ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

Closed Thread
Old 18th February 2011, 07:35 AM   #2801
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Yes, it's the mainstream view that 96% of the universe is dark, black, unknowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study the 4% of what's left. Why? Because of mainstream "gravity only" math. We live in a plasma universe and EU/PC views make better sense of it IMO.
Wrong: It is scientific observations that give evidence that 96% of the universe is dark, knowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study 100% of universe.We live in a universe where there are ignorant people who think that just because a certain % of the universe is plasma means that electromagnetic forces dominate. These people are ignoring the basics of plasma physicss, i.e. that plasmas are quasi-neutral (no electromagnetic interaction above a given scale).

One more time in case you do not want to be one of these ignorant people: Debye length
Intergalactic medium = 10,000 meters
(FYI Haig: a light year is 10,000,000,000,000,000 meters, cosmological scales are billions of light years).

Is that clear enough for you Haig?

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Bit of a contradiction there. How can you make a map of something that’s an invisible and unknown substance?
It is really easy. First realize that it is rather dumb to call something unknown when it is known to exist.

The process is simple:
  1. Map everything.
  2. Map everything visible.
  3. Subtract the 2 maps
  4. What you get is a map of the invisible stuff.
Or a bit more complex - look at my signature!
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 08:11 AM   #2802
Haig
Muse
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong: It is scientific observations that give evidence that 96% of the universe is dark, knowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study 100% of universe.We live in a universe where there are ignorant people who think that just because a certain % of the universe is plasma means that electromagnetic forces dominate. These people are ignoring the basics of plasma physicss, i.e. that plasmas are quasi-neutral (no electromagnetic interaction above a given scale).

One more time in case you do not want to be one of these ignorant people: Debye length
Intergalactic medium = 10,000 meters
(FYI Haig: a light year is 10,000,000,000,000,000 meters, cosmological scales are billions of light years).

Is that clear enough for you Haig?

It is really easy. First realize that it is rather dumb to call something unknown when it is known to exist.

The process is simple:
  1. Map everything.
  2. Map everything visible.
  3. Subtract the 2 maps
  4. What you get is a map of the invisible stuff.
Or a bit more complex - look at my signature!
Well RC I think C. E. R. Bruce made a better fist of it back in 1968

Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution
Quote:
Summary
The object is to show that all cosmic atmospheric phenomena can be explained as deriving from electrical discharges, resulting from the breakdown of electric fields generated by the asymmetrical impacts between dust particles, such as are effective in terrestrial electrical sand and dust storms and in thunderstorms. These electrical discharges form, for example, the solar photosphere at 6,000°K, superposed on an atmospheric background temperature of less than 4,000°K at which solids can and do form. Isolated discharges form the solar prominences and solar flares. The electrical discharge theory of the latter led to the prediction (1959) that they must emit X-rays before these were observed by the first U.S.N. satellite observations in 1960 and observations of the transverse magnetic fields surrounding two flares in 1966 by Severny have confirmed that the flares are, in fact, electrical discharges. Despite over 50 years of observations of longitudinal magnetic fields in the umbra of sunspots and of gas velocities limited to around 2 km per second in the Evershed effect, Severny confirmed that the former are actually transverse and Bumba confirmed that the latter reach 8 km per second, each in accordance with the theory's predictions.
Quote:
Introduction
............. These and. many other successful predictions of the theory are described in the present account. As each contributes to the significance of its fellows, it seemed desirable to collect them together with those not already discussed. This has been done under the heads of solar, stellar and galactic phenomena. It might have been more logical to have collected them under such headings as electric field building, discharge characteristics, discharge-generated gas jets, thermal and non-thermal cosmic energy sources, etc., but the present arrangement will probably appeal more to those who specialize in solar, stellar or galactic phenomena.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 09:35 AM   #2803
Haig
Muse
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens
Quote:
Plasma physics became the promised land where all this would come to pass. In a remarkably short time thousands of young people with advanced degrees in plasma physics and electrical engineering were streaming from campuses of higher learning, primed and eager to get on with the business of harnessing fusion energy.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the same theories have been applied by astrophysicists trying to understand the universe, again leading to much frustration. Alfven discussed this, too, in his Nobel Address:

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis [,however,] has not yet come . . . [Nevertheless,] several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."

These enthusiasts disappeared into research laboratories and were seldom heard from again. The fusion reaction, so straightforward in theory, refused to be tamed.
Quote:
"The current dogma is that the sun is steady, dependable, constant. In this view, its well-known 11-year sunspot cycle is the manifestation of a smoothly running, well-ordered machine, clicking with regularity like astrophysical clockwork. It is a comfortable view, the sun being of some importance to us all here on earth.

"Now an astronomer with a historical bent has delved back through past observational records and, by making numerous independent cross checks, resurrected and made a persuasive case for an old hypothesis that the solar cycle and the sun itself have changed in historic time. The evidence shows that for a 70-year period from A. D. 1645 to 1715 sunspots were almost totally absent on the surface of the sun. Solar activity was at a near-zero level, a true and strange anomaly. . .

"Eddy's conclusions imply that the often-discussed 11-year solar cycle is of far less importance and concern than are longer term variations - the overall 'envelope' of solar activity. That patterns of solar activity have varied over historic time is interesting enough in itself. But beyond that, Eddy believes that the long-term fluctuations may be due to changes in the solar constant, the total radiative output of the sun. Such an idea is of fundamental importance. Whether the solar constant may vary, once considered improbable, is now being much debated. . ." [emphasis added] .

So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers, it pulsates as if gravity were of little influence on its internal structure, it radiates less steadily than was long supposed, and even its "cycles" of surface activity apparently are not rhythmical at all. Each of these recent discoveries, in its own way, calls into question the assumption that thermonuclear fusion is the source of solar energy. What are we to think, then, of man's efforts to simulate merely hypothetical conditions in the core of the Sun and thus achieve controlled fusion?

Could it be that the search for thermonuclear energy is a false trail that has been followed all these years with no real hope of success?

If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*
My bold

Last edited by Haig; 18th February 2011 at 09:37 AM.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 10:10 AM   #2804
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Well, Haig, I see that you have found yet another crank web site to be fooled by !

I also see that you have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are about becauuse that link has nothing to do with them.

C. E. R. Bruce's theory is easly seen to be wrong: The Sun's temperature (as he states) is 6000 K. This means that there are no "dust" because at that temperature there are no solids - look up melting point or even boling point.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 10:17 AM   #2805
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
And what do you think the modern answer to Ralph E. Juergens 1974 question is Haig?

Could it be your ignorance of the observations since then of the missing neutrinos?

The problem with the question when asked in 1974 is that he should have known that it is impossible for fusion in stellar atmospheres to fuse enough material to produce the energy that they are observed to do so. That would require all stars to be strong gamma ray emitters. This was not and still is not the case.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 12:02 PM   #2806
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,164
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
I don't feel embarrased Ziggurat. In my reply to you HERE it should be clear I still think the number 1039 is applicable in Astronomy as proposed by the EU/PC theorists.
I know you still think that. But you're still wrong. You haven't responded to any of the points I've actually made, all you've done is quote more from people who don't have a clue.

Quote:
That's EU/PC theory! as is clear from this:
You're confusing two issues. The first is the claim that electromagnetic forces are always stronger, the second is that they are longer-ranged. I pointed out that the claim that they are longer is wrong, and your response was to find a quote that has nothing to do with the range of electromagnetism versus gravity. But it gets worse, because your quote has nothing to do with the number 1039 either. The author has shown that under a set of specified conditions, the electromagnetic force on an ionized hydrogen nucleus is larger than the gravitational force. Note that the author calculated a specific number, using input numbers, and the answer he got wasn't 1039 either. Not even close. Furthermore, it only applies to a single hydrogen nucleus. It does not apply to a large plasma cloud, for example.

So let's review: your quote has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted about the range of electromagnetism versus. It's related to the strength of electromagnetism versus gravity. And the answer it provides is nowhere near your claimed 1039. It supports what I've been saying, and refutes your position.

You have proven, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Quote:
So your saying people like Hannes Alfvén are ignorant idiots?
I have seen no claims by Alfven that your 1039 number has any relevance at large scales. Nor have I seen him make any claims that electromagnetism is longer range than gravity. So I've got no reason to conclude that Alfven is an ignorant idiot.

