New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

October 10, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
New theory on why the sun’s corona is hotter than its surface
Image and lightcurves of the HXR and SXR emissions. a, HXR (above ~3 keV) emission observed by FOXSI-2 on 11 December 2014, 19:13:47–19:14:25 ut (cyan contours) overlaid on SXR (below ~3 keV) images (see colour scale) of two active regions taken with Hinode/XRT (sensitive to >2 MK). Active region 12234, shown in the yellow box, exhibited no individual flaring activity during the time interval, and was selected for the analysis. b, GOES/XRS (top), Hinode/XRT (middle) and FOXSI-2 (bottom) lightcurves. The GOES lightcurve is for the full Sun, and the XRT and FOXSI lightcurves are for 12234. The error bars in the FOXSI-2 lightcurve show 1σ standard deviation statistical errors. The gaps in the FOXSI-2 lightcurve show the intervals for pointing changes. The blue box shows the integration time for the FOXSI-2 image in a. Credit: Nature Astronomy (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-017-0269-z

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from the U.S., Japan and Switzerland has found possible evidence of a source of energy that could be responsible for heating the sun's corona. In their paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy, the researchers describe studying data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket and what it revealed.

One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small ) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.

To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.

The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the , but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved.

Explore further: FOXSI: A next-generation X-ray telescope ready to fly

More information: Shin-nosuke Ishikawa et al. Detection of nanoflare-heated plasma in the solar corona by the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket, Nature Astronomy (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-017-0269-z

Abstract
The processes that heat the solar and stellar coronae to several million kelvins, compared with the much cooler photosphere (5,800 K for the Sun), are still not well known1. One proposed mechanism is heating via a large number of small, unresolved, impulsive heating events called nanoflares2. Each event would heat and cool quickly, and the average effect would be a broad range of temperatures including a small amount of extremely hot plasma. However, detecting these faint, hot traces in the presence of brighter, cooler emission is observationally challenging. Here we present hard X-ray data from the second flight of the Focusing Optics X-ray Solar Imager (FOXSI-2), which detected emission above 7 keV from an active region of the Sun with no obvious individual X-ray flare emission. Through differential emission measure computations, we ascribe this emission to plasma heated above 10 MK, providing evidence for the existence of solar nanoflares. The quantitative evaluation of the hot plasma strongly constrains the coronal heating models.

Related Stories

FOXSI: A next-generation X-ray telescope ready to fly

November 1, 2012

Those who watch the sun are regularly treated to brilliant shows – dancing loops of solar material rise up, dark magnetic regions called sunspots twist across the surface, and dazzling flares of light and radiation explode ...

Strong evidence for coronal heating theory presented

April 28, 2015

The Sun's surface is blisteringly hot at 6,000 kelvins or 10,340 degrees Fahrenheit—but its atmosphere is another 300 times hotter. This has led to an enduring mystery for those who study the Sun: What heats the atmosphere ...

Tiny "nanoflares" might heat the Sun's corona

October 16, 2014

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 ...

MOSES-2 sounding rocket to investigate coronal heating

August 24, 2015

A NASA-funded sounding rocket is getting ready to launch to give insight into one of the biggest mysteries in solar physics—the fact the sun's atmosphere is some 1,000 times hotter than its surface. The mission, developed ...

FOXSI to observe X-rays from Sun

December 8, 2014

An enormous spectrum of light streams from the sun. We're most familiar with the conventional visible white light we see with our eyes from Earth, but that's just a fraction of what our closest star emits. NASA regularly ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

71 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

archytype_net
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2017
Again more research which is needed but attributes the cause incorrectly.

We know the Sun receives electrical energy. There is the cause of a corona hotter than the surface or the core.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Prof. R L F Boyd, F.R.S., Space Physics – the study of plasmas in space, Oxford Physics Series, 1974, p.61

"A star like the Sun is remarkable ... We have the strange phenomenon of a relatively cool body in space enveloped in an immensely hot atmosphere. (We can note in passing that the Earth's upper atmosphere is hotter than its surface but this is less remarkable as in the Earth's case the energy comes from without.)"
691Boat
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2017
Again more research which is needed but attributes the cause incorrectly.

We know the Sun receives electrical energy. There is the cause of a corona hotter than the surface or the core.


What proof do you have that the Sun receives electrical energy?
Where does it get this electrical energy from?
Why is the Sun a voltage sink to the solar system / galaxy / whatever voltage source you made up?
bschott
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
What proof do you have that the Sun receives electrical energy?

The Ulysses probe measured both an influx and emission of Ions/electrons at both poles of the sun.
Where does it get this electrical energy from?

That would be the incoming streams of SA particles.

Why is the Sun a voltage sink to the solar system / galaxy / whatever voltage source you made up?

