Up, Up and Away! Helium Balloon Telescope Explores the Sun
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Exploring the Sun via helium balloon almost sounds like an adventure for an animated movie, but the SUNRISE balloon-borne telescope has captured data and images that show the complex interplay on the solar surface to a level of detail never before achieved. As in the video above, SUNRISE shows our local star to be a bubbling, boiling mass where packages of gas rise and sink, lending the sun its grainy surface structure. Dark spots appear and disappear, clouds of matter dart up – and behind the whole thing are the magnetic fields, the engines of it all.
"Thanks to its excellent optical quality, the SUFI instrument was able to depict the very small magnetic structures with high intensity contrast, while the IMaX instrument simultaneously recorded the magnetic field and the flow velocity of the hot gas in these structures and their environment," said Dr. Achim Gandorfer, project scientist for SUNRISE at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
Previously, the observed physical processes could only be simulated with complex computer models.
"Thanks to SUNRISE, these models can now be placed on a solid experimental basis," said Manfred Schüssler, co-founder of the mission.
SUNRISE is the largest solar telescope ever to have left Earth. It was launched from the ESRANGE Space Centre in Kiruna, northern Sweden, on June 8, 2009. The total equipment weighed in at more than six tons on launch. Carried by a gigantic helium balloon with a capacity of a million cubic meters and a diameter of around 130 meters, SUNRISE reached a cruising altitude of 37 kilometers above the Earth's surface.
In the stratosphere, observational conditions are similar to those in outer space. The images are no longer affected by air turbulence, and the camera can also zoom in on the Sun in ultraviolet light, which would otherwise be absorbed by the ozone layer. After making its observations, SUNRISE separated from the balloon, and parachuted safely down to Earth on June 14th, landing on Somerset Island, a large island in Canada's Nunavut Territory.
The work of analyzing the total of 1.8 terabytes of observation data recorded by the telescope during its five-day flight has only just begun. Yet the first findings already give a promising indication that the mission will bring our understanding of the Sun and its activity a great leap forward. What is particularly interesting is the connection between the strength of the magnetic field and the brightness of tiny magnetic structures. Since the magnetic field varies in an eleven-year cycle of activity, the increased presence of these foundational elements brings a rise in overall solar brightness – resulting in greater heat input to the Earth.
The variations in solar radiation are particularly pronounced in ultraviolet light. This light does not reach the surface of the Earth; the ozone layer absorbs and is warmed by it. During its flight through the stratosphere, SUNRISE carried out the first ever study of the bright magnetic structures on the solar surface in this important spectral range with a wavelength of between 200 and 400 nanometers (millionths of a millimeter).
SUNRISE is a collaborative project between the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, with partners in Germany, Spain and the USA.
Source: PhysOrg
Filed under: Solar Astronomy
Tags: sunRelated stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
45 Responses to “Up, Up and Away! Helium Balloon Telescope Explores the Sun”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Now, this would be a good use of zeppelins.
It's good to know that we can get good stuff even if we're not able to leave Earth.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Reminds me of an experiment I had to do during my studies. Its aim was to find the average life time of the granules.
The experiment was done with holograms. That was really interesting! You take the first hologram, send through laser light, and behind it you put the second picture. The result should be the "laser point" again. But since the second hologram is a little different from the first one, you will not receive the correct dot.
You measure the brightness of the dot and write it down.
Then you take the next pictures and do the same thing again.
And finally the dot will vanish entirely, when the pictures differ too much from the first one.
In fact, this method is really easy. We found an average life time of 8min, or so. This is pretty close to the "real" number….
November 11th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
DrFlimmer Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I remember doing a very similar experiment in my third year undergrad physics labs, though not for sunspots; we were using images of a different phenomena. I remember it was among the more interesting of the experiments that I had to do…
Thanks for bringing that up – I can remember that experiment in detail and can imagine that what you described would be a very interesting form of the experiment!
November 12th, 2009 at 6:53 am
It looks like Balloon Boy is taking picures for us! Boy, he'll really get a hot seat for this!
November 12th, 2009 at 8:49 am
It turns out the whole thing was a hoax:
There was never a kid in the sun.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Nancy,
I would like to propound this suggestion.
