Solar Hurricane Rips Off Comet's Tail

coondoggie writes to mention that NASA recently captured images of a solar hurricane ripping the tail off Encke's comet. "In a release, NASA said preliminary analysis suggests that the tail was ripped away when magnetic fields bumped together in an explosive process called "magnetic reconnection." Oppositely directed magnetic fields around the comet "bumped into each" by the magnetic fields in the hurricane. Suddenly, these fields linked together--they "reconnected"--releasing a burst of energy that tore off the comet's tail. A similar process takes place in Earth's magnetosphere during geomagnetic storms fueling, among other things, the Northern Lights, NASA said."

Comments

Wonder what the RF signature of that was like

[Nefarious Wheel]

Don't you get a rather large electrical field when a magnetic field like that collapses? Should be an amazing radio source.

Re:Wonder what the RF signature of that was like

[The_Wilschon]

Precisely. Magnetic reconnection releases a tremendous amount of energy, most of it in the form of EM radiation. It is the phenomenon responsible for, IIRC, many (most?) solar weather events, perhaps most notably solar flares.

Re:Wonder what the RF signature of that was like

[Jane Q. Public]

The source of the solar wind anomaly -- the recent "bare" magnetic storm -- is a much higher source of RF and other energy than any distant magnetic effects. It might have made a blip but would probably be drowned out by the main phenomenon.

How is a Coronal Mass Ejection like a Hurricane?

[Anonymous Coward]

They both blow.

Tsk tsk tsk

[Bluesman]

That's very immature of the Sun. Fortunately, we know that the comet's tail will grow back, and it will be none the worse for wear.

Re:Tsk tsk tsk

[Anonymous Coward]

In further news: The solar hurricane was named Lorena.

Re:Tsk tsk tsk

[Skevin]

No no no. It *ripped off* the tail, which means:

1. The Sun sold the Comet's Tail a Plasma TV, but when it got home, it discovered there was only a cement block in the box.
2. The Sun cheats at poker.
3. The Sun also hustles pool.

Pick one.

Solomon

Re:Tsk tsk tsk

[MillionthMonkey]

Fortunately, we know that the comet's tail will grow back

Well, hey, hold on there... we first need to decide whether this comet tail should be rebuilt at all. If another solar hurricane is just going to come and wash the tail away, then it's a waste of valuable ice and dust to rebuild it and we should disincentivize comet tails from forming by saying, hey, comet tails, we're not bailing you out anymore! Stop mooching off the rest of the solar system and take some responsibility for yourselves!

Curiously, by accident or design it seems that most of the damage and disruption was confined to the ion tail, instead of the wealthier dust tail area... that's typical electromagnetic justice for you.

Outrageous

[Daimanta]

Won't somebody please think about the comets!

Magnetic Reconnection?

[IMarvinTPA]

What is this Magnetic Reconnection thing you speak of?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060711magnetic.htm

IMarv

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

For people wanting a more technical discussion of why magnetic reconnection is likely a farse, check this out ...

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[kmac06]

Uh...between well-agreed upon scientific data and interpretation vs one guy's ranting website (who's not a physicist), I'm gonna go with the peer-reviewed literature. This claims to single-handedly see a gaping hole in solar neutrino oscillation experiments, that no physicist sees. That is just screaming CRACKPOT!

As far as the magnetic reconnection issue...well there's no reason to trust (or even read) anything a crackpot like this says.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Anonymous Coward]

pseudoscientific crap, mod parent down. we don't fit our equations to what we see, we predict phenomena from our equations and test theory by making observations and this is why the "electric cosomos" "theory" fails miserably.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Science is not a democracy, by the way. We do not vote on ideas based upon who is saying them, contrary to the increasing belief that this is how it works. Instead, we should attempt to understand the arguments that are being made and discuss the logic behind both sides in the argument.

There have been plenty of intelligent people who believed that space plasmas are electrical. You just have not read about them. Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, to name a few. Hannes Alfven received the Noble Physics Prize for his creation of magnetohydrodynamics, which is the mathematics used to model space plasmas. You may be surprised to learn that in his acceptance speech, he disagreed with the idea of modeling space plasmas with frozen-in-place magnetic fields -- a technique which he originated and that persists to this day. He was completely ignored.

If you have not read the story of Halton Arp, then you are limiting your exposure to observations to those which you agree with. In truth, there is no good reason for why Arp's observations are not correct. Arp has been obstructed from sharing his findings at every step of the way, oftentimes by the very people whose research is threatened by his observations.

There is a person on wikipedia called ScienceApologist, who has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia on the basis that there are no published papers which support EU Theory. Well, Anthony Peratt, Wallace Thornhill and a handful of other EU theorists did in fact get published in September in an IEEE publication. ScienceApologist decided to actually send a letter to the IEEE editor, objecting that the papers were pseudo-scientific (and yet in the absence of any evidence supporting his statements). Apparently, his requirement that EU Theorists be published is in fact not sufficient at all. There appears to be no burden that can be met by the EU Theorists that would satisfy him, and the ethical problems associated with his being both a wikipedia referee and a player involved in influencing the publication of the theory appears to escape him.

Not being popular is not an excuse to avoid reading about something, especially when there are such over-zealous censors who believe it is their duty to prevent the public from understanding the debate about electricity in space. If a theory appears to be logically coherent and supported by observational evidence, then it stands a chance of being true regardless of how many adherents it possesses (nature does not care what people prefer to believe), and it deserves investigation and even attempts to quantify it. Evaluating theories purely on the basis of who looks or sounds the smartest is a downward spiral. I recommend that you think twice before suggesting that others follow your lead. You very well could be redirecting people away from fruitful lines of research and investigation. Despite your good intentions, you may in fact be causing harm. You can't possibly know until you *read* what the theory says and talk to people about it, right?

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[CorSci81]

Well, it goes like this.

That you just posted is a piece of pseudo-scientific dreck from all I can tell. I had a course on MHD in grad school, the theory of magnetic reconnection most certainly can account for the speed of energy release in solar events. It's also an important problem in plasma instability in tokamaks. Searching on google scholar didn't find any peer-reviewed papers by plasma physicists refuting magnetic reconnection.

Perhaps they were confused by Biskamp's 1986 paper on the Sweet-Parker model failing to achieve fast reconnection that was cleared up in a 1992 paper by Priest and they missed that Biskamp himself seems to accept fast reconnection as possible in his 1994 paper?

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Does it matter that Wallace Thornhill was able to predict nearly all of the results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1?

Are you aware of what helioseismology is and what the implications of the oxygen ratio crisis are? Helioseismology was created to model activity on the Sun based upon observations and theories regarding the Sun's composition. Everybody claimed that it "proved" that we understood the Sun's inner workings. Then, one day, it was discovered that the theories regarding the Sun's composition were in fact somehow wrong.

Are you aware that jets are being discovered on a nearly weekly basis now that are tens and even hundreds of thousands of light years? These jets emit x-rays, which means that the energy for them must be actively replenished in order for the full length of the jet to remain illuminated all at once.

Are you aware that the solar wind continues to accelerate as it leaves the Sun, and even as it passes the planets? Are you aware that mainstream stellar theories lack a convincing theory for how this is possible?

Are you aware that lightning has been observed to be traveling to the edge of Earth's atmosphere, 40 miles above its surface to the edge of space? Why would it be doing that?

Are you aware that stars have been observed to bounce all over the HR diagram?

Are you aware that Halton Arp's statistics have been validated by a third party recently?

What is it about space plasmas that would make them different from laboratory plasmas? In the laboratory, plasmas exhibit three distinct operating modes (dark, glow and arc) and electrical resistance based upon charge density, and a gas becomes a plasma with less than 1% ionization.