Well, both emission and influx seem to indicate that a star is both a sink and a source depending on where you are positioned to measure the particle flow. The EU don't really have your answers because to believe as they do you have to ignore the most basic observed principle in plasma physics, that being that plasma flows are confined and move due to magnetic flux...as opposed to generating the flux that confines the plasma current.
The theory in the above article implies the corona can confine heat released into it. With such a low particle density this is clearly absurd.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Re: "The EU don't really have your answers because to believe as they do you have to ignore the most basic observed principle in plasma physics, that being that plasma flows are confined and move due to magnetic flux...as opposed to generating the flux that confines the plasma current."

Huh?

https://www.thund...apter-3/

"The charged particles which are the defining feature of a plasma are affected by electromagnetic fields, which the particles themselves can generate and modify."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Re: "What proof do you have ...?"

People who do not feel compelled to vindicate textbook theory come to this conclusion on their own terms, usually by looking at the totality of the situation. It is not a question of "proof" for people who think it; it is oftentimes a realization that the current solar models have produced so little evidence for themselves; and people usually get to this point by sizing up the many divergences between solar observations and what we should expect from the fusion model.

For example:

Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy (Mentor Books, 1957), p.103.

"We should expect on the basis of a straightforward calculation that the Sun would 'end' itself in a simple and rather prosaic way; that with increasing height above the photosphere the density of the solar material would decrease quite rapidly, until it became pretty well negligible only two or three kilometres up ... Instead, the atmosphere is a huge bloated envelope."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
L. Goldberg and E. Dyer, Jr., "The Sun," in Science in Space, L. Berkner and H. Odishaw, eds., McGraw-Hill (1963), p.327

"If one calculates the Rayleigh number appropriate to the bottom of the solar photosphere, one finds that it exceeds the critical value by five powers of ten and therefore the solar granulation should on this basis be an entirely random phenomenon. The fact that the observed granules have a pronounced cellular structure and a bright-dark asymmetry has not yet been explained by theory."

(and yet filamentary structures are a hallmark feature of conducting electrodynamic plasmas, as they are traditionally explained at a physical level as rotating electrons)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Sunspots: Theory and Observations, Ed. by John H Thomas & N O Weiss, NATO ASI Series C Vol 375, p.4

"... the problems of explaining the existence of an umbra and penumbra, and predicting the subphotospheric structure of a spot, seem ideally suited for theoretical study. It is sobering that, after all these years, they have not been solved. If we cannot explain such simple phenomena, how can we hope to model accretion discs or active galactic nuclei? It seems, however, that unresolved objects can be relatively easy to explain: as detailed observations accrue they may actually make such problems harder."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
"Sir Fred Hoyle, 67, ... said he believed a free and imaginative approach was the key to scientific progress: 'The solution to unsolved problems must lie in unexpected directions. If the conventional view were correct, the problems would already be solved.' Conformism meant fewer discoveries were being made. 'The only way discoveries can be made in that system is for people to stumble on them by chance. Everything becomes accidental, without directed purpose. ... If many of the scientists I've had dealings with had to stand on their own feet they'd be on the breadline."

- Reported in The Australian, 23 November 1982
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2017
IMO the observation of microbursts in solar plasma is quite old already adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AAS...210.9413K
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies, p.24

"Beware of efficiency. Remember that Einstein was generally regarded as a vague impractical man ... It seems to be characteristic of all great work, in every field, that it arises spontaneously and unpretentiously, and that its creators wear a cloak of imprecision ... The man who voyages strange seas must of necessity be a little unsure of himself. It is the man with the flashy air of knowing everything, who is always on the ball, always with it, that we should beware of. It will not be long now before his behavior can be imitated quite perfectly by a computer."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Conjectures and Refutations
Chapter 4 (p. 129)
Karl Popper

". . . a young scientist who hopes to make discoveries is badly advised if his teacher tells him, "Go round and observe", and that he is well advised if his teacher tells him: 'Try to learn what people are discussing nowadays in science. Find out where the difficulties arise, and take an interest in disagreements. These are the questions which you should take up.'"
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
@Chris_Spam contaminates another thread.

Can we talk about the real causes of coronal heating now, instead of a bunch of old and long disproven conjectures about electrical currents from nowhere heating things up?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, The Quest for Unity - The Adventure of Physics

"Modern physics has a thousand faces - mechanics, particle physics, astrophysics - each offering some modest degree of unification, but hardly enough to triumph into a global unity. We simply do not have a truly unified view of the world, one that paints an unambiguous picture of some overall scheme." (p.80)

"at some stage of horizontal unification, which proceeds by merging two branches of physics considered until then separate, one invariably confronts a deep fissure that can be overcome only with revolutionary new ideas." (p.81)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
An FYI.

Back in 2014 in the below-linked PO thread, especially starting with my October 10 posts therein, I pointed out that Plasmoid formation and fusion processes therein, caused many of the ejections of material into/through the sun's corona, hence explaining the heating of said corona and the cause of mass ejections beyond same to surrounding space.

Relevant thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Note where Da Schneib, despite his insults and unheeding tactics/denials etc, was eventually forced to admit I was correct all along and he incorrect.

