 with the large scale solution is Re\_[l]{} = [wl]{} where $w$ here means $w(l, t)$, the value of the velocity function evaluated at a fiducial value length $l$ and time $t$. $Re_l =Re_s/\epsilon^2 \ll Re_{s}$ because at larger scales both the velocity and the length scales increase by a factor of $1/\epsilon$. In a numerical simulation, strict scaling invariance is not obeyed. Instead, the large scale solutions approach the inviscid limit, while their sufficiently small scale counterparts are damped. But by behaving nearly inviscidly, the large scale solutions capture the behavior of the Hill system at all scales.

What this Result Does Not Show
==============================

Obviously, scale invariance does not constitute a proof of nonlinear stability in any Keplerian flow. There are several points we have not covered.

First, the local approximation ignores boundary conditions. In laboratory flows, the fluid is always bounded by hard walls, and boundary layers form. A recent laboratory confirmation of the MRI also finds finite amplitude velocity fluctuations in a magnetically stable flow, for example. But the source of such disturbances are boundary layers (Sisan et al. 2004).

The Hill equations emerge in the limit $R\rightarrow\infty$, and therefore curvature terms drop out of the analysis. Instabilities that depend, for example, upon inflection points or vorticity maxima in the background rotation profile would not appear in this limit. Nothing precludes them from forming in the $w$ velocity profile, however, and if such instabilities were present they should manifest on large scales as well as small. In any case, the criticism of the numerical simulations is that extremely small structure is being lost, and that high Reynolds number differential rotation is supposedly intrinsically unstable. It is very difficult to see how large scale curvature could play an essential destabilizing role here. In these equations, the curvature terms are nonsingular perturbations. Planar Couette and Poiseuille flows break down into turbulence without assistance from geometrical curvature.

Our Hill analysis together with numerical simulations would also suggest that a non-Keplerian disk with, say, $\Omega \propto R^{-1.8}$ is nonlinearly stable. But an annulus supporting such a profile is in fact [*linearly*]{} unstable (Goldreich, Goodman, & Narayan 1986), transporting angular momentum outward even in its linear phase. The point is that the annulus supports edge modes that become
with the large scale solution is Re\_[l ] { } = [ wl ] { } where $ w$ here means $ w(l, t)$, the value of the velocity affair measure at a fiducial value length $ l$ and time $ t$. $ Re_l = Re_s/\epsilon^2 \ll Re_{s}$ because at larger scale both the velocity and the length scale increase by a factor of $ 1/\epsilon$. In a numeric simulation, strict scaling invariability is not obeyed. Instead, the large scale solution approach the inviscid terminus ad quem, while their sufficiently small plate counterpart are damped. But by behaving nearly inviscidly, the big scale solutions get the behavior of the Hill arrangement at all scales. 

 What this Result Does Not Show 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 Obviously, scale invariance does not constitute a validation of nonlinear stability in any Keplerian flow. There are several points we have not covered. 

 foremost, the local estimate ignore boundary conditions. In laboratory flows, the fluid is always bounded by hard wall, and boundary layer form. A recent testing ground ratification of the MRI besides finds finite amplitude velocity fluctuations in a magnetically stable flow, for example. But the source of such disturbances are boundary layer (Sisan et al. 2004). 

 The Hill equations emerge in the limit $ R\rightarrow\infty$, and therefore curvature term drop out of the analysis. Instabilities that depend, for example, upon inflection point or vorticity maxima in the background rotation profile would not appear in this limit. Nothing precludes them from form in the $ w$ velocity profile, however, and if such instabilities were present they should attest on large scale as well as small. In any character, the criticism of the numerical simulation is that extremely small social organization is being lost, and that high Reynolds number differential rotation is supposedly intrinsically precarious. It is very difficult to visit how large scale curvature could play an essential destabilizing role here. In these equation, the curvature terms are nonsingular perturbation. Planar Couette and Poiseuille flows break down into turbulence without assistance from geometrical curvature. 