But seeing as how you can't even recognize what's being said, well...

Quote:
Is also Peratt an ignorant idiot?
Same thing as for Alfven. Your quotes do not indicate that Peratt thought that the 1039 number was relevant or that electromagnetism was longer range. Nor have you provided any argument for why either is true. I have shown that neither is true.

Quote:
If you think Alfvén and Peratt are both wrong then we have to agree to disagree.
I think you don't know what Alfven or Peratt said, because none of your quotes actually support your claim.

Quote:
What's your view on The Pioneer anomaly and The flyby anomaly?
My view is that they are minor perturbations. As minor perturbations, neither can support the contention that electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, which was your claim.

Quote:
Mainstream have puzzled over them for many years and yet EU/PC proponents have a ready explanation.
No they don't. They have hand-waving. Noticeably absent is any serious calculations of the effect. But the effects are only noticeable in the first place because gravitational calculations are performed with such high precision. Do you not see the irony in all this? No, of course you don't. You can't even figure out the meaning of your own quotes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 04:05 PM   #2807
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,164
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
His claim that "the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
is outdated and wrong, and his point about the fluctuations of the sun just mean that the feedback mechanisms are complex (which should be no surprise, since they involve fluid dynamics which is highly non-linear), it provides no evidence that fusion isn't happening in the core of the sun.

And as I've pointed out to you before, this claim:
"What are we to think, then, of man's efforts to simulate merely hypothetical conditions in the core of the Sun and thus achieve controlled fusion?"
is also wrong. We aren't trying to replicate conditions in the core of the sun. That's not the path to fusion power on earth. We're taking a different path, both because the pressures required cannot be contained by any methods we have available, and because it's too slow. Our attempts to create fusion DO NOT operate the same way that the sun's fusion operates. And while there are significant challenges that need to be overcome to make such fusion useful, there's no question that we can make fusion occur, because we've done it. Quite often.

And lastly, the part you bolded:
"If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*"
is quite plainly wrong too. Fusion in the stellar atmosphere would produce LOTS of gamma rays. We don't see the gamma rays. But we DO see the neutrinos from fusion (contrary to what he claimed). So fusion is occurring, but something is shielding the gamma rays from that fusion. Hmm... where could fusion in the sun occur so that the gamma rays would be shielded? I just can't figure it out.

Juergens is an idiot.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 04:29 PM   #2808
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 04:31 PM   #2809
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
The only problem with that is that ultimate truth is completely unattainable. So while what he says may be true for now, it may well not be in the future.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2011, 10:07 PM   #2810
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 975
Lightbulb Electric Sun & Nuclear Fusion III

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens
Quote:
If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*
* My bold
The answer is no.

See my earlier post No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009, 2 years ago today). Fusion reactions generate readily identifiable narrow line gamma ray emission. The sun does not emit any of this gamma ray emission. Therefore it is not physically possible for any of the solar nuclear fusion energy to be generated anywhere near the photosphere of the sun. Physics closes the door on this idea easily.

See my earlier post Electric Sun and Solar Neutrinos I (29 Dec 2010). The sun in fact produces all of the neutrinos it is expected to produce, given a standard solar model. Furthermore, the presence of neutrinos at very specific energy levels is not simply compatible with a nuclear energy source for the Sun, but actually require a nuclear energy source for the Sun, as there is no other way known to physics by which such neutrinos might be generated. Also see my earlier posts Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion II (25 Dec 2010), Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion I (24 Dec 2010). All of these posts were made only this last December, in direct & lengthy response to Haig. Evidently it was a useless gesture, assuming that he would actually pay attention.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 12:43 PM   #2811
Haig
Muse
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I know you still think that. But you're still wrong. You haven't responded to any of the points I've actually made, all you've done is quote more from people who don't have a clue.
That's right I still do hold those views. Sorry I didn't respond to those points at the time, but posts with quotes from those people was my reply, generally. The quick and easy "copy paste" is ALL I have time for ....most often.
Quote:
You're confusing two issues. The first is the claim that electromagnetic forces are always stronger,
I don't think so and No, I didn't claim that.

The electromagnetic forces, in my understanding, are NOT either cancelled out OR full blown 10 39 like some off/on switch but can vary proportionally between those extremes, according to conditions.
Quote:
the second is that they are longer-ranged. I pointed out that the claim that they are longer is wrong, and your response was to find a quote that has nothing to do with the range of electromagnetism versus gravity. But it gets worse, because your quote has nothing to do with the number 1039 either. The author has shown that under a set of specified conditions, the electromagnetic force on an ionized hydrogen nucleus is larger than the gravitational force. Note that the author calculated a specific number, using input numbers, and the answer he got wasn't 1039 either. Not even close. Furthermore, it only applies to a single hydrogen nucleus. It does not apply to a large plasma cloud, for example.
Here's a better quote then, from Peratt:

The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity. If the dominant form of matter were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism.

An indication of the dominance of the magnetic force is given by a ball bearing on a table. All of the Earth's mountains, seas, core, sand, rivers, and lifeforms exert a gravitational pull on the bearing preventing it from flying off into space. Yet the smallest horseshoe magnet easily snatches it away.

But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation. Moreover, the electromagnetic force can be repulsive if the streams in interaction are flowing in opposite directions. Thus immense plasma streams measured in megaparsecs, carrying galaxies and stars, can appear to be falling towards nothing when they are actually repelling.”
http://plasmauniverse.info/EM_forces.html
Quote:
So let's review: your quote has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted about the range of electromagnetism versus. It's related to the strength of electromagnetism versus gravity. And the answer it provides is nowhere near your claimed 1039. It supports what I've been saying, and refutes your position.
I don't think so:

"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation" (my bold)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electromagnetic_force
Quote:
You have proven, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about.
I demand an apology
Quote:
I have seen no claims by Alfven that your 1039 number has any relevance at large scales. Nor have I seen him make any claims that electromagnetism is longer range than gravity. So I've got no reason to conclude that Alfven is an ignorant idiot.
Well these suggest he did:

Hannes Alfvén
But Alfvén himself noted that astrophysical textbooks poorly represented known plasma phenomena:
"A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)"[8]

Cosmology in the plasma universe: an introductory exposition Alfven
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. The basic aspects of cosmological importance are: (a) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere; (b) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma; (c) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and (d) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic evolves. A review is presented of a number of the outstanding questions of cosmology in the plasma universe
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
But seeing as how you can't even recognize what's being said, well...
I'm doing the best I can, although I do have my senior moments
Quote:
Same thing as for Alfven. Your quotes do not indicate that Peratt thought that the 1039 number was relevant or that electromagnetism was longer range. Nor have you provided any argument for why either is true. I have shown that neither is true.
Well I think he did, as my quotes from Peratt's SITE have shown.

The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity."
Quote:
I think you don't know what Alfven or Peratt said, because none of your quotes actually support your claim.
Quotes from their papers and from Peratt's http://plasmauniverse.info/ site show otherwise.
Quote:
My view is that they are minor perturbations. As minor perturbations, neither can support the contention that electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, which was your claim.
Its a phenomena that's puzzled mainstream for decades and spawned nearly a 1000 papers.

It supports the Electric Sun theory because the small acceleration towards the Sun can be explained by a charged spacecraft travelling in the weak electric field of the Sun.

Electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity (up to 1039 times) BUT in proportion to conditions.
Quote:
No they don't. They have hand-waving. Noticeably absent is any serious calculations of the effect. But the effects are only noticeable in the first place because gravitational calculations are performed with such high precision. Do you not see the irony in all this? No, of course you don't. You can't even figure out the meaning of your own quotes.
Harsh words Ziggurat. The calculation has been done and confirmed as real. Sure it's ironic but you shouldn't blame the EU/PC crowd for pointing out a confirmation.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
His claim that "the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
is outdated and wrong, and his point about the fluctuations of the sun just mean that the feedback mechanisms are complex (which should be no surprise, since they involve fluid dynamics which is highly non-linear), it provides no evidence that fusion isn't happening in the core of the sun.
Sure, mainstream would like to think it's outdated and wrong and the missing neutrinos problem has been solved as the story is told HERE but there are mainstream physicists who do NOT agree:
Quote:
Why did it take so long for most physicists to be convinced that the particle theory was wrong and not the astrophysics?

