for your other assertions, I'll leave you with this: weiners make more than just pee-pee; Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't.

Re:Obviously

[Wolfraider]

"We're all dust in the wind"

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean wieners. Only if you spoke German---then you couldn't possibly spell this wrong.

Whiners, on the other hand, make little more than pee-pee.

This must be a great day for you

[spun]

You got first post on a story about plasma! Is there a little 'Electric Universe Slide" dance you do? I keed, I keed... ;-P

Re:This must be a great day for you

[pln2bz]

I prefer "Nailed it." :)

Re:This must be a great day for you

[fyngyrz]

Just for you, an aurora.

Re:This must be a great day for you

[mgmirkin]

Another nail in the coffin for the "electrically neutral" solar system, galaxy, universe.

See my other post for a more thorough discussion:
Here

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:This must be a great day for you

[fyngyrz]

Homophobic much?

Re:This must be a great day for you

[Anonymous Coward]

take it in the ass much? don't get your paties in a bind.

Re:This must be a great day for you

[spun]

You know, some people prove themselves by doing things, like taking nice pictures. Other people try to prove themselves by tearing others down. If you're one of the first type, it's not even worth your time responding to the second type. There's not even any need to punish them. They have no friends and no real prospect for happiness, so they're doing a fine job of that on their own.

Re:This must be a great day for you

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what you think dumbass... some people are so full of themselves. you must be his bitch.

It's TWUE!

[interiot]

I'm sure the electric universe guys will have a field day with this...

Re:It's TWUE!

[deft]

"I'm sure the electric universe guys will have a field day with this..."

I'd say they will have a magnetic field day with this one.

Re:It's TWUE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they will, meanwhile we'll be doing actual experiments and using wonderful things called "equations"

Re:It's TWUE!

[Jekler]

On a serious note, I'm surprised the scientific community hasn't been faster to adopt the "electric universe" theories. It really does seem to be another valuable piece of the physics puzzle, it's a shame that it's mostly being ignored, even as new evidence validates many of the theories on a consistent basis. I guess it's just that scientists are scared that it replaces their existing knowledge rather than extending it.

Re:It's TWUE!

[meringuoid]

On a serious note, I'm surprised the scientific community hasn't been faster to adopt the "electric universe" theories.

I think the main problem there is that, well... 'electric universe' attracts an awful lot of loonies, who then give the whole concept a very bad reputation. Maybe there are some electromagnetic interactions being overlooked, but the 'electric universe' crowd are pushing for the complete rewriting of the entirety of astronomy based on not very much.

Re:It's TWUE!

[arkhan_jg]

Actually, the evidence and observations often directly contradict the electric universe theories, and they just ignore the studies they don't like - then claim that standard model astrophysicists are ignoring the electro- side of electromagnetism, as seen upthread.

No true scientist is afraid of being proved wrong, they embrace it and use it to improve their work. Electric Universe proponents rarely provide ways for their theories to be falsified, and when what should be there according to their theories isn't, it's because we're not looking hard enough/in the right places/with the right equipment.

Electric fields disrupt plasma, magnetic fields contain them from observation, plus magnetic fields are much bigger than electrical fields in the sun's corona, plus where is the flow of electrons back towards the sun? Electric Universe proponents have no explanation for where all the energy is coming from that concentrates in the 'pinch areas' of stars. It shares many of the same characteristics as the over-unity (free energy) crowd. Standard model nuclear fusion matches many observations, though there's still some kinks around neutrinos.

I'm no astro-physicist, but of the research I've done into this, the majority of Electric Universe theories are poorly thought out horse pucky that don't match observational data, that try to explain holes in standard theory that aren't there.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html

"It also fits well the model of the sun being a *source* of the solar
wind plasma, which will stretch out the magnetic field as seen. A nice
confirmation of the standard theory. However, if the sun is the focus
of an electrical discharge, then the solar wind should be in-bound
instead of out-bound. Or, more precisely, an electric current should be
in-bound. But such is not the case; protons and electrons both flee the
sun rapidly in all directions, consistent with a thermally driven wind,
and inconsistent with an electrical origin. The field and plasma
observation actually serves to *disprove* the electric star hypothesis,
and to confirm the standard theory."

Re:It's TWUE!

[Ion01]

Please see the following post: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=388752&cid=21697170 If "the evidence and observations often directly contradict the electric universe theories", please provide examples of such for starters. Also, where is all the scientific experiments which are used to prove standard theory? Even IF the Electric Universe is wrong that does not make standard theory correct by default. It is still required that standard theory be proven scientifically to be true.

What?

[Jethro]

I thought it was already well established that the aurora was caused by Santa's reindeer throwing up.

Re:What?

[bpsbr_ernie]

I always thought it was fairy dust or glitter from the angels... obviously, I was wrong, its the sun farting in our general direction...

Oblig.

[Xinef Jyinaer]

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?

Re:Oblig.

[liquidf]

can i see it?

Re:Oblig.

[Xinef Jyinaer]

No.

Re:Oblig.

[operagost]

Mmm... steamed hams.

Re:Oblig.

[dankasfuk]

Mod parent up please

at this time of year?

[User 956]

There are reports that satellites have aided scientists in confirming why the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) exists. 'New data from NASA's Themis mission, a quintet of satellites launched this winter, found the energy comes from a stream of charged particles from the sun flowing like a current through twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun.

That's not true at all. It happens when you're cooking steamed hams, and your kitchen catches on fire.

Yes, but what about the alternatives?

[commisaro]

What about the "Intelligent Twinkling" explanation? Scientists seem completely unwilling to even CONSIDER this possibility!

Re:Yes, but what about the alternatives?

[sizzzzlerz]

Yeah, teach the controversy. Intelligent twinkling tells us baby jesus rides the light beams down from heaven and as he kicks his legs, the angels surrounding him shimmer with delight. Thus, the Nothern Lights.

At least, thats how I heard it told at some museum back in Kentucky.

And that means:

[nofrak]

We still know what we already knew. Tonight I can finally sleep easy!

Re:And that means:

[Jugalator]

That doesn't mean that what we know now is true though. The aurora could also be a conspiracy against us. Because of this, I'm afraid you'll have to give up a few human rights, such as going outdoors alone when there is one being active. The major news networks will air a press conference detailing these new potentially dangerous theories soon. Thanks for your cooperation.

Not offtopic. Pop-culture humor.

[StefanJ]

By "dust," he means the mysterious substance that drives the powers-that-be of Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy to distraction. And it's the cause of the Northern Lights in that alternate universe.

The first book of the trilogy -- known as "The Golden Compass" in the U.S. and "The Northern Lights" in Britain -- opened in theaters last week.

Re:Not offtopic. Pop-culture humor.

[burndive]

The books are passable. Not great literature by any measure, but a fun read. The movie was horribly disappointing.

Re:Not offtopic. Pop-culture humor.

[gravis777]

I was waiting for someone to say this. However, it should be pointed out that in "His Dark Materials" (of which the first book, The Golden Compass is currently in the theater), "Dust" is not the same thing as "dust". Not only is it a cause of the Northern Lights, but its also an elementary particle. As such, the pun is "The cause of the Northern Lights comes from a stream of charged particles, or 'Dust' from the sun...."