Are you aware that we see rilles on all sorts of planets within our solar system that move both up and down with the terrain, in apparent defiance of gravity?

Did you know that all sorts of strange human-created objects and even human bones have been found over the years inside of coal mines, hundreds of feet below the ground's surface, and even inside of rocks?

Did you know that we sent four probes to investigate Venus' anomalous temperature, and all four probes determined that Venus was emitting around 15% more heat than it was absorbing?

Are you aware that there is an inordinate amount of fossil evidence that supports the notion that the Earth used to have a uniform temperature over its entire surface?

Are you aware that the field of comparative mythology (which covers ancient astronomical recordings and historical documents too) has been in a crisis for at least 20 years now, and that there have been recent breakthroughs that reveal that there is information within ancient documents that indicate that the universe operates according to a plasma-based cosmology? Have you read "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona?

Are you aware that solar neutrinos appear to negatively correlate with sunspot frequency? Do understand what this means?

My guess is that you have been restricting your reading materials in a pseudo-skeptical manner. I recommend that you read what is being said before discounting it. That would certainly reduce the amount of garbage that people have to wade through on these forums to get to actual discussion.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[kmac06]

I have no opinion on the magnetics going on here. I was pointing our the crackpottery of the first paragraph of your link, and saying that the rest of what he has to say should be ignored based on that (that doesn't mean everything he says is false--if he says 1+1=2 that's still true).

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

I was pointing our the crackpottery of the first paragraph of your link, and saying that the rest of what he has to say should be ignored based on that

But magnetic reconnection is *extremely* important as it attempts to explain why the Sun's atmosphere is 100x hotter than its surface. We see a similar inverse temperature situation with the Earth's atmosphere, but it is generally agreed that this is a result of an external energy source. If Don Scott is right about magnetic reconnection, then the most popular theory for how the Sun's core can heat up its atmosphere without heating up its surface is bunk. It is an important issue that people should attempt to understand. If you just set it aside, then you are actually refusing to consider the meat of his argument. That's not very helpful for evaluating whether or not he's right. We might as well judge his theory on what his hair looks like or the fact that he's not in a wheelchair or hasn't been on TV.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[kmac06]

You're not getting (or intentionally ignoring) my point about the solar neutrino oscillations. This guy clearly either doesn't know what he's talking about, or for some reason isn't trying to convince any actual physicists. Either way, it means he shouldn't be taken seriously, regardless of what he's saying.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

My understanding actually is that number of neutrinos emitted by the Sun are inversely correlated with sunspot frequency. If that is true, then that would tend to pose a serious problem for the standard solar model as that would suggest a correlation between neutrino generation and activity on the Sun's surface, which are supposed to be separated by a significant duration of time. Is this not true?

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[lindseyp]

Well bloody hell.. you could have provided some references.

Now all I have to go on are three newly-ordered-from-amazon books. by Arp, Scott, and Lerner. I don't think all the points you mention in your post are covered there.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[ZwJGR]

Magnetic reconnection does not exist and does not explain why the corona is hotter than than the sun's lower level (photosphere? I forget).
The explanation is indeed due to the electromagnetic nature of plasma, and the large potential differences and EM fields around the sun. However this is no need to gratuitously break several laws of physics by implying that field lines actually exist (they don't, they only represent the direction of a continuous unbreakable field), and that these so called lines can break and then reconnect, which is complete BS. A magnetic field is a continuous force field created about the motion of moving charge, not some open-ended spaghetti.

If magnetic field lines can break, then you'd better throw Maxwell, Einstein, Gauss, and a whole bunch of other scientists' work into the bin...

I've read Donald Scott's book the Electric Sky, and nowhere does it state or imply the existence. of magnetic field breakage or reconnection. (That book also gives a good, reasonable explanation of what is going on, using simple plasma dynamics).
I don't have the book with me (not mine), and I don't remember the details well enough to post them on /. (haven't read it for ages).

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Kyace]

Isaac Newton, after he wrote his famous laws, basically spent years trying to get alchemy to work. I'm sure many of his peers, 'actual physicists', thought he was a crackpot for trying. Please view the merits of an idea based on the proof behind it and against it, not solely on if you like the person or agree with everything else they are saying. I enjoy a quote about Newton's years spent in alchemy from a book by Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen and Terry Pratchett, paraphrasing saying that 'had there been any way of making alchemy work, Isaac Newton would likely have found it'.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Fred_A]

Are you aware of what helioseismology is and what the implications of the oxygen ratio crisis are? Helioseismology was created to model activity on the Sun based upon observations and theories regarding the Sun's composition. Everybody claimed that it "proved" that we understood the Sun's inner workings. Then, one day, it was discovered that the theories regarding the Sun's composition were in fact somehow wrong. I thought everyone knew for years (at least) that the sun wasn't a barge (or a chariot as an alternative theory stated) drifting across the sky. This is hardly news.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[kmac06]

And the guy on the street corner saying the end is near might be right. Sometime a crackpot is just a crackpot.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Kyace]

You are welcome to your opinion of him as a crackpot, you are also welcome to dismiss out of hand any theory he puts forth based on your opinion of him. The only problem I have is when you tell other people that his ideas are to be dismissed without inspection because you think he is a crackpot. Other than the fact that this theory explaining the losing of the comet's tail also includes the sun, I didn't see anything linking it to his other work. If the theory is wrong, let someone find some proof to explain some other reason the plasma tail disappeared or some flaw in his sample data; rather than resorting to name calling.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[TheRaven64]

I'm sure many of his peers, 'actual physicists', thought he was a crackpot for trying. I doubt it. Alchemy wasn't entirely discredited at the time Newton tried it. It's more likely that he was thought a crackpot for claiming that an apple pulls the Earth upwards as it falls (when everyone knows things fall down because that's what 'down' means) than for his dabbling.

Actually, this being Newton, it's more likely people thought he was a crackpot for giving a lecture to an empty room after frightening his students so much that none of them showed up to his lecture.

Context is important.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[TheRaven64]

So, what you're saying is, the sun isn't like a barge (or chariot), it's a series of tubes?

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[DrWho520]

I'm sure many of his peers, 'actual physicists', thought he was a crackpot for trying.
Probably not as many as you think. Elementalism and alchemy were still widely accepted in his day.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Sometime a crackpot is just a crackpot.

The problem is that many of the people who believe that space plasmas are electrical have very impressive credentials. Don Scott is merely one of many. Hannes Alfven was convinced enough of it that he postulated a mechanism for how charge separation could occur in space -- his critical ionization velocity -- which was subsequently validated within the laboratory.

When you erroneously call somebody a crackpot as a result of limiting your reading selection so much that you are unaware of the full history, you do a disservice to others who are trying to understand whether or not there is a real debate here. You basically help to convince others that there is no reason to hold such a discussion about electricity in space, and what's amazing is that you do it in spite of increasing evidence that a debate is warranted. You appear to be just completely oblivious that observations are confirming the statements of these people. If solar neutrinos, for instance, are anti-correlating with sunspot numbers, then that would clearly imply that the neutrinos are being generated near the surface of the Sun as opposed to inside of it. Within the standard solar model, there is a requirement that the neutrinos be generated something like 100,000 years *before* any surface effects could be observed. Don Scott's Electric Sun Hypothesis explains this enigmatic observation, and would furthermore explain why the corona is 100x hotter than the Sun's surface and why the solar wind continues to accelerate as it passes the planets.

