Solar Flares

[Mike C]

Infinite

 

The dynamo effect does not have any cedibility IMHO because the sunspots do not show any rotation. Dynamos involve rotation.

 

Looking at these spots, the tendrils branch out straight rather than curved as one would expect when rotation is present when the spots move through the Suns slightly changing surface motion from the equator to the poles.

 

These spots move toward the center (equator) of the Sum when starting below or above the equator.

The Suns different velocities draw the spots toward the center.

 

I would explain these straght tendrils as magnetic field lines that move from the center outward and these lines 'repel' each other to eliminate the curvature.

 

NS

[Mike C]

Zythrin

 

I will explain this tomorrow.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

The dynamo effect does not have any cedibility IMHO because the sunspots do not show any rotation. Dynamos involve rotation.

A bit like math, huh?

 

It is the sunspots that are the source of the Suns magnetic fields that resulted from the separated positive nuclei and the freed electrons.

 

You've got it backward. The magnetic fields are the source of the sunspots. The field comes up internally from the sun, penetrates the surface at one point, then re-enters (penetrates again) the surface at another point. The magnetic fields in the sunspot areas is about 1,000 times stronger than the magnetic field in surrounding areas, and I've already posted information about the generation of the magnetic fields themselves.

 

 

But, oh yeah, they don't have any credibility.

[Zythryn]

Zythrin

 

I will explain this tomorrow.

 

NS

 

I look forward to it.

[CraigD]

Craig, your reliance on mathematics is not the final word in science.

….

That is why I rely on 'visualization', rather than math.

New Science, I think you speak for many people. A perusal of free and commercial publishing reveals many books and websites based on “math-free visualization”. Mark McCutcheon‘s “The Final Theory” (discussed to amazing length (842 replies to date) in 797) stands out as one of the lengthier and better-known examples of this genre. Though it’s unfair to lump all of this ideas and literature together, it has in common a rejection of conventional, math-based science, and a reliance on visual representation and intuitive approaches.

 

Though this rejection of math is understandable (few people like math, or are as comfortable using it as they are looking at, imagining, or drawing pictures), I don’t think it’s a good approach to understanding such subjects as physics and astronomy. Though pictures, imagination, intuition, and other non-mathematical means are important and essential in science, I don’t believe math can be excluded from the process of scientific understanding.

 

People who chose to do so, I sorely fear, are crippling their ability to scientifically understand reality. I strongly counsel such people, including you, NS, to change your approach.

 

Without math, we are left with arguments such as

• Solar flares are big and explosive
  
• Comets contain things that can go BOOM
  
• Comets are big
  
• Therefore, solar flares are caused by comets striking the sun and going BOOM

The problem with this approach is that, without math to quantify it, “big” can’t be meaningfully used in these multiple contexts (solar flares, comets). Among other uses, math helps us compare things.

 

My counsel not to reject math may be futile – nearly everyone, in my experience, who does so has be counseled against doing so many times, yet persists. I can’t help but hope that such people will, if appropriately impressed with the utility of math in science, change their attitude toward it.

 

With this in mind, I strongly recommend Larwence Krauss’s 1994 book ”Fear of Physics”. It contains, IMHO, some of the most entertaining and compelling examples of how math assists the scientific process, especially in the import role of estimation – which is what I requested in of you, NS, in post #15.

[jackson33]

Craig; Most of the ideas/hypothesis, that have survived time did not come from minds that understood mathematics, IMO. Many ideas have been tested with math over the years or given some value to that idea, many times by others than the author. I use the word visionary, or the ability to create an idea from reasoning thought, but science itself has come from the philosophical mind to what is today. "The people who choose to exclude math" then in my mind means, those people are incapable of understanding any scientific premise and are held to the use of meaningful words, which are understood by most educated people. I am not saying Math is NOT important, but should not be used to limit a persons contribution. I will add, anyone interested is science to study math to their limits, but remember this will never create an idea.

 

To the thread; The sun rotates slightly faster on its axis, from the equators to each pole, which I guess NS is saying a suction effect occurs drawing meteor stick reactions toward the equator.

 

Again, look at the total stuff which must hit the Sun. Its said we have received 150 known strikes from space with mass 6 miles in diameter or more, which are documented, no one will to estimate the unknowns, which some day will be found in the ocean floors. Thats 70% of our surface. Its also said we have somewhere between 275 and 50,000 tons of space debris DAILY. This figure may seem small to the total, but this has been on a planet 1/332,837 the mass of the sun and that much less gravity.

 

There are conflicting theory on just what causes the Magnetic field to begin with. On Earth, some feel is from the cores movements, which would more resemble the Suns outer portions. It might be worth mentioning that this field is said to have decreased 10%, think in 150 years and the reason some feel its going to soon shift. There are simulations showing the Solars outer fields going well outside the solar system itself, curving back to to the sun.

[Turtle]

.... I am not saying Math is NOT important, but should not be used to limit a persons contribution. I will add, anyone interested is science to study math to their limits, but remember this will never create an idea.

