Tiny "nanoflares" might heat the Sun's corona

Tiny "Nanoflares" might heat the Sun's corona
Credit: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Why is the Sun's million-degree corona, or outermost atmosphere, so much hotter than the Sun's surface? This question has baffled astronomers for decades. Today, a team led by Paola Testa of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is presenting new clues to the mystery of coronal heating using observations from the recently launched Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS). The team finds that miniature solar flares called "nanoflares" - and the speedy electrons they produce - might partly be the source of that heat, at least in some of the hottest parts of the Sun's corona.

A occurs when a patch of the Sun brightens dramatically at all wavelengths of light. During flares, solar plasma is heated to tens of millions of degrees in a matter of seconds or minutes. Flares also can accelerate electrons (and protons) from the to a large fraction of the speed of light. These high-energy electrons can have a significant impact when they reach Earth, causing spectacular aurorae but also disrupting communications, affecting GPS signals, and damaging power grids.

Those speedy electrons also can be generated by scaled-down versions of flares called nanoflares, which are about a billion times less energetic than regular solar flares. "These nanoflares, as well as the energetic particles possibly associated with them, are difficult to study because we can't observe them directly," says Testa.

Testa and her colleagues have found that IRIS provides a new way to observe the telltale signs of nanoflares by looking at the footpoints of coronal loops. As the name suggests, are loops of hot plasma that extend from the Sun's surface out into the corona and glow brightly in ultraviolet and X-rays.

Tiny "nanoflares" might heat the Sun's corona
This image from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly on board NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory was taken simultaneously with the IRIS observations. It shows emission from hot coronal loops (T > 5 million K) in a solar active region. IRIS observed brightenings occurring at the footpoints of these hot loops. The image is color-coded to show light at a wavelength of 94 Angstroms. The size of each pixel corresponds to about 430 km (270 miles) on the Sun. Credit: NASA/SDO

IRIS does not observe the hottest coronal plasma in these loops, which can reach temperatures of several million degrees. Instead, it detects the ultraviolet emission from the cooler plasma (~18,000 to 180,000 degrees Fahrenheit) at their footpoints. Even if IRIS can't observe the coronal heating events directly, it reveals the traces of those events when they show up as short-lived, small-scale brightenings at the footpoints of the loops.

The team inferred the presence of high-energy electrons using IRIS high-resolution ultraviolet imaging and spectroscopic observations of those footpoint brightenings. Using computer simulations, they modeled the response of the plasma confined in loops to the energy transported by energetic electrons. The simulations revealed that energy likely was deposited by electrons traveling at about 20 percent of the speed of light.

The high spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution of IRIS was crucial to the discovery. IRIS can resolve solar features only 150 miles in size, has a temporal resolution of a few seconds, and has a spectral resolution capable of measuring plasma flows of a few miles per second.

Finding high-energy electrons that aren't associated with large flares suggests that the solar corona is, at least partly, heated by nanoflares. The new observations, combined with computer modeling, also help astronomers to understand how electrons are accelerated to such high speeds and energies - a process that plays a major role in a wide range of astrophysical phenomena from cosmic rays to supernova remnants. These findings also indicate that nanoflares are powerful, natural particle accelerators despite having energies about a billion times lower than large solar flares.

"As usual for science, this work opens up an entirely new set of questions. For example, how frequent are nanoflares? How common are energetic particles in the non-flaring corona? How different are the physical processes at work in these nanoflares compared to larger flares?" says Testa.

The paper reporting this research is part of a special issue of the journal Science focusing on IRIS discoveries.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists, organized into six research divisions, study the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.


Explore further

NASA releases IRIS footage of X-class flare (w/ Video)

More information: Science 17 October 2014: Vol. 346 no. 6207. DOI: 10.1126/science.1255724
Journal information: Science

Citation: Tiny "nanoflares" might heat the Sun's corona (2014, October 16) retrieved 17 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-tiny-nanoflares-sun-corona.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 17, 2014
Why is the Sun's million-degree corona, or outermost atmosphere, so much hotter than the Sun's surface?