It's now good to see recent mainstream investigators/theoreticians considering/ackniowledging what was obvious all along to my objective observation/understanding of the relevant science. Cheers! :)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
Source and sink, @RC. That's the subject here, not your usual trolling.

On Earth.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Source and sink, @RC. That's the subject here, not your usual trolling.

On Earth.
Please note the Title of this news item/page, mate. It says:
New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface


See the SUN's CORONA question/theory re explanation/cause for WHY the latter is HOTTER than the formers's surface, DS?

That's what my FYI post was directed to. Please refrain from further usual mischaracterizing/strawmanning tactics, DS. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
I'm only talking about your EUdiot #physicscrank BS, @RC. If a current is causing it, where's the source, and where's the sink? Currents have sources and sinks. It's fundamental physics, but of course an EUdiot #physicscrank just denies and ignores it since they believe currents emerge from nowhere and disappear back into nowhere, just like unicorns.

You know, all that math and stuff you deny.

Oh and BTW you lied again. Now you're claiming I'm denying the Sun's corona. Got any more whoppers to make up? Good luck with that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I'm only talking about your EUdiot #physicscrank BS, @RC. If a current is causing it, where's the source, and where's the sink? Currents have sources and sinks. It's fundamental physics, but of course an EUdiot #physicscrank just denies and ignores it since they believe currents emerge from nowhere and disappear back into nowhere, just like unicorns.

You know, all that math and stuff you deny.

Oh and BTW you lied again. Now you're claiming I'm denying the Sun's corona.
Why lie, DS? Who claimed THAT, not me!

And what have I told you often? I am NOT part of the 'EU crowd'. Get it straight now, DS?

As for currents; they are generated by heat/fusion/flows and other processes going on in the sun (convection driven/charge-separation driven etc). We have already long covered such things back in that 2014 (flux-tube and plasmoids exchanges, remember?). Please don't feign 'convenient amnesia' now as a tactic for derailing THIS thread too, mate. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
@RC, you're lying again.

Do it again and I'll post your lies again. Tit for tat @RC. You lie like a rug.

Source and sink, @RC. There aren't any magic currents coming from nowhere heating things up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you're lying again.

Do it again and I'll post your lies again. Tit for tat @RC. You lie like a rug.

Source and sink, @RC. There aren't any magic currents coming from nowhere heating things up.
Yep, seems like you are drunk again, DS. Recall that this drunk-posting tactics and crying 'liar' did not work for you every time you have tried it on me. Recall that thread on plasmoids in sun?...

https://phys.org/...ies.html

Wherein you were drunk and calling me 'liar' despite you being wrong and me correct all along (which you finally had to admit)? Obviously your 'memory' is 'convenient' when you're drunk posting, mate; else you wouldn't have tried the same failed unconscionable 'cry liar' tactic again now.

Why do you do it, DS? What drives your ego to such tactics instead of learning properly? It's a waste of your intellect, DS. Stop drunk-posting/ego-tripping, mate! Leave that to AGW deniers! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
OK, bend over, here it comes:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
[contd]
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @RC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @RC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html

This troll lies every time it posts. There is no reason anyone should pay attention to this liar. Its constant trolling claims are that everyone else lies, and they are obvious on these threads.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

And there it is, DS. You've 'officially and demonstrably' morphed yourself into a SPAMMER; a self-deluded drunk poster and denier on the Internet; joining the likes of spamming AGW deniers and liars. Not good, DS. Rethink your drinking habits and your ego-tripping 'tactics', mate. Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
Here's another five lies from @RC. Plenty more where these came from.

Thread where @RC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @RC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @RC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Keep lying, @RC. It's fun tormenting you and I can find another five, and another five, and another five where these came from. You lie in nearly every post you make and are an easy target.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

It's so sad to see you resort to spamming half-truths and misrepresenting self-serving opinions instead of addressing the scientific/logics points made in discussion, DS. Such self-destructive tactics and evasions and just plain malice is not part of the objective scientific method/discourse ethics/principles. So any younger readers coming across such a pitiful display of unscientific and unconscionable behavior, such as you are again exhibiting, should take great care to NOT emulate! It is the surest way to ruin your intellectual integrity and scientific credibility, DS. Younger readers (all readers for that matter) witnessing your tragic slide into self-delusion and unscientific ego-tripping, should take away the sad sight as a salutary reminder of what can happen when ego and malice drive your life and mind. What a waste, DS. Drink and Ego excesses has 'done for you'; obviously. Let's hope and trust other posters here/elsewhere don't go the same way. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
And here are the next five lies @RC has told:

Thread where @RC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @RC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @RC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @RC lies about GR "predicting" singularities: https://phys.org/...s_1.html
Thread where @RC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @RC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @RC has never said what three of them are.

Do keep bringing it, @RC, I am enjoying digging up your lies and posting links to them. I got plenty more.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@RC keep in mind that every time I do this I am saving the new lies to a durable record and as you continue the number of posts that I make with your lies linked in them grows by another five of your lies and another post.