 Our Hill analysis in concert with numerical simulations would besides suggest that a non - Keplerian disk with, say, $ \Omega \propto R^{-1.8}$ is nonlinearly stable. But an ring supporting such a profile is in fact [ * linearly * ] { } unstable (Goldreich, Goodman, & Narayan 1986), transporting angular momentum outward even in its linear phase. The point is that the annulus supports edge modes that become
 wihh the large scale solutlon is Re\_[l]{} = [wl]{} wkwre $w$ iere mezns $w(l, t)$, the value of the velocity fnnctuon ecaluated at a fiducial value lejgth $l$ abd tmme $t$. $Re_l =Re_s/\epsmmon^2 \ll Vz_{s}$ bedwuse et larger scalex both the velocity and dhd pength scales increase by a factor jf $1/\epsikoj$. In a numericwl spmtlatjon, strict scaling invariance is nkt obeytd. Instead, the larbe scale solutions approacj thf inviscid limit, wjile their wuffyxiently smalu scale coluterparts ate damped. But by behaving nearly invixcidly, the lqrgf scale soluvions bapture the bcnavior of the Hill system ab all scqles.

What this Result Voes Not Show
==============================

Obviousjy, scale hnrariance does not conwtutute a psoof if vonmiiead stabllivy in any Ksplerian fliw. There are severak [iints we have not cjvqred.

First, the local approximation ignorts bohndary conditions. In lavoratory flows, the floid is alwwys bounded by hard walls, and boundary layers fork. A rxcdnt lwcirwtory confirmation of the MRI also finds finies smilitude velocity nluctuations in a kahnrjically stable flow, ykr example. But the slurce os sucy disturbwncex are boundary layers (Sisan et al. 2004).

The Hpll wquations emerge iu the limit $X\rightsrrow\onfty$, and therefore currature terms drop out of tgd analysis. Instacilptiev that dtoend, for example, tpon inflxctiou points or forticyty maxima in tma background rotatlon ptofile would not appear in this limit. Nothing pcxcludes them grmm xorming nn the $w$ velocity pwofile, however, and if such instabilinies were present thqy should manhvest on largx scales ws wwll qs smalu. In any case, tne criticpsi of the numerical simmlatiuhs is that extrzotlt small structire is bvinj lose, and that hich Rdynukds njmber diffevengial rotation is supposegly jntrinsically unstsbje. It is very disficult to ser how large scale furvavure cuuld llai an essential destabilizing rome here. Ij tmese equationf, thc cutvature terks are nonsingular perturbations. Planar Couette and Poisguille flows break docn into turbukence without dssistance from geomwtrical curvature.

Pur Hill analysis togsther fith jumerical simulations would also suggest that a non-Keplerian disk with, sat, $\Omege \[ropto R^{-1.8}$ is nonkineagly xtable. But en annulus supporning such a profile is in fact [*lmnearly*]{} unvtcble (Goldreich, Goodman, & Naraysn 1986), transportine angular momentum outwadd even on its linear phase. The point ix that the annulus suppovts edge nodes that becooe
with the large scale solution is Re\_[l]{} where here means t)$, the value at fiducial value length and time $t$. =Re_s/\epsilon^2 \ll Re_{s}$ because at larger both the velocity and the length scales increase by a factor of $1/\epsilon$. a numerical simulation, strict scaling invariance is not obeyed. Instead, the large scale approach inviscid while sufficiently small scale counterparts are damped. But by behaving nearly inviscidly, the large scale solutions capture behavior of the Hill system at all scales. this Result Does Not ============================== Obviously, scale invariance does constitute proof of stability any flow. There are points we have not covered. First, the local approximation ignores boundary conditions. In laboratory flows, the fluid always bounded walls, and layers A laboratory confirmation of also finds finite amplitude velocity fluctuations stable flow, for example. But the source of disturbances are layers (Sisan et al. 2004). The equations emerge in the limit $R\rightarrow\infty$, and therefore terms drop out of the analysis. Instabilities that depend, for example, upon inflection points or in the background rotation would not appear this Nothing them forming in $w$ velocity profile, however, and if such instabilities were present they manifest on large scales as well as small. In any criticism the numerical simulations that extremely small structure being and that high Reynolds rotation supposedly is difficult see how large scale could play an essential destabilizing here. In these equations, perturbations. Planar Couette and Poiseuille flows break down turbulence without assistance from geometrical curvature. Our analysis together with numerical simulations would also suggest that a non-Keplerian disk say, $\Omega is nonlinearly stable. But an annulus supporting such profile is in fact unstable (Goldreich, Goodman, & Narayan 1986), transporting angular momentum even its linear The point is the annulus supports modes that become
 with the large scale solution Is Re\_[l]{} = [wl]{} wheRe $w$ heRe mEanS $w(L, t)$, thE valUe of the velocitY FuncTion evaluated at a fiduciAl valUe LEngtH $L$ aNd timE $t$. $Re_l =Re_S/\EpSILon^2 \Ll re_{S}$ beCaUSe At larGer Scales bOth the veloCitY aNd the length sCAlEs increase By a Factor of $1/\epsiLon$. in a numErIcaL SimulAtiOn, strIct scaLIng invAriance is NoT Obeyed. iNstead, tHE LaRge sCale solutions apprOAcH The inviscid limIt, whilE tHEiR SUffIciEntly small ScAle coUNterparTS aRE DAmpED. But by behavinG nearly inviSCidLy, the lArGe sCAle solUtionS cAPtuRe the behaviOr of The Hill syStem at ALl scaleS.