Probably because it is an electric discharge phenomena;

http://electric-c...utGD.pdf

Remember, you won't find this in any astrophysics programs, they prefer theoretical mumbo jumbo.

Oct 17, 2014
I was wondering what was taking you so long to show up the your pseudoscience bs.

Oct 17, 2014
I was wondering what was taking you so long to show up the your pseudoscience bs.


The inability to keep a thought or write a legible sentence is a sure sign of senility and dementia.

yep
Oct 17, 2014
Vievet, that's because your a stalker who likes to play reindeer games. You did not even read the paper CD posted, because if you had you probably would not have posted ignorance. Anyone who did go to the link and read your post now just thinks your an imbecile as those pages are pure unadulterated science facts which could be taught in any University in the world.
Again, you come off like Verkle, not contributing anything but negativity for things apparently beyond your comprehension.

Oct 17, 2014
Well excuse me for not believing the Grand Canyon or the craters on the moon were caused by plasma discharge. Plasma physics are real but there are too many claims made that a pure speculation.

Oct 17, 2014
Well excuse me for not believing the Grand Canyon or the craters on the moon were caused by plasma discharge. Plasma physics are real but there are too many claims made that a pure speculation.

Take your meds, you're slurring.

One of those speculations is that the properties of plasma behave across a wide range of scales, which has been observed to at least 10^27. Yep, pure speculation.

Oct 17, 2014
" Yep, pure speculation."

That's what I've been saying all along.


Oct 17, 2014
" Yep, pure speculation."

That's what I've been saying all along.


But you're ok with 96% of the Universe "missing" or dark and mysterious...That's top notch logic.

Oct 17, 2014
cantdrive85 offered
http://electric-cosmos.org/PrimerAboutGD.pdf
The first sentence alone is about qualitative claims, not helpful to scientific tone of the article as a whole. I have a problem with Item 1 re "Static Plasma Discharge" how is this in contrast to "Dynamic Plasma Discharge" ?

In a 'glow discharge tube' you don't need positive ions to move in the opposite direction, an electric current is driven by a power source ie. Battery or generator etc - That is where potential is created - it is only electrons that flow in electrical current - not ions, except by way of recombination but, inside the battery & NOT in the wires, Light comes only (here) from electrons dropping back to the lower energy state not by collision per se or at least not as the dominant process...

cantdrive85
..they prefer theoretical mumbo jumbo.
Maths connects theory & reality, try to get an education re accepted 'mumbo jumbo'...

Oct 17, 2014
it is only electrons that flow in electrical current - not ions,

This is only true with wires, ions and electrons can create currents in plasmas. The characteristics of plasmas are quite different than your claims. The author of that paper was an electric engineering professor at UMASS Amherst for over 30 years, it's safe to say his claims are well founded

Maths connects theory & reality, try to get an education re accepted 'mumbo jumbo'...

Done it, and found it to be just that, mumbo jumbo. Experimentation is far better at connecting theory with reality, you can stick with your maths which are ancillary to the process.

Oct 17, 2014
Why is the Sun's million-degree corona, or outermost atmosphere, so much hotter than the Sun's surface?


Probably because it is an electric discharge phenomena;

http://electric-c...utGD.pdf

Remember, you won't find this in any astrophysics programs, they prefer theoretical mumbo jumbo.

From your link.

"suspects is occurring on and around the Sun."

"Suspects" is a pretty weak argument.

Oct 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 25, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed
Done it, and found it to be just that, mumbo jumbo. Experimentation is far better at connecting theory with reality, you can stick with your maths which are ancillary to the process.
NO.
Maths is ABSOLUTELY essential, without it we are so easily misled by groundless whim(s) & dicks.

Experimentation (& presumably outcomes to achieve understanding) is impotent without a grounding or AT LEAST refs to mathematical relationships.

You can't explore sound "Experimental Methodology" without Maths, it's ESSENTIAL in the fully configured process of Science such that properly crafted experiments are repeatable !

To claim "..maths which are ancillary to the process.." as you state PROVES without a doubt you are an ignorant feeble minded "also_ran" who has negligible chance of any physics progress !