Let's first hear in their own words what some of the most prominent physicists have said about the missing neutrinos. In 1967, two years before his epochal paper with Gribov on solar neutrino oscillations was published, Bruno Pontecorvo wrote:

"Unfortunately, the weight of the various thermonuclear reactions in the sun, and the central temperature of the sun are insufficiently well known in order to allow a useful comparison of expected and observed solar neutrinos..."

In other words, the uncertainties in the solar model are so large that they prevent a useful interpretation of solar neutrino measurements. Bruno Pontecorvo's view was echoed more than two decades later when in 1990 Howard Georgi and Michael Luke wrote as the opening sentences in a paper on possible particle physics effects in solar neutrino experiments:

"Most likely, the solar neutrino problem has nothing to do with particle physics. It is a great triumph that astrophysicists are able to predict the number of 8B neutrinos to within a factor of 2 or 3..."

C.N. Yang stated on October 11, 2002, a few days after the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Ray Davis and Masatoshi Koshiba for the first cosmic detection of neutrinos, that:

"I did not believe in neutrino oscillations even after Davis' painstaking work and Bahcall's careful analysis. The oscillations were, I believed, uncalled for."

Sidney Drell wrote in a personal letter of explanation to me in January 2003 that "… the success of the Standard Model (of particle physics) was too dear to give up."

The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful theory that has been tested and found to make correct predictions for thousands of laboratory experiments. The standard solar model, on the other hand, involves complicated physics in unfamiliar conditions and had not previously been tested to high precision. Moreover, the predictions of the standard solar model depend sensitively on details of the model, such as the central temperature. No wonder it took scientists a long time to blame the standard model of particle physics rather than the standard model of the Sun.
So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists are entitled to point this out:

Missing Neutrinos
"A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of electron-neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of these neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux."
Quote:
Summary
The high decibel level of rejoicing contained in the SNO pronouncements is unprofessional. It is a clue that should not be ignored. It stands in curious contrast to the existence of errors in fundamental logic contained in the report. The prime requirement in research is scientific objectivity. And (given the paucity of actual data that was collected) there is substantial reason to question to what extent a degree of wishful thinking went into the announced conclusions of this report.
There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.
(my bold)
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
And as I've pointed out to you before, this claim:
"What are we to think, then, of man's efforts to simulate merely hypothetical conditions in the core of the Sun and thus achieve controlled fusion?"
is also wrong. We aren't trying to replicate conditions in the core of the sun. That's not the path to fusion power on earth. We're taking a different path, both because the pressures required cannot be contained by any methods we have available, and because it's too slow. Our attempts to create fusion DO NOT operate the same way that the sun's fusion operates. And while there are significant challenges that need to be overcome to make such fusion useful, there's no question that we can make fusion occur, because we've done it. Quite often.
Sure, but the problems persist and the idea is to get more energy out than you put in:

From Juergens HERE
Quote:
At every attempt, long before the plasma could be brought to thermonuclear temperatures, it always managed to leak out of its magnetic reactor.

This thermonuclear "crisis" was recognized and acknowledged as early as 1960, as was pointed out by Hannes Alfven on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1970:

". . . As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred-years-old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward . . . it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the same theories have been applied by astrophysicists trying to understand the universe, again leading to much frustration. Alfven discussed this, too, in his Nobel Address:

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis [,however,] has not yet come . . . [Nevertheless,] several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."

Alfven's paper, of course, dates from 1970. In the years since then, it appears, a problem has come up that may indeed signal the onset of a thermonuclear crisis in astrophysics to match that in the search for controlled nuclear fusion.

Surprisingly, this problem emerged in connection with the supposed fusion reactions that power our Sun.

The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us about half a century. But now, suddenly, suspicions are being voiced that this may not be the case after all.
(my bold)

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
And lastly, the part you bolded:
"If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*"
is quite plainly wrong too. Fusion in the stellar atmosphere would produce LOTS of gamma rays. We don't see the gamma rays. But we DO see the neutrinos from fusion (contrary to what he claimed). So fusion is occurring, but something is shielding the gamma rays from that fusion. Hmm... where could fusion in the sun occur so that the gamma rays would be shielded? I just can't figure it out.
Juergens isn't the only one to suggest fusion is the stellar atmosphere:

Fusion in the Double Layer
Quote:
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.
It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
We don't see LOTS of gamma rays but we DO see LOTS of X-rays coming from the solar atmosphere:

The Sun as an X-ray Source
Quote:
The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.
So, is there much difference between X-rays and gamma rays? Well, not so much as you might think: (my bold)

Quote:
The distinction between gamma rays and X-rays is somewhat arbitrary, since a 100 keV gamma is the same as a 100 keV X-ray. The distinction is related to the origin. X-rays are generally defined at those photons originating from atomic reactions, i.e. transitions from atomic electrons, with photon energies above ultraviolet. Brehmstrahlung (braking radiation) originates from free electrons accelerating in a nuclear electric field. Synchrotron radiation is probably distinguished from gamma radiation since it is usually originating from an accelerated proton or light nucleus.

Gamma emission occurs in the (p,γ) reactions of the CNO cycle.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/cno.html
Quote:
In the fusion of light elements, the reactions involve a restructuring the nuclei, and in general the resulting energy is 'carried as kinetic energy'.

Usually a confined plasma implies a magnetic field (as opposed to inertial confinement), and the motion of electrons about the field lines produces 'cyclotron radiation'.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/chapter5.pdf

http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/textbook.htm

Brehmsstrahlung radiation is also possible and occurs when free electrons are accelerated by nuclear charges (protons and nuclei).
FYI - http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/notes.htm

Gamma rays are more likely when fusion involves nuclei heavier than B, e.g., C, N, O. Of course, if free neutrons are present, they can be absorbed in (n, γ) reactions.
So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the right amount of neutrinos actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours) Fusion in the Sun's core seems unnecessary. It's been known for some time now the gassy materials in a star are compressed and expand they make the star oscillate, and this oscillation can be detected. Seems like it's just a big ball of compressed plasma and MOST of the action is in it's atmosphere
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Juergens is an idiot.
I can read why you don't like him:

The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun? Ralph E. Juergens
Quote:
In the frame of the electrical-sun hypothesis, the first true plasma we come to above the photosphere is the solar corona. From a base variously estimated to lie 2000 to 5000 kilometers above the "temperature minimum,"(44) the corona extends through interplanetary space to unknown distances from the Sun. Below the corona and above the photosphere is the chromosphere, a region whose reddish glow shines forth during those brief moments when the bright face of the Sun is hidden by the Moon during total solar eclipses. This lesser glow, its character as an envelope containing the photosphere, and even its refusal to reveal its "temperature" - all these suggest that this is a true anode glow, and that we may be on the right track in classifying photospheric granules as anode tufts.
Quote:
Qualitatively, at least, it would appear that the physical characteristics and the behavior of photospheric granules are responsive to explanation in terms of the anode-tuft hypothesis. The photosphere as a whole seems to add up to yet another strong indication that the Sun draws its energy not from within itself but from its cosmic environment, and that the delivery mechanism is an electric discharge embracing the entire solar system.
(my bold)
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 12:52 PM   #2812
Haig
Muse
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth.
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
The only problem with that is that ultimate truth is completely unattainable. So while what he says may be true for now, it may well not be in the future.
TBH, I agree. I've found Ziggurat very truthful. He's made me think hard about the EU/PC ideas Vs mainstream ones.

I'm sure he's convinced the mainstream models and assumptions about the Sun, Universe, etc are correct.

I'm not so sure and if those models and assumptions ARE wrong the math will give misleading results. That's how we ended up with 96% dark, black, unknown "stuff" and only 4% of the Universe we can study.

Yes, I think the "truth" will come out eventually but it took 1500 years before Ptolemy's Epicycles was replaced with a better "truth".