I've got 18. And I've barely gotten into 2016.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC keep in mind that every time I do this I am saving the new lies to a durable record and as you continue the number of posts that I make with your lies linked in them grows by another five of your lies and another post.

I've got 18. And I've barely gotten into 2016.
You're delusional, mate. The posted record shows that you have been incorrect and me correct all along on many fronts. That you are in-denial and resort to spamming to reinforce your self-delusion is sad and somewhat creepy, mate. Please say there is a rational kernel left in that mind of yours, DS; please say that the drink and ego excesses have not completely obliterated all sense of rationality and proportion/conscience. If you keep this up, DS, you will end up yet another 'internet tragic' that lost it and had no strength of character to resist the inevitable decline into delusion and infamy. The @Forum can only hope that somewhere inside you remains a spark of integrity. Try, DS! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@RC likes to lie about people by calling them "delusional" when they point out its lies. It's a standard technique. What I'm going to do now is start posting a new five lies each time it posts, and since it seems to be alternating between threads, I'll post five new ones on this thread and then another five new ones on the other thread.

There are plenty of @RC lies to allow this for a very long time. I am enjoying myself. Keep your supercilious attacks coming, @RC, I have plenty of your own material to keep you busy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
Here we go now:

Thread where @RC lies about an "infinite number of points" having actual physical significance: https://phys.org/...ess.html
Thread where @RC lies about "not belonging to... EU crowd:" https://phys.org/...ted.html
Thread where @RC lies about the current SM of cosmology by equating it to the original LeMaitre hypothesis: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @RC lies about "Electric Currents" driving gas outflows from black holes, and note that this individual still claims not to be an EUdiot: https://phys.org/...due.html
Thread where @RC claims EUdiots have "provided learning opportunities" for professional astrophysicists without evidence: https://phys.org/...big.html

Keep bringing it, @RC, always plenty more where this came from.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC likes to lie about people by calling them "delusional" when they point out its lies. It's a standard technique. What I'm going to do now is start posting a new five lies each time it posts, and since it seems to be alternating between threads, I'll post five new ones on this thread and then another five new ones on the other thread.

There are plenty of @RC lies to allow this for a very long time. I am enjoying myself. Keep your supercilious attacks coming, @RC, I have plenty of your own material to keep you busy.
Why do this to yourself, DS? It's getting creepy as well as sad to watch. Can't you see that the @Forum readers ALREADY have PROOF that it was YOU that boasted about NOT reading while pretending to 'know' but didn't in fact 'know' anything/correctly?

They also noted from our exchanges in thread...

https://phys.org/...per.html

...that YOU 'cry liar' as a 'tactic' when YOU wrong/lying, DS. Denial!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
And remember, @RC, every one of these is new and every one is unique. You will be seeing a lot more of these. Apparently ten of them wasn't enough, I'm up to about 35 of them now and will be apparently collecting plenty more. I can put out ten unique lies you have told on four different threads, all unique, none duplicated.

You lie too much to be so arrogant and supercilious. It's very satisfying making you look silly. Please feel free to boost me to 50 threads where you lied.

Oh and I found another thread where @RDC didn't lie. It's another one it didn't post in. :D
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Mate, if you spent even a fraction of your time/intellect on actually honestly engaging with the science/logics points raised, as you do with your endless personal drunken/ego tactics in ignorance and malice, you might actually have learned something in those threads. As it is, DS, your ego and denial is raging against my being confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/reviews while you have been left 'holding the baby' of BB etc fantasies and flawed paradigms flowing therefrom for decades. Penrose/Steinhardt and others are 'moving on' from those old fantasies, but YOU and the other ignorant 'believers and diehard parrots' haven't understood either the OLD or the EVOLVING paradigm based on reality not fantasy. Get a life and a scruple, DS; the scientific/logical investigation/comprehension of the universal reality is patently beyond your method/ken. Leave it to those who can be objective, fairminded as the scientific method/discourse requires.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@RC, I have engaged with you. You lie, and then you have some supercilious insult after you lied. There is no point. I'm not dealing with you on that basis. I am treating you like you treat everyone else all the time. Apparently you like that since you show no sign of stopping.

And just for the record, I'm not just posting links to threads, I'm saying exactly what lie @RC told on each thread. This is how we document the lies of #EUdiot #physicscrank #trolls. Because otherwise they start lying about what lies they told. They think that confuses people because most people are brighter than they are, they think most people are dumber, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
RC, save yourself from the minutiae of da schnied. He will just lie and change the subject when shown to be incorrect. Oh, and he will conjure an excuse and disappear from the thread as shown by the lesson I gave him on "open field lines". 'Member that da schnied, when you tried to convince everyone you had discovered a magnetic monpole with an open field line attach at one end? Then I showed the moronacy of your ways and then he changed the subject to electric charges? RC, da schnied is little more than a mental midget too stupid to fight his way out of a wet paper bag, on par with thecaptain of all Stoopids, Cap'n Stoopid. He is Cap'n Major Stoopid.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I have engaged with you. You lie, and then you have some supercilious insult after you lied. There is no point. I'm not dealing with you on that basis. I am treating you like you treat everyone else all the time. Apparently you like that since you show no sign of stopping.

And just for the record, I'm not just posting links to threads, I'm saying exactly what lie @RC told on each thread. This is how we document the lies of #EUdiot #physicscrank #trolls. Because otherwise they start lying about what lies they told. They think that confuses people because most people are brighter than they are, they think most people are dumber, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Mate, why keep doing this to yourself? I need only ONE representative thread/link to demonstrate what YOUR idea of "engage with you" means/involves, DS:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Everyone can see for themselves how YOU "engage", DS. Bad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
And here we go yet again:

Thread where @RC lies about astrophysicists' knowledge of the galactic magnetic field: https://phys.org/...ays.html
Thread where @RC claims the polar outflows from a planetary nebula are a Z-pinch (standard EUdiot drivel, despite its claims it's not an EUdiot): https://phys.org/...ula.html
Thread where @RC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @RC claims the Big Bang is a religious belief: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC makes more unsupported claims about BICEP2 and again claims Steinhardt denies the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...big.html

This individual even lies about its own beliefs. Why would anyone bother with this drivel?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@RC, no matter what you claim, you cannot be believed. You lie on every thread you post on. Your claims about science, about other people, and even about what you yourself say you believe, are shown to be lies by your own statements. You can't even tell the truth about your own beliefs. You are a pitiful parody of a human being with no personal integrity and without the ability to stop yourself from lying; you do it at the drop of a hat and then make up insults to cover it up. You are despicable, and despised as we can see from the votes you get. You are mind pollution wherever you go, for anyone who is unwary enough to believe you for a second. You are a shameful figure of an imitation of a person, and most people see right through you and dislike and avoid you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
And here we go yet again: ...

...

This individual even lies about its own beliefs. Why would anyone bother with this drivel?
And there lay the denial and projection psychosis exhibited by you, DS. If you really want to "go again", then try to explain to the @Forum readers why you lie and misrepresent yourself and me DESPITE the following proof of your own lies and misrepresentations while I was correct all along and you incorrect/lying:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Remember, DS; it's not ME you should explain yourself to, but the @Forum readers who have read the above thread/link and seen the TRUTH about your lies/tactics and my correctness all along. Your denials and misrepresentations and spamming are all for nought, DS; the truth is already on record. You are only deceiving yourself now, DS. Stop it before you go beyond recovery, mate. Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
Dude, I've posted 45 lies you've told and I'm about to post another five threads you've contaminated with your lies, bringing the total to 50. You have nothing credible to say here. I won't even bother to refute your latest attempts to lie, or bother to read more of your supercilious insults you use to try to cover your lies up; you have so many old ones it's easier to just keep bringing them out. You've been lying here so long that anyone who doesn't know you lie in every post hasn't been paying attention.

And you can expect to keep seeing these lies over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Thanks for helping me find enough to make sure I can post five lies you've told on ten threads without repeating myself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Dude, I've posted 45 lies you've told and I'm about to post another five threads you've contaminated with your lies, bringing the total to 50. You have nothing credible to say here. I won't even bother to refute your latest attempts to lie, or bother to read more of your supercilious insults you use to try to cover your lies up; you have so many old ones it's easier to just keep bringing them out. You've been lying here so long that anyone who doesn't know you lie in every post hasn't been paying attention.

And you can expect to keep seeing these lies over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Thanks for helping me find enough to make sure I can post five lies you've told on ten threads without repeating myself.
All the refutation necessary to put the lie to your 'version' of record is self-evident in following thread/link...

https://phys.org/...per.html

Your SPAM is your DENIAL/LIES, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
OK, here we go, 50 lies FTW:

Thread where @RC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @RC claims scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that the Big Bang isn't real: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @RC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims matter turns into gravity and vice versa: https://phys.org/...ard.html
Thread where @RC claims LIGO gravitational wave detections are due to coincidences: https://phys.org/...les.html

That would be 50 threads @RC has posted lies to. I see no point in continuing; but I'll have these in my pocket for when I need them later. :D
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2017
Ha! I counted them up, and I only got 49 on my list. So here's one more as a bonus:

Another thread where @RC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html

As a special bonus this one also contains the lie that there's some kind of unspecified problem with the distance ladder, supposedly "proved" [sic] by "new" supernova or CMB data (neither of which has been proven wrong). On Earth.

All 50 lies are on my list and available to fight this troll off and hopefully convince it to go away or stop trolling.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Re: "If a current is causing it, where's the source, and where's the sink? Currents have sources and sinks. It's fundamental physics, but of course an EUdiot #physicscrank just denies and ignores it since they believe currents emerge from nowhere and disappear back into nowhere, just like unicorns."

DS, new ideas are not obligated to arrive fully formed like a baby delivered from the stork. One of these days, if you are fortunate enough to have your own new idea, you will understand how little your own demands and expectations mean to this larger process of creating a model.

