New insights on solar flares support proposed explanation for particle-acceleration mechanism

December 3, 2015
The speed of fast plasma outflows produced by the flare. The termination shock is shown as a transition layer where the colors change abruptly from red/yellow to blue/green. At bottom is the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array, which captured the termination shock in action using radio observations. Credit: SDO/AIA data is from NASA. VLA image courtesy of NRAO/AUI. Image prepared by Chen, Jibben, and Samra.

For scientists studying the impacts of space weather, one of the central mysteries of solar flares - the colossal release of magnetic energy in the Sun's atmosphere that erupts with the force of millions of hydrogen bombs - is the means by which these explosions produce radiation and accelerate particles to nearly the speed of light within seconds.

A recent set of observations captured by a large radio telescope, the Jansky Very Large Array, has shed light on an elusive structure known as a termination shock that is believed to play a key role in converting released magnetic energy from flares into kinetic energy in accelerated particles.

In an article published in Science magazine this week, "Particle acceleration by a solar flare termination shock," solar scientists imaged the shock and its time evolution during a long-lasting solar flare and demonstrated its role in accelerating particles.

"Although predicted by theoretical models, this is the first time we have had direct images and movies showing the repeated formation, disruption, and reformation of a termination shock, enabling us to link it directly to particle acceleration," said Dale Gary, distinguished professor of physics at NJIT and one of the authors of the article.

The powerful shocks occur when high-speed jets expelled from the explosive energy-release site of a solar flare collide with stationary plasma below. One surprising result is that, occasionally, some jets can disrupt the shock, after which the shock takes time to reform. During the disruptions, radio and X-ray emission due to accelerated particles is observed to decrease not just at the shock, but throughout the emitting region, showing that the shock is at least partly responsible for accelerating those particles.

The observations were made possible by the ability of the newly enhanced Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array in New Mexico to acquire the more than 40,000 individual images per second of observation needed to resolve the rapidly varying emission features produced by the termination shock. This level of resolved detail allowed the firm identification of the radio source as a shock and revealed its dynamic evolution. Bin Chen, the lead author of the article, developed the technique to visualize the shock dynamics from the millions of images taken during the event. Chen, currently an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, will join NJIT next January.

"Radio emission is an excellent means to study highly energized particles, because the particles emit radio waves very readily without losing much energy in the process. High-energy particles are not directly visible through optical solar telescopes, while they produce higher-energy X-ray photons mainly when the particles hit the surface of the Sun and release all of their energy," Gary said. "To better understand flares, it is important to detect the particles where they are produced, which is done through radio observations, in addition to where in the solar environment their energy is deposited, which is the role of optical, ultraviolet, and X-ray observations."

Solar flares erupt when stored magnetic energy is suddenly released and converted to other forms, such as high-energy particles, hot plasma at millions of degrees, intense electromagnetic radiation and plasma eruptions called coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Solar radiation from the primary flare and that generated secondarily from the coronal mass ejections can affect Earth in many ways. The high-energy particles can destroy the electronic systems in satellites used in telecommunications, weather forecasting and navigation systems, among other services. The electromagnetic radiation can interfere directly with communication and navigation signals, ionize the atmosphere, and cause short-wave radio black-outs. Associated magnetic disturbances can also affect devices on the ground such as power transformers.

The study of flares began in 1859 following what is known as the Carrington Event, a solar flare and associated geomagnetic storm so powerful that it electrified telegraph wires, causing spark discharges that caught paper on fire, caused world-wide magnetic disturbances, and was visible across the globe in the form of auroras. That storm was by some estimates four orders of magnitude stronger than the flare described in the Science article.

"A flare the size of the Carrington event would pose real danger today because of our increasing reliance on susceptible technology," Gary said. "Big events are difficult to predict, however. We have ways of measuring energy build-up, but sometimes when we think a large flare will occur, the energy dissipates quietly or in a series of smaller events instead. Studies like ours provide better understanding of the fundamental processes occurring in flares, and may one day lead to better predictions."