Space exploration and science beyond and above our contemporary earthly biotope is without doubt likewise promising and useful.
Thus, because one of the most important parameters that determines the future of space exploration is costs, an instance that restricts all we dream and hope for, it would be great, if articles would also make available more information about expenditures of single projects.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@ Astrofriend
My experiment was not for sun spots, either. It was about the granules.
Never the less, the experiment was rather dull. You just "crashed" your eyes, because you had to search manually for the recreated dot, and it was sometimes impossible to find it. The advantage of the experiment was the time it took: We finished it in less than two hours, made the analysis the same afternoon and saved a lot of time for other activities on the next few days (normally the analysis of advanced experiments take hours or even days!).
The most horrible thing was that we had to make a "talk" out of it (you are required to present one of your advanced experiments). We were supposed to talk for 35 to 40 minutes. How can you fill 40 minutes when you must talk about something that took less than two hours?
. It worked out, IIRC we took a little more than 30 minutes.
In the end I began with a historical introduction beginning with the old Greek
November 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Another perspective that suggest electric currents are central to the Sun's physical processes:
Driving Currents for Flux Rope Coronal Mass Ejections
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Such currents are responsible for providing the Lorentz self-force that propels CMEs. Our estimates for the driving current are based on measurements of the propelling force obtained using data from the LASCO coronagraphs aboard the SOHO satellite. We find that upper limits on the currents enclosed by CMEs are typically around $10^{10}$ Amperes. We estimate that the magnetic flux enclosed by the CMEs in the LASCO field of view is a few $\times 10^{21}$ Mx.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
The link in the following comment to an actual close-up image of a solar flare supports the analysis & interpretation in the linked abstract in this comment.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Take a look at the close-up image of the solar flare presented in this You Tube link (only an 17 second clip, but instructive, nevertheless).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9xL3mw8tI
Notice how the flare builds and it's apparent the plasma current flowing up out of one 'foot' into the loop and then back down into the other 'foot'.
This image supports the scientific paper abstract linked in the previous comment.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am
And this scientific paper abstract outlines the roles of electric fields in the Sun's physical dynamics:
Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
Submission August 6, 2009
“A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy. ”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Hmm.
Electric currents and electric fields present in the Sun's physical dynamics.
Perhaps, some folks should broaden their perspective to include electromagnetism in their thinking.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@Anaconda: what makes you think that those who study the Sun, the solar wind, etc do NOT include "electromagnetism" in their thinking?
I mean, seriously, how did you arrive at such a patently ridiculous conclusion?
November 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I guess that all these things still do not proof that the sun is on any potential, nor that it is charged (meaning that the sum of all charges of all particles of the sun, where electrons are counted negatively and ions positively, differs much from zero). This does even not proof that the sun is powered by a large current from the outside.
So, what is the point you want to make, Anaconda?
To claim that "mainstream" science does not include electromagnetism, while exploring the sun, is – as Nereid already said – ridiculous.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Nereid wrote:
"@Anaconda: what makes you think that those who study the Sun, the solar wind, etc do NOT include "electromagnetism" in their thinking?
I mean, seriously, how did you arrive at such a patently ridiculous conclusion?"
I don't.
Those that study the Sun obviously do consider 'electromagnetism' in their thinking as evinced by the abstracts presented.
(Which Nereid apparently didn't pick up on — what's new?)
The exercise, here, was to point this out to the usual commenters and other readers.
But I will acknowledge that the usual suspects have come a long way since I first started commenting on this website, pointing out 'electromagnetism' in space.
From outright denial of 'electromagnetism' in space at the start to grudging admission — and in your case, Nereid, you have been reduced to ducking questions and refusing to discuss published peer-reviewed papers.
(Nereid's non-responses and excuses wouldn't cut it at the BAUT forum.)
And this process — like spoon-feeding a child bitter tasting medicine
has been accomplished as the usual suspects were dragged kicking and screaming to this grudging admission.
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident." –Schopenhauer
Yes, we have seen this process of enlightenment
at work right here on this website.
Nereid: "I mean, seriously, how did you arrive at such a patently ridiculous conclusion?"
"…finally it is accepted as self-evident."