As a hypothesis starts to emerge, certain details will be more obvious than others. It is in no theorist's interest to pretend they understand all aspects from the very start.

It is easy to miss all of these subtle complexities to formulating theories when all you do is defend textbook theory. It would be a very healthy experience for you to have an unconventional idea, and then defend it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
That would be 50 threads @RC has posted lies to. I see no point in continuing; but I'll have these in my pocket for when I need them later. :D
Now you're getting manic, mate; you are twisting things so obviously that even your own conscience must be screaming at you! Stop now, DS! You have only to read ONE thread/link to show you the truth about yourself, mate:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Explain that to yourself/@Forum rationally and see that your spamming is only evading the reality you need to face squarely if you are going to recover. Go on, face it; read it; explain it. Then wake up! Before its too late, DS.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2017
@Chris_Spam, there is no "new idea" that's going to create electric currents that appear out of or disappear into nowhere. This is perpetual motion, and violates at least three different conservation laws, none of which has ever been observed to be violated in any credible repeatable experiment. There is nothing to miss. We have been looking for three hundred years and never, ever, has anyone described any repeatable verifiable experiment in which any one of these three laws has been violated.

Energy, mass, and charge do not appear out of or disappear into nowhere, and entropy never decreases permanently. Any conjecture that claims they do without rigorous justification by experiment may be rejected a priori. And what you propose is exactly that. Sorry, man, there isn't anywhere to hide here.
wduckss
not rated yet Oct 11, 2017
Testing theory.
Why do we have a thermosphere on Earth?
Why is it on the dark side of Mars warmer than the dark side of Mercury or Months?
Are there also some "very small solar flares"?
The theory can not look single and ignore the whole.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2017
Hmmm.

We have a thermosphere around the outside of the Earth's atmosphere because the Sun makes ultraviolet radiation.

The dark side of Mars is warmer than the dark side of Mercury because Mars has an atmosphere and Mercury does not.

It appears from this article as if there are small solar flares that do not emerge from sunspots.

I don't know what planet "Months" refers to, and I have no idea why you think an observation is a theory, or what "look single and ignore the whole" means. If you will clarify these statements I'll attempt to give you an answer. I don't think you can ask for better than that.
bschott
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017

"The charged particles which are the defining feature of a plasma are affected by electromagnetic fields, which the particles themselves can generate and modify."

That is a great quote Chris, and accurate as well. That whole "electricity happens first" thing you guys keep trying to push gets blasted back to fantasy land every time you have to use magnetic fields to experiment with plasma formations....which happens every single time. And you still didn't answer UBoats questions because , to my experience, you don't have an electrical theory for any object that behaves as both a sink and a source. And you definitely don't have a field configuration which shows how it works....yet, it is what we have measured.

As soon as you have to disregard an observation to continue supporting a theory, or insert a variable that represents a non-existent physical phenomenon, that is a clue something is wrong with the theory. You know this, you point it out daily.

bschott
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
Energy, mass, and charge do not appear out of or disappear into nowhere

Mainstream physics invented virtual particles and allows them via the uncertainty principle. Foot in mouth again. And you look like a complete tool with the fixation you have on RC....it is, shall we say, Stumpiesque in nature....
Any conjecture that claims they do without rigorous justification by experiment may be rejected a priori. And what you propose is exactly that.

This was a hilarious follow up to the foot in mouth thing above, you're in there knee deep now.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Re: "there is no 'new idea' that's going to create electric currents that appear out of or disappear into nowhere."

DS, you seem to be having a failure of imagination, for the "problem" you present resolves if all you do is assume that we cannot see the entire circuit. That confusion can come from multiple failures to see -- both (1) the EXTENT of the circuit as well as (2) its various parts which surround us.

The fact is that nobody but yourself even argues point (2), for the simple reason that it is the same basic problem that is faced with dark matter: We cannot in both cases see something which we think is there.

Re: "This is perpetual motion, and violates at least three different conservation laws, none of which has ever been observed to be violated in any credible repeatable experiment."

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

- Terry Pratchett
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2017
Alexander F. Mayer, On the Geometry of Time in Physics and Cosmology and the fall of the canonical cosmological model, p.138

"Those who have fervently promoted Big Bang cosmology while exhibiting condescending intolerance for critics who openly questioned the validity of the theory have demonstrated an unself-critical attitude that is antithetical to science. Now it is time for them to admit their errors, but this is arguably a healthy lesson in life."

"The immense improbability that modern science rests on, but cares not to discuss, is the belief that the universe sprang from nothing in a single moment. If you can believe that, then it's very hard to see what you can't believe."

- Terence McKenna, Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
That is a great quote Chris, and accurate as well. That whole "electricity happens first" thing you guys keep trying to push gets blasted back to fantasy land every time you have to use magnetic fields to experiment with plasma

You have as yet not explained how to create you magic bowls without the use of electric currents.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Re: "to my experience, you don't have an electrical theory for any object that behaves as both a sink and a source."