NJIT is expanding its own, solar-dedicated radio telescope, the Expanded Owens Valley Solar Array, to observe the Sun every day with many of the same observational capabilities. Multi-frequency imaging with high frequency and time resolution will become a standard method of studying solar flares in the near future.

Explore further: VLA reveals spectacular 'halos' of spiral galaxies

More information: "Particle acceleration by a solar flare termination shock" Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aac8467

Related Stories

Image: Snowing in space?

November 2, 2015

The flurry of what looks like snow in this video is actually a barrage of energetic particles. This is what's known as a solar radiation storm, hitting an instrument onboard ESA/NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, ...

VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

June 17, 2015

Thanks to the extraordinary sensitivity of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers have detected what they believe is the long-sought radio emission coming from a supermassive black hole at the center of one ...

Image: Starbursting in the galaxy M82

February 3, 2014

(Phys.org) —Messier 82 (M82), the galaxy in which the nearest supernova in decades recently exploded, also is the closest galaxy that is undergoing a rapid burst of star formation, known as a starburst. About 12 million ...

Recommended for you

Dawn mission extended at Ceres

October 20, 2017

NASA has authorized a second extension of the Dawn mission at Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. During this extension, the spacecraft will descend to lower altitudes than ever before ...

40 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2015
"Termination shock" is astrophysicist code for a double layer, albeit with grossly misapplied physics. When the basic principles and physics are so completely misunderstood the only likely outcome will be more mysteries and dead ends. Welcome to modern cosmology !
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2015
*******POP*********

The sound of another EU myth being exposed.
FineStructureConstant
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2015
"Termination shock" is astrophysicist code for a double layer, albeit with grossly misapplied physics
- and WTF does a member of the Electrician's Union know about physics? When high on the list of EU fantasies are such lunatic propositions as electric discharges being responsible for gouging out the Grand Canyon on Earth, canyons on Mars, and lunar and planetary craters. Not geological processes; not erosion by water and other liquids (Titan); not meteor impacts: oh, no - it's all down to electrical discharges from who-knows-where-but-electromagnetism-is-really-strong-so-it's-got-to-be-that-right?

EU acolytes like your @cantdrive here haven't a clue about physics, let alone astrophysics - neither of which are studied by these people - but they're hell-bent on spreading the gospel according to Uncle Wal and his fellow EU "saints", whose Great Message To The World is plucked straight out of the thin air. No substance, no consistency, no science, no relevance. Just air...
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2015
No substance, no consistency, no science, no relevance. Just air...


You forgot 'no evidence'!
FineStructureConstant
4 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2015
You forgot 'no evidence'!
Heh: ran out of space! A thousand characters sounds like a lot, but it's nowhere near enough space to get any further than an intro into discrediting the baseless claims of the EU nutters.

But yes: no evidence to support their pseudoscience, just quotations from the Great Men Whose Words Shall Not Be Questioned: Thornhill, Peratt, Alfvén and others.

In an analogy to the mass-energy equivalence, I'd like to propose the BS-hot-air equivalence:

EU = hero worship * vapourware^2
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2015
I'd like to propose the BS-hot-air equivalence:


* hot air= plasma

When your beloved astrophysicists (which you guys defend like pious acolytes) figure out the basics of plasma physics you may have a leg to stand on. Until then, all that you spew is the smelly hot air you collect from the asses of the astrophysicists with which your lips are firmly attached.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2015
Oh yeah, particle acceleration via double layers has been known for nearly 80 years among real plasma physicists. Astrophysicists just seem to be catching on to these facts, the irony being that their explanation requires the use of magic due to their pathetic application of misused physics. It certainly doesn't stop them from using their fantasyland "ideal hot gas" physics to explain the real plasma phenomena.
FineStructureConstant
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2015
...So not a word then from @cd on the "fantasyland" supposed electrical origin of the Grand Canyon, impact craters and other planetary phenomena? No numerical analyses or explanation of how such electrical phenomena are/were to appear? Out of thin air? From some magical process whereby the vacuum spontaneously generates HUMUNGOUS electrical fields which just happen to be in the neighbourhood of said planets? Why don't we see ANY evidence of similarly gigantic discharges raining DOWN onto the surface of the Sun to support the miserably inept EU claim that the Sun is powered by such???

Nope - he and his fellow EU cheapo-battery dimwits have no answers, no substance at all. They like to play the helpless victim at the hands of "mainstream" science, which anyway rightly ignores them for being what they are: an irrelevant, impotent and inept bunch of quasi-scientific vagrants and small-time circus clowns.

I'm betting the Keystone Kops had more scientific clout than these bozos.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2015
No numerical analyses or explanation of how such electrical phenomena are/were to appear? Out of thin air? From some magical process whereby the vacuum spontaneously generates HUMUNGOUS electrical fields which just happen to be in the neighbourhood of said planets?

That presumption is only in your feeble mind.

Why don't we see ANY evidence of similarly gigantic discharges raining DOWN onto the surface of the Sun to support the miserably inept EU claim that the Sun is powered by such???

Once again, presumptions based upon feeble thinking. As Dr. Scott has pointed out, nearly ten times the amount of charge carriers necessary to power the Sun have been measured by NASA spacecraft.

It's obvious from your irrational hand wavy denouncements that it is you who is the impotent Bozo, otherwise you would present some valid scientific reasoning these events cannot happen.
FineStructureConstant
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2015
So once again, you have no supporting evidence for the EU claims of planet-wide electrical gouging and machining on colossal scales? No mechanisms to explain how the claimed quantities of "charge carriers necessary to power the Sun" are accelerated to the vast energies necessary to induce nuclear reactions at the surface of the Sun? No mechanisms to support the off-hand claim by Thornhill that the interior of the sun is composed of "mainly heavy elements"?

You're quick to denounce the mainstream for doing what it does well: painstakingly difficult work toward a growing synthesis of knowledge gained by careful experimentation and analysis - it's called science.

But you and the EU have nothing to offer in return but a hodge-podge of tumbleweed hypotheses by a ragged bunch of retired electrical engineers overstepping the mark and claiming expertise so far outside of their training and ability that the ridicule heaped upon them - and upon you @cd - is richly deserved.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2015
you have no supporting evidence for the EU claims of planet-wide electrical gouging and machining on colossal scales?

So two bodies, such as the Moon and Earth, cannot have a different charge? Alrighty then...
BTW, the evidence is plentiful, you'd just prefer to believe that water flows uphill. I guess you're allowed to believe in magic if you want.

No mechanisms to explain how the claimed quantities of "charge carriers necessary to power the Sun" are accelerated to the vast energies necessary to induce nuclear reactions at the surface of the Sun?

[Electron drift? Birkeland currents?= power delivery], [Double layers?= particle acceleration], [Dense plasma focus?= fusion]. You clearly know absolutely nothing about real plasma physics, although i admit you share company with a large team of ignorants.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2015
1.
the evidence is plentiful
Do us all a big favour, don't just use snide empty rhetoric, go ahead and list some evidence to support your claims. If your "evidence" consists of the structures themselves - the Grand Canyon, Valles Marineris on Mars, lunar and planetary craters - then your reasoning is circular. You start with the observed structures, suppose that they are formed with your favourite electrical discharges, and then point to the structures as "evidence" for your electrical discharge theories.

2. Again you contemptuously throw us a list of your favourite plasma toys, but you provide no substantive, quantitative analysis of the conditions necessary to create a supposed quantity of electrical charge carriers streaming into the Solar system from ALL directions at once, and no means by which those carriers are to be accelerated - against the outstreaming solar wind and outwardly-spiralling solar magnetic field - in order to sustain nuclear reactions. Quelle surprise!
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2015
So two bodies, such as the Moon and Earth, cannot have a different charge?
So, show us how these bodies would arrive at such a condition in the first place.

Where is all this charge supposed to come from? By what mechanisms are substantially neutral bodies like the Earth and the moon to become so highly charged - the one positive and the other negative - that discharges are to occur between them?

Show us how the charge difference would be sustained, over sufficient time, as the one body "blasts" the other with electrical charges directed in such a way as to carve out all the observed structures like the lunar craters. And what about the lunar mare? And how would your theory account for the different degrees of cratering on the near and far sides of the moon?

Quantitative analyses and sound scientific reasoning will be required; are you up to the challenge? Not rhetoric; numbers: if you want to be accepted as scientists, you'll have to be able to step up to the plate.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2015
Anyways, to the article itself: good work being done here. Patient, careful design of experimental methods and numerical analyses required to peer more closely into the mechanisms by which solar flares produce radiation and high-speed particles.

This is the way good science is done, and the results published for any interested party to read and verify.

FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2015
Further to the discussion on the EU theory of an electricaly-powered Sun - all those supposed "charge carriers" streaming into the solar system would be subject not only to the outstreaming particles in the solar wind and to the effects of the outspiralling solar magnetic field, but also to the effects of scattering from the radiation - photons - emitted by the Sun. At the high-frequency end of the solar spectrum, both free electrons and free protons would be substantially slowed by encounters with the photons, which would emerge with lower energies and in different directions; at the lower end of the spectrum, such encounters would simply result in the scattering of the photons at different directions.

The net result of such scattering would be a further diminution of the speed of any EU-proposed field of charged particles streaming into the solar system, plus a measurable continuum of scattered photons being emitted from all directions in the solar system. Which is not observed.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
Further to the discussion on the EU theory of an electrically-powered Sun: even if the supposed stream of charge carriers make it down to the surface of the Sun, they then have to initiate fusion at the surface. This would involve primarily free protons impinging onto the plasma there consisting primarily of hydrogen nuclei, at a temperature of some thousands Kelvin and at moderate density (compared to that at the core). Since, at these low temperatures and densities, the free protons in the solar plasma can be considered to be substantially at rest, the kinetic energies of the purported instreaming protons necessary to permit quantum tunneling through the Coulumb barrier would have to be very high - they would have to be travelling at relativistic speeds.

The gamma rays resulting from annihilation of electron-positron pairs produced by such p-p reaction would be free to escape to space: the sun would be intensely bright at gamma-ray frequencies. This is, of course, not observed.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
Whereas, at the core of the Sun, the temperatures and densities - and hence range of kinetic energies - afforded by the gravitational pressure exerted by the overlaying material are sufficient in themselves to permit proton-proton reactions. No hypothetical, impossible-to-create-or-to-sustain external streams of extremely-high energy particles need to be invoked: it just happens.

So what, you might ask, becomes of the prodigious quantities of gamma rays produced by this, and other, fusion processes occurring in the sun's core? - why don't we seem them either? Well, they do emerge eventually, so battered by the countless impacts and scattering with other particles within the sun, that their energies are "smeared out" into the essentially black-body radiation which we DO see emerging from the sun.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
You start with the observed structures, suppose that they are formed with your favourite electrical discharges, and then point to the structures as "evidence" for your electrical discharge theories.
I've linked to articles which you conveniently ignore. It should also be noted there has never been a claim the impacts do not happen, this is merely a position held by those who are unable to use reason. http://benthamope...-185.pdf
And using the same circular reasoning people insist water erosion caused these structures (Valles Marineris particularly), without the presence of liquid water (or the possibility thereof), without evidence of a primary channel, without evidence of the eroded material, without a delta or outflow, and this list goes on and on...If you can magically suppose a bygone era where liquid water existed where it cannot, then we too can suppose of a bygone era of planetary instability and changing orbits. The evidence is on our side.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
we ... can suppose ... a bygone era of planetary instability and changing orbits. The evidence is on our side.
No. Mere supposition and misinterpretation of ancient hieroglyphs and myths is on your side.

There's literally a WORLD of difference between evidence and supposition!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
but you provide no substantive, quantitative analysis of the conditions necessary to create a supposed quantity of electrical charge carriers streaming into the Solar system from ALL directions at once

I've linked this before, conveniently ignored as usual.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
and
http://electric-c...2012.pdf
These insights are based upon well founded EE properties that have built the modern society in which we live.
no means by which those carriers are to be accelerated - against the outstreaming solar wind and outwardly-spiralling solar magnetic field

You're applying your own theoretical presumptions on how you expect these processes to happen, in direct opposition to decades of laboratory research which show otherwise.
to the article itself: good work being done here. Patient, careful design of experimental methods and numerical analyses

There is no experiment, just application of theoretical belief.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
So, show us how these bodies would arrive at such a condition in the first place.