You appear to believe that he is a crackpot on the sole basis of your own belief system rather than the evidence. It appears as though you are treating science as if it is a religion, or perhaps more appropriately, a cult. You have fallen prey to the field of public relations, which has convinced you that everything in astrophysics has already been figured out.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

So, what you're saying is, the sun isn't like a barge (or chariot), it's a series of tubes?

Actually, I would agree that the Sun does in fact look like a series of tubes ...

From http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001:

The abstract wrote:
Recent studies suggest that flux-tube-like structures may exist in the solar wind. In this scenario, the solar wind plasma are confined in many individual flux tubes and plasma in these flux tubes move independently from each other. Within each flux tubes, the (MHD) turbulence is due to the local non-linear dynamics. Across the boundaries between adjacent flux tubes, however, the (MHD) turbulence receives another contribution from the sudden change of magnetic field directions between different flux tubes. Thus the solar wind turbulence will naturally be of multiscale and intermittent. In this paper, using the procedure we developed in [1], we analyze magnetic field data obtained from Ulysses spacecraft in both fast and slow solar wind, at various radii and latitudes. Our results show flux tubes exist in both the fast and the slow solar wind. ©2007 American Institute of Physics

If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe, then you know what I'm getting at. If the term "flux tube" confuses you, then feel free to substitute in the concept of a current-carrying wire ... ;)

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Guppy06]

"Science is not a democracy, by the way."

Agreed.

"Instead, we should attempt to understand the arguments that are being made and discuss the logic behind both sides in the argument."

Science is not a democracy; all ideas and proposals need not and should not be given equal weight, and it is proper for ideas that are outlandish on their face to be casually dismissed without bothering to engage in such a dialog; the nature of the claims make it apparent that a truly rational discourse with its adherent is not forthcoming.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: don't expect to be considered until you've gathered such proof.

"There have been plenty of intelligent people who believed that space plasmas are electrical."

And they did their work in the Nineteenth Century. Not that "plenty" matters any because, as you correctly pointed out, science is not a democracy.

"There is a person on wikipedia called ScienceApologist, who has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia on the basis that there are no published papers which support EU Theory."

I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system! 40 points on Ye Olde Crackpot Index.

"EU theorists did in fact get published in September in an IEEE publication. "

Science is not a democracy: electrical engineers and cosmologists are not equals. Electrical engineers are not qualified to comment on the nature of the observable universe any more than a cosmologist is qualified to design a microprocessor.

"Not being popular is not an excuse to avoid reading about something,"

Science is not a democracy: it's not being ignored because it's unpopular, it's being ignored because it's unlikely.

"especially when there are such over-zealous censors who believe it is their duty to prevent the public from understanding the debate about electricity in space."

Science is not a democracy: in the interest of promoting human understanding, it is his duty to fight mis- and disinformation, to "prevent the public from misunderstanding the lack of a debate about electricity in space," as it were.

"Evaluating theories purely on the basis of who looks or sounds the smartest is a downward spiral."

But evaluating theories based on an educated guess as to their likelihood, and noting when proposals cherry-pick favorable observations and conveniently ignore damning evidence to the contrary, is a necessary culling. Again, science is not a democracy, and extraordinary proof is required.

As I mentioned earlier, many imaginative thinkers from the Nineteenth Century would have agreed with what you espouse, due to the lack of collected evidence, of observations. But here in the Twenty-First, not only have we gathered a mountain of evidence to the contrary, but we now apply the science learned from that contrary evidence on a daily basis; computers that rely on the quantum mechanical properties of semiconductors, powered by nuclear fission, have been propelled by general relativity to places scarcely imagined a century ago, and you're spending your time trying to sift through data collected by these space probes, trying to find something that can be twisted and misconstrued to support your pet theory, all while ignoring (indeed, hoping to dismiss) the science behind how those probes were built, how they got there, and how they gathered that data.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also suggests a correlation between electron neutrino transmissivity (or, if you prefer, electron neutrino interactions) and activity at the sun's surface.

Observations of the sun's mass and energy output, combined with the standard model with respect to proton-proton chain fusion, predict electron neutrinos should appear in a fixed ratio with respect to tau and muon neutrinos from a sunwards direction compared to a non-sunwards direction. This ratio is lower (1/3 of the expected ratio) than reasonable if electron neutrinos have zero rest mass and cannot oscillate from one form to another.

Observations of all three types of neutrinos fully agree with the standard solar model with respect to the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein work that predicted weak force interactions between neutrinos and normal matter that agree with the mass and energy observations of the sun, in that 2/3 of the p-p fusion electron neutrinos would be converted to tau and muon neutrinos. MSW work also demonstrates neutrino oscillation through line-of-sight magnetic flux.

So, yes, there is an anticorrelation between sunspot cycle and the Homestake observations (which measures the electron neutrino flux). The lower count and greater than expected variability of electron neutrinos is consistent with neutrino interactions involving normal matter and magnetic fields. Other experiments measure all three forms of solar neutrinos with results consistent with MSW interactions, and also reveal an anticorrelation between the sunspot cycle and total neutrino flux. However, this is far from shocking, as very few stars have a perfectly stable radiant (photon) flux, including our own, and of course there are quite a number of much more strongly variable stars. The anticorrelation is mainly suggestive of changes in p-p fusion rates producing visible effects at the surface.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[iendedi]

Science is not a democracy, by the way. We do not vote on ideas based upon who is saying them, contrary to the increasing belief that this is how it works. Instead, we should attempt to understand the arguments that are being made and discuss the logic behind both sides in the argument. The unfortunate reality is that science can be very threatening to established business interests. Most naive young scientists and engineers have an idealistic model in their minds of how science operates, completely ignoring politics, power, business and capitalism. But the world can be a very hostile place for brilliance, when that brilliance touches on any of the following subjects:

1. Energy production or consumption, especially when ideas threaten profit streams of oil or power generation utilities
2. Pharmaceutical or other cures, especially when they potentially eliminate entire business sectors of the medical industry
3. Anything that can be weaponized or provide strategic military advantage
4. Many less contentious subjects are nonetheless victims of the same problem...

If you have not read the story of Halton Arp, then you are limiting your exposure to observations to those which you agree with. In truth, there is no good reason for why Arp's observations are not correct. Arp has been obstructed from sharing his findings at every step of the way, oftentimes by the very people whose research is threatened by his observations. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one. There are many very real conspiracies of science and physics in particular. Of the list items, above, physics is threatening both to energy industrialists and to military industrialists. This is a subject that is highly controlled by an "in" crowd.

There appears to be no burden that can be met by the EU Theorists that would satisfy him, and the ethical problems associated with his being both a wikipedia referee and a player involved in influencing the publication of the theory appears to escape him. Sounds to me like he is doing exactly what he intends to do. Perhaps the Electronic Universe theories have some merit, and it is not believed to be in the interest of various powerful parties for this knowledge to be widely known. I'm sorry to have to break your innocence, but this is the real world.

Despite your good intentions, you may in fact be causing harm. You can't possibly know until you *read* what the theory says and talk to people about it, right? Whether that particular individual is doing it on purpose or not is not known, but I guarantee you that many are. Trying to reason with people about what is right and wrong from the point of view of the philosophy of science, when their objection is to censor science that is considered dangerous to powerful interests is paramount to trying to debate a hungry lion into living a vegetarian lifestyle. You can't do it. Instead, you must wake up to the reality of the problem and find new ways to fight for the advancement of science. They will try to make you look crazy, to discredit you; That is their job. Remember that. It's their job.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[iendedi]

My guess is that you have been restricting your reading materials in a pseudo-skeptical manner. I recommend that you read what is being said before discounting it. That would certainly reduce the amount of garbage that people have to wade through on these forums to get to actual discussion. That's a pretty impressive retort to being called pseudo-scientific.