From wikipedia.org

Dust (His Dark Materials)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Dust in Philip Pullman's trilogy of novels His Dark Materials is a fictional form of dark matter, an elementary particle that is of fundamental importance to the novels. Dust is invisible to the human eye and cannot be seen without the use of special instruments such as the The Amber Spyglass or a special film. However, while humans cannot see dust without the use of outside devices, creatures such as the mulefa are able to see dust with their own eyes.

Unlike ordinary particles, Dust is conscious. It falls from the sky and is attracted to people (especially adults) and objects made by people. This makes it of great interest to the Church, which believes that it may be the physical manifestation of Original Sin. We later learn that Dust actually confers consciousness, knowledge and wisdom, and that Dust is formed when matter becomes conscious. This allows creatures who have the ability to see dust to identify other sentient and intelligent creatures. An example of this is when the mulefa are able to distinguish Mary Malone as an intelligent being, because of the dust surrounding her, when compared to the other animals in the mulefa's world.

It is Dust that provides the answers given by the alethiometer, the I Ching system of divination and also the computer that Dr Mary Malone creates in order to communicate directly with these particles.

Dust has various names among the various different worlds within the trilogy. Dust was previously known (in Lyra Belacqua's universe) as Rusakov particles after their discoverer, Boris Mikhailovitch Rusakov. It is known also as Shadows in our world (Pullman relates Dust to Dark Matter), and the mulefa's word sraf accompanied by a leftward flick of the trunk (or arm for humans).

Angels, including The Authority, are formed when Dust condenses, but they are not in reality the human-like figures they appear to be.

Re:Not offtopic. Pop-culture humor.

[soliptic]

The first book of the trilogy -- known as "The Golden Compass" in the U.S. and "The Northern Lights" in Britain -- opened in theaters last week.

And if your IQ is over 60, for the love of God don't go and see it.

:: POTENTIAL VERY SLIGHT SPOILERS ::

(I will avoid saying anything at all specific about the plot, but in case you're utterly paranoid about spoilerism, I thought I'd give you a warning anyway)



Hollywood at its patronising, intelligence-insulting worst. Endless needless exposition (characters talking to their daemons massively overused as a way of spelling things out which you could quite easily infer, gets very annoying very quickly), doubly irritating since so much of the action was Predictable Hollywood 101 anyway (OH NOES, character A is just about to get the chop! but YAY! character B appears from nowhere and saves them at the last instant but then OH NOES, character B is about to get the chop but then character C appears from nowhere and saves them at the last instant YAY! ... oh please).

Besides the lead 13 y/o girl, who was somewhat impressive, all the acting was dire. Hammy as hell, the characters had all the depth of pantomime caricatures: although it's slightly hard to blame the actors, given such contrived, pantomime dialogue it's hard to see how they could have done better.

The anti-religious allegorical aspect simply didn't make sense. (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, so it's not like I criticise this because it offends my beliefs, it just didn't add up.) For the most part the religious bad guys seemed like bad guys because of their secular, not spiritual, totalitarianism; the only obvious religious parallel to them was the transposition of the "original sin" doctrine, but that felt lazy and unsubstantiated; and how anti-religious can a film honestly be when it simultaenously encourages us to believe in unscientific nonsense like souls and daemons and magical dust?

About the only good thing I can say for it is that some of the cinematography was fairly nice; but even then, in a cheap own-brand LOTR rip-off kind of way.

Truly awful, reminded me why it's been years since I went to the cinema. $18 for a ticket, before you even include transport and a bit of popcorn, then you get unwatchable, patronising dross like this - and the MPAA blame falling attendance on thepiratebay? What a joke.

Tagging

[omfpe]

"Dust" might be a good tag for this, given all the Golden Compass hullabaloo.

Okay...

[alshithead]

Well that's comforting. We've confirmed a theory that was already pretty well accepted as being fact.

Next...?

Global climate change?
Evolution?
Silent but deadly versus loud and fruity?

Move on folks, nothing to see here.

Re:Okay...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"We've confirmed a theory that was already pretty well accepted as being fact."

Way to understate the importance of confirming theories. Heh.

Re:Okay...

[alshithead]

"Way to understate the importance of confirming theories. Heh."

Well, of course no "proven" theory has later been found to wrong either has it? Such as spontaneous generation, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I'm not sure the importance of this "confirmation" ranks as front page news. Honestly, I'd much rather see some, any theory of our current climate changes proven. At least then we might be able to start effectively making some changes. For that matter, proving the theory of cold fusion would go a long way to improving our lives.

Bah, I guess I'm a little overly critical at the moment...I'm having a bad week.

Re:Okay...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I'm not sure the importance of this "confirmation" ranks as front page news. Honestly, I'd much rather see some, any theory of our current climate changes proven. At least then we might be able to start effectively making some changes. For that matter, proving the theory of cold fusion would go a long way to improving our lives."

Hey, that's fine. But the guys working on the aurora aren't the same guys working on cold fusion. It's like throwing aerospace engineers into cancer research. We don't focus our energies like that. (I'd argue that we're better off that way. Diversity has ways of helping out other fields...) On top of that, something has to happen before it makes the front page news. It's not like cold fusion was bumped out for this story.

"Bah, I guess I'm a little overly critical at the moment...I'm having a bad week."

I hear ya on that. Have a good night, man.

Re:Okay...

[TapeCutter]

"Well, of course no "proven" theory has later been found to wrong either has it?"

Strike two, equate science and proof again and your outta here!

Climate change: Did you fall for the "science has nothing to do with consenus" meme?

Cold fusion: Rejected as a worthwhile inquiry since after a lot of attempts nobody has been able to confirm the original finding.

Re:Okay...

[wizardforce]

Well, of course no "proven" theory has later been found to wrong either has it?

fail. it isn't that our theories are "perfect" or even "correct" as they are accurate in explaining what we are actually seeing. most of the real science deals with actually doing experiments and seeing if they do or do not confirm what your theories predict. If by experiment we find something that doesn't match up with current theory, we have two choices: first, modify said theory incorporating any new data- which is what happened with Einstein's theories which better explained gravity and space than did Newton's theories. Newton's theories were for a lack of a better word "correct" under most conditions but einstein's work expanded on them to include very high velocities and high gravity fields. the second choice is more radical, and that is to throw the whole theory its self out the window so to speak. This is what happened with spontaneous generation and geocentrism. why? neither theory could be modified to explain any of the new data. they tried with geocentrism, postulating an ever increasing number of concentric rings by which planets orbit but this no longer predicted any new phenomena with any where near the accuracy of the heliocentric theory. newton's advances in gravitational theory put the last nails in the coffin of geocentrism and later experiments confirmed the findings of heliocentric/gravitational theory. The point is that our current theories are correct to some degree, that is to say our current theories will always be good for predicting phenomena at this particular level of testing, further testing of the theories may indeed require current theories to be expanded or thrown out but new theories will need to explain what current theories do *and* predict future phenomena.

Re:Okay...

[alshithead]

"Climate change: Did you fall for the "science has nothing to do with consenus" meme? "

I haven't fallen for anything. My biggest concern is the CO2 saturation of the oceans reaching the point where organisms can't create the shells and other exoskeletons they need for survival. I expect that to cause an almost complete collapse of ocean ecosystems.

Re:Okay...

[TapeCutter]

My biggest concern is that the general public often don't know how to sort the shit from the clay in scientific matters, you have obviously done your research.

Just borealis?

[wingman358]

What about the aurora australis? For those that don't know, the aurora australis is the aurora borealis' southern counterpart.