Never is a very long time, and no end of counter examples to your claim. Can we say Synergetics??

 

There are conflicting theory on just what causes the Magnetic field to begin with. On Earth, some feel is from the cores movements, which would more resemble the Suns outer portions. It might be worth mentioning that this field is said to have decreased 10%, think in 150 years and the reason some feel its going to soon shift. There are simulations showing the Solars outer fields going well outside the solar system itself, curving back to to the sun.

 

Even without mathy, your statments run contrary to my reading. Try this thread. >> http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/2966-switching-poles.html?highlight=magnetic+reversal

 

particularly the links Uncle Al gives in post #2 of above thread. Here's just one of his links. >> Geodynamo

[jackson33]

Turtle; The greatest mathematician in the world, will not likely come up with any scientific theory, via his math, unless he/she has some visual concept of what is to be explained. My point was to the folks that are not well versed in math and their potential contribution to the world of science.

 

On the MF shifting, on Earth, the Sun or for that matter the galaxy, which some feel exist, I have no desire to argue. The fields no doubt do exist and I somewhat agree, this protects us from particle emissions from the Sun, at least to our outer Atmosphere. Personally, I do wonder if the earth's will some day cease and the impending shift will simply not happen with the decrease in strength, just slowly vanish. Hopefully it will shift again, but with the historical

data suggest the time intervals are increasing dramatically, if this data is correct....

[Turtle]

Turtle; The greatest mathematician in the world, will not likely come up with any scientific theory, via his math, unless he/she has some visual concept of what is to be explained. ...

 

Unless perhaps that theory is a mathematical one? Which came first; string theory, or Calabai-Yau shapes?

 

Personally, I do wonder if the earth's will some day cease and the impending shift will simply not happen with the decrease in strength, just slowly vanish. Hopefully it will shift again, but with the historical

data suggest the time intervals are increasing dramatically, if this data is correct....

 

Good musings all. Science advances by amendment. I can only muse that if humans are around for Earth's death they are watching it from ships heading out to our next planet of habitation. :) :lol:

[jackson33]

In my mind, visionary came well before any one added 1 and 1 to come out 2.

Certainly when ever reasoning became an item, people must have wondered about the stars, sun and their own existence.

 

On Magnetic Reversal's in the future. I will assume Mars some time in the past must have had a MF. This allowed Atmosphere to form free from solar activity, much as it has on earth. Even today they have remnants of the Ionosphere or outer layer of the total, said to be patchy with a suggested -0- magnetic field. If my wild speculation were to become fact, where probably talking several million years to prepare for anything. Adding this or any theory will not speed up anything and in a much closer time frame problems much more complex will pop up and be solved.

[InfiniteNow]

In my mind, visionary came well before any one added 1 and 1 to come out 2.

Seen the studies where animals do math? They do. From birds to reptiles to mammals. I'd suggest that when that first bug found two pollen filled flowers it soon learned that 2 was more than one, hence math. Not so sure they were "visionary" before that, nor that you could consider bugs, lizards, and other animals "visionary," eh?

 

 

On Magnetic Reversal's in the future. I will assume Mars some time in the past must have had a MF.

No need to assume. There is data in support of this.

 

Mars Global Surveyor Magnetic Field Investigation

 

 

 

However, you have a knack at derailing threads, Jackson. The dialog was about the sun, it's magnetic field, and per the title... solar flares.

[Mike C]

I've seen some really 'out there' posts and positions in the past. But dismissing math you don't like really does, in my opinion, take the cake;)

 

Let's focus on one thing for a moment, e=mc^2. You claim it doesn't work, right?

Can you explain how a nuclear fission explosion works? Where does the energy come from if it is not from conversion of matter into energy?

 

The fission bomb has released the 'stored' (potential) energy by the 'strong force'.

This force, as portrayed, has a very short range of only 10^-14 meters.

That is the diameter of one nucleon.

So, the collisions created in these bombs by free neutrons, shatter these complex nuclei like plutonium by conventional explosives that spread beyond the range of the strong force.

The freed protons than repel violently through the coulomb repulsion to cause the explosion.

So this constitutes a release of potential energy as described above.

 

Also, the fragmented particles resulting from this explosion like electrons, protons and alpha particles would 'weigh' more than the weight of the original plutonium.

So while there is a tremendous amount of energy created here, you also have a mass increase.

This is just the opposite of the fusion process that creates energy that seems to be at the expense of matter where there appears to be a mass reduction.

However, these mass losses are extremely small that I attribute to the derived methods of weighing that could be erroneous.

These weghts are primarily determined as inertial masses that I think could be faulty because of the different patterns of the magnetic fields surrounding the particles being measured.

In other words, the particle magnetic fields reactic slightly differently when passing through the 'fixed' magnetic fields used for the measuring IMHO.

 

NS

[Zythryn]

The fission bomb has released the 'stored' (potential) energy by the 'strong force'.

This force, as portrayed, has a very short range of only 10^-14 meters.

That is the diameter of one nucleon.