There is significant complexity to the subject, and enough room to disagree about what's going on that there is no push to form any sort of consensus. Arguing that the Sun cannot have an electrical input for the reason that we cannot decode the circuit is getting ahead of the theory-making process.

If your premise is that since we cannot see and understand the whole system, then we cannot engage the hypothesis on any sort of level, then it's not clear why you are spending any time at all thinking about astrophysics. That is the nature of ALL theories in this domain. The Electric Sun is not even special in this regard. We are all working from partial information.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions˜Near-Earth Manifestations of the Plasma Universe, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 144, Issue 1-2, p.105-133, 05/1988

"It is a sobering fact that even after hundreds of satellites had circled the Earth, the generally accepted picture of our space environment was still fundamentally wrong in aspects as basic as the existence and role of electric fields and even the origin and chemical composition of the near-Earth plasma itself. In the light of this, how can we believe in detailed theoretical models of distant astrophysical objects, until we have learned -- and applied to astrophysics -- the lessons of how the real plasma behaves in the Earth's own magnetosphere."
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
the "problem" you present resolves if all you do is assume that we cannot see the entire circuit.

This "invisible" circuit would be the magnetic flux. Voyager 1 flew through it and measured an order of magnitude increase in the velocity of the charged particles and field strength which voyager mission specialists dubbed the magnetic highway. Then flew out of it...and it is barely at the Oort cloud. Yet another observation that is clearly related to the sun but is not shown in the current solar model. IOW...disregarding an observation in favor of keeping the current model.
If you can believe that, then it's very hard to see what you can't believe."

Hence how you wind up debating people who have to resort to personal attacks. In order to support current mainstream astrophysics, you have to believe in objects that cannot be seen or measured, believe that things that cannot be verified experimentally occur and disregard any observation opposing the theory.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Re: "... Then flew out of it ..."

In the laboratory, such a feature (at least by the description you've provided right here) might alternatively be called a double layer. What we need to be paying special attention to is any indication of large-scale structures beyond the heliopause -- e.g., the ENA ribbon -- and observations which might call into question this notion that space beyond the heliosphere exhibits strictly less charge density, of a homogeneous nature, strictly weaker magnetic fields, and changes which are strictly explainable as gradual.

We are literally at the very start of these observation. If there wasn't such a bias in astrophysics against the consideration of electricity in space, we'd already be sending out a fleet of probes to ask these q's -- rather than the traditional practice of simply assuming that we already know, until we accidentally discover it's just not so.

Most of the missions these days already "know" the answers they are looking for.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017

You have as yet not explained how to create you magic bowls without the use of electric currents.

I don't create magnetic bowls, nature does. The funny thing is if you understand charged particle behavior at all you know it is two bowl shaped magnetic fields forming the boundary conditions that create the planetary nebulae we observe...still using that same profile pic for this site?
There is significant complexity to the subject,

There is indeed, and unlike your cohort who has never experimented with any plasma in his life (because if he did he wouldn't say the stupid shit he does here) you recognize dialogue is better than repeating the same wrong thing for almost a decade. Chris, you think...and it is both admirable, and a rare quality here. But if you acknowledge the fundamentals of plasma physics, you also know it cannot and will not do anything unless it is field directed.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
Re: "But if you acknowledge the fundamentals of plasma physics, you also know it cannot and will not do anything unless it is field directed."

Collectively, what I think is happening is that we are embedded into a plasma fractal. Imagine being inside of some small obscure piece of the Mandelbrot set, and I think the problem of identifying causes becomes clearer. And people are free to think I am crazy, but many of the features of this fractal -- the double layers which appear to protect the contents, the filaments which transport electrical energy, the birthing of galaxies from other galaxies -- there is a vague suggestion that the fractal is alive.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
In the laboratory, such a feature (at least by the description you've provided right here) might alternatively be called a double layer

I do not debate this whatsoever Chris. The details of the particle flow measured by voyager are scantly publicized, I was surprised they even released it at all in light of how the mainstream deal with information that contradicts what they consider settled science....like their solar model.
We are literally at the very start of these observation. If there wasn't such a bias in astrophysics against the consideration of electricity in space...

Again, agreed. But there is....
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
I don't create magic bowls, nature does.

Really, you don't say! Were these magic bowls dug up in some special mine somewhere? If nature creates them how does 'what's his name' apply for a patent for said magic bowls?
Speaking of charged particle behavior, an electric field will direct particle behavior as well, not just magnetic fields. But I digress, you don't believe electric fields exist, only magic bowls...
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
AN electric field: "a region around a charged particle or object within which a force would be exerted on other charged particles or objects."
an electric field will direct particle behavior as well, not just magnetic fields. But I digress, you don't believe electric fields exist, only magic bowls...

What is that invisible force in an "electric field" that acts upon charged particles again? That you think it there is difference is the true hilarity...maybe you should digress your way to a lab and come back when you actually understand physics.
If nature creates them how does 'what's his name' apply for a patent for said magic bowls?