Re:Just borealis?

[RuBLed]

Aurora australis is the color of the big elephant, totally unrelated to borealis in every aspect...

(Seriously, if it is a counterpart then it should be the same, or at least a cheap knockoff :D)

Re:Just borealis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't see it from america, or even canada, it's not real

Summary:

[Telepathetic Man]

Yep, we were right. Told you so.

Johnny Mercer is not OT

[opencity]

Your lips were like a red and ruby chalice, warmer than the summer night
The clouds were like an alabaster palace rising to a snowy height.
Each star its own aurora borealis, suddenly you held me tight
I could see the Midnight Sun.

I can't explain the silver rain that found me--or was that a moonlit veil?
The music of the universe around me, or was that a nightingale?
And then your arms miraculously found me,suddenly the sky turned pale,
I could see the Midnight Sun.

Was there such a night, it's a thrill I still don't quite believe,
But after you were gone, there was still some stardust on my sleeve.

The flame of it may dwindle to an ember, and the stars forget to shine,
And we may see the meadow in December, icy white and crystalline,
But oh my darling always I'll remember when your lips were close to mine,
And we saw the Midnight Sun.

Nonsense.

[Moofie]

It's Dust.

Where's MY Panserbjørne?

Mod him funny

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a great pun in there. See it yet?

Climate Implications?

[tjstork]

Well, does it follow that there might be climate implications from um, having this giant sun literally plugged into the earth? It seems to me that having an electrical current running between two giant celestial bodies ought to have some impact in terms of climate.

Re:Climate Implications?

[mgmirkin]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Do they figure in the giant "battery in space," when talking about climate forcings?

They probably just missed the memo...? It's a bad habit, skipping the staff meetings where they talk about how the solar system is like a giant plasma globe, I know.

C'est la vie!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Re:Climate Implications?

[Ion01]

There are huge implications. Here is an article which addresses just that. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest Another one dealing with mars. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm I thought the dust was supposed to make it colder. Wasn't that what killed the dinos? A huge meteor threw up tons of dust in the atmosphere causing an ice age. : )

Re:Climate Implications?

[jnik]

What's great about science is we can figure this stuff out! Take a look at CDAWeb. I'm using the OMNI dataset based on the WIND spacecraft, and per rules of the road I should acknowledge the data providers: J.H. King, N. Papatashvilli of Perot Sys, NASA/Goddard spaceflight center, and CDAweb. I'm using 3 October 2006, 1000UT-1200UT for no particular reason, just pulled it out of my hat. The data for this time period show a solar wind speed of about 400km/s, density of 5/cc (that's almost all protons, BTW, or fully ionized hydrogen if you prefer--the electrons are along for the ride but don't really contribute significant mass), temperature of about 70000K, magnetic field strength 3.5nT, electric field 1mV/m.

So let's figure out the energy density: There's .5mv^2 kinetic energy in the flow--the energy that turns windmill blades, by analogy. That comes out to 6.7e-11 J/m^3. There's kinetic energy in the temperature of the plasma (1.5nkT, depending on the definition of temperature used)--about 1.4e-18 J/m^3. Then the magnetic field carries 4.9e-12 J/m^3 and electric field, 4.4e-18 J/m^3.

Hmmm. Already the bulk flow far dominates the electromagnetic energy. And that's generally how we describe energetics in the magnetosphere: the solar wind acts as a dynamo, generating electric and magnetic fields in interaction with Earth's field. So if we multiply those energy densities times the rate at which they flow past (400km/s), and the size of the magnetosphere's cross-section (roughly, a circle with twenty times the radius of the Earth), the total energy inputs are 1.4e12W, 2.9e4W, 1.0e11W, and 9.2e4W for bulk flow, thermal, magnetic, and electric energies. Total energy input to the Earth from sunlight? 1.7e17W--one hundred thousand times all these other effects. (Yes, the Earth reflects back 2/3 of that, but the magnetosphere also doesn't tap 100% of the available solar wind energy...not even close.)

It's possible that there are climate implications to the Sun-Earth connection, and people are working on it. But if there are, they're relatively subtle processes (which may have large effects, of course) resulting from, say, alteration of global circulation patterns--not the raw energy input.

So let me get this straight

[427_ci_505]

We've always hypothesized this, but just got evidence/confirmation?

Or am I misinterpreting it here?

(I was about to tag this as being very old news before this).

Re:So let me get this straight

[aadvancedGIR]

From what I understood, we just have a new and better confirmation. But a small step towards knowledge is still a good one.

PeopleNET

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we could use these tunnels between the sun and the earth as patch cables between planets? If we could get teleportation down we could just beam over the 'Net to another planet in seconds.

Dumbed down until you don't see anything new

[sweet_petunias_full_]

"If you could tell me the proper way of dumbing science down so that all denominators are equally satisfied, let me know so I can forward your request to those scientists."

Maybe they could learn a lesson from Wikipedia on that point? Their article on the subject (Aurora_borealis) is pretty readable, has collected some nice images, but it includes plenty of links to more tedious (but informative) reading material at the bottom. The CNN blurb is so dumbed down that it's impossible to figure out what exactly is NEW about this experiment, seeing as most of us already knew that the Lights had something to do with charged particles from the solar wind flowing across the magnetosphere in the polar regions. As far as I could tell, no scientific progress was made here because we haven't discovered anything we didn't already know.

When that happens, the dumbing down passed the mark.

Re:Dumbed down until you don't see anything new

[sumdumass]

My understanding is that they observed the theory in action and thereby proved it to be true. Of course I am taking that from the submission's title, Cause of Aurora Borealis Confirmed. As a typical slashdoter, i haven't RTFA yet which might be why your confused (you have read it).

Zonk - WTF-Over?

[FlyingGuy]

Uhmmm i think I learned that in like 6th grade science class and that was like in 1969!

You call this news!?

Re:Zonk - WTF-Over?

[zolaar]

Ooh, yeesh... buddy, hate to be the one to break it to you... "science" class got cut from your kids' school's budget back about... well, about two or three years after the Beijing Wall came down and Germany finally gave up Communalism in favor of Christianity...

Yeah, I know, bummer.

Would it make you feel better to know that, once a week, we show the kids our HD-DVDs of "Smarter Than A 5th Grader - Season 1"? We feel that seeing another child succeed on television helps develop a child's positive self-image. An incredibly handy attribute when you're standing in the unemployment line.

Re:Zonk - WTF-Over?

[FlyingGuy]

Damn this is one of those rare occasions when I want to be able to MOD the thread I am participating in. Oh hell its not that rare, but I would MOD your post funny as hell, if it were not so sadly true.

Thankfully most of my brain cells survived my misspent youth and I can teach my kid science, since that does not seem to be a priority of our educational system these days. But then again /sarcasm=on we Do need to spend more money on football and cultural sensitivity. /sarcasm=off

Fucking Dr. Spock anyway

I really liked him.

[Seumas]

I don't understand what they mean by "the cause of" him, but I thought David Borealis played the role of Angel in Buffy extremely well and I enjoyed his spin-off show "Angel". It's too bad the show as canceled.

Re:I really liked him.

[westcoast philly]

Then watch him in Bones. he gets to carry a gun, and has a sexy scientist pal.

Happy Birthday

[plasmana]

Happy Birthday Kristian Birkeland. 140 years old today! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Re:Happy Birthday

[Malekin]

Uh, you're a day late. 10:1 you're an American and forgot you're half a day behind the rest of the world.