There was a time when learned men actively sought out phenomena that didn't agree with understood scientific theory so that they may have new material from which to work from. Today, it has been programmed into our pseudo-intellectuals that they shouldn't even bother looking at something that doesn't fit with well understood theory. I can't honestly see how someone could call themselves a scientist if all they do is read about and study phenomena that agrees with what they learned in school. But this does appear to be the world we find ourselves in. It's a shame.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Thank you for your comments. I consider my role as a liason between Slashdot and the Electric Universe Theorists. This effectively creates a filter whereby I handle the easier challenges (basically bringing people up to speed on the publications) and the more intelligent, difficult responses are forwarded directly to them. What you must understand is that although the names you may recognize as EU Theorists are limited in number, there is in fact a much larger number of sympathetic professionals who agree in principle with the theorists from all relevant disciplines, networking together to understand what the true role that electricity plays in space is. Collectively, the group is eager to receive intelligent challenges to EU theories and ideas. Yet, the group maintains its cohesiveness purely by the strength of the areas of agreement (after all, there is no research money in it!). For that reason, we find it very important to confront any serious problems with the EU model. And as more occasions arise to challenge the EU model, I encourage you to point out the problems that you may notice with my postings. Ultimately, my hope is that you will recognize that there is enough of a reasoned argument present to warrant a more public and meaningful discussion of electrical space plasmas.

Within that context, I've forwarded your comments. One of the members has done some detailed study of the solar neutrino deficit. In your last two sentences, you state:

However, this is far from shocking, as very few stars have a perfectly stable radiant (photon) flux, including our own, and of course are quite a number of much more strongly variable stars. The anticorrelation is mainly suggestive of changes in p-p fusion rates producing visible effects at the surface.

It appears in your response as though you suggest that a significant part of the neutrino oscillations are due to the variable magnetic fields near the surface, but you don't go into detail on this. But it seems to us that the real question remains. We're interested how exactly the fusion rates produce visible effects at the surface, and it appears as though this response does not directly address that enigma.

The theorists and advocates are interested in clarification on this point if you have the time to respond.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Your response is quite clever in that it strictly focuses on the successes of technology as a means of proving that space interpretations are correct. It's a very common fallicy, but it completely ignores the fact that we don't interpret our way to semiconductor chips. When a chip does not work, we learn from our mistakes. When an astrophysicist makes a bad interpretation based upon some incorrect mathematical modeling he learned within magnetohydrodynamics about the nature of plasmas, there are not necessarily any repercussions from that one individual mistake to guide his next interpretation to be any more accurate. I'm a computer engineer by trade, so I see where you're coming from. But I'm afraid that your over-simplification ignores the most important aspect of chip design: broken chips don't sell. In the end though, quantum mechanics has thus far failed to create a comprehensive explanation for our observations, and so we must continue to allow for the possibility that other explanations are possible.

As for Relativity guiding our space probes or satellites, that is yet another poorly-informed fallacy. Probes are designed to respond to their environment. They correct their courses when they go off course. Did you know that Relativity has no relevant bearing whatsoever on the synchronization of satellite clocks? In a personal conversation with David Thomson, who has studied these subjects his entire life in pursuit of an aether model that works ...

I do strongly support General Relativity, but that does not mean I believe that any picture with four or five bright objects viewed through a fisheye lens are evidence for it. Although Eddington did selectively put forth data on the solar eclipse in 1919 there have been numerous confirmations later on for light bending around the Sun. Also, Mercury's precession is well documented. The nonsense about GPS systems is a bunch of crap. We are told that GPS systems wouldn't work if it weren't for GR, SR, Sagnac, and other corrections. Although the Sagnac and GR corrections have been systematically verified through numerous experiments, the correction factor is extremely small compared to the constant empirically derived ionospheric interference adjustment. The ionospheric adjustment is on the order of 1000 times greater than the various Relativity, Sagnac, and other adjustments thrown in for ceremonial purposes only. It's like calculating the distance between a ship and helicopter in rough seas, and even though the ship is bouncing up and down by three meters a tiny adjustment of three millimeters is incorporated to account for the stretching of the metal. It's meaningless from a scientific point of view.

So, you just learned something new. Now, the real test is how do you react to this new information? Will you adhere to your prior belief in spite of all such new observations that disconfirm your prior belief system? Or will you begin to apply skepticism *equally* to all theories if you start to realize that the superficial, popular view of science is not always the most accurate?

You state that ...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: don't expect to be considered until you've gathered such proof.

In other words, you are *more* skeptical of anything that is not popular or commonly believed. This is a common issue within science today. Many space advocates cling to this philosophy, and yet they assume that the peer review system -- the professional astrophysicists -- are, or at least at some point *were*, somehow above it long enough to scientifically rule out everything that is not currently popular in astrophysics. This is where you err in your logic. Mainstream science is *also* and for many years has been pseudo-skeptical when it comes to electricity in space. This dates back to the days when Sidney Chapman refused to even look at Kristian Birkeland's terrella experiment, and it has led mainstream science

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

I've certainly heard this view before, and I have to admit that I cannot discount it. There are increasingly ways around these bottlenecks though. We don't actually need wikipedia, and we only modestly need peer review publications. It's always been my impression that the requirement for peer review publication is an excuse that will be subsituted with another as quickly as the requirement is met. The real battle IMO is for peoples' belief systems.

We are making slow, albeit steady, progress. Laypeople are picking up copies of "The Electric Sky" and realizing the strength of the arguments. Things will get *really* interesting though once the public starts reading Dwardu Cardona. "God Star" remains an undiscovered gem that will eventually rock the foundations of science.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

There was a time when learned men actively sought out phenomena that didn't agree with understood scientific theory so that they may have new material from which to work from. Today, it has been programmed into our pseudo-intellectuals that they shouldn't even bother looking at something that doesn't fit with well understood theory. I can't honestly see how someone could call themselves a scientist if all they do is read about and study phenomena that agrees with what they learned in school. But this does appear to be the world we find ourselves in. It's a shame.

The truly sad thing to me is that these people don't view the decision to ignore against-the-mainstream theories worth even thinking about. But in truth, it is a decision to favor the emotional attachments that they have developed for their belief systems over the possibility of innovative technologies that will make their own lives better. If they understood the ramifications of their emotional attachments, they might make a more rational choice. But, the system is as it is because it has evolved into a stable state. The philosophy of pseudo-skepticism prevents them from ever learning these ramifications.

They also oftentimes fail to recognize the bigger context of the situation. What's being argued ultimately by the EU Theorists is that highly violent and transient events can have a dramatic effect upon the universe, our solar system, our Sun and even our own planet. We see dramatic and rather clear and convincing evidence for this everywhere around us, both within the solar system and in our observations of deep space. By allowing themselves to be taken in by this notion that space plasmas are like fluids -- only affected by gravity -- the advocates of the popular theories imagine that we are comparatively disconnected from the more violent portions of the universe. They are able to compartmentalize the fact the mainstream does not understand 94% of the universe as if that stuff doesn't actually do anything, and they assume that they can permit themselves to not be concerned about it. This approach will in the long run play out like a Greek Tragedy if the course is not adjusted.

