Starship Asterisk*

by **owlice** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:20 pm

celestemekent wrote:In my estimation it is the gravity model supporters who need to do the explanation.

But at this point, your estimation doesn't count for anything; you could be a Labrador retriever, for all I know. You haven't provided any credentials of your own, nor have you provided any peer-reviewed studies. If you want to make your point, make it -- with science. Published studies in scientific journals that are peer-reviewed will do. Thanks.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:51 pm

celestemekent wrote:Well Owlet, if gravity were the dominant force out there any filament as long a 20,000 light years would have collapsed into some sort of nebula or completely dissipated over the millions of years. Just remember that gravity works as the square of the distance and it simply is not strong enough to do anything to those filaments. Whereas the electromagnetic forces will actually sustain such structures. Filamentary structures like these are everywhere and the gravitational model simply cannot explain how they can maintain their forms.

It is well understood that tenuous structures of gas can be formed or sustained by magnetic fields. That doesn't change the fact that stars exist in a balanced state between gravitational collapse and fusion produced outward pressure. Magnetic and electrical properties of the plasma making up stars are responsible for much of the fine scale behavior observed in the Sun and other stars, but has nothing at all to do with their overall functioning.

by **celestemekent** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:05 pm

Well Owlet, if gravity were the dominant force out there any filament as long a 20,000 light years would have collapsed into some sort of nebula or completely dissipated over the millions of years. Just remember that gravity works as the square of the distance and it simply is not strong enough to do anything to those filaments. Whereas the electromagnetic forces will actually sustain such structures. Filamentary structures like these are everywhere and the gravitational model simply cannot explain how they can maintain their forms.

In my estimation it is the gravity model supporters who need to do the explanation.

by **bystander** » Wed May 26, 2010 3:05 am

As fusion only happens at the inner core of the Sun, fusion does not play a part in the temperature gradient above the surface. Your point is moot.

by **tesla** » Wed May 26, 2010 12:55 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
biddie67 wrote:Back when APOD was still linking into DIGG, I unknowingly stirred up an unpleasant discussion between the people that support gravitational fields as a dominant enforcer of our universe's properties and those that prefer the electrical/magnetic fields as the more important enforcer. I don't want to stir this up again but do want to make the observation that it seems that there are equally divergent opinions about fusion and E/M here.
In fact, there are no divergent scientific opinions in this matter. The only people who believe that EM effects dominate large scale structure (or worse, the operation of stars) are crackpots and pseudoscientists. This isn't an area where there is much room for discussion. The EM/plasma theories have been soundly discredited, for many decades now.

Chris,
Not even considering options when observed facts say otherwise is not a scientific study. You have not answered any of my points. Lets us just take one point; Reverse temperature gradient of the Sun. The Fusion Model cannot explain this. (Neither can it explain most of the other points I listed). Let me play the Devils Advocate here. If the EM Model has value, then there would be a lot of egg on faces! (And loos of funding)

Tesla

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed May 26, 2010 12:22 am

biddie67 wrote:Back when APOD was still linking into DIGG, I unknowingly stirred up an unpleasant discussion between the people that support gravitational fields as a dominant enforcer of our universe's properties and those that prefer the electrical/magnetic fields as the more important enforcer. I don't want to stir this up again but do want to make the observation that it seems that there are equally divergent opinions about fusion and E/M here.

In fact, there are no divergent scientific opinions in this matter. The only people who believe that EM effects dominate large scale structure (or worse, the operation of stars) are crackpots and pseudoscientists. This isn't an area where there is much room for discussion. The EM/plasma theories have been soundly discredited, for many decades now.

by **owlice** » Tue May 25, 2010 11:39 pm

tesla,

Thanks for responding.

tesla wrote:Credentials are irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I specifically asked that you "back up your assertions with links to or citations of peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals." Anyone can say he has a theory, but not all theories are equal. This is a mainstream science site, so let's do things the mainstream science way.

You provided a list of bullet points without citations and asserted that these points "call into question current Fusion theory." You haven't demonstrated ... well, anything, actually. Make your case -- with citations, please. That's not even relegated to just science fields, you know; any student of any discipline has to be able to cite his/her sources. Thanks.

Owl

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue May 25, 2010 9:17 pm

biddie67 wrote:How could the temperature be so high and yet so deadly cold?

Temperature is a measurement of the velocity of the particles in a medium. Particles in the thermosphere are very energetic, but they are also very sparse. So you will lose energy to radiation at a far greater rate than you will gain it convectively. In other words, you'll freeze to death in a 2500C medium.

by **biddie67** » Tue May 25, 2010 8:00 pm

Back when APOD was still linking into DIGG, I unknowingly stirred up an unpleasant discussion between the people that support gravitational fields as a dominant enforcer of our universe's properties and those that prefer the electrical/magnetic fields as the more important enforcer. I don't want to stir this up again but do want to make the observation that it seems that there are equally divergent opinions about fusion and E/M here. Please don't get started again just because I make another, quite uneducated non-credentialed comment here but I do find it interesting and wish that I could contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

On another (maybe ....) subject:

by Chris Peterson » Sun May 23, 2010 8:04 pm

You should research what "temperature" actually means. Are you aware that the temperature up where the ISS orbits is several thousand degrees? But you'd freeze to death up there. You need to separate the concepts of "temperature" and "energy density".

How could the temperature be so high and yet so deadly cold? I'm scared to ask but is this something that might be analogous to volts and amperage? How could the temperature be this high? I'm going to do a google search on "energy density" - I've never heard of this before.

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue May 25, 2010 2:07 pm

tesla wrote:Chris; Even permanent magnets have electric currents at the sub atomic level. Ask any physicist.

I am a physicist, and I don't know what you mean by "electric currents at the sub atomic level".

NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THE SUN WORKS.

There are many questions that remain to be answered. But that the fundamental source of energy comes from the fusion of hydrogen to helium is without dispute. This is supported by a large number of different lines of evidence, and is contradicted by none. It is so certain, that simply stating you don't believe it pretty much marks you as a crackpot.

by **tesla** » Tue May 25, 2010 3:39 am

owlice wrote:tesla,

How does the sun really work? Kindly tell us, and please back up your assertions with links to or citations of peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals. That will be much more productive than your usual posting style. Also, I'd be interested to know what your background is, whether you have any credentials in this field or not. (Not that you need to, of course, so long as those you cite do.) I look forward to your answers; thank you in advance.

Owl

Reply!
Hooter Girl; Credentials are irrelevant. This is not an ego trip. Chris; Even permanent magnets have electric currents at the sub atomic level. Ask any physicist.
NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THE SUN WORKS.
The fusion model appeared as a hypothesis in 1939. Quantum tunneling & Magnetic reconnection are but two theories that had to be invented as observations of the Sun did not support the current theory.
Here are some observations that call into question current Fusion theory
* temperature gradient is reversed. 5000k at surface. 2 million+ at corona
* The Umbra is 20% cooler. It also allows us to view the interior of the Sun. Black
* The Sun is a perfect sphere and not an oblate spheroid
* CME's blast particles faster than 400klm/sec. And they are still accelerating past the orbit of Earth
* Jan 2005. Particles from a CME blast reached Earth in 30 minutes. Light takes 8 minutes
* Surface temp. not hot enough to shine in X-Ray light
* SOHO photos in Fex11 light shows electrons being stripped from iron atoms. Surface temp. not hot enough
* Upper layers of Sun rotate faster than the lower layers
* SOHO has film of approaching comets causing CME's
* The Sun's torus
* The observed granular surface is more characteristic of an electric arc
* The Sun behaves more like an anode in a coronal glow discharge. Ask any competent electrical engineer.
Scientific knowledge is gained thru systematic observation & experiment. Look at Birkeland's Terrella experiments.
All I ask is for you to consider that the current model is severely lacking. There are other alternative theories. This is science, exploring the possibilities that there are other answers. If you are not looking at other possibilities, this is dogma.
Tesla