Re:Happy Birthday

[mgmirkin]

Yes, perfect timing for the announcements... If one were a conspiracy nut, one could make the case that they released this info to coincide with Birkeland's birthday! IE, re-discovering his "Birkeland currents" to commemorate his 140th {?} birthday [if he were still a live and not turning in his grave for having been forgotten for so long]...

Ahh well, it's a new day in this bright, shiny Electric Universe of ours... Ohh, wait, I forgot... Saying Electric Universe is verboten. Ahh well, always was a non-conformist.

Perhaps we should all just do the Electric Slide... 'Cause... It's ELECTRIC ! *Cheesy music starts playing...*

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

NASA doubletalk

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee whiz!

I received my Ph.D. in 1983 on the subject of the interaction of auroral energetic charged particles (electrons) originating in the magnetosphere with the earth's upper atmosphere, wherein I developed a very successful computer model of these interactions, including all the relevant quantum collision processes. The origins of the aurora had been known for at least 50 years before that, and my model was certainly not the first.

This latest announcement is, sadly, just another NASA press release to justify its dwindling science budget to congress. The basic mechanisms of the aurora have been known for some time, and what THEMIS does is dot the i's and cross the t's on the energy transfer mechanisms. These details are certainly important (to auroral researchers), but to claim that THEMIS has found the source of the aurora is absolutely ludicrous, given the well-established history of auroral research.

Re:Al Gore's Carbon Footprint

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I haven't listened to a thing Gore has said about global warming.
What's this guy all about, anyway?

lyrics

[grayNOISEeffect]

"flowing like a current through twisted bundles of magnetic fields"

Aren't those the lyrics to some 90s trance song?

Re:lyrics

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell remembers the 90s?

I was dropping so much acid that... ah... um... Nevermind.

I'm a grown up, now, with a job to protect and a past to hide. ;)

Re:lyrics

[theurge14]

Trance has lyrics?

Re:lyrics

[LanMan04]

Trance has lyrics? Sure they do! Usually read by some breathy, sexy-sounding chick.

Everyone knows

[Enigma1625]

it's Santa Clause's doing! :)

This is the way it's supposed to work

[hyades1]

An excellent example of how science is supposed to get done.

We think we know. We're pretty sure we know. We're damned sure we know and nobody's even close to providing a better explanation. Alright.....this is how it is; take it to the bank. (But we'll still give you a hearing if you have convincing proof something else is happening. You'd better have a testable hypothesis, though).

The method isn't perfect, but it spits out right answers more often than anything else.

Re:This is the way it's supposed to work

[SeaDuck79]

Exactly right. If only the IPCC used such methods to investigate the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, vs. the Gestapo tactics currently in place, there would be more knowledge of the truth among the populace, and lots less hysteria.

OT: Climate Change

[zippthorne]

Climate Change "No Consensus": That is a pretty bad meme. Obviously, lay people have little more to go on that the "consensus" of the body of work. Unfortunately, the consensus wrt Climate Change formed way before the measurements were sufficient to really say anything, and became entangled in political discourse as a result. (or maybe as the cause)

Either way, it is now extremely difficult to separate the good science from the bad, especially for lay people, as the consensus in that field was tainted. Even if the Scientists themselves hadn't gotten involved in the politics, the various very-loud-groups have been squawking and over hyping the preliminary results to further their half-baked utopian ideas.

Many are using the "Well, even if we're not sure, don't you think it would be a good idea to take action just in case?" argument and then proposing action that would be akin to starting a course of radical chemotherapy on the advice of a team of chiropractors. Others are demanding Action! Now! Then starting companies to do something known to be ineffective and changing nothing about their own lives, even to the point of flying around by private jet to deliver a powerpoint presention partially about the dangers of wastefully burning fuel by flying private jets. Almost as if they really don't believe what they're saying, and are just cynically using it as a political springboard or worse, as hype for modern indulgences scams.

I think what you're seeing, with a lot of the so-called "deniers," is the natural lash-back against a very real hysteria which, in the absence of sufficient critical ability to make impassioned arguments for moderation based on the real data, which again, is itself sometimes difficult to trust, has latched onto whatever arguments it finds, however specious. Certainly there is some wisdom in being skeptical of any consensus when it has a real effect on how you live your life.

Re:OT: Climate Change

[Ion01]

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

Re:OT: Climate Change

[TapeCutter]

I applaude your appeal to skeptisim, this is exactly why the IPCC was formed and with 20/20 hindsight the IPCC "alarmists" look decidedly conservative (re: Artic ice in particular). There has been sufficient eveidence to be concerned since at least the start of the Kyoto negotiations. The papers talk about wet feet and rarely mention crop failures, collapsed fisheries or the refugee crisis that would occur should the Hymalaian[sic] glaciers shrink signifigantly.

I urge you to use skepticisim to figure out how one could hope to profit ( poltically or financially ) from actively spreading specific bits of disinformation, there are enough "mythbuster" sites out there to get to know the main shills and anti-science fiction writers ( eg: Fred Singer, Michael Crichton ).

PS: I'm not from the US and couldn't give a rat's arse about AG's politics, the message in his film is the IPCC's message (ie: not his), he has done an excellent job in delivering that message to the layman at an international level and was duly recognised for it. He delivered his political message in person in Bali, just the other day. From where I stand (Australia) it looks to me that it's up to the audience to confuse his two different roles.

Re:OT: Climate Change

[TapeCutter]

Talk to some IPCC contributors, or at least start your mythbusting here. Not convinced...look in the appendix of the IPCC reports and check out the reseach by all the contributors, that by design represent the considered scientific opinion of most of the national scientific bodies on the planet.

Sure we have spent billions in the last decade confirming the science but why does the US still find itself isolated at Bali? We now know (in gigatons/yr roughly what has to be done by when), the first time I heard the target of 450ppm was from Lord Oxbourough when he was chairman of Shell. The negotiators have squezeed enougn for "national intrest" already, time to face reality and accept the need for targets that the rest of the world have already basically agreed on.

Re:OT: Climate Change

[zippthorne]

How could you miss this,

Many are using the "Well, even if we're not sure, don't you think it would be a good idea to take action just in case?" argument and then proposing action that would be akin to starting a course of radical chemotherapy on the advice of a team of chiropractors.

The "profit" is in not having to significantly change your lifestyle. In some cases it means inconvenience, or doing without some fun things in order to pay for needful things, but in other cases it means reducing the effective "human-capacity" of the planet to less than 1 billion beings. It is left as an exercise to the reader how the world will shed nearly 6 billion people, but it probably won't be pretty.

Nobody is opposed to switching to CFLs (except people concerned about mercury contamination, and people with bathroom lights and closet lights...), or buying a more efficient version of whatever car you happen to like. You get more resistance as people get pushed into public transportation, but if you start talking about reducing industrial capacity and cutting back on high yield farming, you're talking about food and housing shortages. It doesn't help much if you switch one of your staple food crops to energy supply, either.

Before you start talking about that, you really want to make sure that not only is GW real, and serious, but also that the proposed measures are effective, and most importantly, that their benefit outweighs their cost.