And the people in the "cave" were dragged out into the sunlight — a reference to Plato's allegory of the cave.
Welcome to the light.
Now, if "modern" astronomy will only give up its devotion to the "dark" that dominates their belief system.
Ya, 95% of the Universe is "dark" matter…
"We don't know what it is or how to detect it, but we are 100% certain a "big bang" created it all.
– What a joke.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@Anaconda: where did you read that "95% of the Universe is "dark" matter"?
Concerning CDM (cold, dark – non-baryonic – matter): can you point to a peer-reviewed, published paper with an analysis of the WMAP (or other, post-COBE, CMB observations) which claim a quantitative match AND which do not include CDM?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Nereid asks: "…where did you read that "95% of the Universe is "dark" matter"?"
Shows how much Nereid follows the Universe Today website (oh, I forgot, Nereid only comes here when she's alerted that 'electromagnetism' is being discussed and she needs to knock it down to get her paycheck).
So, to spoon-feed Nereid once more:
This website, Universe Today, posted November 4th, 2009, "New CMB Measurements Support Standard Model".
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/04/new-cmb-measurements-support-standard-model/
Where it was reported that the authors of the SLAC study the article was based on claimed (link to SLAC press release at bottom of post):
"Their findings lend evidence to the predictions of the Standard Model in which the Universe is composed of 95% dark matter and energy, and only 5% of ordinary matter."
Tut..tut…tut…
In regards to your request, you seem to be asking a negative, which is hard to answer, because "dark" matter is the magical pixie dust that keeps the gravity "only" model from being falsified, so all papers of the type you request include "dark" matter speculation, as a matter of course, to keep the gravity "only" model and its extension, the "big bang" from being falsified.
Don't you get it Nereid? So-called "dark matter" is a fudge factor exactly because there is no quantitative match.
(Which maybe, just maybe, should make people question the validity of the model, instead of coming up with magic pixie dust to make it work.)
Actually, CMB likely is being misinterpreted as deriving from the supposed "big bang" when just as likely it derives from a present source.
But this is a distraction from the instant post and the abstracts I presented in regards to electric currents and electric fields being central to solar dynamics (typical for Nereid to distract when she's been shown the errors of her ways).
November 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Sorry, I'll stand corrected the 95% figure includes both "dark matter" and "dark energy".
My apology.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@Anaconda: um, dude, it was you who introduced CDM to the discussion!
There are some delightful comments by your hero, Dr Svalgaard, that I should, perhaps, use re this:
I'll take this very slowly, one step at a time …
First, there are lots of independent observations of the CMB, by WMAP, ACBAR, DASI, … and most of the data from these is available publicly, for free.
Second, there are many, many, many ideas out there regarding cosmology … in particular, there are many which do NOT include any CDM (or DE for that matter).
Third, if they (the proponents of these alternative ideas) wish to get traction for them – scientifically – by far the easiest and most straight-forward way to do so is to develop a model, based on the alternative ideas …
… and show that their model can account for the CMB observations, quantitatively.
And that is my question to you (reproduced below): please cite material which claims to do just that.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
DrFlimmer asks reasonable questions.
It maybe that the standard solar model is wrong and the 'Electric Sun' model is wrong.
The sun gives off a lot of matter by CME's and in it's general course.
More than has been observed & measured coming into the solar system, this works against the 'Electric sun' model.
But likely the Sun does not have a "nuclear furnace" at its center, rather, it has a hot, high pressure (due to gravity) ball of plasma, where there are no magnetic fields or electric currents per se, although, as a plasma it is still electrifield, i.e., free electrons & ions.
Plasma in this dense, hot state wants to disperse, per the law of entropy, but is restrained by gravity (yes, I consider gravity).
As a result of this ball of plasma seeking diffusion, plasma currents develop and with it magnetic fields and electrical currents.
Likely, the Sun does have some electric potential for the reason that protons (hydrogen stripped of it's electron) are much heavier than electrons and so are much more subject to gravity (there's that gravity, again), so, more electrons tend to escape because they have little mass.
The standard star formation model is wrong.
Stars, including the Sun, are likely formed by a Z-pinch, magnetic fields have been observed & measured in relation to star formation.