Why? because the mathematicians, of those times, were in "total" control and loved to add each new circle to make the awkward data fit .......... just like now IMO.
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 01:09 PM   #2813
Haig
Muse
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The answer is no.

See my earlier post No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009, 2 years ago today).
Thanks for the link to your 2009 discussion with MM and this paper:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf
Quote:
III. CONCLUSIONS
The above findings [7-21] suggest that Bethe's solar CNO cycle [2] has made 13 N, 13 C, 15 O and 15 N at the surface of the Sun over geologic time [7-11] and now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares [21]. Temporal changes in sunspot activity likely explain variations in the solar 15 N/ 14 N ratio. If light elements like H, C, N and O had not moved selectively to the solar surface [12, 13, 17, 19], H-fusion via the CNO cycle [2] might have occurred deep in the Sun. We look forward to other explanations for these findings [7-21].
So you accept that Fusion can take place on the surface of the Sun and (my bold) ...... "now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares"?

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Fusion reactions generate readily identifiable narrow line gamma ray emission. The sun does not emit any of this gamma ray emission. Therefore it is not physically possible for any of the solar nuclear fusion energy to be generated anywhere near the photosphere of the sun. Physics closes the door on this idea easily.
As I posted to Ziggurat above "the distinction between gamma rays and X-rays, at their transition zone is somewhat arbitrary, since a 100 keV gamma is the same as a 100 keV X-ray. The distinction is related to the origin. X-rays are generally defined at those photons originating from atomic reactions, i.e. transitions from atomic electrons, with photon energies above ultraviolet. Brehmstrahlung (braking radiation) originates from free electrons accelerating in a nuclear electric field. Synchrotron radiation is probably distinguished from gamma radiation since it is usually originating from an accelerated proton or light nucleus."

So it seems, to me, that if Fusion can take place at the much cooler Sun's surface then it could more easily take place in the 2 million K Corona!

As Scott says: (my bold)

The Corona
Quote:
The Sun's corona is visible only during solar eclipses (or via sophisticated instruments developed for that specific purpose). It is a vast luminous plasma glow that changes shape with time - always remaining fairly smooth and distributed in its inner regions, and showing filamentary spikes and points in its outer fringes. It is a "normal glow" mode plasma discharge. If the Sun were not electrical in nature this corona would not exist. If the Sun is simply a (non-electrical) nuclear furnace, the corona has no business being there at all. So one of the most basic questions that ought to arise in any discussion of the Sun is: Why does our Sun have a corona? Why is it there? It serves no purpose in a fusion-only model nor can such models explain its existence.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
See my earlier post Electric Sun and Solar Neutrinos I (29 Dec 2010). The sun in fact produces all of the neutrinos it is expected to produce, given a standard solar model. Furthermore, the presence of neutrinos at very specific energy levels is not simply compatible with a nuclear energy source for the Sun, but actually require a nuclear energy source for the Sun, as there is no other way known to physics by which such neutrinos might be generated
.Thanks for the link to that earlier discussion, it was interesting and I had missed it.

I think I've answered it in my posts to you and Ziggurat above.
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Also see my earlier posts Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion II (25 Dec 2010), Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion I (24 Dec 2010). All of these posts were made only this last December, in direct & lengthy response to Haig.
And I answered you HERE and HERE on the 30th Dec 2010 Then you post more on the 1st Jan 2011 and I replied HERE on the 2nd Jan 2011 .... then I had few chances to post for quite a while such is the pressures of work and family
Quote:
Evidently it was a useless gesture, assuming that he would actually pay attention.
Not at all IMO. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to a layman like me and I did pay as much attention as my free time would allow.

However, I'm not convinced by your arguments just as you are not convinced by the arguments of Donald E. Scot.

Solar Surface Transistor Action
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf
Quote:
VI. SUMMARY
The failure of the hypothetical magnetic reconnection mechanism to explain several observed solar phenomena is clear. A three-layer charge density structure, similar to the SL, DL anode tufting combination that is familiar to plasma engineers is a hypothesis that offers a reasonable explanation of the temperature minimum at the base of the corona and also the as-of-yet otherwise unexplained fluctuations in the amplitude of the solar wind.
or the arguments of Peratt:

Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D. Life Fellow, IEEE
Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998.
Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Associate Directorate for Experiments and Simulations, 1999–2003.

Electric Currents and Transmission Lines in Space
Quote:
“As far as we know, most cosmic low density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, all of which are observed or are likely to be associated with electric currents:
•In the aurora, filaments parallel to the magnetic field are often observed. These can sometimes have dimensions down to about 100 m. \item Inverted V events and the in-situ measurements of strong electric fields in the magnetosphere ($10^5-10^6$ A, $10^8$ m) demonstrate the existence of filamentary structures.
•In the ionosphere of Venus, ``flux ropes", whose filamentary diameters are typically 20 km, are observed. \item In the sun, prominences ($10^{11}$ A), spicules, coronal streamers, polar plumes, etc., show filamentary structure whose dimensions are of the order $10^7-10^8$ m.
•Cometary tails often have a pronounced filamentary structure.
•In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures [e.g., the Veil nebula, the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula, and the Crab nebula].
•The center of the Galaxy, where twisting plasma filaments, apparently held together by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components, extend for nearly 60 pc ($10^{18}$ m).
•Within the radio bright lobes of double radio galaxies, where filament lengths may exceed 20 kpc ($6 \times 10^{20}$ m).
•In extended radio sources and synchrotron emitting jets.
Regardless of scale, the motion of charged particles produces a self-magnetic field that can act on other collections of particles or plasmas, internally or externally. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled via currents that they drive through each other. Currents are therefore expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes.”
http://plasmauniverse.info/elec_currents.html


IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS
Quote:
“According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.'
The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances between the stars.
Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye. Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand billion amperes.
"The individual filaments in space are often called Z-pinches. These Z-pinches occur when current-carrying plasma 'pinches' itself into a filament by a magnetic field the current produces around the plasma. Z-pinches, such as those produced on the Sandia National Laboratories 'Z' machine, are among the most prolific producers of X-rays known," cited Peratt.”
“Alfvén predicted that the signature of his plasma theory in space would be the observation of filaments and his discrete velocities. AlfvÈn calculated that the critical velocity of all the elements in the periodic table could be grouped into just four velocity bands, the first at 51 kilometers per second from hydrogen, the second at 34 kilometers per second from helium, the third centered around 14 kilometers per second from oxygen, neon, and carbon, and a fourth centered around 6 kilometers per second from calcium, sodium, and other heavy elements. ÒThe observed data show precisely these velocities,Ó remarked Peratt. ÒDiscrete velocity components are seen 51, 32, 14, and 5 kilometers per second. Moreover the lines cascade from higher velocity to lower velocity, as they must as the radiotelescope is sighted closer to a filament according to the theory,Ó he said.
M. Garcia, a physicist and electrical engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and C. Chan, director of the Plasma Science Laboratory at Northeastern University suggested the possibility of of using new high-power laser and generator facilities at the National Laboratories to further study the filamentation processes and critical velocity effects occurring in the interstellar medium. In any event, a consensus that space is far more electric than earlier imagined suggests a revision of our understanding physical processes in space as far ranging as the formation of planets to the sources of high energy particles and radiation.
'Electrical currents seem to play a significant role,' concluded Peratt. A full description of the discovery will appear In the September 1999 issue of the Astronomical Journal and the December 2000 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.”
http://plasmauniverse.info/CIVmonterey.html

Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure
“The possible origin of the distinct line width regimes is briefly examined, and it is concluded that a new interpretation is needed, one that involves a plasma phenomenon known as the critical ionization velocity,”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/118/3/1252

GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE
Quote:
9. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented evidence that neutral hydrogen emis-
sion proÐles produced by gas in the local interstellar
medium are characterized by three, and probably four, line
width regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have
widths of order 5.2, 13, and 31 km s~1, and limited evidence
has been found for a very broad component D50 km s~1
wide. The data are consistent with all three major com-
ponent line width regimes caused by gas conÐned to the
Galactic disk. A simplistic interpretation might suggest that
the gas is somehow found in ““clouds ÏÏ in pressure equi-
librium with a hierarchy of structures, but we are unable to
formulate a reasonable picture along these lines. Instead, we
note that the line width regimes show a striking resem-
blance to a set of velocity regimes described by a plasma
physical mechanism called the critical ionization phenome-
non.
When a low-density neutral gas Ñows through a low-
density plasma permeated by a magnetic Ðeld, neutral
atoms ionize when their velocity relative to the plasma is
such that their kinetic energy exceeds the ionization poten-
tial of the neutrals. The magnitudes of the critical ionization
velocities (CIVs) for common atomic species fall into three
distinct bands. Band I includes hydrogen, with a CIV of 51
km s~1, and He, with a CIV of 34 km s~1, band II includes
C, N, and O, with CIVs around 13.5 km s~1 ; and band III
includes heavier atomic species such as Na and Ca, with
CIVs around 6 km s~1. We regard the coincidence between
the magnitudes of the CIVs for common interstellar atoms
and H I line width regimes discussed above as more than
fortuitous and in a subsequent paper will conclude that H I
proÐle shapes are a†ected by the CIV phenomenon in inter-
stellar space. This implies the existence of a previously
unrecognized source of ionization that needs to be taken
into account in the study of interstellar gasdynamics,
physics, and chemistry
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/...118_3_1252.pdf


The Electromagnetic Force
Quote:
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity. If the dominant form of matter were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism.
An indication of the dominance of the magnetic force is given by a ball bearing on a table. All of the Earth's mountains, seas, core, sand, rivers, and lifeforms exert a gravitational pull on the bearing preventing it from flying off into space. Yet the smallest horseshoe magnet easily snatches it away.
But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation. Moreover, the electromagnetic force can be repulsive if the streams in interaction are flowing in opposite directions. Thus immense plasma streams measured in megaparsecs, carrying galaxies and stars, can appear to be falling towards nothing when they are actually repelling.”
http://plasmauniverse.info/EM_forces.html
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 03:55 PM   #2814
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,164
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
The electromagnetic forces, in my understanding, are NOT either cancelled out OR full blown 10 39 like some off/on switch but can vary proportionally between those extremes, according to conditions.
And since it never gets close to the 1039 side at large scales, but it frequently does get close to the 0 side, the 1039 number is irrelevant. So why do you cling to it?

Quote:
Here's a better quote then, from Peratt:

The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity.
That's nice. It's also irrelevant since at least partial cancellation ALWAYS happens at large scales.

Quote:
But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on.
This is NOT a difference between electromagnetism and gravity. It is a difference between a point-like source and a line-like source. It applies to BOTH gravity and electromagnetism. This is freshman-level physics. So either Peratt is an idiot, or he's being dishonest. In either case, he's plainly wrong. This isn't exotic stuff, it isn't controversial, any halfway-competent physicist can tell you that a line source gives you a 1/r field, even for gravity.

So why do you believe Peratt when he's telling you stuff which is so transparently wrong?

Quote:
"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation" (my bold)
My highlight. And it's true, under certain conditions electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But you have to actually crunch the numbers to find out when. And it's not nearly as often as you presume. But in no case is the 1039 number of ANY relevance at large scales.

Quote:
I demand an apology
You're not getting one, because you don't deserve one. What I said about you is true, and this post doesn't show otherwise. The fact that you're not the only person without a clue doesn't make you any more knowledgeable.

Quote:
Well these suggest he did:
No, those quotes do not. 1039 appears no where within them. Nothing resembling 1039 appears within them. Those quotes make no such claims.

Quote:
Well I think he did, as my quotes from Peratt's SITE have shown.
This time around (but not last time) you find a quote from Peratt (but still nothing from Alfven) referencing the 1039 number. But the quote from him did not actually claim that the number described any actual large-scale force disparity.

Quote:
The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out
And how often does that happen? Why, it happens all the bloody time.

Quote:
It supports the Electric Sun theory because the small acceleration towards the Sun can be explained by a charged spacecraft travelling in the weak electric field of the Sun.
But that's just it: if the anomalous acceleration is from the electric field of the sun, that electric field is still MUCH weaker than the sun's gravity, because the anomalous acceleration is MUCH smaller than the predicted acceleration. We know that gravity cannot power the sun, so how would an even weaker electric field power the sun? It couldn't. So... fail.

Quote:
Harsh words Ziggurat. The calculation has been done and confirmed as real. Sure it's ironic but you shouldn't blame the EU/PC crowd for pointing out a confirmation.
You don't get it.

Gravitational calculations have been done. Those high-precision calculations reveal a very small discrepancy between our gravitational model predictions and our observations. Who did that calculation? The NASA folks, not the EU folks.

Now, there are many conceivable explanations for this discrepancy. The EU folks have an idea about electric fields. But where are their calculations of electric field effects on the satellite? Where are their calculations showing how much of an acceleration to expect based on their model? Where are their calculations showing what sized fields, due to what sort of charge distributions, would be required to produce such accelerations?

Nowhere. There are no such calculations. They haven't done them, because they can't.

Quote:
Sure, mainstream would like to think it's outdated and wrong and the missing neutrinos problem has been solved as the story is told HERE but there are mainstream physicists who do NOT agree:
You really didn't get the point of that at all. The point was that, despite the confidence in early neutrino models and uncertainty about the solar model, it WAS the early neutrino model which was wrong, and NOT the standard stellar model. What the author is explaining is why that was hard for physicists to accept. But they did, because that's the way the facts pointed, once we had enough facts to make the picture clear.

Quote:
So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists are entitled to point this out:
You can point out whatever you like to. But you're still wrong.

Quote:
Sure, but the problems persist and the idea is to get more energy out than you put in
This is a problem, but it's a problem which has nothing to do with the sun. We are not trying to fuse hydrogen nuclei. We are trying to fuse deuterium and tritium nuclei. One of the problems with getting more energy out than you put in is getting the reaction rates sufficiently fast. And there's no way we could ever do that by replicating stellar fusion, because stellar fusion is too slow. So Juergens has no point, except to mislead the ignorant and gullible.

Quote:
Juergens isn't the only one to suggest fusion is the stellar atmosphere:
People have also suggested the earth is hollow, that aliens shot Kennedy, and that fluoridated water is a communist plot.

Quote:
We don't see LOTS of gamma rays but we DO see LOTS of X-rays coming from the solar atmosphere:
If fusion is happening at the surface of the sun, we should see LOTS of gamma rays, with very specific characteristic energies. We don't really see any at those energies. So... no fusion on the surface of the sun. It's ruled out by observation.

Quote:
So, is there much difference between X-rays and gamma rays? Well, not so much as you might think: (my bold)
You can call them x-rays if you want, it doesn't matter. The photons created by hydrogen fusion will still have characteristic energies, and we do not see any significant flux of photons with those energies.

Quote:
So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays)
No, we cannot. We can distinguish the energies of x-rays coming from the sun. The x-rays produced by hydrogen fusion have very specific energies. We can look for x-rays with these energies, and when we do, we find basically nothing. So no, we cannot have any significant amount of fusion in the stellar atmosphere.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 20th February 2011 at 03:58 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 05:00 PM   #2815
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,207
I have lost track of the number of times I have seen the points that we see in the above post made in these threads. It seems to be beyond hope that these EU crackpots will ever pay attention. Do they understand? Do they want to understand? Do they try to understand? Are they able to understand? It does not seem to matter since they will cling to their crackpot notions like true believers in some religious cult. Facts have no effect. Science has no effect. Physics has no effect. Mathematics has no effect. Logic has no effect. These threads just go on and on like some endless Abbott and Costello comedy routine.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 06:35 PM   #2816
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,811
Did Peratt actually write that nonsense?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is NOT a difference between electromagnetism and gravity. It is a difference between a point-like source and a line-like source. It applies to BOTH gravity and electromagnetism. This is freshman-level physics. So either Peratt is an idiot, or he's being dishonest. In either case, he's plainly wrong. This isn't exotic stuff, it isn't controversial, any halfway-competent physicist can tell you that a line source gives you a 1/r field, even for gravity.

So why do you believe Peratt when he's telling you stuff which is so transparently wrong?
Are we certain that Peratt wrote that text?

There's no question about the wrongness of that web page. Its author is making freshman-level mistakes. I'm just wondering how we know that Peratt is the person responsible for those mistakes.