I, personally, remain unconvinced of pretty much everything except that the climate appears to have been on a warming trend in recent decades, and that carbon dioxide's spectral characteristics mean that it is potentially relevant to the discussion. Which is fortunate, because at the rate wind farms, nuke plants, solar farms, biomass and co-gen facilities are even being proposed by environmentally minded people (all of which I'd like to see, btw. You can't get to type-I civilization without access to a significant quantity of energy), we'll be under 100' of water before we replace even a tenth of our hydrocarbon power stations. And that's assuming such facilities aren't also being shot down by other, competing environmentalists and powerful senators with ocean views.

Now,

[Martian_Kyo]

geomagnetic has got to be one of the coolest words I heard in a while.

now this might be a stupid question buuuut:

twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun.
There are magnetic fields that connect earth's upper atmosphere to the sun?

Re:Now,

[Bigjeff5]

I don't know if you know this, but the Sun is actually what the earth spins around in our trek around the galaxy. This happens because the Sun is soooooo huge it effectively has little hands that reach out and grab the Earth and pulls it in. Or tries to anyway, the Earth is still trying to run away, but it'll never make it. Those little hands are called gravity. The Sun also has bigger, beefier but also shorter hands called collectively a "magnetic field". They may be much shorter than the Sun's gravity, but they still have a long reach.

In other words, it's not that far fetched that the Sun's magnetic field could touch the Earth's, given that the Sun's sister grippy force, gravity, streches out a bagillion miles past the Earth. That's the exact figure by the way, one bagillion miles. ;)

Just my unknowledgeable, condescending opinion.

Why confirm an already proven theory.

[Anonymous Coward]

May be it's a confirmation for you westeners, but I'm from the ex-communist block (now in the EU block). And 20 years ago we knew that this has been confirmed by russian sats. It just proves NASA is 20 years back not only in rocket science but in science in general.

Re:Why confirm an already proven theory.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It just proves NASA is 20 years back not only in rocket science but in science in general."

Maybe you mean how NASA designed a smaller moon rocket than the Soviet version using a more advanced chemical propulsion mechanism which gave it a far greater payload, and then built several of them and didn't have *any* let alone *ALL* of them blow a few seconds into flight?

Maybe you're talking about NASA's Space Shuttle system, which the Soviets felt obliged to copy even though their knock-off was not as capable despite coming later and despite the debatable utility of the concept?

Maybe you mean to address the competence of Soviet scientific procedure, which led to a press conference being called to announce an extraterrestrial communication signal that turned out to be a false alarm because they reacted too quickly. Compare that to similar detections by NASA science operations which were calmly and thoroughly investigated and since they turned up negative required no embarrassing press conference.

Maybe you mean to address how the NASA has conducted all of its manned missions in full public view with international press and dignitaries in attendance, whereas Soviet manned flights beginning with the very first one have often been conducted in secrecy so as to deny the existence of their failures, as sometimes necessary?

Maybe you mean to talk about how American rocket technology is responsible for the majority of launches in history thus far, commercial, scientific and military alike?

Perhaps about how NASA is responsible for more geophysical, oceanographic, and climatological research and planetary exploration than any other single institution in history?

No?

Let me guess....

[madbawa]

....too much broccoli at dinner?

I'll believe it when . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . Netcraft confirms it.

Re:mod do3n

[Anonymous Coward]

m0D d0wn
Music by: Lennon-McCartney
Lyrics by: Anonymous Coward

I'm posting trolls that aren't funny
I don't even try, that's something you can see
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
m0D d0wn (d0wn on the ground)
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
I can't be a troll if you don't m0D d0wn
(I can't be a troll) if you don't m0D d0wn.

Some incoherent bullshit is what my posts say
Same old thing happens every day
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
m0D d0wn (d0wn on the ground)
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
I can't be a troll if you don't m0D d0wn.
(I can't be a troll) if you don't m0D d0wn.

Embedded is a link that points to goat.cx
I think the guy in it had too much butt-sex
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
m0D d0wn (d0wn on the ground)
m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
I can't be a troll if you don't m0D d0wn
(I can't be a troll) if you don't m0D d0wn.

Don't laugh - just m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
Don't laugh - just m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
Down on the ground (please m0D me d0wn)
Don't laugh - just m0D d0wn (please m0D me d0wn)
Down, down, down.

Old news

[sveinhal]

http://www.norges-bank.no/Pages/Article____12366.aspx

That's great, but

[wicka]

Didn't we already know this?

You humorless mods can lick my balls

[spun]

I've got karma to burn, babies. Why don't you waste your mod points on this, too? Come on, "Electric Universe Slide?" That's comedy gold, you repressed, uptight, stick in the mud, panty sniffing, basement living, compulsively masturbating virgins.

Re:You humorless mods can lick my balls

[grasshoppa]

compulsively masturbating virgins.

I can quit any time.

1933 called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for clearing that up, eh?
I guess if the satellite's up there they might as well use it for something. And to think scientists used to "go fly a kite"!

Wow! and Saturn has MOONS, not EARS!

[pterandon]

Who knew??!!

Crazies warninig! Watch out for the crazies!!

[gnuman99]

Ok. Soooo, I'm not sure where this is really going. Of course there they are "electrical" in nature because they are charged particles (so there will be potential) and are moving (so current, as in electric current). But then I'm kind of a lay person, so I can't really spot if this thread started as one of the crazies post or actually the "Real Thing".

For example, the crazies are saying that "all problems" and "all everything" is caused by electrical nature. That our solar system is more electrical than anything else and all misfortunes can be read by reading the sun's "electrical mood" (yes, including global warming, tsunamis and earthquakes). They are misunderstanding electricity in wall socket with plasmas in space.

Or you could be on trying to explain something that is being researched to a lay person in simple way? But then,

The planets are connected back to the sun via "flux ropes" or "Birkeland currents." Of course the next logical question is, "But from whence does the sun's charge come." A natural question. The likely answer is that "the galaxy powers the solar system / sun, and the sun offloads that current to the planets." But, then, "from whence the galaxy?" Keep in mind that currents tend, by nature, to flow in filaments through light plasma. And what is the structure of the universe? You guessed it!

Ok, *crazy* post that layman don't get that is made by another crazy physics-wannabe. Good job with the insightful mods here.

PS. Of course, any positive mods for me and negative for the crazies would reinforce the filament nature of the evil-NASA and evil-NSA reaching out trying to prevent people from knowing the truth! The Truth of the filament aliens!

hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that we knew this already. I mean I see it in every YRO thread, America sucks and every Canadian farts rainbows.

Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[spun]

thats what you think dumbass... some people are so full of themselves. you must be his bitch. Awwww, Poow AC, did I huwt ooo wittew feewings? You should have kept your fool mouth shut, boy. I got a rise out of you. Now you've just confirmed what a desperate powerless child you really are. Besides that, I'm bi. I've had cock, and more pussy than you'll get in your entire life. I've been in three ways and orgies. Insuinating that I'm gay does jack shit to my sense of my own manhood. I could suck a dozen cocks today and still be ten times the man you are, you pathetic worm. Do us all a favor and slit your wrists, you are wasting our oxygen.

Well, that was fun!

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[Anonymous Coward]

i didn't call you gay... i just said you where his bitch. get over yourself.

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[spun]

Man, you must be lonely. Get some actual human contact, you'll be less likely to go postal and take out half your high school. Pay for it, if you must. It's the right thing to do, for all our sakes.