Science gains a grounding in calculus, without it we could NOT have the current state of relatively advanced tech !

Get an education Puh_lease !

Oct 25, 2014
tritace seems to be claiming magnetic fields are important
The braking of neutrinos and other dark matter particles released with Sun could be the culprit here.
Careful, using the word 'AND' here implies neutrinos are a form of dark matter ?

tritace muttered
The dark matter particles (axions and anapoles) should interact massively with magnetic fields.
Since you have suggested neutrinos are dark matter like axions etc then WHY should magnetic fields affect neutrinos ?

Do you ignore experiments/theory that suggests neutrinos NOT affected by magnetic fields ?

Clarify please.

tritace[q[During a sunspot minimum, the corona's temperature near the poles cools about 1 million degrees or so simultaneously in the northern and southern hemispheres. Are you claiming the sun's NH & SH cool the same ?

Really, over which area ?
How far from Poles ?
Over what time period ?

Evidence, studies, you know - the hard stuff to base a speculation upon ?

Oct 25, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed further
This is only true with wires, ions and electrons can create currents in plasmas.
Can or do are two very different things in practice, we are NOT talking an electrolytic cell in this particular example.

Take a bog standard fluorescent light tube - the driving force is electrons driven by a potential ie The applied voltage, ions are involved only be way of their electrons falling back to a lower state giving off UV light which strikes the phosphor compound to emit white. Ions are not involved in current flow and that's in a gas - not wires !

Oct 25, 2014
it is an electric discharge phenomena
@cd
eu is a known pseudoscience belief with no empirical evidence from reputable sources with peer review and an impact in astrophysics, that is why you self reference like this
http://electric-cosmos.org...utGD.pdf
can you say BIG red flag? http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
try sticking to the science and stop posting pseudoscience that has been debunked already
you won't find this in any astrophysics programs
because astrophysics does NOT teach pseudoscience
You did not even read the paper CD posted
@yep
a self referenced paper to a known pseudoscience site? i wouldn't even OPEN it!
why not find a peer-reviewed reference from a reputable journal with an impact in astrophysics?
self reference and posting from known crackpot sites is simply trolling/baiting/pseudoscience

from now on i will just report these type posts as known pseudoscience & trolling

Oct 25, 2014
Experimentation is far better at connecting theory with reality
@cd
then why can't you comprehend the physics of Saturn's storm as shown in the Cassini article where you screwed up with your inability to comprehend diocotron instabilities etc?

IF we can replicate it physically and without the need for "imagination" or tweaking, like your linked pics regarding the storm, then which is likely the more accurate representation?

thats right... the two speed model that is NOT eu!
your eu model was similar, and i will give you credit for that, but the one Q-Star linked was exactly the same, and thus more likely the reason considering the known properties of the agents in question on Saturn, therefore your arguments against it were nothing more than your inability to accept "empirical evidence" OR "experimentation" which actually connected reality, which definitively proves your status as acolyte to a faith rather than scientifically literate

Oct 26, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed further
This is only true with wires, ions and electrons can create currents in plasmas.
Can or do are two very different things in practice, we are NOT talking an electrolytic cell in this particular example.

Take a bog standard fluorescent light tube - the driving force is electrons driven by a potential ie The applied voltage, ions are involved only be way of their electrons falling back to a lower state giving off UV light which strikes the phosphor compound to emit white. Ions are not involved in current flow and that's in a gas - not wires !


And we are NOT necessarily talking about a fluorescent light bulb either, take for example the solar wind and the Earth's magnetospheric currents which consist mostly of ions.

Oct 26, 2014
you won't find this (properties of electric discharge) in any astrophysics programs

because astrophysics does NOT teach pseudoscience

So lightning is pseudoscience, and what is being claimed by scientists inre to Hyperion and Cassini. http://phys.org/n...cle.html

can you say BIG red flag? http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

#7- 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
ROTFLMAO, you've earned many, many points!

@cd
then why can't you comprehend the physics of Saturn's storm as shown in the Cassini article

Because the two fluid model clearly cannot explain several associated "mysteries", such as it's longevity regardless of season or why it may be associated with Saturn's rotation;
http://www.scienc...4827.htm

or why it is associated with Saturn's aurora;
http://www.nasa.g...185.html

yep
Oct 26, 2014
Captain your name is befitting the autocrat you are. While your at it turn yourself in for will full ignorance because all you believe in is the priori of assumption, speculation and mathematical fallacy. Your lack of historical perspective is quite showing in your righteousness.

Oct 27, 2014
So lightning is pseudoscience
@cd
where did i state this? links/proof
and what is being claimed by scientists inre to Hyperion
there is nothing there not explained by physics
your assumptions that "lightning" carved the grand canyon or was great enough to pull a "velikovski" is something different, and you've (as in you & the entire eu) yet to be able to provide evidence of such a massive discharge OR show how it was feasible with regard to our solar system/galaxy, etc
IOW - physics is doing just fine without the eu pseudoscience
#7- 5 points for each word
lets see... from what i have personally caught you doing:
2, 3, 4, 5, 17, 19, 20 (to me), 23 (for eu self references), 24, 30 (i've caught you red handed on this one), 34, 35, 36, 37 (major fails with predictions here)

so that gives you 294 to my 5... yep. i'll take it, even though i explained that i used big letters because you seem to be blind or illiterate

continued next

Oct 27, 2014
Because the two fluid model clearly cannot explain several associated "mysteries", such as it's longevity regardless of season
@cd
as for the longevity, you are barking about things we don't know and thus, your assumption is that the model must be wrong, all the while trying to talk up a model that is obviously wrong and based upon fallacious claims and physics violating assumptions?
all-righty then... you can't even grasp the simple things like the fact that Diocotron instabilities are the plasma analog of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
https://en.wikipe...tability
you even said
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma.
http://phys.org/n...day.html

so now you feel capable of preaching eu to the astrophysicists out there?

yeah, right

eu is proven to be pseudoscience and most of it violates the known laws of physics

Oct 27, 2014
Captain your name is befitting the autocrat you are
@yep
i am not exercising authority over anyone, i am just pointing out that the eu is already known to be pseudoscience and most of it violates the known laws of physics

that is not being an autocrat, that is pointing out stupidity and pseudoscience
the only reason yall don't like it is because you are acolytes for a religion that has no basis in reality, much like the sky faerie worshipers praying to the next passing comet for absolution from sins, or whatever
all you believe in is the priori of assumption, speculation and mathematical fallacy
actually, this perfectly describes you eu idiots

after all, i am willing to be open minded as long as there is proof

as long as there is empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source I am willing to read it and make my own mind up about it (and i don't always agree, either)

but you eu acolytes ignore reality and the laws of physics for your religion


Oct 27, 2014
Captain your name is
To cantdrive, yep, and anyone else who believes in the eu

if you don't like being proven wrong continually, all you have to do is click the "ignore user" button below a post

i will not be using this when there are known pseudoscience posters like you pushing a fallacious argument as well as a known pseudoscience like eu

so whenever you use it, just remember that i will still be showing up around your posts letting everyone else (especially the new people) know that you are posting known pseudoscience and doing what is needed to keep the record straight, especially since the site mods will not delete or ban you pseudoscience acolytes (for whatever reason - be it links, clicks, money or just plain laziness)

most of your eu beliefs are debunked publicly, like here:
http://www.tim-th...sun.html

it is easy to find evidence against pseudoscience, mostly because you never post proof of claims

checkmate

yep
Oct 27, 2014
Checkmate? Big bang is a priori assumption, you lost before the game started the model chosen is incorrect. Black holes, super dense matter, and dark matter is all nonsense and violates the laws of physics more then EU ever could.
Debunked by applying gas laws to a plasma is really not debunking but misapplication of models. This seems to be the theme in modern cosmology.

Oct 27, 2014
Checkmate? Big bang is a priori assumption, you lost before the game started the model chosen is incorrect. Black holes, super dense matter, and dark matter is all nonsense and violates the laws of physics more then EU ever could.
Debunked by applying gas laws to a plasma is really not debunking but misapplication of models. This seems to be the theme in modern cosmology.


Are you just naturally stupid or do you work at it?

yep
Oct 28, 2014
Vietvet, have you ever posted anything with substance? I do not believe I have ever seen much from you but name calling its like your a genetic experiment gone wrong with a parrot and a sheep. Were the other posters correct in diagnosing you with brain damage.

Oct 28, 2014
Vietvet, have you ever posted anything with substance?


More than any of you advocates of eu that aren't capable of or unwilling to understand the proven physics behind the standard model. I do get frustrated playing whack-a-mole with people wedded to pseudoscience such as yourself.

Brain damage? After my stroke I was tested for reading comprehension, it was excellent. Short term memory, better than expected. Long term memory was so good it surprised my doctors because it was better than most people. I couldn't spell to save my life and for months after finding Phys.org I wanted to comment but couldn't. But every day I tried writing and it was totally exhausting.

As long as you spout the bs of EU I'm going to counter it. I've read your and cantthinks links and I can see an appeal to those looking for something exotic, like the followers of astrology and numerology. And that's where EU belongs, with astrology, numerology, ETs, and magic.

Oct 28, 2014
Debunked by applying gas laws to a plasma is really not debunking but misapplication of models. This seems to be the theme in modern cosmology
@yap
please show me where modern cosmologists do not consider any plasma physics when using MHD on known gasses
also, please show me where modern MHD is not applicable to gasses, as it has been proven effective and useful to modern fusion and other studies as well
Vietvet, have you ever posted anything with substance?
this is rich, coming from someone who is posting repeatedly about a debunked eu conjecture that is not even considered a hypothesis... that makes you either a hypocrite or stupid, which is it?

you are saying that i am basing my conjecture on "a priori assumption" but i am using known physics as well as empirically proven studies, not a pseudoscience that is publicly debunked and known to be fallacious

the eu requires the suspension of physical laws to work, which is pseudoscience
THAT is why it is debunked

Oct 29, 2014
please show me where modern cosmologists do not consider any plasma physics when using MHD on known gasses

It's only been a year, but you finally seem to be getting a grasp on the argument. There is a little bit of real plasma physics involved, albeit generalized and often misleading.

"As neither a double layer (DL) nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of plasmas, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of DL's. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf

Being DL's are ubiquitous in plasmas, what does that tell us about the MHD models?
please show me where modern MHD is not applicable to gasses, as it has been proven effective and useful to modern fusion

Except for the fact that after 60+ years of fusion research the MHD models have been a complete failure in the producing any real results, contrary to proponents of theory.

Oct 29, 2014
cantdrive85 muttered whilst attempting to steer the dialectic ;-)
And we are NOT necessarily talking about a fluorescent light bulb either, take for example the solar wind and the Earth's magnetospheric currents which consist mostly of ions.
Solar wind is indeed a transfer of charge, ie Lots of +ve charges seem to be leaving the Sun, does that mean it's a current per se' ?

Thermodynamics of nuclear reactions generating massive push on those poor protons is generating a massive static differential. Maybe when H+ reaches heliopause & depending upon gravitation taking over from kinetic energy we might have a 'nice' discharge but, so far no evidence for that :-(

As to currents from Earth's magnetic field sure, all they seem to do in terms of utility is make a light show Aurora but, do they do any substantive work such as moving the moon, or holding an asteroid in some path - in that respect these currents appear rather impotent at any useful distance :-(

Oct 29, 2014
It's only been a year, but you finally seem to be getting a grasp on the argument. There is a little bit of real plasma physics involved, albeit generalized and often misleading
@cd
no, it is you who have not grasped the argument here
astrophysicists learn plasma physics
they use MHD to model what is needed as it is fully functional and capable of doing whatever is needed
MHD, per plasma physicists that you have references more than once, and that i have e-mailed referencing your denigration of MHD and astrophysicicists in general, includes plasma physics and the authors/scientists/astrophysicists are not ignoring plasma physics, but including it in their study
This has been repeatedly demonstrated to you with links and proven by showing you that colleges teach plasma physics to astrophysicists, etc, but you keep stuffing your head right back up your own backside and ignoring the empirical evidence in front of your nose

IOW - you blatantly lie (still)

Oct 29, 2014
Except for the fact that after 60+ years of fusion research the MHD models have been a complete failure in the producing any real results, contrary to proponents of theory.
@cd
and unfortunately for you, even plasma physicists also use MHD in models...
you can see some of that here: http://www.pppl.gov/
where they demonstrate those things that you don't like to admit are real, and claim don't exist, but we have empirical evidence for them, like this: http://www.pppl.gov/about/learn-more/magnetic-reconnection
which proves that not only do you lack any real understanding of modern physics, but that you play semantics while ignoring reality

change all the words you want and re-name all the things you want, or ignore the analogous terms that you want...

the point is simple: engineers don't know squat about astrophysics
you've been conned and you don't want to admit it

eu is pseudoscience, plain and simple
publicly proven

Oct 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 29, 2014
Solar wind is indeed a transfer of charge, ie Lots of +ve charges seem to be leaving the Sun, does that mean it's a current per se' ?

Well, by definition, yes!
From Wiki;
"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma."
Thermodynamics of nuclear reactions generating massive push

That's the theory, but a large scale electric field can do the same as well as explaining the anomalous acceleration of the solar wind.
do they do any substantive work such as moving the moon, or holding an asteroid in some path

Yeah, they don't do a thing, they're meaningless...
http://www.nasa.g...nY_nF_LM

http://www.ncbi.n...17800456

Alfven engine? Yep, meaningless...

Oct 29, 2014
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/galactic-scale-electric-fields-could-solve-the-dark-matter-mystery-says-physicist-117a6488ba0e, says physicist. The hypothesis of a galactic charge separation between core and periphery is noted as a possible explanation of the apparent anomalous rotation behaviour.


We're coming around, it's only a matter of time...

Oct 30, 2014
astrophysicists learn plasma physics

Alfven Nobel speech
"As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists locked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories."

i.e. Not MHD, not what astrophysicists study, at all.


Oct 30, 2014
con't
"The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that with a limited amount of work this field could be extended to include also ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and when drawing the consequences of them it was found that it should be possible to produce a very hot plasma and confine it magnetically. This was the starting point of thermonuclear research. However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years ago. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments."

Kinetic theory of gases, that's astrophysics of ST. No amount of random plasma links changes that.

Oct 30, 2014
Most theoretical physicists locked down on this field,

edit: locked = looked

Oct 30, 2014
Scary Stalker alert, Vietroll on the prowl.

https://sciencex....5/?v=act

Oct 30, 2014
Scary Stalker alert, Vietroll on the prowl.

https://sciencex....5/?v=act


I consider it a public service to down vote pseudoscience on a science site.

Oct 30, 2014
Alfven Nobel speech
@cd
and please give the date for that speech
then give the reasons
and please show and prove with empirical evidence that nothing has changed in astrophysics in the remaining decades since the speech
IOW - you have continually made this claim but you have never, ever, offered any proof that it is valid or legitimate today, or even in the past 14 years

meanwhile, if you look at astrophysics curriculums from universities: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.pppl.gov/
you can see that you have posted a blatant lie trying to undermine modern astrophysicists while supporting a failed, debunked pseudoscience crackpot theory called "eu"

please feel free to prove your point using empirical data

I've proven to you, time and again, that your denigration of Astro's is based upon your delusional and failed fallacious eu philosophy and has absolutely no basis in reality today

the only stalker alert needed is for eu acolytes trolling with pseudoscience

yep
Oct 31, 2014
How could anything ever change with the delusional old guard in place.
You apparently did not read Tri's link.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3096
Reality and science change as knowledge expands, today's truth is tomorrow's myth, that's where great quotes like science advances one gravestone at a time come from.

