Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 Notices IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar. Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer. If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email. NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

 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

 18th February 2011, 07:35 AM #2801 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig 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 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:Map everything. Map everything visible. Subtract the 2 maps What you get is a map of the invisible stuff. Or a bit more complex - look at my signature! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 08:11 AM #2802 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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:Map everything. Map everything visible. Subtract the 2 maps 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
 18th February 2011, 10:10 AM #2804 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig 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 http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 10:17 AM #2805 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens My bold 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 04:05 PM #2807 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 30,709 Originally Posted by Haig Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens 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
 18th February 2011, 04:29 PM #2808 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth.
 18th February 2011, 04:31 PM #2809 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 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.
 18th February 2011, 10:07 PM #2810 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Electric Sun & Nuclear Fusion III Originally Posted by Haig 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
 20th February 2011, 12:52 PM #2812 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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.
 20th February 2011, 01:09 PM #2813 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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
 20th February 2011, 03:55 PM #2814 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 30,709 Originally Posted by Haig 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.
 20th February 2011, 05:00 PM #2815 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,220 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
 20th February 2011, 06:35 PM #2816 W.D.Clinger Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,875 Did Peratt actually write that nonsense? Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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 Here's a better quote then, from Peratt: And yes, it's at Peratt's site. Originally Posted by Haig 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?
 21st February 2011, 05:26 AM #2817 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Haig 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?
 21st February 2011, 05:37 AM #2818 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Haig 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.
 21st February 2011, 12:47 PM #2819 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig ...snipped 10^39 quotes... Everyone (except you is seems ) knows thatthe 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 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 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 21st February 2011 at 01:05 PM.
 21st February 2011, 01:42 PM #2820 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student 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.
 21st February 2011, 02:12 PM #2821 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2011, 02:28 PM #2822 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Would I be counted as an "EU crackpot" in this instance then?
 21st February 2011, 02:50 PM #2823 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 23rd February 2011, 11:09 PM #2825 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,018 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 24th February 2011, 02:43 AM #2826 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 25th February 2011, 07:31 AM #2827 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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?
 25th February 2011, 08:18 AM #2828 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 25th February 2011 at 08:28 AM.
 25th February 2011, 08:54 AM #2829 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 4,995 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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
 25th February 2011, 09:06 AM #2830 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by dasmiller 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!). __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 10:17 AM #2831 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 25th February 2011, 10:53 AM #2833 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 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 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 whichhas no peaks corresponding to the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions and does not even have an N (nitrogen) label is absurd. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:04 AM #2834 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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?
 25th February 2011, 11:06 AM #2835 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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".
 25th February 2011, 11:25 AM #2836 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:26 AM #2837 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check (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".
 25th February 2011, 11:27 AM #2838 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 25th February 2011, 11:35 AM #2839 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:41 AM #2840 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit