APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Beyond » Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:37 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:This thread has really gotten tense
Past, present or future?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by BMAONE23 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:05 pm

This thread has really gotten tense

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Nitpicker » Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:41 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:Since we're declaring personal beliefs ... (made moderators nervous, I bet) ... I believe that the evidence for a major protoplanetary collision as a cause for our Moon's existence is compelling; therefore I'm compelled to believe that this collision did occur.

Real question: since the energy released during this collision would have been enormous, and since the proto-Earth prior to the instant of the collision would have already been quite hot from prior impacts and the much higher radioactivity back then, wouldn't the Moon forming collision have melted the entire crust of proto-Earth?

Bruce
Personal beliefs are fine here, so long as they don't deviate too far from the mainstream scientific consensus, and are allowed to yield to new evidence.

To answer your real question, one would have to know what the proto-Earth was like before the collision, how much kinetic energy was converted into heat energy, and how that heat energy was transferred through what remained of the proto-Earth (after it molted shed some of its mass to help form the Moon). An enormous amount of energy is not guaranteed to be enormous enough.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by BDanielMayfield » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:23 am

Nitpicker wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Not sure. I believe the Earth molted whilst partially molten, after Theia struck to form the Moon. This was a few hundred million years before the LHB. Of course, this theory might be sunk one day. (Re: "future pluriciple", mind your language please Chris! :ssmile: )
Since we're declaring personal beliefs ... (made moderators nervous, I bet) ... I believe that the evidence for a major protoplanetary collision as a cause for our Moon's existence is compelling; therefore I'm compelled to believe that this collision did occur.

Real question: since the energy released during this collision would have been enormous, and since the proto-Earth prior to the instant of the collision would have already been quite hot from prior impacts and the much higher radioactivity back then, wouldn't the Moon forming collision have melted the entire crust of proto-Earth?

Bruce

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Nitpicker » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:57 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Not sure. I believe the Earth molted whilst partially molten, after Theia struck to form the Moon. This was a few hundred million years before the LHB. Of course, this theory might be sunk one day. (Re: "future pluriciple", mind your language please Chris! :ssmile: )

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:24 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Beyond » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:08 pm

OUCH! This 'sharper' thread has turned into a 'cutting edge' use of inglash. 8-)

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by DavidLeodis » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:07 pm

I feel the need for some molt liquor :P (or at least a glass of :b:). :wink:

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by BDanielMayfield » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:40 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.
What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt? :lol2:

A fuzzy logic spell checker strikes again.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:28 pm

ta152h0 wrote:or as my former English teacher would have said " sunken ".......
No, that's the future pluriciple. She should have said "sanken".

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by ta152h0 » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:22 pm

or as my former English teacher would have said " sunken ".......

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:43 pm

owlice wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.
sank! Sunk is the past participle!
Yes, Ms Grammar Nazi. Of course, in my quest to simplify and normalize English, what I really intended was "sinked".

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by owlice » Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:49 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.
sank! Sunk is the past participle!

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:28 pm

ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by ta152h0 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:46 pm

and where did the gold come from ?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Locutus » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:19 am

Chris Peterson wrote:Iron does not inhibit energy production in a star that is driven by H->He fusion processes. The iron in the Sun is a trace element present from its formation, and has no significant effect on its behavior.

Late in the life of a star, iron is produced by fusion processes. Since iron cannot be fused into heavier elements without using more energy than the reaction creates, it represents a dead end for a star to create energy by gravitationally driven fusion. But this is not happening in the Sun.

Because ionized iron has a different mass than ionized helium, it will follow a different path in a magnetic field. That's a separation process that is useful for visualization, but that's all. The Sun would be doing the exact same thing if no iron were present.
Thanks for this answer! I was just about to ask where the Sun's iron came from. I guess it's the same molecular cloud where all Earth's iron came from.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by ta152h0 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:38 am

as far as Noise Adaptive Fuzzy Equalization (NAFE) goes, the scientists really, really are funny people, accidental comedians if you will !

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Nitpicker » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:44 am

Sacriola wrote:Hi everyone, I am new on this and I just would like to ask you something.
I received a picture from a friend today that were took on the beach were I could see a small circle with a red light around it.
Could it have anything related with this episode? How can I upload the picture?
No, it was almost certainly a camera artefact, like a lens flare.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Sacriola » Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:39 am

Hi everyone, I am new on this and I just would like to ask you something.
I received a picture from a friend today that were took on the beach were I could see a small circle with a red light around it.
Could it have anything related with this episode? How can I upload the picture?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by DavidLeodis » Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:35 pm

I like the Noise Adaptive Fuzzy Equalization (NAFE) name for that image processing method. :P

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:03 am

DavidGovett wrote:"I noticed this APOD said the CME was mostly Iron and Helium."
As I recall about the curve of binding energy, iron is a star-killer.
What gives?
See my comment above.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by DavidGovett » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:23 am

"I noticed this APOD said the CME was mostly Iron and Helium."
As I recall about the curve of binding energy, iron is a star-killer.
What gives?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by Nitpicker » Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:24 am

tetrodehead wrote:Just for interest, why is the Angstrom used rather than the S.I. unit nM ?
It is the angstrom (or even the ångström), but not the Angstrom. I would guess it is used for style reasons (it gives one a sense of continuity with the past, without entirely thumbing one's nose at SI units) and to avoid decimal places.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by tetrodehead » Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:17 am

Just for interest, why is the Angstrom used rather than the S.I. unit nM ?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)

by ta152h0 » Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:16 pm

I really like this image. Very pleasing to the eye.......my eye for sure. Pass the ice cold one while I look at this for a while.

Top