Oct 31, 2014
@cd
and please give the date for that speech

1970, but it is a history lesson so it is just as valid today as then.
then give the reasons

Alfven covered that, electric discharge isn't well suited for "mathematically elegant theories", and astrophysics is dominated by mathematicians.
and please show and prove with empirical evidence that nothing has changed in astrophysics in the remaining decades since the speech

Other than the fact that you already were defending the usage MHD models and calling electric discharge theory "pseudoscience", it's remarkably obvious because astrophysicists are still relying on DM and other ad hoc'ed nonsense.

Still posting random websites that in no way "prove" me wrong or support your POV, I've already shown there is no mention of "electric discharge" in those links you keep re-posting. The real irony is you say I'm wrong, then in the next comment claim electric discharge as being pseudoscience. Cap'n Stupid at it again!

Nov 01, 2014
1970, but it is a history lesson so it is just as valid today as then
@cd
no, it is only valid if absolutely nothing changes from that time till now, which we know to be a fallacy
in fact, i've already proven to you that your comment is a fallacy, and therefore your continued posting of this link is nothing but stupidity and religious fervor
Alfven covered that, electric discharge isn't well suited for "mathematically elegant theories", and astrophysics is dominated by mathematicians
this would only be a reason why accuracy is important, this is not a reason why today's astrophysicists do not know plasma physics
calling electric discharge theory "pseudoscience"
no, and again, please show where i say electric discharge is pseudoscience
I call eu pseudoscience
i call you a pseudoscience troll

this is why you cannot prove with any empirical data that today's astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics

Nov 01, 2014
Other than the fact that you already were defending the usage MHD models
@cd
I was also giving you information straight from the mouth of one of your own links whom the author is using MHD along with nuclear fusion and plasma physics

so when you say I was defending, you should note which posts were me and which were the author you linked which i directly contacted... after all, your own linked authors are telling me that MHD is viable and works, that means that you are either very, very stupid or you are tenaciously clinging to a faith that is fallacious & you know it, which makes you both

Nov 01, 2014
Still posting random websites that in no way "prove" me wrong or support your POV, I've already shown there is no mention of "electric discharge" in those links you keep re-posting
and now we see distraction, red herrings and delusion as well as the blatant lie for your own gratification and support
those links proved me correct about astrophysicists learning plasma physics
they also prove you wrong about a multitude of things, starting first and foremost with the arguments against MHD, astrophysicists learning plasma physics and simple other things like your delusional ignorance of blatantly obvious and proven things like magnetic reconnection

your delusional belief that you are somehow vindicated by my posts is only believed by you, not by any reader able to comprehend logical thought or read English above the freshman highschool grade level

should i be dumbing things down for you since you are having so much difficulty?


Nov 01, 2014
The real irony is you say I'm wrong
@cd
actually, the irony is that you claim to believe in empirical evidence and experimentation trumps observation, but you completely ignore evidence, experimentation as well as observation and reality when it suits you and it disagrees with your eu faith, like the known laws of physics

I will ask you once again:
please show and prove with empirical evidence that nothing has changed in astrophysics in the remaining decades since the speech

you have continually made this claim but you have never, ever, offered any proof that it is valid or legitimate today, or even in the past 14 years
I have offered plenty of evidence that you are a blatant liar trying to con the ignorant

proof refuting your claim above:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.pppl.gov/

you have posted a blatant lie trying to undermine modern astrophysicists while supporting a failed, debunked pseudoscience crackpot theory called eu

Nov 01, 2014
last point proving cd is a liar and stupid
The real irony is you say I'm wrong, then in the next comment claim electric discharge as being pseudoscience. Cap'n Stupid at it again!
i said you were wrong
you have posted a blatant lie trying to undermine modern astrophysicists
my next point is
while supporting a failed, debunked pseudoscience crackpot theory called eu
i would say that this empirically proves that the only stupid people around here are the eu acolytes and those who support failed debunked physics like eu and aw/daw

IOW - cantdrive

-feel free to re-read those posts for clarity and try to comprehend where you epically failed to make any point at all other than your ignorance and stupidity while clinging to your faith

also, i am waiting for you to give that empirical data supporting your assertion that modern astrophysicists don't know plasma physics

since you need it...e-mail me and i will find you an interpreter
or a teenager to help you read

Nov 01, 2014
proof refuting your claim above:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.pppl.gov/


A quick search for 'electric discharge' at ocw.mit...