So, the collisions created in these bombs by free neutrons, shatter these complex nuclei like plutonium by conventional explosives that spread beyond the range of the strong force.

 

What is the mechanism that uses an extremely short range force to convey it to greater distances? Keep in mind that the entire binding force of the original partical is not available, only the difference between the original binding force and the combination of binding forces of the resulting particals.

 

The freed protons than repel violently through the coulomb repulsion to cause the explosion.

So this constitutes a release of potential energy as described above.

 

Protons alone as a cause of the explosion won't do the type of damage we see. Sure, it would kill all life with high energy gamma rays, but buildings and such would be untouched (I believe this was/is called a neutron bomb).

 

Also, the fragmented particles resulting from this explosion like electrons, protons and alpha particles would 'weigh' more than the weight of the original plutonium...

 

So why is it there is a mass REDUCTION after a neutron stikes and splits a uranium atom? As a matter of fact, the mass reduction thrown into e=mc^2 describes the amount of energy released;)

[CraigD]

Also, the fragmented particles resulting from this [fission bomb] explosion like electrons, protons and alpha particles would 'weigh' more than the weight of the original plutonium.

Please back up this claim with links and/or briefly quoted and cited references. It appears to contradict all published reference and experimental data.

[Mike C]

What is the mechanism that uses an extremely short range force to convey it to greater distances? Keep in mind that the entire binding force of the original partical is not available, only the difference between the original binding force and the combination of binding forces of the resulting particals.

 

I do not quite understand your question?

 

Protons alone as a cause of the explosion won't do the type of damage we see. Sure, it would kill all life with high energy gamma rays, but buildings and such would be untouched (I believe this was/is called a neutron bomb).

 

I really cannor say just exactly how the bomb is shattered to create the free protons, but neutrons cannot exist in a free state unless coupled with a proton. In a coupled state in a deuteron or alpha nucleon, they weigh less than in a free state. So the weight of the neutron in a free state is questionable to me.

In the fission bomb, the neutron could separate (decay] instantly into a proton and electron to add more repulsive force to the explosion.

 

So why is it there is a mass REDUCTION after a neutron stikes and splits a uranium atom? As a matter of fact, the mass reduction thrown into e=mc^2 describes the amount of energy released;)

 

I do not know how the weight of a neutron in a free state is determined. But as I said above, it weighs less in the coupled state than in the free state.

 

NS

[Qfwfq]

The greatest mathematician in the world, will not likely come up with any scientific theory, via his math, unless he/she has some visual concept of what is to be explained.

This depends on what you mean by math. The whole math vs. visualization diatribe is moot. Also, basically, all you are saying is that math is not strictly science but rather a language, which also makes it a tool. A tool especially useful for science, especially physics and those based on it.

 

Many philosophers, following Aristotle, disdained the use of math. One example of the reasoning of the medieval peripatetics is: "There are seven orifices on the human face, there are seven planets in the heavens, therefore there are seven metals." This is not logical and it is hardly fair to blame Aristotle for such shortcomings of his fans; he was indeed the first to cast the foundations of logic, on which math is based, and his misgivings about the use of quantitative analysis in natural philosophy was simply due to despair before the impossibility of completely eliminating error in measurement; he just hadn't figured how to handle experimental data properly.

 

This force, as portrayed, has a very short range of only 10^-14 meters.

That is the diameter of one nucleon.

So, the collisions created in these bombs by free neutrons, shatter these complex nuclei like plutonium by conventional explosives that spread beyond the range of the strong force.

The freed protons than repel violently through the coulomb repulsion to cause the explosion.

A highly inaccurate description.

 

The role of the coulomb repulsion is quite tiny in a nuclear fission or fusion event. Most of the energy comes out as kinetic energy of the photons, hadrons and nuclei. The elastic material of a catapult or a crossbow has a range no longer than the implement itself, but once the stored energy has become the projectile's kinetic energy, this has a much longer range.

[Mike C]

A highly inaccurate description.

 

The role of the coulomb repulsion is quite tiny in a nuclear fission or fusion event. Most of the energy comes out as kinetic energy of the photons, hadrons and nuclei. The elastic material of a catapult or a crossbow has a range no longer than the implement itself, but once the stored energy has become the projectile's kinetic energy, this has a much longer range.

 

The photons did not cause the explosion. They are an 'effect'.

Hadrons are protons and neutrons. Protons have an intrinsic force called the coulomb charge that repels similar charges.

Neutrons are neutral and would not contribute to an explosion unless the components are separated.

Nuclei are what the word implies. Neutralised components of the primary particles like the electrons and the protons plus the neutrons. Nuclei are considered to be neutral.

They would not, in themselves, contribute to the explosion as a force but only as a supply of 'charged' particles.

 

So the only component to cause such an explosion is the coulomb force contained in the charged particles.

It was the strong force that contained the charged particles as 'potential energy and the high velocity particles used to 'fracture' the nuclei beyond the range of the SF that was the 'cause' of the fissions (explosion).

 

This is basic physics as I see it.

 

NS