It was a great surprise to me to learn that the biggest impediment to a predictive and useful theory of everything, and creating a sustained presence within the universe is ultimately not so much our intelligence or knowledge, but far more so a function of our psychological preference for adhering to belief systems. In order to figure out the universe, society has to collectively give up all of the emotional attachments that we have developed for our popular space stories. And when you think hard about it, and finally get that that is in fact the problem, it's a great big "duh" moment. Space has become too much entertainment for the public. The stories are so fantastical at this point that the public is subconsciously developing a preference for the most absurd space stories that people can think of. The end result is that the more mundane, yet real, explanations become lost in all of the excitement of multiple dimensions, black holes, dark matter, and so on. The mathematics is the glue that keeps it all bound together, and it is highly effective at accomplishing that.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your biggest problem is that you are using rhetoric instead of actual real data to try to convince people of something that flies in that face of commonly tested and perfectly workable theory. For instance your quotes on relativity and all are in practice completely irrelevant, because they in no way represent anything like the real body of evidence supporting Special and General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics. What founders of theories thought is irrelevant as well, the only thing that matters is real life verifiable testable results.

Which leads to the lab tests and well lab tests are lab tests, if your lab test doesn't match observed reality, you usually assume that you got your assumption wrong about what happens in reality. As far as I know, EU does not match observed reality. to give an example even though I'm a bit hazy on EU, consider charge build up on objects which I believe EU predicts, this can be measured when probes visit them, which they have I believe and yes, some probes do have equipment which can measure electrical fields. As such the theory probably seems to have some predictive problems, which is certainly something that gets theories from even the greatest luminaries ignored.

So overall seen, with failed predictions and thus no obvious extra benefit. Done by people who aren't in the field and basing there claims on lab tests instead of real world tests. Not ignoring the point where they or their supporters claim suppression by the experts etc etc. and really your credibility flies out the window. No person who wants to argue on rational grounds can possibly except anything with such poor backing, at best it could be considered as very interesting speculation (I have some interesting theories as well, but failing any real proof, they certainly don't get any more hearing then interesting speculation). So if you really wanted to be taken seriously you would,
A. Show how all current observations can be made to fit EU, failing that, what possibly use does it have? Admittedly their is space for specialized theories, but EU I believe is a general theory, so that would require explaining literally all astronomical observations in a credible way.
B. Devise and then actually execute real world experiments or observations that show beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that it must and can only be explained by an EU type theory and not any other.

Basically to return to the beginning statements I believe you used yourself, science isn't a democracy. However it does expect all theories to be treated equally at the start, which basically comes down to not believing them unless proven otherwise. This was as true of Relativity as Quantum Mechanics, no one believed in those theories, even though they looked very promising and had much theoretical work put in to them until they were actually proven to be true and not just once but a lot of times and in many different ways. Sufficient testing to satisfy the skeptics on both those theories took about half a century, yet I do not believe any of the proponents cried foul, instead they devised tests and then ran them to show why the skeptics were wrong and they were right.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Your views, like others', of Electric Universe Theory are completely the result of not objectively reading what they have to say. My role here on these forums is to convince people to *read* for the most part, because all of the questions you and others currently have are already qualitatively answered within their publications. The body of evidence supporting the mainstream theories is in fact "tainted" by the same pseudo-skepticism that prevents people from reading about EU Theory. Gravitational Lensing is an excellent example which I believe that I've covered. When you see a class of instances of over-reach in astrophysics, do you subsequently assume that it is an isolated case, or do you then point your skepticism at all of the remaining evidence for the mainstream theories? If you've only read mainstream astrophysical and cosmological materials, how sure can you *really* be that there has been a comprehensive attempt to rule out all other theories? In truth, you can *only* be sure of that by reviewing what the critics (the heretics) are saying, and the EU Theorists are among the best heretics out there. My point is that you decide what to believe when you choose your reading materials. And this leads to the next point, which is that when you read about EU Theory, you realize the power of the arguments and that there exists a legitimate debate that needs to occur.

Which leads to the lab tests and well lab tests are lab tests, if your lab test doesn't match observed reality, you usually assume that you got your assumption wrong about what happens in reality. As far as I know, EU does not match observed reality. to give an example even though I'm a bit hazy on EU, consider charge build up on objects which I believe EU predicts, this can be measured when probes visit them, which they have I believe and yes, some probes do have equipment which can measure electrical fields. As such the theory probably seems to have some predictive problems, which is certainly something that gets theories from even the greatest luminaries ignored.

Once again, your views are completely 180 from the reality. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but laboratory plasma physics is essentially a study of electrodynamics. 99.99% of all visible matter in space is in the plasma state, so this is a very big deal. When a laboratory plasma is exposed to charge density, it responds by adjusting its luminosity and electrical resistance according to three distinct modes: the dark mode, the glow mode and the arc mode. Electrical plasmas form from gases with less than 1% ionization! In other words, laboratory plasmas are *electrical*. Period. Mainstream astrophysicists allow themselves to ignore this fact in space by postulating some dramatic assumptions. Most importantly, they assume that space is quasi-neutral: that there are the same number of positive and negative charges per volume of space if you use a big enough volume of space. The thing is, electrical plasmas naturally form something called "double layers" in the laboratory, and double layers violate quasi-neutrality.

These double layers emit what's called synchrotron radiation (which we see everywhere in our telescopes) and in turn naturally lead to the formation of filaments. These filaments then attract to one another in pairs, which take on a braided rope type of morphology. When enough energy is inputted into this braided rope, a z-pinch occurs. Z-pinches can become so powerful that they can roll matter into balls (ie, planets and stars). We know all of this from laboratory experience, which is far more than we can say about gravitational accretion. Even the best models for gravitational accretion require shifting of planetary orbits, and leave enigmas like why Mars is dry and why some planets exhibit retrograde motion. In truth, we now know enough to go back through ancient testimony and determine that the universe does in fact operate according to a plasma cosmology (but this is another story told within "God Star" by Dwar

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're interested how exactly the fusion rates produce visible effects at the surface, and it appears as though this response does not directly address that enigma.

Well the really visible effect is the increase in the (colour) temperature at the surface; it is non-homogeneous, and the areas outside the sunspots are relatively hot.

The temperature variation in this region is just broadly reflective of the transduction of heat from the core, and the heat in the core varies somewhat within a valley. At the high-temperature slope of the valley there is a relative increase in proton-proton branch ii fusion reactions which has a net cooling effect by ejecting gamma rays which tend to interact with electrons and nucleons closer to the surface and by ejecting hot neutrinos; at the low temp end slope pp i reactions become more dominant, producing two hot protons which interact kinetically and electromagnetically with more local (i.e., more coreward) protons and electrons (and, technically, positrons, although most of those -- produced early in the p-p chain -- annihilate very quickly with electrons), thus increasing local heating.

This accounts for most of the variability of total radiant energy, including the total set of neutrinos.

The neutrino problem arises from measuring only one of the three species of solar neutrino when using perchlorethylene (as in the Homestake experiment, initially).

The variation among the species of neutrinos is because of weak interactions, and is expected to be anisotropic (it appears to be), primarily dependent on the mass between between neutrino production and observation, but secondarily affected by strong magnetic fields.

The fusion-producing regions of the sun thus behave somewhat like the nucleation points in a pot of boiling water, and by analogy the granulation of the surface of the sun is analogous to the bubbles erupting at the surface of a pot boiling water. Sunspots arise from differential rotation, as an analogue to stirring the pot.

Ignoring magnetic fields entirely, simple differences in mass caused by local density differences due to temperature variation would lead to anisotropies in neutrino ratio due to the MSW effect. This is testable with opposite-side-of-the globe (for triangulation) fine-line detectors, and has been approximated (with SNO and Hyakande, for instance) such that there is strong interest in performing the test for real.

The Babcock Model and the spin-flip interaction through the neutrino magnetic moment are mutually testable if the fine-line detectors can get views through sunspots. (Triangulated views are not necessary as sunspot slew rates are easy to record).

