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

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18599
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

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

Post 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.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

tesla
Ensign
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:19 am

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

Post 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

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21592
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

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

Post 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.

celestemekent
Asternaut
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:06 pm

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

Post 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.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18599
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

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

Post 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.
Last edited by Chris Peterson on Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
owlice
Guardian of the Codes
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Washington, DC

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

Post 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.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Post Reply