The following Wikipedia entry for plasma pinch describes the pinch process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
This pinch acts to gather plasma into a spherical ball of hot, pressurized plasma held together during the 'pinch' process by electromagnetic forces, but soon gravity primarily takes over (darn that gravity, again).
It could be that the filimented interstellar Birkeland currents, after formation of the star, act as a kind of regulator of the star's output of energy, but also possibly not.
Likely, an amalgamation of both views are closer to the physical reality.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Nice try Nereid, take it to the Universe Today post, I linked and I'll think about discussing it, after all it is an old post.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/04/new-cmb-measurements-support-standard-model/
My comment was an aside (yes, I'll acknowledge it was a dig)…but I can see you are desperate to latch on to it to distract from the presented scientific abstracts in this post.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Continuing with a theme related to the matter in hand and DrFlimmer's question.
Marklund convection is where matter, primarily plama, is concentrated in a Z-pinch:
"The mechanism provides an efficient means to accumulate matter within a plasma."
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection
November 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident." –Schopenhauer
Yes, we have seen this process of enlightenment at work right here on this website.
Nereid: "I mean, seriously, how did you arrive at such a patently ridiculous conclusion?"
"…finally it is accepted as self-evident."
Nereid has no answer to that…
November 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
But where do all the Neutrinos come from, I wonder. Definitely not from the corona. Although it is hot, it is far too thin to be able to produce enough neutrinos.
Ever heard of "Helioseismology"? It is a rather new field, but their results are quite consistent with the standard model of the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology
These oscillations reveal what we cannot see directly. Just like we learned much about the earth's interior through seismic waves.
The thing is, there is no piece of evidence for a Birkeland current (or whatever) coming in to power the sun. So, actual scientific data does not support such a current.
If you have data that hints otherwise, please present them.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@DrFlimmer: did you see that ND has posted a link to a *most* interesting blog/discussion, over in the "skeleton" UT story?
A very active participant in that discussion (if it can be called that) is a certain JFE … who may very well be Anaconda! If so, there are some, um, fascinating exchanges of comments ahead of us …
November 14th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Yes, I have seen it, and went through it for about 2 hours. It is so da*n long
.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:53 am
I think I've given this link before, but just in case …
Tom Bridgman has put together four pieces on how an Electric Sun might work, based on Scott's material.
The Solar Resistor Model
The Solar Capacitor Model I
The Solar Capacitor Model II
The Solar Capacitor Model III
In a nutshell, he does the work which Scott, for whatever reason, didn't …
… and he shows that the Electric Sun idea is inconsistent with relevant observations, and so has no legs to stand on (scientifically speaking).
Electric Cosmos
November 14th, 2009 at 6:59 am
@Anaconda: but the logic doesn't go the other way!
As Sagan (I think it was Sagan) said: "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Zwicky … but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown"
(Actually, I'm not sure which names he used, apart from Galileo, and Bozo the Clown!)
Do you agree that the acid test for *scientific* truths is consistency? As in internal consistency, and consistency with all relevant observations and experimental results.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:33 am
@ Nereid:
I don't put much stock in Bridgman's stuff.
Bridgman has a jihad against creationism which is fine, but Electric Universe doesn't have anything to do with creationism.
Somehow, Bridgman conflated the two in his mind and has been attacking Electric Universe ideas ever since.
Of course, Bridgman got his Ph. D. regarding "black holes" and since Electric Universe challenges the reality of "black holes" that might explain his attempts to invalidate Electric Universe ideas.
@ DrFlimmer:
I've linked this before, but will do so again:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm
Study it closely, it's important for its own sake, but also supports the idea that interstellar Birkeland currents do impinge on the heliosphere.
The next question is whether this impingement has an effect on the Sun's output.
I've laid this out before, but you were in no mood to discuss it.
Per NASA: "One important clue: The ribbon runs perpendicular to the direction of the galactic magnetic field just outside the heliosphere, as shown in the illustration at right.
"That cannot be a coincidence," says McComas. But what does it mean? No one knows. "We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy. Theorists are working like crazy to figure this out."
The ribbon running "perpendicular" to the magnetic field is consistent with an electric currrent (magnetic fields run perpendicular to electric currents).