what thiS ResulT DoEs NOt ShOW
==============================

OBvIouSlY, ScaLE iNvaRIanCe does noT cOnStituTe a pROOF Of noNliNear StabiLity in any KeplEriAn flOW. ThEre arE seveRal pOiNts we Have noT coveReD.

First, the local aPproXimation iGnoReS boUnDary cONditioNs. IN laBoratorY flows, tHE flUiD IS AlWays bounded by hard wAlLS, AnD boundarY layerS FoRm. a Recent laBoRatOry cONFirmaTion OF tHe MRI alsO finds FInItE amplitUdE velocItY flUctUatioNS in a MagnetIcally stAble fLOw, for example. BuT The source of suCH dISTuRBancEs aRe boundary lAyerS (sisaN et aL. 2004).

thE HiLL equaTions EmERgE In the limit $R\rightarrOw\Infty$, aNd theRefore curvatuRe terms droP OUT of the anAlysIS. INStabilities thaT depeNd, for exampLE, upon infLectiOn points Or vorticiTY Maxima in The BacKgrOunD ROtAtion profile wOULd noT aPpear in ThiS limit. NOthIng PreCluDeS them from Forming iN tHe $W$ vElOciTy proFIle, howevEr, And If SucH instABilitiEs werE preSeNt THey Should mANiFESt on LaRgE scaLes As Well aS smaLL. In Any case, The criticIsm OF the NuMeRical siMulations is thAt Extremely sMaLl sTructuRE Is being lOst, and that high Reynolds nUMber difFerEntiaL rotAtion is suPpoSedly iNtrINsicalLy unstAble. IT iS veRY DiffiCULt To sEe How large scALE cuRvatuRe CoulD play an Essential destabiliZIng Role here. In theSe eQuatIONs, The CUrVAtuRe TErmS ARe nonsingular peRturbationS. PLAnAr Couette aND PoIsEuille fLows breAk dowN Into turBulence wiThout assiStAnce FROm gEometrical CurvaturE.

Our Hill aNAlysiS ToGetheR wiTh numeRiCal SimulAtions WOulD also SuggesT tHat a noN-KeplErIan disk wIth, say, $\Omega \propto R^{-1.8}$ is nonLinearLy staBle. but an annuLus SUppOrting sucH a prOfile is in fAct [*LinEarly*]{} UnsTAble (GOldrEIcH, GoODman, & NArayAN 1986), transporTInG anGULaR momentum ouTWARd eVen in Its LInear pHase. the point is that the ANnulus supports Edge MODes ThaT BecoMe
 with the large scale solu tion is Re \_[l] {}= [ wl ]{}wher e $w$ here mea n s $w (l, t)$, the value ofthe v el o city fu nctio n evalu a te d atafi duc ia l  v aluelen gth $l$  and time$t$ .$Re_l =Re_s/ \ ep silon^2 \l l R e_{s}$ becau seat lar ge r s c alesbot h the  veloc i ty and  the leng th scales increas e by  a f actor of $1/\epsi l on $ . In a numeric al sim ul a ti o n , s tri ct scaling  i nvari a nce isn ot o b eye d . Instead, th e large sca l e s olutio ns  ap p roachthe i nv i sci d limit, wh iletheir suf ficien t ly smal l  scalecounte rpa rts  are da mp ed.  B u t b y  b eha v ing  nearlyin vi scidl y, t h e l arge  sc alesolut ions capturethe  beh a vio r ofthe H illsy stemat all  scal es .

What this Re sult  Does Not  Sh ow 
== == ===== = ====== === === ======= =

Obvi o usl y, s c al e invariance doesno t co nstitute  a pro o fof nonlinea rsta bili t y  in a ny K e pl erian fl ow. Th e re  a re seve ra l poin ts  we  ha ve no t  cov ered.
First,the l o cal approximat i on ignores bo u nd a r yc ondi tio ns. In labo rato r y fl ows, th e f l uid i s alw ay s  b o unded by hard walls ,and bo undar y layers form . A recent l a boratory  con f ir m ation of the M RI al so finds f i nite amp litud e veloci ty fluctu a t ions ina m agn eti cal l y  s table flow, f o r  exa mp le. But  th e sourc e o f s uch  di st urbancesare boun da ry  l ay ers  (Sis a n et al.  2 004 ). 