Haig certainly blames Peratt:
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Here's a better quote then, from Peratt:
And yes, it's at Peratt's site.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D. Life Fellow, IEEE
Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998.
Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Associate Directorate for Experiments and Simulations, 1999–2003.
FYI: A "Life Fellow" of the IEEE is just an IEEE fellow who is more than 65 years old, and the IEEE names about 300 new fellows per year. Although EEs seldom have to deal with gravity, it's surprising to see an IEEE Fellow and PhD make the freshman-level mistakes you've been spamming. If you can prove that Peratt wrote that web page, however, then I will admit the mistakes are Peratt's.

Those mistakes would not be his first. Have I mentioned the Tapamveni petroglyph in this thread?
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:26 AM   #2817
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists are entitled to point this out
Huh? How on Earth did you gather that from that piece of text? A piece of text which nicely explains why some people had doubts about neutrino oscillations before neutrino oscillations were discovered?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:37 AM   #2818
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the right amount of neutrinos actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours)
Fusion of what exactly? If it were the same p-chains as the standard model then where is the 478 keV gamma ray from the decay of 7Be to 7Li? This peak would be absolutely huge.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 12:47 PM   #2819
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
...snipped 10^39 quotes...
Everyone (except you is seems ) knows that
  • the electromagnetic force is conventionally considered to be 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force.
  • the electromagnetic force cancels over large scales because it depends on positive and negative charges and on large enough scales the universe is neutral.
  • the gravitational force never cancels out because it depends on mass which is only positive.
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Another outdated link.,
There are no missing neutrinos from the Sun. All 3 types of neutrinos have been detected from the Sun.

Neutrino oscillations are an experimental fact.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the right amount of neutrinos actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours) Fusion in the Sun's core seems unnecessary.


You are wrong:
  • The problem is that there are not enough gamma rays of specific energies emitted from the Sun to explain the energy output from fusion at the surface.
  • There are different flavors of neutrinos. This is not a fudge. They have been detected.
  • Neutrino oscillations are an experimental fact.
  • Fusion at the Sun's core is a physical necessary given the lack of the required amount and type of gamma rays and the lack of the conditions on the Sun's surface to produces the required amount of energy.
FYI, Haig:
Fusion of hydrogen produces positions. Plasma contains electrons. A positrons and electron annihilate to create 2 gamma rays that have an energy of 0.51 MeV. It is these gamma rays that are missing.

Another point in the p-p fusion chain produces gamma rays with a peak energy of 5.49 MeV. They are also missing.

The CNO cycle is unlikely to be going on in the Sun (it is not massive enough to produce the required temperature). It aso produces specific gamma rays at 1.95, 7.54 and 7.35 MeV. Also missing.

ETA
Haig: I take it that you think that the Sun is about the size of Earth?
Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth!
This is quite simple physics.
Stars are the size that they are because there is a balance between the force of gravity and the pressure of the stellar plasma. Reduce the pressure and the star gets smaller. In order for the Sun to be the size that it is measured to be, it needs internal temperatures that are greater than the surface. If it is externally heated this is impossible.
Thus the Sun must be internally heated.

Think about a star that is only externally heated so that it has the temperature of its surface (e.g. ~5700 K for the Sun). Gravity pulls everything together until there is no plasma. The star becomes a white dwarf star which is about the size of the Earth.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st February 2011 at 01:05 PM.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 01:42 PM   #2820
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I have lost track of the number of times I have seen the points that we see in the above post made in these threads. It seems to be beyond hope that these EU crackpots will ever pay attention. Do they understand? Do they want to understand? Do they try to understand? Are they able to understand? It does not seem to matter since they will cling to their crackpot notions like true believers in some religious cult. Facts have no effect. Science has no effect. Physics has no effect. Mathematics has no effect. Logic has no effect. These threads just go on and on like some endless Abbott and Costello comedy routine.

Ace tale, chap.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 02:12 PM   #2821
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Ace tale, chap.
You mean "Ace facts supported by evidence, chap".
Look at the evidence provided by Haig and his decision or inability to understand the science that has been presented to him.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 02:28 PM   #2822
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
Would I be counted as an "EU crackpot" in this instance then?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 02:50 PM   #2823
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Would I be counted as an "EU crackpot" in this instance then?
No.
For a start, I have seen no sign that you are guillible enough to believe in the EU crackpottery.

I am sure that you are not so ignorant to think that gravitational and electromagnetic forces are stringer than gravitation forces by factor of 10^39 in one situation means that EM forces are always stronger.

I am fairly sure that you can understand the implications of the Debye length, i.e. EM forces cancel out from plasma on tiny scales compared to astronomical scales.

I hope that you can understand that the Sun needs internal heating to be the size that it is.

The worst that I could say is that you appear to be a "plasma cosmology crackpot" - given your belief that it is right even though it is not really defined and certainly is not a scientific theory. But that is a subject for another thread.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 08:37 PM   #2824
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 975
Lightbulb Electric Sun & Nuclear Fusion IV

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens
Quote:
If the Sun and stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*
* My bold
The answer is no.

See my earlier post No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009, 2 years ago today). ...
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Thanks for the link to your 2009 discussion with MM and this paper:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf
Quote:
III. CONCLUSIONS
The above findings [7-21] suggest that Bethe's solar CNO cycle [2] has made 13N, 13C, 15O and 15N at the surface of the Sun over geologic time [7-11] and now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares [21]. Temporal changes in sunspot activity likely explain variations in the solar 15N/14N ratio. If light elements like H, C, N and O had not moved selectively to the solar surface [12, 13, 17, 19], H-fusion via the CNO cycle [2] might have occurred deep in the Sun. We look forward to other explanations for these findings [7-21].
So you accept that Fusion can take place on the surface of the Sun and (my bold) ...... "now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares"?
No, I don't accept any such thing. As I said before, the gamma rays known to come from the Sun, and the only gamma rays that paper talks about, are already known to come from neutron capture reactions and electron - positron annihilation. Despite the use of the phrase "the above findings suggest ...", the above findings do not suggest any such thing. CNO reactions involve the fusion of protons onto C, N & O nuclei, so the observations mentioned in the paper are irrelevant to CNO cycle physics. Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. So the actual state of observational evidence not only does not suggest what the paper says it suggests, but quite the contrary, suggests that CNO fusion does not happen anywhere near the atmosphere of the Sun. There is no evidence I have ever seen to suggest that fusion takes place anywhere near the atmosphere of the Sun. And note that "neutron capture" and "fusion" are used exclusively by scientists; i.e., neutron capture is never considered to be "fusion", while proton capture is considered fusion (because the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a proton, whereas no atom has a neutron for a nucleus).

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
As I posted to Ziggurat above "the distinction between gamma rays and X-rays, at their transition zone is somewhat arbitrary, since a 100 keV gamma is the same as a 100 keV X-ray.
True enough, but also quite irrelevant. What does this have to do with the discussion? Are we going to go crazy over word definitions again? What's a "gamma ray"? What's an "X-ray"? What's "fusion"? Let's spend several pages in the new favorite hobby around here and argue about semantics and skip the part where we deal with "science".

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
The distinction is related to the origin.
No it is not. The distinction is due to energy and energy alone. Any energy below 100 kev is an X-ray. In the energy range 100-200 kev there is some ambiguity in whether or not to say "X-ray" or "gamma ray". For energies above 200 kev you will rarely if ever see the word "X-ray" used, and certainly anything above 1 meV is a gamma ray. Since nuclear process are generally more energetic than atomic electron processes it comes as no surprise that higher energy gamma rays are usually associated with more energetic nuclear processes, whereas less energetic X-rays are usually associated with less energetic atomic electron processes. Free electrons in the presence of strong accelerating fields (such as the magnetic field of a neutron star) can and do emit gamma rays.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Brehmstrahlung (braking radiation) originates from free electrons accelerating in a nuclear electric field.
Small correction: Brehmsstrahlung originates from free electrons decelerating in any medium. Brehmsstrahlung X-rays commonly come from electrons slowing as they pass through a solid medium and are common in medical and industrial X-ray technologies. Relativistic electrons will generate gamma ray Brehmsstrahlung in Earth's atmosphere (e.g., Tsuchiya, et al., 2011) as well as in solar flares (e.g., Isihikawa, et al., 2011).