Your search - electric discharge - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "electric discharge".

http://search.mit...btnG.y=0

Oops, why is it not surprising you are lying again.

Nov 01, 2014
Let's check PPPL...

http://www.pppl.g...ischarge

Let's see, absolutely nothing of astrophysical relevance, how surprising.

Your "proof" is actually the opposite of the truth.

Nov 01, 2014
A quick search for 'electric discharge' at ocw.mit
@cd
now show me where there is no plasma physics on that site, as the argument is about astro's not learning plasma physics
IOW - red herring/redirection/distraction argument
you are arguing about something noone said, ohw does this apply to your argument on electric discharge?
Oops, why is it not surprising you are lying again
lets read my post again, shall we?
please show and prove with empirical evidence that nothing has changed in astrophysics in the remaining decades since the speech

you have continually made this claim but you have never, ever, offered any proof that it is valid or legitimate today, or even in the past 14 years
I have offered plenty of evidence that you are a blatant liar trying to con the ignorant

proof refuting your claim above:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.pppl.gov/
Gues you got caught in yet another lie, didn't you

Nov 01, 2014
@cd
no, it is only valid if absolutely nothing changes from that time till now, which we know to be a fallacy


History is history, plain and simple. Even if something had changed since then, it would not change what Alfven said. And no, nothing of significance has changed since Alfven made the claims. Astrophysicists are completely ignorant to electric discharge in gases. If it had, the fools would realize they cannot accept piece meal addenda to theories such as Birkeland's aurora mechanisms without accepting electricity flowing through space. You can't have one without the other, this is a fact!

Nov 01, 2014
@cd
now show me where there is no plasma physics on that site, as the argument is about astro's not learning plasma physics

Dumbass, catch up...

"As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases...
The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases...."

Nov 01, 2014
Even if something had changed since then, it would not change what Alfven said
this does not make it relevant or real today
no, nothing of significance has changed since Alfven made the claims
you have no empirical evidence supportig your conclusions, which is why i keep posting those links
you claim that searching for "electric discharge" is proof of your claims, but since you are not going through all the classes that an astrophysicist is going through, nor are you reading all the linked material required for the completion for the course, then your argument is still invalid
you still have given no empirical evidence that "Astrophysicists are completely ignorant to electric discharge in gases", and i've proven to you that, since they study plasma physics, astro's cannot be ignorant of "electric discharge in gasses"

again, we see where you are attempting to build a grand fallacy but you are offering no proof of argument supporting your conclusions
ctd

Nov 01, 2014
the fools would realize they cannot accept piece meal addenda to theories
again, we see where you are attempting to build a grand fallacy but you are offering no proof of argument supporting your conclusions
why should we trust a proven liar with a history of delusional beliefs?

you again offer an argument with mo empirical evidence and you want us to assume that it is legitimate
but considering your history of blatant lies and belief in a publicly debunked known fallacious pseudoscience, you give no proof

just "trust me"

and you seem to think this is a good argument?
Dumbass, catch up...
I would like to encourage you to do the same
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

maybe if you learn some real physics and astrophysics first, you can then comprehend why your argument is fallacious, and why you are considered a pseudoscience crackpot when you don't give evidence


Nov 01, 2014
Dumbass, catch up...
@cd
last point about how freakin stupid you appear to those willing to look at the evidence:

you argue
Astrophysicists are completely ignorant to electric discharge in gases
but PPPL has astrophysicists in its organization
they even have a specific astrophysics page: http://www.pppl.g...ophysics

and their education program shares info with everyone

and you can even find links to MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center on its site where there is collaborative efforts...

but you claim otherwise...

why?

because you are building your argument upon a lie
and there is no way for you to prove your argument except through deception, denigration and hostility... .as well as self-references and links to other lies spread by similar idiots like yourself

your lie is old, tired and blatantly exposed for what it is: nothing but a sorry lie so that you can continue believing in your fallacious faith based religion called eu


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more