Let's take the inner rocky planets as an example, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. If they are really "substantially neutral bodies", why is there such a variety of EM fields/atmospheres? What exactly does "substantially neutral bodies" mean?

to become so highly charged - the one positive and the other negative - that discharges are to occur between them?

"High" charges are not needed, just differently charged. And they need not be one positive and one negative, they could be +++/+ and there would still be an equalization discharge between them. You're letting your presumptions run wild.

FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
It's generally recognized that large-scale flows of water are not possible today, but you very disingenuously entirely discount the possibility of flowing water on Mars in the distant past.

Deltas and outflows are very numerous on Mars, just take a look at the maps - they're widely available. Here are a few links to wet - I mean WHET - your undoubted appetite for learning more about past water flows on Mars:

http://www.hou.us...1130.pdf

https://planetary...on-mars/

http://www.hou.us...2021.pdf

http://www.scienc...asia.pdf

Enjoy!

FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
...well founded EE properties that have built the modern society in which we live
So we have the neighbourhood electricians to thank for our modern society? A typically skewed and egocentric EU version of history - self-aggrandizement run riot!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
Show us how the charge difference would be sustained, over sufficient time, as the one body "blasts" the other with electrical charges directed in such a way as to carve out all the observed structures like the lunar craters.

The discharge is the mechanism to equalize the difference between the two bodies, just as when you reach for your doorknob. And the time frame is nearly instantaneous on the small scale, scaled up to planetary size it may take hours or days or longer to equalize the differential. And this discharge will occur at a perpendicular perspective to the surface, isn't it convenient that nearly every crater has this characteristic?

Not rhetoric; numbers:

Math is not physics, it is merely an ancillary tool. Decades of research of laboratory plasmas show that very rarely do plasmas follow the rules set forth by mathematicians. If this were not true we'd be reveling in the magnificence of a fusion powered society.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
Whereas, at the core of the Sun, the temperatures and densities - and hence range of kinetic energies - afforded by the gravitational pressure exerted by the overlaying material are sufficient in themselves to permit proton-proton reactions.

Theoretically! You have any experiments to support this?
it just happens.

Oh, Okay. That sounds so physicsy. Shit happens!

that their energies are "smeared out" into the essentially black-body radiation which we DO see emerging from the sun.

And what about the physics of black-body radiation? Pure unadulterated bollocks! Over a hundred years of misused physics and equations from the maths first crowd.
https://www.youtu...uq0fOJK8

FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
why is there such a variety of EM fields/atmospheres?
Well, that's what the space probes sent to these bodies are trying to find out. Our modern societies think it fit and proper to fund these expensive missions in order that pure science be conducted, and in order to further the growth of human knowledge.

Scientists don't just sit on their lazy arses like the EU does and pluck wild suppositions from the thin air, nor do they spit rhetoric and vitriol at anybody who doesn't agree with them. They build the machines that do the tough job of going to the planets and do the work of measurement - that's the experimentation part, by the way. How many EU spacecraft are there so far?

Unsurprisingly, the spacecraft (including, incidentally, Rosetta) have found no evidence at all to support the wild "charged planetary body" notions of the EU, but if they ever do, be sure the whole world will beat a path to your door. With fistfuls of Nobel Prizes for you and your supercharged pals.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
...well founded EE properties that have built the modern society in which we live
So we have the neighbourhood electricians to thank for our modern society? A typically skewed and egocentric EU version of history - self-aggrandizement run riot!