by **owlice** » Mon May 24, 2010 1:29 am

tesla,

How does the sun really work? Kindly tell us, and please back up your assertions with links to or citations of peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals. That will be much more productive than your usual posting style. Also, I'd be interested to know what your background is, whether you have any credentials in this field or not. (Not that you need to, of course, so long as those you cite do.) I look forward to your answers; thank you in advance.

Owl

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon May 24, 2010 1:04 am

tesla wrote:As I mentioned before, if the Sun is fusion, then why is the surface temp about five thousand degrees centigrade yet the chromosphere, which is a long way from thesurface, is around one million degrees centigrade? So, you are saying the sun works like a fridge magnet?

You should research what "temperature" actually means. Are you aware that the temperature up where the ISS orbits is several thousand degrees? But you'd freeze to death up there. You need to separate the concepts of "temperature" and "energy density".

by **tesla** » Mon May 24, 2010 12:39 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
tesla wrote:Plasma cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Magnetic field lines cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Really simple electrical theory. So, how does the Sun really work?
A plasma is nothing more than an ionized gas. It is conductive, but that doesn't mean that there must be currents flowing. As I've pointed out to you before (and which you've ignored), magnetic fields can clearly exist without flowing electric current- or do you imagine there is current flow in the magnet holding your shopping list to the refrigerator?

The Sun works by fusing hydrogen to helium. That is its energy source. The structure we see near the surface of the Sun is an interplay between conductive plasma and the powerful magnetic field of the Sun, which is produced by convective processes.

As I mentioned before, if the Sun is fusion, then why is the surface temp about five thousand degrees centigrade yet the chromosphere, which is a long way from thesurface, is around one million degrees centigrade? So, you are saying the sun works like a fridge magnet?

by **DavidLeodis** » Sun May 23, 2010 6:01 pm

Images of the Sun from such as the SDO and SOHO are awesome.

It will though be a momentous day when the words of the Walker Brothers song come into effect "The sun ain't gonna shine anymore. The moon ain't gonna rise in the sky". No doubt though by then any knowledge of our existence may have long been lost.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun May 23, 2010 2:22 pm

tesla wrote:Plasma cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Magnetic field lines cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Really simple electrical theory. So, how does the Sun really work?

A plasma is nothing more than an ionized gas. It is conductive, but that doesn't mean that there must be currents flowing. As I've pointed out to you before (and which you've ignored), magnetic fields can clearly exist without flowing electric current- or do you imagine there is current flow in the magnet holding your shopping list to the refrigerator?

The Sun works by fusing hydrogen to helium. That is its energy source. The structure we see near the surface of the Sun is an interplay between conductive plasma and the powerful magnetic field of the Sun, which is produced by convective processes.

by **tesla** » Sun May 23, 2010 10:10 am

Plasma cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Magnetic field lines cannot exist without flowing electric currents. Really simple electrical theory. So, how does the Sun really work?

by **Beyond** » Sun May 23, 2010 2:22 am

biddie 67- i just saw the finish to the movie "legally Blond". The star of the movie has given great credence to Blonds

by **biddie67** » Sun May 23, 2010 12:55 am

Mr. Peterson .... Thanks for the clue about the time settings in my profile -- I don't have blonde hair but sometimes my brain seems to behave like I do (( grin ))

P.S. Hey I just noticed that I was graduated to "Science Officer" - Lord help us - science might be going to take a tilt!!!

by **neufer** » Sun May 23, 2010 12:09 am

orin stepanek wrote:
I like starlight; star bright; first star I see tonight!
Only the star Sol shines in the daytime.
Although the star Sol makes it daytime.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_wishing_upon_a_star wrote:

What is the origin of wishing upon a star?
<<The planet Venus is named for the Roman goddess of love and is always the brightest point in the sky. The Romans built temples to Venus, and since it was the first "star" that could be seen in the sky for much of the year, and always the brightest whether seen in the morning or the evening, it was an easy way to remember it as a prayer point. What is the #1 thing that people prayed to Venus for? Love, of course.