Note that this last test examines the solar neutrino energy loss (through electromagnetic interactions) and not neutron oscillation (through weak nuclear force interactions). We already have terrestrial evidence for gamma-gamma -> neutrino-antineutrino and other photon-neutrino processes in mostly-uniform magnetic fields that suggests the mechanism of the total solar neutrino energy loss. Repeated observations can invalidate that.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[Oliver Manual]

The inverse correlation is observed because: a.) Electron neutrinos are produced in the fusion of hydrogen into helium, and b.) The hydrogen that is expelled from the solar surface is hydrogen that escaped fusion into helium. When surface activity is low, a larger fraction of the hydrogen undergoes fusion into helium. When surface activity is high, a smaller fraction of the hydrogen undergoes fusion into helium. See: "Isotopes tell origin and operation of the Sun", AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pp. 206-225 (astro-ph/0510001). With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel www.omatumr.com

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

Here is another example of a Relativity test exposed to be a fraud. Lifted from another forum ...

In the recent book CHALLENGING MODERN PHYSICS (in the appendix), Al Kelly (an Irish engineer who died shortly after the book came out) says that they actually faked the data in their famous article. He got the report they wrote for the Naval Observatory (who paid for the experiment, I think), which was not given out willingly (he had to do an FOIA request) and found out that the data in the two write-ups did not agree! Kelly's discussion of the HK experiment is impressive (as is the whole book).

To give you a taste:

"the results were scattered plus and minus, which shows the total failure of the tests."

"Hafele and Keating then set about altering the results to get them to line up with the forecast results . . . .They did it by publishing a radically altered version of the results instead of publishing the actual results."

If Kelly is right (and I can't imagine any motive for making something like this up, although I cannot clain to know that he did not make it up) this is scientific fraud of the highest order, just as with the Eddington saga.

Required reading for anyone interested in the "historical perspective" of relativity.

Re:Magnetic Reconnection?

[pln2bz]

The EU Theorists are always prepared to admit that they may be wrong (it's a fact of life and it happens to everybody), but it's important and would be helpful if you could point to some papers that demonstrate your points. The last thing that I want to do is spread misinformation, so it's important to me also that I not allege that there is an enigma if in fact the SSM can explain the anti-correlation using physical processes that are already acceptable to the model. If you point us to citations that specifically explain the anti-correlation as you do above, then our neutrino experts will review them and possibly correct whatever literature needs to be corrected.

Tail wasn't connected anyway

[noidentity]

The tail of a comet isn't connected to the comet anyway; it's material that's already fallen off the comet. A better headline would be "solar hurricane redirects comet's tail". But in this age of violent analogies, "rips off" gets preference.

Re:Tail wasn't connected anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you're going to be technical, the lizard who's tail I just removed isn't attached either. It just happens that ionic, covalent, and vanderwall forces hold it adjacent to the body...

And yea, when you compare the sun's gravity to my hand the forces are probably about proportional.

Re:Tail wasn't connected anyway

[Jane Q. Public]

Comets generally are solid masses (if of low density). It is the tails that are not.

Toonces' World of Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWUAy8h1ACQ

That's it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, no video? :P

Reptillian origin?

[weirdcrashingnoises]

Lets observe if the comet re-grows it's tail. If it does, this could lead us to the true origin of reptiles!

Oh no...

[Chineseyes]

...now Enck won't be able to reach SSJ4!!

Will it grow back?

[O('_')O_Bush]

I wonder if the Coronal Mass Ejection contained enough energy to melt/burn off what was creating the tail (ice or whatnot) or if it removed the tail temporarily. Anyone have any further knowledge on the subject?

Come again?

[E 99]

It RIPS OFF the tail? Really? You do realize, of course, that comet tails aren't actually connected to the comets?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The real question...

[rez_rat]

is if it also tore the comet a new asshole!

S-

Re:The real question...

[kauttapiste]

is if it also tore the comet a new asshole!

Well with the "coronal mass ejection", you betcha it did!

cheers

[Anonymous Coward]

I tip my hat to IMarvinTPA, who beat me to it, but this reeks of the Electric Sun/Universe/Sky,.

that's what happens when you cross the streams

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad?"
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Solar Hurricane???

[flajann]

What is a "Solar Hurricane"? This is a astronomical term to which I am unfamiliar.
I wonder if they are talking about coronal mass ejections? If so, I don't get the analogy. Hurricanes are basically large vortices's. Coronal Mass Ejections are not.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[icegreentea]

i think its a reference to the massive winds from a hurricane. from any single point, the size of the hurricane makes it appear that the wind is coming in from pretty much one direction, even if it is rotating. it's a crappy analogy, but it works after a fashion. and yes, they are talking about CMEs. it's in the first article.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[Anonymous Coward]

So essentially the article title was written for an illiterate person. Gotcha.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[meowsqueak]

Silly terms from fluid mechanics. There's no such thing as a solar 'wind'. It's the movement of charged particles in an electric field - an electric current.

Or maybe they are just using the term 'hurricane' as an emotional allusion to a violent storm.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[rastoboy29]

It's true it's juvenile, but on the other hand, if it makes even one person curious enough to research and find out if that is actually what it is or not, can it be all bad?

I always tell kids certain books are forbidden to them, for example, which almost gaurantees they'll go and read it at the first opportunity.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[Dausha]

A Solar Hurricane is a result of gradual warming of the Earth caused by SUVs and PEOPLE that impacts weather patterns on the Sun. There used to be fewer Solar hurricanes until after the U.S. started to cut its emissions in the 1970s, when emissions increased.

Re:Solar Hurricane???

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, despite this being Slashdot, you could click the link. From TF NASA Article: NASA's STEREO satellite captured the first images ever of a collision between a solar "hurricane", called a coronal mass ejection (CME), and a comet.

Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[pln2bz]

What's actually really interesting is the *other* comet-related article that came out today regarding findings related to the Ulysses probe traveling through the tail of Comet McNaught. Particularly (from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071001_comet_surprises.html) ...

The study, detailed in the Oct. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal, also found the comet tail acted as a source of electrons for the solar wind.

The solar wind consists of charged atoms that are missing most of their electrons, but Ulysses found that solar wind particles passing through the comet's atmosphere could regain some of those electrons. The particles exhibit a different charge when they do this, which SWICS can detect.

Both findings are a surprise to scientists. Thomas Zurbuchen, a study team member at the University of Michigan (U-M), likened Ulysses' pass through the comet tail to putting your hand in the waters of Lake Michigan and pulling out a fish.

The Electric Comet theory is covered in good detail here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

I'm sure that Wallace Thornhill will have something to say about this eventually, but this appears to confirm the Electric Universe hypothesis that comets are not sublimating dirty snowballs, but rather electrical phenomenon. The OH that's being observed in cometary tails appears to be the result of electric machining of oxygen from silicates in the comet, which then combine with hydrogen protons from the solar wind to create OH. In other words, the OH is not necessarily an indication of sublimation.

I realize that many people here on Slashdot do not *like* EU Theory and its general lack of quantification, but when our observations appear to be supporting a particular theory, it makes sense that people should temporarily suspend their disbelief and read up on what the theory says. Keep in mind that there is a difference between saying that a theory is not properly quantified and a theory *cannot* be quantified. People have been arguing for sometime now that simple calculations can "prove" that there are not enough charged particles within interstellar space to power the Sun, but these calculations are based upon some rather dramatic assumptions that are not supported by the evolving big picture of the Sun. For instance, of particular importance is the recent paper demonstrating that the solar wind possesses "flux tubes" ...