Take away Volta, Ohm, Joule, Coulomb, Faraday, Tesla, Hertz, Marconi, Maxwell, Edison, electricity, e motors, wifi, and just about every other modern convenience from the auto, to flight, toasters, telephones, TV's, the internet, and the computer you're staring at and what do you have? Nada, no modern society. Without electricity there is no modern society as we know it, as such your statement shows what a complete and utter moron you really are.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
And what about the physics of black-body radiation?
Watched the first part of the video of your man Robitaille doing his stand-up act at EU2015. I gave up when he got to 7:26 and started to make claims about the "lattice of the photosphere" of the Sun, and that the surface "must be condensed matter". He goes on to say that the sun's surface "can produce X-rays" which "manifests temperatures and energies in the millions of degrees". The poor thunderdolt is confusing the suns surface (photosphere) which produces few X-rays, with the overlying corona which is at millions of degrees.

No big surprises there, especially when one considers that he was asked to step down as Director of MRI Research at Ohio State for his espousal of ideas that were "outside his realm of expertise". These ideas include the usual EU nonsense, as well as his belief that satellite measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background were due to a glow from the Earth's oceans. What a comedian!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
Well, that's what the space probes sent to these bodies are trying to find out.

Er, okay. And that is relevant because....
Scientists don't just sit on their lazy arses like the EU
Safire, testable experimentation on the Electric Sun and Electric Comets.
https://www.youtu...-Z3nXAtU
https://www.youtu...Tttzh0oA
nor do they spit rhetoric and vitriol at anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Clearly you are no scientist, by your own reasoning!
How many EU spacecraft are there so far?
Wow, I think new terminology to describe your stupidity need be invented to fully explain how truly moronic this statement is.
the spacecraft have found no evidence at all to support the wild "charged planetary body"
Willful ignorance doesn't change the facts.
http://www.jpl.na...ure=4340
http://solarsyste...ncounter
https://www.youtu...APdMa9a4
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2015
Here's a pretty good denouncement of Robitaille's claims re black body radiation:

https://www.quora...-physics

He joins the growing list of known nutters, wannabe physicists, and mythologists ready, willing but sadly not able to step out of their own areas of expertise and expound on matters they know little or nothing about.

Of course, that won't stop you EU bozons (=particles of utter vacuity) from gathering around your heroes and quoting their every word as if it were gospel. Which of course, it is...

Question: how many bozons can you get on the head of a pin?
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
I gave up when he got to 7:26

So, you admit to willful ignorance.
"lattice of the photosphere" of the Sun, and that the surface "must be condensed matter".
He's pointing out how the Sun does not have the characteristics required by the parameters of the black body equations.
He goes on to say that the sun's surface "can produce X-rays" which "manifests temperatures and energies in the millions of degrees"...The poor thunderdolt is confusing

Once again, willful ignorance does not change the facts.
http://science.na...oflares/
his belief that satellite measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background were due to a glow from the Earth's oceans.

First, his comments were directed at data collected from Earth based sensors, the basis of his arguments regarding WMAP is different.
Second, who in the world would think that water would absorb/emit Mw radiation?

You're very good at misinformation.

cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
Here's a pretty good denouncement of Robitaille's claims re black body radiation:

Nice blog...from said blog;
"He's missed the simple point that a perfect blackbody is from the outset only a theoretical idealization"

No, that's exactly his point! Theoretical idealization. All of the equations of which are derived from the pre-determined parameters set forth by the theoretically idealized thought experiment.

BTW, clearly the blog site is devoid of scientists, because as you say of the scientists;
nor do they spit rhetoric and vitriol at anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Whereas this blog is nothing but...
SuperThunder
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2015
Everyone loves rainbows until a star aims one at your planet.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2015
Hi FineStructureConstant, cantdrive. :)

I have over the years urged everyone to work towards constructive science/humanity discourse based on objective reality rather than personal/political/professional/amateur 'feuds' employing 'tactics' of ridicule/insults and obviously untenable claims/flawed logics.

So I suggest you BOTH immediately acknowledge there have been SOME claims from BOTH 'sides' which are untenable at present; then move on in cordial/constructive discourse without constantly blaming each other's 'side' for making such claims etc.

Better to NOW agree on and stick to what you BOTH CAN agree are scientifically known 'facts', 'tenable claims'; and leave out all those distracting allusions/accusations etc which NEITHER 'side' can really justify beyond reasonable doubt since current mainstream/alternative theory/knowledge is still incomplete.

