First I would like to thank the moderators for lifting my ban at Bad Astronomy. Now getting to the point, I am releasing a paper addressing the theorical flaws in the publication Magnetic Stars, courtesy of Max Plank Society since the country of Germany is the number 1 outside country hitting the website. I will test it here first within the next month for rebuttals addressing fossil field hypothesis, accretion of stellar material by a white dwarf, evolution of a star, the dynamo theory, flux tubes, the convection zone in a stellar object, and the flow of sub atomic particles associated with magnetism. The article is printed below for prepearation even though most of you are assuming you will need no prep as this will be a cakewalk.
Grant

Magnetic Stars
The puzzle of `magnetic stars' solved by astrophysicists of the Max Planck Society
How does one explain the enormous magnetic field strengths of the so-called `magnetic stars'? This question concerning magnetic fields in the cosmos, first posed half a century ago, has now been answered by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching. With 3-dimensional numerical simulations they have found the magnetic field configurations that underly the strong magnetic fields observed on the surface of the so-called magnetic A-stars and magnetic White Dwarfs, and how these fields can survive for the life time of these stars (Nature, 14 October 2004). The results confirm the ‘fossil field’ hypothesis, which proposes that these magnetic fields are remnants of the magnetic field in the gas clouds from which stars are born.

Fig.: Shape of the magnetic field lines in a magnetic star, computed by numerical simulations (stereo images upper left).They form a ring of field lines twisted around each other (blue). Field lines protruding through the surface of the star (red) are held together and stabilized by the twisted ring inside the star. This is illustrated by the schematic sketch (the lower right) and the cut through the star (upper right). This magnetic field configuration drifts slowly outward (over a period of hundreds of millions of years) under the influence of the finite electrical resistivity of the star, then distorts into the shape of the seam on a tennis ball (lower left), after which it disappears from the star.
This discovery is important for three classes of stars in which strong magnetic fields are observed. The most well-known are the so-called `magnetic A-stars', otherwise known as normal stars (about 2 to 10 times heavier than the Sun) which have a magnetic field like a bar magnet. An example is Alioth (Epsilon Ursae Majoris, the fifth star in the Big Dipper). Among the White Dwarf stars there are stars with magnetic fields 100,000 stronger than this, and finally there are `magnetars': neutron stars with fields 100 billion times stronger than that of a commercial bar magnet. The magnetic field of all these stars is smooth and static, in contrast with the field of the Sun and similar stars, which is weaker, consists of small patches, and changes continually.

Since the discovery of magnetic stars over 50 years ago, there have been two competing hypotheses for these magnetic fields. In one theory, the field is assumed to be generated by convective motions in the core of the star, in same way as the Earth's magnetic field. The other is the `fossil field hypothesis': the idea that it is just a remnant of the magnetic fields trapped in the gas clouds from which stars are born. Some evidence points to this possibility, for example the fact that the observed fields do not change over time. The main problem with the latter theory has been that no magnetic field configuration was known that can survive for the life of a star. All configurations studied so far turned out to be unstable, and would decay within a few years.

This demonstrated that two criteria would need to be fulfilled for the fossil theory to be viable. First, stable field configurations have to exist in stars, not self-evident in view of the slippery, fluid nature of the stellar material. Secondly, there has to be a path towards such a field configuration from the magnetic field with which the star is born. This configuration has now been found by the Max Planck researchers with numerical simulations in which the evolution of an arbitrary unstable initial field configuration was followed to a stable final state.

The stable state always turned out to have the same shape - a ring (torus) of twisted field lines, similar to the configurations used in modern controlled fusion experiments. It looks a bit like a car tire in which broken steel wires of the wire mesh stick out through the surface. At the surface of the star, these field lines make up an approximate dipole field, as seen in the observations.

With these results the Max Planck researchers have provided a solid basis for the theory of magnetic stars: as remnants of the magnetic fields threading the gas clouds from which stars are formed, and it explains why the fields can survive for hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, the results make it likely that the magnetic fields in White Dwarfs and neutron stars have the same structure and stability.

from
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrati...ease200410131/

Grant, you should really read the FAQ, one of these days.

__________________

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Nice quote, but could you break it down so that all will understand your intent.

Grant ... you ... should ... really ... read ... the ...FAQ... one ... of ... these ... days.

(I meant The Rules For posting, specifically part 4)

__________________

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

That is fine I did not know want to put a link to my website and be accused of promoting. I will give the links from now on.
Grant out

Grant, I think it would be the minimum of courtesy to acknowledge the original work, on which the Max Planck Society PR is based, namely:

J. Braithwaite and H.C. Spruit
A fossil origin for the magnetic field in A-stars and white dwarfs
Nature, 431, 819-821 (14 October 2004)

That is done on the original unpublished web page, any way I now know tthe rules so lets move on.

Don't get too full of yourself Grant. EVeryone who was banned at BABB was reinstated when it merged with the UT board. It was nothing personal. Many of the formerly banned were rapidly rebanned when they returned to their old ways (see projectorion who lasted less than a day). Don't take this amnesty for granted (so to speak).

I think Neried's comment here is germane. It sounds to me like you're taking credit for the work. Is it yours? If not, you shouldn't make comments like the one above.

As to the rest of your agenda, you won't be the first to take an actual result and mis-apply it should that prove to be the case. I for one wouldn't take this as evidence for anything like an electric universe hypothesis. I doubt the original authors would either.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I don't see any rebuttal, just the paper, so I guess Grant has decided he agrees with what Braithwave and Spruit write???? I know Henk Spruit (well used to know him) and he is a pretty good physicist.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Ah, I misread that. Grant, I apologize for the misreading and my assumption that you were talking about the MPI paper itself rather than your forthcoming response with the phrase "I will release." My caution about the impersonal nature of the unbanning still remains, however.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.



Are the theories on stellar evolution, accretion disks, fossil field, and other cosmic concepts based on numbers, no? So to suggest that numbers are needed in order to validate or consider a theory is not always true. As far as being banned I did not know all were lifted how could I, but it was the courteous thing to do.