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, some people prove themselves by doing things, like taking nice pictures. Other people try to prove themselves by tearing others down. If you're one of the first type, it's not even worth your time responding to the second type. There's not even any need to punish them. They have no friends and no real prospect for happiness, so they're doing a fine job of that on their own.

Even though you are the "second type", I still think it is worth telling you that you should seek help.

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[spun]

Good advice, but too late. I'm in therapy, and doing great by my therapist's estimation. He doesn't even think I need to keep seeing him. You keep swinging and missing. Since you obviously don't have the dissing skills to go toe to toe with me, you should just give up. It was humorous at first, but now it's just sad. I feel like I'm fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy for someone to be so hostile and aggressive when typing on their computer... anyone could do it but you seem to love it. Next thing you know you are going to tell me you will kick my ass or how badass you are. Tough guys like you are the stuff heros are made of. You may want to switch therapists since the current one's estimation are way off... psycho. Good luck with the therapy.

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[spun]

Oh man, I really did hurt your feelings. I'm sorry, but you started it. If you aren't the same AC who told fyngerz to "take his fag pictures and shove them up his ass" and told me I was his bitch for defending him, then what the fuck are you doing in this conversation? If you ARE the same AC, well, what the fuck did you expect?

Re:Did I huwt ooo feewings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha Ha Ha... dumbass...

Galactic charge into the sun? How?

[snowwrestler]

I'm not a physicist or electrical engineer. But from what I know about circuits and the flow of electrical currents through them, if you isolate any element of the circuit for analysis you will see a flow of electrons in one end and out the other. But don't both protons and electrons flow away from the sun in all directions? I don't know of any evidence of an electron flow toward the sun, let alone an inflow with energy equal to the huge energy of all solar phenomena (radiation + solar wind). Yet if the sun is merely an element in a galactic electric circuit, this is what would be required. Without an inflow of electrons, how would the galaxy transfer a current differential to the sun?

Re:Galactic charge into the sun? How?

[mgmirkin]

Though I don't have a copy of either in front of me at the moment, I believe this topic is covered in either The Electric Sky by Don Scott or The Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. You might want to pick up a copy. Other interesting reads include Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, and Arp's Seeing Red. Though they're on slightly different topics.

My understanding is that there is a drift of electrons toward the sun. Yes, a drift. It doesn't take much. Electrical motion is often a very slow process (especially in "dark" currents; IE, currents not in "glow" or "arc" mode) on the order of a few centimeters per hour?

But, in the meanwhile, here are some links to a few abstracts / articles that deal with various bodies as unipolar inductors.

From links found at Plasma-Universe.com:

(Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Ap%26SS.144...73C

(Unipolar Induction of a Magnetized Accretion Disk around a Black Hole)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AstL...29..153S

(A force - free field theory of solar flares I. Unipolar sunspots)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ChA%26A...5...77Y

(Electric current in a unipolar sunspot with an untwisted field)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17.2273O

(Sheath-limited unipolar induction in the solar wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Ap%26SS..36..177S

(Establishment of a Lunar Unipolar Generator and Associated Shock and Wake by the Solar Wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967Natur.216..340S

(Unipolar Induction in the Moon and a Lunar Limb Shock Mechanism)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Moon....1....7S

(The Earth as a unipolar generator)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

(Io, a jovian unipolar inductor)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156...59G


I might also point out a great repository of peer-reviewed papers on various subjects related to plasma cosmology:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Plasma Physics from Laboratory to Cosmos--The Life and Achievements of Hannes Alfvén
Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition
Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology
Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology
The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma
The Role of Particle Be

HAARP, UhHuh, What Is It Good For

[DynaSoar]

A UFO blogger recently obtained the DoD's paper on HAARP through the Freedom of Information Act. Among its uses are, precipitating particles out of the aurora in order to protect satellites during solar storms, and manipulation the aurora to turn it into essentially a long wave radio transmitter.

IIRC, the story was on WIRED, possibly a WIRED blog page.

You can take your tin foil hats off now. HAARP is harmless. If you don't believe this, please email targeting@OMCL.mil. We'll fix things for you.

Signed,

Your pals at Orbital Mind Control Lasers, Inc.

Re: BAUT knee-jerk reactionary banning.

[mgmirkin]

Seems the BAUT thread finally went up. Mods must have been sleeping or on vacation or something. At least over there, I can post a few choice images...

Cheers,

~Michael Gmirkin

Update:

Apparently they thought I was a threat! What kind of threat is still unclear to me.

I've been immediately banned from BAUT without a word to me, or much of an explanation (I might also note that means I can't even log in to send a private message to the admin who banned me to ask why or appeal it). I've only been a member of the site for some odd 48-72 hours and already I've been banned and accused of being part of some "conspiracy" of disinformation, or some such nonsense?

Ridiculous! Utterly and completely.

I came with specific questions, and specific images for discussion, which I believed would be of interest and use to their user base. And they doused me with gas and threw a match, figuratively speaking... Don't burn the heretic

The punishment [from my point of view] certainly did NOT fit the perceived "crime" [from their point of view]. There were lesser remedies available, such as a private message to the user in question stating that I'd put something in the wrong area, that the thread was being moved, that there are specific rules (which they could have quoted and directed a user (me) to to read), they could have opted for a 72 hour suspension, as opposed to a full 1-year ban.

But, no, they decided to go for the harshest punishment FIRST. That seems to reveal quite a bit about their thought processes, or lack thereof.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this kind of knee-jerk reactionary action go unnoticed or unchallenged. It seems typical of some sites to "burn the heretic."

My dubious distinction

upriver, mgmirkin, and iantresman have all been suspended for one year for violations of rules 6, 11, and 14 as part of a coordinated effort to promote a specific ATM [Against The Mainstream] idea, in the mainstream section of the forum.

This particular idea has already been covered in detail in the ATM section, and the main protagonists refuse, or are unable to supply any supporting math when faced with any questions or criticism.

Post Edit: based on email conversation, I now believe that iantresman was not part of the coordinated effort, and am lifting his suspension.

To respond to a few points above:

1. Was my only "crime" in their eyes the fact that I placed the post in the wrong section of the forum? If so, a simple move of the thread would have resolved the issue. Most forum software makes that task quite simple. Likewise, the punishment far outweighed the crime.
   Addendum: I see they have subsequently moved the thread, so that it will no longer be visible to those who find such ideas as Birkeland's verifiable laboratory work "quaint" or "heretical," despite being based on known lab physics. My post simply includes the suggestion that they might be applicable to a wider sphere of science.
2. I think that it was slightly more than that, insofar as apparently I hold a view slightly different from their "consensus reality." They must find that quite dangerous...
3. Their other contention relates to "doing the math." Firstly, the presentation of a natural philosophy CONCEPT does not require a mathematical model in its inception. That is an artifact of Einsteinian cosmology, and has generally reversed the flow of scientific progress, in some ways, by assuming that just because someone writes a sound mathematical expression that somehow equates to how things work in reality. Math is a language, and it is equally

"Cra-aazzzyyyy!!!!!" ~vintage Pauly Shore...