I offer some 'facts' for consideration in your discussion re charged particle 'flows' in solar system...

[cont...]
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2015
[...cont] @ FineStructureConstant, cantdrive.

Remember: charged particles CAN move/flow/spiral inward and outward from any body generating a magnetic field pattern ultimately 'anchored' on that body; be it its main 'dipolar' pattern/poles or its 'omnipolar' pattern/sub-main magnetic fields/swirls over a body such as the sun with its distributed plasma dynamics/processes producing all sorts/scales of 'flows/jets' of charged particles and accompanying turbulent/transient magnetic fields such as produce 'plasmoid' events within and on the solar plasma distribution (last year, a discussion re 'plasmoids in sun' agreed that these features do arise in sun and produce all sorts of flows and jets etc of charged particles). Also, as the free space charged particle content CAN flow along/around magnetic field lines, then certain amount of charged particles can logically flow inwards TOWARDS, and down into the sun, via its mag-field lines. Discuss (politely please!). Cheers both. :)
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2015
In the face of such a whirlwind of horseshit from the EU, I admit defeat in trying to get them to provide a structured, reasoned, quantitative analysis to support their wild claims. All they can provide is "in-house" videos of people reiterating their claims. No numbers, no math, no attempt to arrive at a properly-structured synthesis of all known forces and physical phenomena; only lame attempts to prove the Universe is some kind of circuit-board with humungous capacitors!

These people will not, and cannot, listen to reason and will continue to believe in unsupported supposition, unstructured and unverified nonsense spouted by their leaders. Like the scientologists. Or ISIS...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
When your beloved astrophysicists (which you guys defend like pious acolytes) figure out the basics of plasma physics you may have a leg to stand on
cantREAD, but can TROLL
you've been making this claim for YEARS, but you've been debunked every time you try to post this crap
astrophysicists learn plasma physics, this is proven: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

your engineers do NOT learn what astrophysicists do, however
this was proven to you multiple times: http://phys.org/n...een.html

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

http://arxiv.org/...92v1.pdf

you have the same credibility in science as verkle
http://phys.org/n...oon.html

http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

http://phys.org/n...ume.html

http://phys.org/n...rn-moons
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
I've linked to articles which you conveniently ignore
@cd
articles are not studies
I've linked this before, conveniently ignored as usual
linking to a known PSEUDOSCIENCE site to substantiate your claim is like saying "the faeries told me it's real... trust me"

... if you can't validate your claims with reputable peer reviewed studies, then you are simply promoting a religious belief, NOT SCIENCE

original sources and peer reviewed journals are the best means of proving something WRT science... and the whole reason you can't actually provide them is because your own links/eu beliefs do NOT conform to the scientific method

or don't you get that already?

just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
@cd cont'd
The discharge is the mechanism to equalize the difference between the two bodies, just as when you reach for your doorknob
you said this about cassini
you said this about shoemaker-levy9
you said this about the moon, grand canyon and more...
problem is: YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE

when this happens, and it is violent enough to "carve craters", there is evidence left behind that can be measured and studied (PROTIP- there isn't any)

it is also something that can be SEEN as well as measured, especially in our own solar system and interaction with the moon (PROTIP- still no evidence for it)

so, repeating this claim, like the astrophysicists claims above, is nothing more than rote regurgitation of dogma for the sake of your fanatical belief system

you are simply promoting a "false claim" (means: chronic lying)
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
@cd cont'd
Without electricity there is no modern society as we know it, as such your statement shows what a complete and utter moron you really are
NONE of your comment made any sense in light of physics or reality. in fact, the only thing you can truthfully say is that electricity is important to modern society... you can't say that it is the driving force of the universe because we use it to power a toaster or run air conditioning... that is moronic at best, and just plain delusional
Electric Sun and Electric Comets
this is completely DEBUNKED, and you can read just SOME of that debunking here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

but you already know that..you will only post some derogatory ad hominem attack on Thompson because (yup- you guessed it) you don't have any evidence

in all your links, and all your claims... you have NO evidence
not one reputable shred of ANY evidence
all you have is fanaticism

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.