This is "early days" of the meaning of the ribbon and there are still much Science doesn't know or understand about the Sun.
What Nereid doesn't say is that there are numerous observations & measurements of the Sun that the so-called Standard Model doesn't explain and are in fact inconsistent with the Standard Model of solar dynamics.
Yes, "consistency" is important, Nereid, too bad there are so many observations & measurements that are inconsistent with the gravity "only" model of the Cosmos used by astronomers to filter their interpretations.
This fact alone makes your attempt to invoke "consistency" rather hollow.
In actuality, while the 'Electric Sun' model is only a hypothesis, it expresses many consistencies with what is observed & measured of the Sun's activities.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:32 am
@Anaconda: your comment contains examples of several well-known logical fallacies, and illustrates why there is no discussion taking place here.
For example, the scientific validity of Bridgman's modelling has nothing to do with his personal views … they can be tested, objectively.
Now if you can identify any flaws in what Bridgman wrote, specifically any internal inconsistencies, or omissions (wrt Scott's material) …
Really?
Can you provide some examples?
Please be sure to identify what, exactly, you mean by "the Standard Model of solar dynamics", and where it is published.
I wasn't aware of the existence of any "gravity "only" model of the Cosmos used by astronomers to filter their interpretations"
What is this model?
If, perchance, you do not mean model in the usual sense, what do you mean?
Where is this model published?
What are the equations at the heart of this model?
What are the values of the key parameters in it?
How were those values determined?
How – specifically, quantitatively – can this model be tested?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:10 am
In fact, this is right, but proves or backs up none of your claims.
The ribbon is no field-aligned current, as you state yourself. So it has exactly nothing to do with a Birkeland current coming from the outside, and even less with a Birkeland current coming from the outside powering the sun.
The only thing the ribbon shows: The interstellar magnetic field has probably been underestimated in its influence on the heliosphere (to say it explicitly: This does not mean that the interstellar magnetic field has a direct influence on the sun and its activities).
November 15th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Damn, I got the html-code wrong. Hopefully you can still find out where the quotes are and what I have answered.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am
@DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer, when you distort my statements, which you do on a regular basis, it only serves to diminish your credibility not mine.
"Nice to note that you say that EU is not a scientific theory."
Do you understand what is a scientific hypothesis?
That's where all scientific ideas start. And Don Scott, himself, labels the 'Electric Sun' model as a hypothesis.
DrFlimmer, when you ignore evidence already presented (in prior threads not this one) it diminishes your credibility.
So, here it is again:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html
"The figure illustrates a newly recognized phenomenon in the ACE SWEPAM suprathermal electron data – depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field. Such symmetric depletions are present on open field lines at least 10% of the time in the ACE data and provide important clues to the origin of the electron halo."
Reading the entire link, it is clear there have been detected "backdrifting electrons" toward the Sun.
I have pointed this out more than once to you, but it contradicts your position so you ignore it or forget it.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
This one is for you, Nereid:
Sunspots are just one of many observed aspects of of the Sun that the Standard Model doesn't explain.
Here are some more:
it is true that the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is the most controversial aspect of Electric Universe theory.
But there are 17 observations of the Sun that the standard model doesn’t well explain or explain at all:
heavy elements
solar spectrum
neutrino deficiency
neutrino varibability
solar atmosphere
differential rotation by latitude
differential rotation by depth
equatorial plasma torus
the sunspots
sunspot migration
sunspot penumbra
sunspot cycle itself
magnetic field strength
the even magnetic field
helio seismology
solar density
changing size
All of the above phenomena are not well explained by the standard model (internal nuclear furnace).
Be sceptical, that’s okay. but also have an open-mind to the evidence as well.
This Youtube video has been linked before on this website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk
Nereid, you are slipping badly.
I think it's time to report to your handlers that the gig's up. Your pedantic obfiscation has run out of gas.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Nice explanation in the youtube video:
"Everything is explainable if the sun is electrical in nature"
Yeah, and? This explains exactly nothing. And, btw, as said many times, too, it fails basic tests.
In fact, Anaconda, I remember your link. And I also think that I reacted probably like this:
Ok, so we have backscattered electrons. Great. The thing is, they come from the sun in the first place. So, they do NOT prove your point that the sun could be powered from the outside by a current.