[mgmirkin]

Ok. Soooo, I'm not sure where this is really going. Of course there they are "electrical" in nature because they are charged particles (so there will be potential) and are moving (so current, as in electric current). But then I'm kind of a lay person, so I can't really spot if this thread started as one of the crazies post or actually the "Real Thing". For example, the crazies are saying that "all problems" and "all everything" is caused by electrical nature. That our solar system is more electrical than anything else and all misfortunes can be read by reading the sun's "electrical mood" (yes, including global warming, tsunamis and earthquakes). They are misunderstanding electricity in wall socket with plasmas in space. Or you could be on trying to explain something that is being researched to a lay person in simple way? But then,

The planets are connected back to the sun via "flux ropes" or "Birkeland currents." Of course the next logical question is, "But from whence does the sun's charge come." A natural question. The likely answer is that "the galaxy powers the solar system / sun, and the sun offloads that current to the planets." But, then, "from whence the galaxy?" Keep in mind that currents tend, by nature, to flow in filaments through light plasma. And what is the structure of the universe? You guessed it! -MGmirkin

Ok, *crazy* post that layman don't get that is made by another crazy physics-wannabe. Good job with the insightful mods here. PS. Of course, any positive mods for me and negative for the crazies would reinforce the filament nature of the evil-NASA and evil-NSA reaching out trying to prevent people from knowing the truth! The Truth of the filament aliens! -Gnuman99

Okay, time to drop the caffeine from the diet. Ya' seem to be a bit all over the place.

Where to even start responding to this post?

First off let's get one thing straight, electrical currents (similarly moving charged particles like, say, a beam of electrons) flowing through wires and electrical currents flowing through plasma are equivalent. It's the motion of charge carriers that's the thing to consider in the problem. What are the charge carriers doing? Are they in random motion, or is there some overall similarity in motion? IE, are all he electrons, or a majority of them, flowing in approximately the same direction?

Consider the Wikipedia (imperfect, but what can you do?) articles on Current density and Electric current:

(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)

Current density is a measure of the density of electrical current. It is defined as a vector whose magnitude is the electric current per cross-sectional area. In SI unit, the current density is measured in amperes per square metre or coulomb per second per square metre.

(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)

Electric current is the flow (movement) of electric charge. The SI unit of electric current is the ampere (A), which is equal to a flow of one coulomb of charge per second.

[...]

The amount of electric current (measured in amperes) through some surface, e.g., a section through a copper conductor, is defined as the amount of electric charge (measured in coulombs) flowing through that surface over time.

Specifically, the physical definition of both "current density" and "electric current" are intentionally broad. They are defined with reference to "electrical current" per "cross-secti

Re: BAUT knee-jerk reactionary banning.

[APODNereid]

mgmirkin, one of the first etiquette rules, for participation in internet discussion fora, is to make sure you are familiar with the rules of the particular forum you post to. In BAUT's case, not only are these clearly stated, but in a reply to your very first post in BAUT, Moderator Nereid specifically asked you to read them, and, in particular, to pay attention to ATM (Against The Mainstream) requirements. It would seem that you not only chose to (deliberately?) ignore the rules (and the advice), but also your own exhortations to adhere to etiquette. Note that this is quite independent of the scientific merits - or otherwise - of any case you may (or may not) have wanted to make. Turning to the science of the material that you posted, both here and in BAUT (and, it seems, in TB). mgmirkin, your hero Birkeland seems to have done a good job of following the methods used, at that time, of the physical sciences. In particular, he seems to have been well aware of the quantitative nature of the (then) contemporary (physical) science, and the minimum standards for acceptance of research results. A century later, the domain in which Birkeland worked has advanced enormously, and plasma physics (for example) has been developed in ways that would both astonish and delight him. In particular, the centrality of math, equations, numbers - the quantitative aspects - has been reinforced. Today, it is pretty much essential that any published research in the field of space science (a small part of which Birkeland worked in) be quantitative (in addition to being peer-reviewed) ... pretty pictures are no longer enough (not that they ever were, even in Birkeland's day). Further, the 'pictures' from today's instruments and probes are not images, but pictorial presentations of quantitative data, sometimes as much as a GB of data ... every pixel a calibrated, reduced, precise ensemble of data. mgmirkin, if you wish to present an 'electric universe' case, backed by even a minimum of math, equations, and numbers, then there are many, many ways you could do so, from a preprint to arXiv, to a new thread in BAUT's ATM section. However, if all you have is a big chip on your shoulder, and some pretty pictures, pace your own assertions, you are not acting like a scientist.

Re: BAUT knee-jerk reactionary banning.

[Anonymous Coward]

All I did was start a thread that asked a question. I must admit I was trying to gain some sort of confirmation because it seemed so "in plain sight".
To me it seemed as though the object in question fit the definition of current flow.
"A Flux tube connecting the earth to the sun"
From Wiki "Electric current is the flow (movement) of electric charge."
You can quantify it because it has a cross section. They even told us how much energy it delivered.

Just because its a quasi-neutral(only has to with particle distribution, not energy) plasma does not mean it cannot transfer kinetic energy, which is what electric current does, right? There are many other differential types of motion that can transfer energy in a plasma.

The fact that other Plasma/Electric Universe advocates posted in the same thread does not mean a conspiracy.
I am a little flabbergasted at BAUT forums reaction.

I have never said this about BAUT before, but they are acting like a religion.

In my time at BAUT I saw plasma take a more prominent role, and I thought that there might someday be some acceptance of the fact that there are moving charges generating magnetic fields in space(electric current) but even that basic first year physics fact refuses to be acknowledged in the correct established language...

Now in a way I feel sorry for them because they cannot change, which is science at its finest.

Brant Callahan
aka upriver

Thanks for the response!

[mgmirkin]

Apologies for not reading the rules in advance. However, I still feel that response was incommensurate with the "crime," so to speak. The justification for BANNING seemed especially weak (with other lesser remedies available, and statements in the thread of "suspension" rather than "ban"). IE, I posted in the wrong section (according to BAUT moderators). I disagree that the mainstream astronomy section was the incorrect section, or else I would not have posted there. I was specifically referring to the mainstream NASA post (using their image and their descriptions of the Birkeland currents as an electrical discharge; 30 kV battery in space, 650,000 amp current into arctic), and to the lab work of Birkeland. Some may disagree with my interpretation of the two data sets (when compared / merged), but that does not mean that either NASA or Birkeland-related material cited is non-mainstream, in my opinion. However, others are entitled to hold their considered opinions, as I'm entitled to hold mine.

As to having been "notified" on another thread, I'm sorry, but that's a poor justification as well. To be frank, I hadn't visited that thread in a couple days and had not seen any of the newer comments (referenced in the thread that was summarily closed without discussion), prior to posting the new thread. It is unreasonable to assume that a poster will check every old thread on every forum they have ever visited on a regular basis. Even if one assumes a user does check old posts, all of this transpired within an extremely short period of time (24h?)... Is it reasonable to expect that someone checks threads regularly all day for 24h? I don't think so. I may have checked back with the original thread at a later point in time (a few days?), to see if new comments had been added (initial reaction seemed to have been slow in coming from Antoniseb on the first thread, which I happily responded to, and I assumed that additional reaction would also be slow in coming, so I did not check back promptly).

At the time I posted the thread which was closed, locked and moved, there were no private messages to me, to my knowledge. If there were, I missed them (and can no longer check for them due to being banned). Private message(s) would have (in my opinion) been the proper way to handle things (since they are available outside of any one specific thread that may or may not be revisited). IE, message a user privately to direct them to appropriate resources/rules or offer counsel. As far as I know, this was NOT done, and would have been a preferable solution. Likewise, immediately jumping to the harshest punishment (a 1-year ban) seems incommensurate with the "crime" of posting in the wrong section of the forum (an infraction, from an end-user standpoint; one which could have been simply corrected by moving the thread and allowing it to be discussed in the new location).