T he Hi l l equa tions  eme rg ei n t he limi t  $ R \ righ ta rr ow\i nft y$ , and  the r efo re curv ature ter msd ropou tof theanalysis. Ins ta bilities t ha t d epend, f or examp le, upon inflection poi n ts or v ort icity  max ima in th e b ackgro und rotati on pro filewo uld n ot ap p e ar  in  t his limit. N oth ing p re clud es them  from forming in t h e $ w$ velocity p rof ile, h ow eve r ,a ndif suc h instabilities w ere presen tt he y should m a nif es t on la rge sca les a s  well a s small.In any ca se , th e cri ticism ofthe nume rical sim u latio n sis th atextrem el y s mallstruct u reis be ing lo st , andthathi gh Reyno lds number differential  rotat ion i s s upposedly  in t rin sically u nsta ble. It is  ve rydiffi cul t  to s ee h o wlar g e sca le c u rvature c o ul d p l a yan essentia l d est abili zin g  rolehere . In these equati o ns, the curvat uret e rms  ar e  non si ngular perturb ati on s .  PlanarCo uette and P oiseuill ef lowsbreakdown i nto tur b u le n ce wit hout  as sistancefro mg eometri ca lc urvatu re.
O ur Hil l anal y sist o gether with nume rical s imula t ion s wou ld  also s u gges t that a n on-Kepleria n disk  wit h, sa y, $\Om eg a \pro pto  R ^{-1.8}$ i s  nonlinea rly s table.Bu t an  an nulussupp o r tingsuch  a  pr ofile isi n  f a ct  [ * lin earl y*]{}  u nsta ble (Gold r eich, Go odm a n, & Na ra yan 1 986),t ra n s porting an gul ar mo m e ntum outwa r d ev e ni n its  linea r phas e. Thep oin tis that  th e annulus s upports e d gemo desthat bec om e
 with_the large_scale solution is Re\_[l]{}_= [wl]{}_where_$w$ here_means_$w(l, t)$, the_value of the_velocity function evaluated at_a fiducial value_length_$l$ and time $t$. $Re_l =Re_s/\epsilon^2 \ll Re_{s}$ because at larger scales both the_velocity_and the_length_scales_increase by a factor of_$1/\epsilon$. In a numerical simulation,_strict scaling_invariance is not obeyed. Instead, the large scale_solutions_approach the inviscid_limit, while their sufficiently small scale counterparts are damped._But by behaving nearly inviscidly, the_large scale solutions_capture_the_behavior of the Hill_system at all scales.

What this Result_Does Not Show
==============================

Obviously, scale invariance does_not constitute a proof of nonlinear stability_in any Keplerian flow. There are_several points we have not_covered.

First, the_local approximation ignores boundary conditions._In laboratory flows,_the fluid_is always bounded_by hard walls, and boundary layers_form. A recent_laboratory confirmation of the MRI also_finds_finite amplitude velocity_fluctuations_in_a magnetically_stable flow, for_example._But the_source_of such disturbances are boundary layers_(Sisan_et al. 2004).

The Hill equations emerge in_the limit $R\rightarrow\infty$, and_therefore_curvature terms drop out_of the analysis. Instabilities that_depend, for example, upon inflection points_or vorticity_maxima in_the background rotation profile would not appear in this limit. Nothing_precludes them from forming in the_$w$ velocity profile, however,_and if_such_instabilities were present_they_should manifest_on large scales as well as small._In any_case, the criticism of the numerical_simulations is that extremely_small_structure is being lost, and that_high Reynolds number differential rotation is_supposedly intrinsically unstable. It is_very_difficult_to see how large scale_curvature could play an essential destabilizing_role here. In_these equations, the curvature terms are nonsingular_perturbations._Planar Couette and Poiseuille flows break_down_into turbulence without assistance from geometrical_curvature.

Our_Hill_analysis together with numerical simulations_would also suggest that a non-Keplerian_disk with, say, $\Omega \propto R^{-1.8}$ is nonlinearly stable._But an annulus_supporting such a profile is_in_fact_[*linearly*]{} unstable (Goldreich, Goodman, & Narayan 1986), transporting angular momentum_outward even_in its linear_phase. The point is that the annulus supports edge modes_that become