From http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001

The abstract wrote:
Recent studies suggest that flux-tube-like structures may exist in the solar wind. In this scenario, the solar wind plasma are confined in many individual flux tubes and plasma in these flux tubes move independently from each other. Within each flux tubes, the (MHD) turbulence is due to the local non-linear dynamics. Across the boundaries between adjacent flux tubes, however, the (MHD) turbulence receives another contribution from the sudden change of magnetic field directions between different flux tubes. Thus the solar wind turbulence will naturally be of multiscale and intermittent. In this paper, using the procedure we developed in [1], we analyze magnetic field data obtained from Ulysses spacecraft in both fast and slow solar wind, at various radii and latitudes. Our results show flux tubes exist in both the fast and the slow solar wind. ©2007 American Institute of Physics

In other words, the solar wind appears to bear some resemblance to a novelty plasma ball. My impression is that there is likely very little difference between a "flux tube" and a Birkeland Current.

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[Guppy06]

"this appears to confirm the Electric Universe hypothesis that comets are not sublimating dirty snowballs, but rather electrical phenomenon."

Why mod you down when I can point you here?

"Keep in mind that there is a difference between saying that a theory is not properly quantified and a theory *cannot* be quantified."

A theory can be unquantifiable due to its subject matter (intelligent design) or, as is the case with the "electric universe theory," due to its authors' refusal to let it be quantified when it would be to their egos' detriment. Only observations that have a (usually fleetingly small) connection to this pet theory are allowed in, permitting people such as yourself to churn out several paragraphs of "We're right!" all while cheerfully ignoring something as trivial as we've fucking been there! In that respect, you have more in common with the Flat Earth types than the ID folks you allude to, whose statements are truly unassailable (placing it outside the realm of science) rather than willfully ignorant.

At least you're "interesting" rather than "informative." Thank His Noodliness for such small blessings.

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[pln2bz]

Quantifying EU Theory is not as simple as you seem to imply in the absence of agreement on several important questions that remain. For instance, there is still no aether theory that everybody can agree on. It has nothing to do with ego, and your comments border on slanderous. There is legitimate disagreement amongst the theorists on how to replace quantum mechanics, to what degree to believe the various pieces of evidence that supports Relativity (gravitational lensing, for instance, appears to be quite bunk, as does the 1919 eclipse, but Mercury's precession appears to be a valid prediction) and there remains quite a bit of disagreement between adherents on how the Sun operates (Is it a Neutron Star? Is there validity to the Iron Sun Theories?). These are all legitimate questions that can only be resolved through additional observation. Quantification will simply not help in narrowing these things down.

You've certainly hit all of the buzz-words that people on Slashdot attempt to use to describe EU Theory, but is there really any substance to your allegation that delicate egos are the cause of a lack of quantification? No, it appears that you just made this up.

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[ZwJGR]

"this appears to confirm the Electric Universe hypothesis that comets are not sublimating dirty snowballs, but rather electrical phenomenon."

Why mod you down when I can point you here? [wikipedia.org]

The article neither proves nor disproves either theory.
What isn't mentioned in that wikipedia article is the arc between the probe and the comet just before impact.
If you think about it, the comet is passing through a charged region of space (solar wind), hence it will be equalise potential to the surrounding plasma. Hence as a probe with a different potential approaches (similar to that of the Earth), an arc discharges between the two.
The comet is an electrical phenomenom in exactly the same sense that anything else in the (charged) solar wind is.
(It's gets more interesting as the comet moves closer and further away from the sun, etc. but that's another issue).

As for being sublimating snowballs, etc. other texts I have read about that space mission indicated virtually no ice at all. It would make some sense, why would cold ice emit a X-rays as comets do (look it up, if you don't believe me).

I've always found the dirty snowball theory amusing, but that is just me.

As for the EU theory in general, while there are many crackpots and imbeciles who act as you suggest, I have yet to the scientists who know what they are talking about refuses quantisisation of the EU or the relate theories.

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[Guppy06]

"For instance, there is still no aether theory that everybody can agree on."

Only because you insist on including yourselves in "everybody." Any hand-waving explanations for the lack of an aether wind belong in the same category as epicycles.

"There is legitimate disagreement amongst the theorists on how to replace quantum mechanics"

Replace quantum mechanics? Why? Have all of our semiconductors suddenly stopped working?

"gravitational lensing, for instance, appears to be quite bunk,"

Um...

"as does the 1919 eclipse"

And what of the 70 other total eclipses during the Twentieth Century?

"These are all legitimate questions that can only be resolved through additional observation."

How can these questions be resolved through "additional observation" when the only reason you still have such questions is that you are ignoring all the observations that indicate just how wrong-headed your questions are?

"but is there really any substance to your allegation that delicate egos are the cause of a lack of quantification? No, it appears that you just made this up."

Don't you mean that I need to make more observations?

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[Guppy06]

"The article neither proves nor disproves either theory."

Only if you ignore the reported figures for what was ejected from the impact: 250,000 metric tons of water.

"What isn't mentioned in that wikipedia article is the arc between the probe and the comet just before impact.
If you think about it, the comet is passing through a charged region of space (solar wind), hence it will be equalise potential to the surrounding plasma. Hence as a probe with a different potential approaches (similar to that of the Earth), an arc discharges between the two."

Only if the difference in electrical potential is great enough to cause a current to flow through a vacuum (or is the vacuum something else you don't believe in?). Here's an idea: maybe the arc wasn't discussed because there wasn't one.

"other texts I have read about that space mission indicated virtually no ice at all."

And if it's written, it must be true and require no verification! Especially the more outlandish writings!

"I have yet to the scientists who know what they are talking about refuses quantisisation of the EU or the relate theories."

1. Because you decide who "does" and "does not" know what they're talking about. If you don't like what they say, they just "don't know."
2. Because rational people have better things to do with their time than try to explain to those who refuse to listen

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, alternatively, the solar wind mainly comprises alphas produced in p-p nuclear fusion. Alpha particles (4He+ : the nucleus of two protons and two neutrons with zero) are a form of ionizing radiation, which, you know, might ionize any neutral particles they encounter.

This is unsurprising electron exchange, and it's why there is a tendency for all large objects in space to be electrically neutral. So it's hard to consider this evidence for large electric currents in space.

The real surprise is that the density of comet tails is not very large, and the density of the solar wind is not very large, so one would not expect there to be such a velocity slowdown of solar wind particles in the lee of the cometary tail, however there were luckily-timed CMEs detected by SOHO prior to the 2004 encounters between Ulysses and McNaught and comet SOHO (named after the solar observer satellite).

The electron exchange is not so much a surprise as a solution to the (surprising) slowdown -- the donation of one or two electrons by an atom in the tail of the comet is paid for by a transfer of kinetic energy. This process is readily visible here on earth surrounding alpha emitters in cold drift cloud chambers, for example, but comet tails are (usually) much less dense. You can probably find a cloud chamber displaying this at a local museum, if you live in an urban area.

That the solar wind is nonuniform is expected, especially in the aftermath of a CME. Confirming (or falsifying!) several expected anisotropies are essentially the point of the SEPICA, SWEPAM, SWICS, SWIMS and ULEIS instruments on board the ACE spacecraft.

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[pln2bz]

First of all, it has never conclusively been determined that there exists no aether. There is no shortage of papers on the Internet that reason through the experiments that have been conducted to date, and many conclude that an aether was never rigorously excluded. You may not be aware that David Thomson, originator of the Aether Physics Model, claims to have generated an aether model that accurately predicts the electron binding energies of *every* single element within the periodic table. But more than that, it appears that evidence for an aether is ironically getting in the way of validating the more acceptable theories ...