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Synchrotron radiation is probably distinguished from gamma radiation since it is usually originating from an accelerated proton or light nucleus."
"Synchrotron" refers to the mechanism that generates the radiation, whereas "gamma ray" refers only to the energy. So it is incorrect to say that synchrotron is distinguished from gamma radiation, since the synchrotron mechanism can certainly generate gamma rays if the environment is sufficiently energetic.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
So it seems, to me, that if Fusion can take place at the much cooler Sun's surface then it could more easily take place in the 2 million K Corona!
But fusion cannot and does not happen in the solar photosphere. And don't let the coronal temperature fool you. The density of the corona is so low that one could hardly expect fusion to happen even if the temperature were high enough, which it might be in some locations where the temperature is extremely high compared to the average 1 or 2 million Kelvins (a minimum of 10 million Kelvins is required for proton-proton fusion). But the temperature in the corona is such that even if it were 100 million one would still not get fusion. This is because temperature in a stellar corona is a vector quantity (meaning that it has a preferred direction), which is not the case in any ordinary application.

Fusion requires a collision between nuclei that delivers energy to the collision that is represented by the temperature. But the million Kelvin particles in the corona are all moving in the same direction, radially outward from the Sun. Their temperature in that direction is on average a few million Kelvins. But their temperature in the direction perpendicular to that is on average zero Kelvins. Since all of the particles are moving in the same direction, their energies (or temperatures) relative to each other will be very low, maybe a few thousand Kelvins or less, but never the millions of Kelvins needed for fusion.

And finally, note that the corona is dominated by electrons and protons, whereas heavier nuclei are extremely rare by comparison. So it is highly improbable that any two nuclei would meet in the corona. But even if they do, it is again highly improbable that they would have a mutual energy high enough to fuse.

But the real bottom line is that we know (we don't "guess" and don't "think", we know) that fusion does not happen in the atmosphere of the Sun. This is because we know that fusion reactions will generate gamma rays with extremely predictable energies and we know by virtue of direct observation that those gamma rays are not emitted by the Sun.

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
And I answered you HERE
That was your infamous post #1168, which is literally riddled with serious mistakes. I responded to that post several times:
  1. Electric Sun and Solar Neutrinos II
  2. Why Sunspots Are Cool II
  3. Electric Sun and Coronal Heating II
  4. Electric Sun and the Solar Wind I

But here is yet another mistake in that post that I never got around too before.
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Bearing in mind that the energy, claimed to flow from magnetic reconnection theory, stops when the electricity stops or that
fusion reaction requires massively more energy IN than comes OUT. So, for the record, how do you explain this: ...
My answers to "how do you explain this" are found in the posts I linked to above. Meanwhile, reconsider this:
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
... fusion reaction requires massively more energy IN than comes OUT ...
That is a massively false statement. It has been well known in nuclear physics, for about 100 years, that fusion reactions in fact generate far more energy out than one puts in, exactly the opposite of your claim. The experimental proof of this theory is called a hydrogen bomb. One need only look at the explosion to quickly surmise that the output energy is considerably in excess of the input energy.

The energy imbalance that you are referring to has nothing to do with physics and everything to do with engineering technology. Gravity works very well to contain the stellar fusion reaction in a limited volume, that of the star. However, to technologically recreate this process and initiate sustained fusion reactions in a contained environment here on Earth, we cannot use nature's gravity trick. We have to use magnetic fields to bottle up the hot plasma and the energy to sustain the magnetic fields is not "free" (as is the gravitational energy of the stellar mass). So the race is on in high-end technology to do that. So far as I know (and I am not highly informed and up to date on this technology so corrections are welcome) we have yet to produce "break even", where the total energy in is less than the total energy out.

This technological restriction is not at all relevant to the processes of nuclear fusion in any stellar environment. Starting with the fusion of protons, the smallest nuclei, the output energy is always greater than the input energy, with an ever decreasing margin, up to the nuclei of iron. Beyond that, the build up by fusion of heavier element nuclei requires more input energy than output energy. All of this is handled in great detail in the relevant science (see, for instance, the book Nuclear Physics of Stars by Christian Iliadis, Wiley-VCH, 2007, or perhaps the famous paper Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler & Hoyle, 1957).

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
However, I'm not convinced by your arguments ...
OK, why not? What knowledge of your own leads you to conclude that thunderbolts / EU & etc. must be right, and all of mainstream science must be wrong? After all, you copy & paste reams of material from theses websites, all of which is shown to be wrong (and sometimes wrong in surprisingly obvious and simple ways). Despite so much of what you post being simply falsified, why do you maintain confidence in an obviously unreliable source?

I don't accept Scot's arguments, or Thornhill's, or others, because I know better, and not because all I can do is trust somebody's websites. I know better from my own training and experience. What training and/or experience do you have to guide you?
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 11:09 PM   #2825
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,847
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
But fusion cannot and does not happen in the solar photosphere. And don't let the coronal temperature fool you. The density of the corona is so low that one could hardly expect fusion to happen even if the temperature were high enough, which it might be in some locations where the temperature is extremely high compared to the average 1 or 2 million Kelvins (a minimum of 10 million Kelvins is required for proton-proton fusion). But the temperature in the corona is such that even if it were 100 million one would still not get fusion.
Let's look at some numbers on the density question. The Sun's core has a density of 150 grams/cm^3. At that density, if you heat it to 15MK, you get fusion amounting to about 300W/m^3. (Not much, eh? If your fusion power plant did that little, you'd scrap it. If your digestive tract did that little, you'd freeze to death. But the Sun has a large volume.)

Two-body reaction rates vary as the density squared. The density of the photosphere is 0.0000002 grams/cm^3. At 15MK (which isn't the case), due to the low density, photospheric fusion would generate 0.0000000000000005 W/m^3. (5x10^-16W).

The corona is another factor of 10^12 less dense, so another factor of 10^24 lower fusion power density. If the corona were at a best-case uniform, isotropic 15MK (it's not) you would get 5x10^-40 watts per meter^3 of fusion there.

I invite you to multiply 5x10^-40 by the volume of the corona, or multiply 5x10^-16 by the volume of the photosphere, and tell us whether you think that fusion in these regions can add up to 3x10^26 watts total.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 02:43 AM   #2826
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
No it is not. The distinction is due to energy and energy alone.
Excellent post in general Tim, but I object to this part. In nuclear physics (at least as far as I'm aware) a photon from a nuclear transition is generally referred to as a gamma ray. Photons from transitions of electrons to the inner shells are usually referred to as X-rays. There are many many known nuclear transitions with lower energy than the K lines in lead (for example) , these are generally referred to as (low-energy) gamma rays while the lead lines are X rays. One exception to this might be that 511 keV photon from electron/positron annihilation which I see regularly referred to as a gamma ray. I try to call it annihilation radiation since it is, by the above definitions, neither an X or a gamma ray but I often call it a gamma.
I'm not an expert on high-energy astronomy but I do have a little experience from which I would suggest your distinction may be more appropriate since I think 'you' are often dealing with high energy continuum sychrotron radiation where no physical distinction exists.