The prayer evolved into a wish as people forgot the Goddess of Love and her origins, and the wish expanded into realms well outside the beginning point. Like so many other traditions and habits ingrained in people that have found their way into modern religions, wishing upon a star evolved from an ancient pagan religion.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer wrote:
<<Lucifer is a Latin word (from the words lucem ferre), literally meaning "light-bearer", which in that language is used as a name for the dawn appearance of the planet Venus, heralding daylight. In English, "Lucifer" generally refers to Satan, although the name is not applied to him in the New Testament. The use of the name "Lucifer" in reference to a fallen angel stems from an interpretation of Isaiah 14:3–20, a passage that speaks of a particular Babylonian King, to whom it gives the title of "Day Star", "Morning Star" (in Latin, lucifer), as fallen or destined to fall from the heavens or sky. In 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere, the same Latin word lucifer is used to refer to the Morning Star, with no relation to the devil. However, in post-New Testament times the Latin word Lucifer has often been used as a name for the devil, both in religious writing and in fiction.

Joseph Campbell (1972: pp. 148–149) illustrates an unorthodox Islamic reading of Lucifer's fall from Heaven,
which champions Lucifer's eclipsing love for God:

"One of the most amazing images of love that I know is in Persian – a mystical Persian representation as Satan as the most loyal lover of God. You will have heard the old legend of how, when God created the angels, he commanded them to pay worship to no one but himself; but then, creating man, he commanded them to bow in reverence to this most noble of his works, and Lucifer refused – because, we are told, of his pride. However, according to this Muslim reading of his case, it was rather because he loved and adored God so deeply and intensely that he could not bring himself to bow before anything else, and because he refused to bow down to something inferior to him (since he was made of fire, and man from clay). And it was for that that he was flung into Hell, condemned to exist there forever, apart from his love."
The Sufi teacher Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan taught that 'Luciferian Light' is Light that has become dislocated from the Divine Source and is thus associated with the seductive false light of the lower ego, which lures humankind into self-centered delusion. Here Lucifer represents what the Sufis term the 'Nafs', the ego.>>

by **orin stepanek** » Sat May 22, 2010 9:15 pm

neufer wrote:
biddie67 wrote:That lazy ol' sun - it don't do nuttin' but burn away ....

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
You make me happy when skies are gray
You'll nEVER know dear how much I love you
Please don't take my sunshine away.

I like starlight; star bright; first star I see tonight! Only the star Sol shines in the daytime.

Although the star Sol makes it daytime.

by **Beyond** » Sat May 22, 2010 8:11 pm

WoW! Another one of those Amazing photos. My first thought was - It came from beneath...........

by **neufer** » Sat May 22, 2010 6:37 pm

biddie67 wrote:That lazy ol' sun - it don't do nuttin' but burn away ....

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
You make me happy when skies are gray
You'll nEVER know dear how much I love you
Please don't take my sunshine away.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat May 22, 2010 5:54 pm

nasagary wrote:the prominence on the upper left image seem to be slanted, is this caused by magnectic field or rotation of the sun?

The actual position of prominences is dictated by the magnetic fields they follow. The apparent position is also determined by perspective effects given a single viewpoint. The Sun rotates too slowly in comparison to the lifetime of prominences to have much impact on them.

by **nasagary** » Sat May 22, 2010 5:30 pm

the prominence on the upper left image seem to be slanted, is this caused by magnectic field or rotation of the sun?

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: APOD: Dark Filament of the Sun (2010 May 22)

Re: prominence slant

prominence slant