So you missed where patents have been awarded on sequences of genetic code I guess....no worries, you never came across as well read. However, as the bowls are part of an invented device, yes, a patent has been awarded for them. Do you understand why a patent is required? (the answer isn't electricity)
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
Collectively, what I think is happening is that we are embedded into a plasma fractal.

Beautiful...well done Chris, truly.
And people are free to think I am crazy,

As if anyone here is qualified to judge "crazy".
but many of the features of this fractal -- the double layers which appear to protect the contents, the filaments which transport electrical energy, the birthing of galaxies from other galaxies -- there is a vague suggestion that the fractal is alive.

Not too sure about the religious connotations that emerge from the above, but as we are merely postulating about observations, again I have to agree. (fractals have been referred to as Gods architecture....so even if you are an atheist, that is an interesting perspective).
Thank you Chris, good chat.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
I don't create magic bowls, nature does.

Really, you don't say! Were these magic bowls dug up in some special mine somewhere? If nature creates them how does 'what's his name' apply for a patent for said magic bowls?

Aren't the "bowls", in actuality, really just opposing polarizations of interacting magnetic fields?
Speaking of charged particle behavior, an electric field will direct particle behavior as well, not just magnetic fields.

Only if there is magnetic presence... which is dependent on the proximity of (baryonic) mass...
Ergo, it varies in value.
But I digress, you don't believe electric fields exist, only magic bowls...

I think he believes interacting magnetic fields produce electrical "fields". I agree with that.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
What is that invisible force in an "electric field" that acts upon charged particles again?

The invisible force is the electric force, as described by Coulomb's Law. You know, electrostatics and all, high school stuff. It is this interaction that can "get the ball rollin'" so to speak, regarding the initiation of currents. Once charges are in motion you get the complexity of self-mag fields and other complexities.
Obviously we are discussing electromagnetism and in the grand scheme of things electricity and magnetism are inseperable hand maidens regardless of your attempts to make everything about magnetism alone.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
Another aspect which seems to throw a wrench into our attempts to deduce the behavior of the universe from principles is this Halton Arp business of quasar ejections, which then subsequently evolve into galaxies themselves.

If Arp is correct, there is something important that needs to be taken into consideration here:

What Arp claimed to show was that quasars are ejected from active galaxies electron-deficient. In some of his lesser-known talks (like the Kronia talk on Youtube), he proposes a very believable origin for the claimed quantization of redshift ...

It would come from the fact that the ejection travels through regions of different particle densities. As this ejected quasar travels through those regions, electrons rush in to combine with the protons, producing the elementary particles.

But, the thing to know about this is that the quantization also shows up for galaxies, so it would seem that this process may need to be taken into account with the stars (?).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
Collectively, what I think is happening is that we are embedded into a plasma fractal.

Which, quite probably, is (along with a tipping point of others) embedded in another, far larger one...
And people are free to think I am crazy,

As if anyone here is qualified to judge "crazy".

Crazy is a subjective term for "creative"... (Makes it easier to accept)
End of my judgement on the matter...:-)
but many of the features of this fractal -- the double layers which appear to protect the contents, the filaments which transport electrical energy, the birthing of galaxies from other galaxies -- there is a vague suggestion that the fractal is alive.

Not alive. Simply interacting with other like member phenomenae of the greater fractal set.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
The invisible force is the electric force, as described by Coulomb's Law. You know, electrostatics and all, high school stuff. It is this interaction that can "get the ball rollin'" so to speak, regarding the initiation of currents.

Only if there is magnetic presence... which is dependent on the proximity of sufficiently charged (baryonic) mass...
Once charges are in motion you get the complexity of self-mag fields and other complexities.

self-mag...?
Obviously we are discussing electromagnetism

Yep
and in the grand scheme of things electricity and magnetism are inseperable hand maidens regardless of your attempts to make everything about magnetism alone.

Not about magnetism alone. It's about interacting magnetic fields generating electricity with then facilitate MORE magnetism (which is really just charge polarization), generating MORE electricity.. and so on...
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2017
Re: "It's about interacting magnetic fields generating electricity with then facilitate MORE magnetism (which is really just charge polarization), generating MORE electricity.. and so on..."

There is an actual speculation/conjecture for this which has been suggested by the Thunderbolts Group, but I've unfortunately lost it on my hard drive somewhere and I don't believe it's ever been published online (?).

There are either 4 or 5 steps to the proposed cycle, but you've captured the general gist of the idea above (it repeats).

Those who are very set against "perpetual motion machines" will predictably object, but we are in vague cosmological territory here. In a strict sense, questions about origins and ultimate power sources are completely equivocal: both are perfectly metaphysical, as in completely beyond the ability of science to know with any certainty.

You know, this is what people mean when they talk about the number of angles which can dance on the head of a pin.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017
"The problem with the medieval debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin was that angels were unobserved entities, and so could have any desired properties."

- Don L. Hotson

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.