I might also point out that in the thread that was closed and locked within 48h of being posted, users Nereid and Antoniseb both mentioned that I should try posting in the ATM section in the future. Antoniseb went so far as to say "after your suspension." However, I was not suspended. I was banned for the term of 1 year. For a first infraction, that seems harsh, and not in keeping with the "suspension" comments (one would assume suspension means the lesser 24hr - 72hr block; as opposed to complete ban for 1 year) before closing said thread.

I might also point out that not only does a "block" prevent posting to the forum. It also prevents "viewing" the forum AT ALL. That's simply adding insult to injury. Not to mention the fact there is no apparent way for a user who feels their suspension or ban is unjust or incommensurate with the "crime" to redress grievances. There should be a link or e-mail option on the "you've been blocked" page that allows for a statement or appeal to the MOD(s) in charge of blocking / unblocking users. Else, there seems to be not even a veneer of "fair play" or due process.

Re:Thanks for the response!

[APODNereid]

Given that the post which got you into so much trouble was, to all intents and purposes, the same (content-wise) as your first BAUT post, your decision - deliberate or not - to not bother to check on replies to it (the first post) before starting a new thread was foolish and clumsy, at best.

If that were all there was, then you did pay a heavy price for being gauche.

However, your first post contained many pointers to something deeper, something going on behind the scenes as it were.

And a few minutes with Google will lead a disinterested person to a number of very interesting posts by a 'mgmirkin', around the time you posted on BAUT; reading some of those might lead such an unbiased observer to replace gauche with cynical, disingenuous hypocrite ... and that the BAUT mod's decision was entirely justified.

Next, an apology. I mistook a reference in your first BAUT post (to yourself as 'a mad scientist') to mean that you are a professional scientist. It seems I was wrong; certainly there are no citations in ADS (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for author 'Gmirkin' (Astronomy, Physics, arXiv). But perhaps you got your PhD in a different field of science?

In any case, the second part of your comments, to which I'm replying, clearly indicate an unfamiliarity with contemporary physics, astronomy, space science, astrophysics, cosmology, ...

Perhaps a good way to show this is to compare your link (Conventional vs Maverick Science) with your admiration of Birkeland: it seems you are a fan of both 'Maverick Science' and Birkeland's work, yet apparently unaware of how ironic or inconsistent this is! By your own, preferred, definitions, Birkeland's work was 'Conventional' in the extreme.

It gets better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint).

Birkeland, no doubt, would have been horrified at your characterisation of the state of space science (and plasma physics in general), a century later, as being (still) 'conceptual'; after all, almost all his work involved (quantitative, with numbers, math, and equations) testing the ideas you are excited about.

mgmirkin, the content of your BAUT posts - to the extent it is 'wrong' - is wrong because the detailed, quantitative results of a century (and more) of research - into plasma physics, into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, etc, etc - have long since shown those 'concepts' to be inconsistent with the data.

Let me give you a very small example of just how far beyond the 'conceptual' stage research into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, has got, by referring you to a couple of MSc thesis projects at KTH's School of Electrical Engineering (Space and Plasma Physics section) - the academic institution which includes the Alfvén Laboratory (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/): Multi-satellite measurements of solar wind plasma structures (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=47037), and Study of auroral potentials using multi-satellite data from ESA's Cluster mission (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=45773). And their syllabus for graduate studies: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/graduate/Syllabus_2002.pdf, a link to a PDF). And the research area of Solar System Plasma Physics: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/res/ss/) ... be sure to check out the Publications link.

So, instead of ignorant bombast and vitriol, why not enrol in a university space science and/or plasma physics programme? Why not take the trouble to find out, first hand, for yourself, just how much further advanced we (collectively) are than mere 'concepts'?

And along the way

So, no longer science, but conspiracy theory eh?

[APODNereid]

There are other mechanisms to validate timestamps for predictions. We could just as easily identify Internet cross-references to the prediction. And in fact, it's easy to do just that ...

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/03/1246254

The idea that Thornhill's prediction does not mean anything unless the people who are threatened by it in fact sanction it is hardly a strong argument.

I guess one can take this non-answer as an answer ... DT did NOT publish any (scientific) details of how he worked out his so-called prediction, and certainly none that anyone - plasma physicists, electrical engineer, or slavish follower of mythology - could independently verify.

But thanks: it's becoming clearer that others' who've commented on what you've written in SD were right - you are pushing non-science, and using the idea of some kind of giant conspiracy as an excuse for why there is nothing at all in the way of (plasma) science behind these ideas.

Actually, the quantitative nature of the prediction is readily apparent to most people: *two* flashes is a different number than *one* flash. Your requirements for his prediction are completely meaningless within the context of the number of flashes. How does order of magnitude make any sense whatsoever with respect to a prediction on the number of flashes?

Good point.

So DT's 'prediction' of 'flashes' came with at least an OOM (order of magnitude), or two, estimate of their brightness? I mean, how else did he know that they'd be bright enough to register in the cameras/detectors, but not too bright to vapourise the mother ship?

Does the fact that Thornhill did not predict the exact magnitude of the flash or delay between the two flashes discount the fact that he got the number of flashes right? No, not at all, unless you can demonstrate how it is possible that he could have been so lucky.

Wrong question; if no one (else) can work out how he made the predictions, in what way are they any different from reading tea leaves? What hypotheses can be formulated, based on these so-called predictions, that can be independently tested, even in principle? Or must NASA employ DT as an oracle, given that only he can make (according to you) accurate predictions?

Oh, and let me not pass up acknowledging the centrality of 'IF you can't show me I'm wrong THEN I must be right!' logic. Is it acceptable - to you - for anyone to use this logic? or can it be applied only to words of wisdom from DT?

Does the existence of two flashes demonstrate that Thornhill's explanation of what happened deserves consideration in future missions? Yes, it does.

Good job you're not running NASA!

Now if DT were to write up, in a logical and consistent fashion, the full details of his so-called explanation - full of the necessary references to the underlying plasma physics of course - that'd be a start. Then he could get it reviewed (doesn't have to be by peers, Physics Forums has a quite good IR section, for example), and maybe we could revisit your comment.

In the meantime, how about we scour the internet (and beyond) for any other 'accurate predictions', and put all the explanations from all the others on the table, for serious consideration (by you).

So, I've been patient so far, but you seem really desperate here. Rather than propose a reasonable mechanism for the two flashes, it seems that all you can do is to cast doubt on the actual prediction itself and argue that it wasn't stated properly. If I'm to believe that Thornhill got lucky, then by what mechanism do you credit the double flashes? If you cannot explain this, from what do you derive your confidence that Thornhill is so wrong? It seems to me that you are judging his prediction on the basis of his theory's conclusions -- which would seem to i

see this, APODNereid

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387489&cid=21746036

And it's DT and WT for David Talbott the mythologist and Wallace Thornhill the (purported) physicist, respectively, as it there seems to be some confusion on this matter.

Re:see this, APODNereid

[APODNereid]

Oops (where's the 'red face' smilie)!

By 'DT' I meant 'Wallace Thornhill', per the earlier comments (for some reasons I got 'David Thornhill' stuck in my mind) ... apologies for the error (I was quoting the reference to 'Deep Impact flash predictions').