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 841 October 2, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe www.aip.org/pnu

THE VACUUM STRIKES BACK. Modern physics has shown that the vacuum, previously thought of as a state of total nothingness, is really a seething background of virtual particles springing in and out of existence until they can seize enough energy to materialize as *real* particles. In high energy collisions at accelerator labs, some of the original beam energy can be consumed by ripping particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum. Sometimes this process is the very reason for doing the experiment, but sometimes it is only a detriment. For example, in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), under construction at the CERN lab in Geneva, a major source of beam losses (particles exiting from the usable beam) for heavy-ion collisions is expected to be a class of event in which the counter-moving ions pass each other and don*t interact except to spawn a pair of particles---an electron and positron---one of which (the positron) goes off to oblivion while the other (the electron) latches onto one of the ions. This ion, bearing an extra electric charge, will now behave slightly differently as it races through the chain of powerful magnets that normally steer the particles around the accelerator. Going a certain distance, the modified ion will leave its fellows and smash into the beam pipe carrying the beams, thus heating up the pipe and surrounding magnet coils.

Fearing these future beam losses, accelerator physicists have sought to observe this effect at an existing machine, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven Lab on Long Island. And they found what they were looking for, a tiny splash of energy amounting to about .0002 watts, or about what a firefly puts out. The RHIC beam for these tests consisted of copper ions each carrying 6.3 TeV of energy (about 100 GeV per nucleon). According to CERN scientist John Jowett (john.jowett@cern.ch, 41-22-7676-643) this troublesome class of events, referred to as bound-free-pair production (or BFPP, the bound referring to the electron and the free to the positron), will be much more formidable at LHC than at RHIC. First of all, the pair production scales as the atomic number of the nucleus (or the charge of the nucleus, denoted by the letter Z) raised to the seventh power. The LHC heavy-ion collisions will use beams composed of lead ions. The more highly charged nucleus and the larger energies (574 TeV per lead nucleus) mean the BFPP process should be some 100,000 times more prominent than in the test at RHIC. This would amount to about 25 watts, the equivalent of a reading lamp. That doesn't sound like much but, when deposited in the ultra-cold (1.9 K) magnets of the LHC, it could bring them to the brink of "quenching" out of their superconducting state, interrupting the operation of the huge machine. (Bruce et al., Physical Review Letters, 5 October 2007; journalists can obtain the text from www.aip.org/physnews/select; other background material at arxiv.org/abs/0706.3356v2), http://cern.ch/AccelConf/e04/PAPERS/MOPLT020.PDF, Vol. I, Chapter 21 of the LHC Design Report, available at http://

Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources

[LordVorp]

You'd probably like "Physics Without Einstein" by Dr. Harold Aspden (http://www.aspden.org/ & http://www.energyscience.co.uk/). From the sound of it, you've come in your research to see the holes that Relativity leaves in explaining the universe, and Aspden's theory shows how the formulas of General and Special Relativity can be derived from 19th century aether-based physics.

OMG

[martin-boundary]

Did it hurt?

Re:OMG

[Artemon12]

No certainly.

Violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well did someone call the police?

Re:Plans A-G failed.... Now, Mother Nature is

[davidsyes]

TROLL?? It was meant to be a pun, you insensitive clod.

Cranky shamanky

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it about these articles that really get the cranks going?

Re:I for one...

[corifornia2]

You are a goddamn retard. At least use that cliche fucking phrase when it makes sense or is humorous, not just to simply spout your byte wasting shit onto the intertubes.

Spaceweather.com has...

[Assassin bug]

... an animated GIF that is kind of nifty. I bet if that CME hit earth containing a comet tail the light show would be impressive!

Re:Spaceweather.com has...

[thatskinnyguy]

From TFA: NASAs video. WTF? Shouldn't NASA be showing your video?

Re:Spaceweather.com has...

[Assassin bug]

Calm down there skippy. I provided a link because NASA's "video" is an animation, which was already provided as a link in the post. The link that I provided was actual video capture from the actual encounter and not an artist's rendition! It was probably submitted to SpaceWeather by someone working at the STEREO project, but I don't really know.

Ouchie

[Aqua04]

Aaaawwww. Poor comet ! Fortunately they are like lizards. It takes them a while to recover, but the tail grows back in time.

Seriously, though, I have a question. I have not read TFA, but I'll get around to it, so if I need to do that to answer this question then don't bother to answer this lazy bum. Why would a solar hurricane rip off the plasma t(r)ail ? Wouldn't the tail just increase, ie. wouldn't more material from the comet just go into it with increased winds ?

And put it in lizard terms if you can. (just joking)

Re:Ouchie

[RuBLed]

I believe the tail would wiggle a bit afterwards...

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for something to be overrated, doesn't it first have to be, I don't know, rated?

Slashdot party game

[greyhueofdoubt]

Just in time for Slashdot's birthday party: Rip the tail off the comet!

Periodic comets

[rcw-home]

From the article:

The comet is only the second repeating, or periodic, comet ever identified

If not wrong, then this is certainly misleading. Encke's Comet was the second periodic comet identified, but sheesh - would you say "Sputnik 2 was only the second satellite ever launched"? There are hundreds of known periodic comets.

I live in Miami

[DragonTHC]

do I have to put up the storm shutters? I don't think my steel shutters are going to stop a solar storm :O

Re:I live in Miami

[Aqua_boy17]

do I have to put up the storm shutters?

No, but (y)our solar windstorm insurance premiums just doubled overnight.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

HAR HAR HAR

Large unknown action in slashdot. Notably loads of anarchist bullshit.

HA, YES, MOD THIS DOWN.

COMMUNISTS! Stop the orgies, they're gross.

I ripped off my parakeet's tail once...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I didn't need a magnetic field to do it.

Solar Hurricane = CME

[oneiros27]

I first heard the analogy at a NOAA presentation on 'Space Weather'. The speaker (can't remember his name) compared CMEs to hurricanes, and flares to tornados. So, it might work in the context that both CMEs and flares are solar events but are different types of events, just as hurricanes and tornados are wind events but are not the same thing. Now, flares tend to be more highly localized but more energy dense (just as tornados are vs. hurricanes). I don't think the analogy works without that context, however.

As for exactly _what_ a CME is ... well, I've asked some of the scientists that I work with*, and it's well over my head, but my understanding is that there's still some ambiguity over exactly what they're caused by, and that's the point of the STEREO mission. (understand what causes them, so they can better predict when one's going to happen, and potentially hit the Earth or spacecraft)

* I'm a sysadmin/programmer attached to both the Solar Data Analysis Center and the STEREO Science Center, so 'that I work with' includes scientists actively involved with the STEREO project.

Apropos of nothing

[Mille Mots]

For some strange, unknown reason I first parsed your post as:

Don't you get a rather large electrical bill when a magnetic field like that collapses? Should be an amazing revenue source.

Honestly, I have no idea why.

--
--- Next .sig Please --->

Re:Magnetic Reconnection? Immee, baby!

[aqk]

Immanuel!

Immanuel Velikovsky! Is that you? Heyyyy!

Watcha doin' on /., you old rascal? When we gonna switch poles, huh?
You promised! Next ten years? OK,then!

Re:Magnetic Reconnection? Immee, baby!

[pln2bz]

And I suppose you are a big fan of Carl Sagan? Have you read "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" by Ginenthal? Not that I'm a big fan of the big V, but at least I realize that he was given a truly *raw* and unfair treatment by Sagan.

Oh lord...

[Ne-fishy]

Space sperm ftw!