Quote:
Any energy below 100 kev is an X-ray. In the energy range 100-200 kev there is some ambiguity in whether or not to say "X-ray" or "gamma ray". For energies above 200 kev you will rarely if ever see the word "X-ray" used, and certainly anything above 1 meV is a gamma ray.
I presume you mean "1 MeV". Lead X-rays go up to around 85 keV. Lead is pretty heavy and so has pretty high energy transitions to the K and L shells. Most nuclear transitions have an energy greater than 100 keV. Hence the astronomical distinction can be thought of as an approximation to the nuclear/atomic distinction for a continuum.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 07:31 AM   #2827
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
No, I don't accept any such thing. As I said before, the gamma rays known to come from the Sun, and the only gamma rays that paper talks about, are already known to come from neutron capture reactions and electron - positron annihilation. Despite the use of the phrase "the above findings suggest ...", the above findings do not suggest any such thing. CNO reactions involve the fusion of protons onto C, N & O nuclei, so the observations mentioned in the paper are irrelevant to CNO cycle physics. Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all.
In terms of your criticism of my paper for a lack of appropriate citations, you may (probably do) have a point. In terms of actual physics however, you're dead wrong Tim.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00108.004.html

Take a look at figure 5a and tell me which part of the CNO spectrum is not represented in the spectrum and how exactly did you explain those bumps labeled C, N and O?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:18 AM   #2828
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In terms of your criticism of my paper for a lack of appropriate citations, you may (probably do) have a point. In terms of actual physics however, you're dead wrong Tim.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00108.004.html

Take a look at figure 5a and tell me which part of the CNO spectrum is not represented in the spectrum and how exactly did you explain those bumps labeled C, N and O?
In case Tim does not bother replying (the error is fairy basic and MM has a track record of not being able to understand things):
No part of the "CNO spectrum" (the emission from the CNO cycle) is in that figure. It is a spectrum with labels of C= Carbon, N = Nitrogen, O = Oxygen, Fe = Iron, Mg = Magnesium, Si = Silicon, Ne = Neon and n (= neutron?).
I think that labels refer to the peaks of the gamma radiation from the capture of a neutron by C, N, O, Fe, Mg, S and Ne. Some overlap (thus Ne+O).

I hope that you are not ignorant enough to think that a figure with C and N and O in it means that it is about CNO . In which case what about CN or CO or NO?

The figure is in fact evidence against the CNO cycle since there are no peaks for the gamma rays emitted by the cycle, e.g. look for 7.54 MeV gamma radiation.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th February 2011 at 08:28 AM.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:54 AM   #2829
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,632
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is a spectrum with labels of C= Carbon, N = Nitrogen, O = Oxygen, Fe = Iron, Mg = Magnesium, Si = Silicon, Ne = Neon and n (= neutron?).
Actually, there's no "N = Nitrogen" on that plot or in the corresponding text. Neon shows up twice (I always thought that Neon was a bit full of itself).
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 09:06 AM   #2830
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Actually, there's no "N = Nitrogen" on that plot or in the corresponding text. Neon shows up twice (I always thought that Neon was a bit full of itself).
Whoops - an even more basic error by MM (and me!).
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 10:17 AM   #2831
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Whoops - an even more basic error by MM (and me!).
Actually I think the n represents n_capture 2.2Mev, so Das technically missed it too.

Quote:
Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all.
Emphasis mine. FYI RC, Tim said that those wavelengths were not present "at all". They are however clearly present in the spectrum. It's pretty obvious that there is in fact a peak in C, but we're at the limit of that equipment at the high end of the scale, so the peaks in the 7+mev range may not be as obvious, assuming those wavelengths are not selectively captured again in the first place. The point is that the *ENTIRE* CNO spectrum is observed. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 25th February 2011 at 10:19 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 10:39 AM   #2832
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 975
Lightbulb Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. V

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Take a look at figure 5a and tell me which part of the CNO spectrum is not represented in the spectrum and how exactly did you explain those bumps labeled C, N and O?
As already noted, there is no bump labeled "N". But there is a bump labeled "n", and it is explained in the text as neutrons. The bumps labeled "C" and "O" are due to the relaxation of the nuclei from an excited state to the ground state and have nothing at all to do with fusion. The same is true for the lines labeled "Ne+O" and "Mg+Ne+Si" and "Fe".

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In terms of actual physics however, you're dead wrong Tim.
No. In terms of actual physics, you are dead wrong, as usual. Your paper was dead wrong then and you are dead wrong now.

I have addressed these issues numerous times in the past.
  1. No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009)
  2. CNO Redux (24 Feb 2009)
  3. Neutron Capture Gamma Rays (6 April 2010)
  4. Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. (8 April 2010)
  5. Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. II (13 May 2010)
  6. Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. III (14 May 2010)
  7. Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. IV (16 May 2010)

There is no observational evidence for CNO fusion, or any other fusion process, occurring anywhere near the "surface" of the sun (save the possibility of non-standard re-defining of the word "fusion" to include neutron capture). Your paper presented no such evidence, despite its title, and you have never presented any such evidence since then. In terms of actual physics there can be no doubt that you are dead wrong, as is usually the case.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The point is that the *ENTIRE* CNO spectrum is observed. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
What is this supposed to mean? Certainly the range of energies of interest is observed, but that is of course not the point at all. Those observations contain zero observational evidence that the CNO fusion process is in play, and that is the real point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI RC, Tim said that those wavelengths were not present "at all". They are however clearly present in the spectrum.
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
... Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. ... But the real bottom line is that we know (we don't "guess" and don't "think", we know) that fusion does not happen in the atmosphere of the Sun. This is because we know that fusion reactions will generate gamma rays with extremely predictable energies and we know by virtue of direct observation that those gamma rays are not emitted by the Sun.
That's what I said and nothing in the figure 5a you refer to motivates me to change my mind. There is nothing in that plot that is the slightest bit suggestive even of the possibility of CNO fusion anywhere near the "surface" of the Sun.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 10:53 AM   #2833
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Emphasis mine. FYI RC, Tim said that those wavelengths were not present "at all".
Quote:
Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all.
(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Emphasis
They are however clearly present in the spectrum.
You are wrong: The gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are clearly missing from that figure.
  • No peak at 1.95 MeV
  • No peak at 7.35 MeV
  • No peak at 7.54 MeV
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's pretty obvious that there is in fact a peak in C
And that peak is the gamma rays emitted by the neutron capture by C.

It is nothing to do with the CNO cycle where C captures a proton and emits a 1.95 MeV or 7.54 MeV gamma ray.

The point is that the *ENTIRE* CNO spectrum (gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions) is not observed from the Sun. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
To suggest that that figure which
  1. has no peaks corresponding to the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions
  2. and does not even have an N (nitrogen) label
is absurd.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:04 AM   #2834
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The bumps labeled "C" and "O" are due to the relaxation of the nuclei from an excited state to the ground state and have nothing at all to do with fusion.
How did you decide that Tim?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:06 AM   #2835
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
What is this supposed to mean? Certainly the range of energies of interest is observed, but that is of course not the point at all.
Yes, Tim, that is the point. You claimed they weren't there "at all".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:25 AM   #2836
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yes, Tim, that is the point. You claimed they weren't there "at all".
No he did not: He claimed that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all.

There are no gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions in that figure. The peaks that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are missing from that figure.

You have misinterpreted (to be charitable) "gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all" to mean "gamma rays are in fact not seen in the Sun at all". You are wrong. It is the specific gamma rays that are emitted by the CNO cycle that are missing from the figure. It is the specific gamma rays that are emitted by the CNO cycle that are have not been measured.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:26 AM   #2837
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
(emphasis mine)


You are wrong: The gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are clearly missing from that figure.
There's nothing "missing" from the spectrum RC, it's all there. There are even bumps in C and O that are quite obvious in the data. The 7+ MEV ranges are simply at the end of the scale so its not as easy to discern the "bump", but that wavelength is definitely present in the spectrum! Nothing is "missing".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:27 AM   #2838
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No he did not: He claimed that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all.
And that is clearly wrong since all those wavelengths are present in the data.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:35 AM   #2839
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,175
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How did you decide that Tim?
That is an interesting question with a easy answer. We know that it can be ruled out as part of the CNO cycle because carbon captures protons and produces gamma rays at energies of 1.95 and 7.54 MeV. The label is at ~4.8 MeV and so cannot be labeling any gamma radiation from the CNO cycle .
That is obvously how Tim decided this.

That leaves the question of what is the labal labeling? My guess is C + n. I suspect that there is a nuclear physics book that lists the energy of gamma radiation from C + n. But my Google skills have not produced it.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 11:41 AM   #2840
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
And that is clearly wrong since all those wavelengths are present in the data.
I really cannot comprehend what you are talking about. There is a spectrum that spans the range 300 keV to 8 MeV. This includes 0 N peaks. There is one peak marked C just under 5 MeV. The strongest transition following thermal neutron capture on 12C is 4.945 MeV. There is no peak at 1.95 MeV, no peak at 7.35 MeV and no peak at 7.54 MeV. Therefore the spectrum does not show any evidence for the CNO cycle.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.