Maybe I should remember in the future that there are electrons flowing backwards in the solar wind. Then I can be even more specific.
My point still holds: The sun does not receive (say, enough) electrons from the outside (outside the heliosphere!) to be powered externally.
Yes, an idea. A theory is more than an idea, far more. And thus a scientific theory is better than a scientific hypothesis. And the ES-hypothesis will never reach the status of a theory, because it is already wrong with the first assumption (outside power, sun on a potential).
And how are they explained by the ESH (electric sun hypothesis)? I mean, what are the predictions of strength and numbers of, e.g., sun spots?
This applies to you as well, when some major flaws of ESH are pointed out.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@Anaconda: I think even you can now see that there is no discussion taking place here …
Here's what you wrote (I added some bold):
And here's what I asked you, in relation to this (also some bold added):
Now, did you identify what, exactly, you mean by "the Standard Model of solar dynamics"? No.
Did you identify … where it is published? No.
Does the list you provided contain anything that is inconsistent with the Standard Model of solar dynamics? No.
(Remember that it is consistency we were discussing …)
It gets worse.
You stated:
And I asked:
To which you responded with … nothing.
As I said elsewhere, if you want to have a science-based discussion, I'm more than willing to engage in one with you … provided you sign up to the essential, foundational aspects of science, starting with consistency.
Would you care to try again?
November 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Anaconda:
So what? What exactly do you think 'drives' those electric currents on the Sun?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Anaconda,
Do you believe the neutrino deficiency is still an issue even after the Sudbury neutrino observations? If so why? This has been pointed out many many times. Solrey had no objections to it that I can remember when it was pointed out to him.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Anaconda:
Again, I ask, so what? A similar phenomenon, known as "secondary emission", occurs in thermionic valves (vacuum tubes) where electrons of sufficient energy, when hitting a surface (or passing through some medium), induce the emission of secondary electrons from the anode. In valves (tubes), this is generally a nuisance (like our resident snake!) as it causes negative resistance and impairs the efficiency of the amplifying device.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Nereid:
Goddamn snakes cannot see above their own level!
November 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Anaconda:
Yeah, maybe so, but "Electric Universe" proponents employ the same cherry-picking tactics as creationists when it comes providing 'evidence' supporting their unsubstantiated claims.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
@Anaconda: I'm pretty sure you know this very well, but just in case …
In science – especially physics – theories have well-defined scopes, or domains of applicability.
Models derived from (or based, or built, on) theories have scopes that are subsets of the theories (the scope can be the same, but is usually smaller); hypotheses designed to test theories (or models) are similarly restricted in their scopes.
Perhaps some examples might help.
Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain Kepler's laws or the CMB … and no one would expect that it should, or could (the domain of applicability, or scope, of Darwin's theory of evolution does not include planetary motion of cosmic microwave radiation).
Alfvén's MHD does not explain the spectrum of hydrogen or the photoelectric effect … and no one would expect that it should, or could (even though all three have to do with electromagnetism).
Consistency (in science) is a whole different kettle of fish …
November 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
… that should read "does not include planetary motion or cosmic microwave radiation"
November 15th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Oh, and another thing…
Anaconda:
Who the bloody hell is denying 'electromagnetism' in space here?
Dude, it may have escaped your attention, because you're to damn busy burning out your keyboard by typing your stupid diatribe against mainstream astronomy, but this is the 400th year of the invention of the telescope — an optical device that collects the ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES KNOWN AS LIGHT — which the International Astronomy Union is currently celebrating!
Furthermore, NASA and ESA have, between them, these telescopes collecting all manner of ELECTROMAGNETIC waves across the whole bloody spectrum: HST; Spitzer; Chandra; Swift; Fermi; INTEGRAL; Ulysses; SOHO; STEREO A & B; WMAP; Planck; etc.
I told you all this before, so WTF are you moaning about?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
D'OH! No bloody edit facility here…
At the second paragraph after the block-quote, in first line, it should be: "…because you're too damn busy…"; not "to".
November 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Also, above, I should have placed the term "light" within double quotation marks.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Further correction: that "to" should be in between "…comes [to] providing…" at my previous post above.