The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?  (Read 9634 times)

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?
« Reply #25 on: 17/10/2010 12:05:54 »
To Bored Chemist.
The facts you have quoted about protons in MRI scanners and bremstrahlung causing X-rays under intense electron bombardment may be very interesting topics but they have NOTHING to do with ionised particles leaving sunspots and forming a part of the solar wind.
As I have said before THEY ARE OFF TOPIC!

I have yet to discover any reference to protons using their dipoles to PRODUCE an electric current. The fact that they have random magnetism has NOTHING to do with the TOPIC in question.

YOU first referred to WIKIPEDIA.  I just retaliated with an up-to-date reference book. Talk about pots calling kettles black! The quotations I used proved that a lot of what you had claimed was wrong. Is that why you don't like me quoting from a reference book?

Why don't you start another forum of your own so that you can use your alleged scientific knowledge to upset more people with more irrelevant nit-picking sidetracks. It seems to be your aim in life to be a forum WRECKER! If you were a TRUE scientist you would have offered reasonable possible alternative explanations for what is at least a very strange phenomenon.

If you are such a knowledgeable person as you claim to be, please answer my original question.
What launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots if it isn't heat?
(Magnetism is not a valid answer because it begs the question. It just changes the question to 'What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots?')

Please also answer my subsidiary questions.
Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?
Do the ionised particles leaving sunspots have the same properties as the ionised particles in the solar wind?
Is there a possibility that a region of the sun has similar properties to the ionised particles in the solar wind?

You have ducked these questions at least twice before. You deserve the title COWARD not HERO because you have NEVER made any attempt to provide an intelligent answer to these questions. You have just tried to nit-pick to develop irrelevant OFF-TOPIC sidetracks when I have made statements that apply to the general case.

Judging from the way you have contributed NOTHING useful to this topic, I would like to suggest to the moderator that destructive contributors like you should lose a star for every destructive comment you make about the topic in question. Then your status should change from hero to WRECKER.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?
« Reply #26 on: 17/10/2010 19:47:07 »
"The facts you have quoted about protons in MRI scanners"
A proton does not know that it is an an MRI machine. It acts in the same way  where ever it is. It is always accompanied by a magnetic field, but no current. It is therefore a counter example you your central hypothesis.
I think it is on-topic to point out that your assumption is simply wrong.

"bremstrahlung causing X-rays under intense electron bombardment"
I didn't say anything about electron bombardment. You seem not to have understood that the radiation is emitted whenever any charged particle is made to accelerate, such as by collision with another particle. This is a process that will happen quite often in the solar wind. There is, therefore a mechanism for radiation to be emitted.
It's just that you refused to do the research and find out how.

"I have yet to discover any reference to protons using their dipoles to PRODUCE an electric current. "
You didn't seem to ask.
Anyway, the free induction decay that takes place inside an NMR machine is just such a current.
I know you don't seem to like NMR, but that doesn't stop protons producing currents; the protons are not fussy.

"The fact that they have random magnetism has NOTHING to do with the TOPIC in question"
Hardly "random" since I cited a value for it and, anyway it is clearly related to the topic as I have pointed out before and  others have agreed.

"The quotations I used proved that a lot of what you had claimed was wrong. "
No, they did not.
I still say that if you had a bunch of protons with no electrons near them the electrostatic repulsion would make them fly apart.
You seem to not understand that if I take a hydrogen atom and take the electron to the far side of the galaxy there is still an attraction- strictly speaking it is a highly excited state- it isn't ionised and it never will be. We talk about ionisation where the residual binding energy of the electron is small compared to the other influences.

"Is that why you don't like me quoting from a reference book?"
No, as I said, it's because it's pointless. I think it's clear that I know more about ionisation than you do so quoting a school book isn't the issue. I think there's a relevant quote in "A fish called Wanda" but I can't bring it to mind right now. Perhaps someone else can help me out.

"If you were a TRUE scientist you would have offered reasonable possible alternative explanations for what is at least a very strange phenomenon."
No, a true scientist knows there is no way to prove a theory to be right and accepts that the way to make progress is to ensure that theories that are clearly wrong are weeded out. A theory that depends on, for example, the idea that ions cannot emit radiation is wrong and should be dumped.
"It seems to be your aim in life to be a forum WRECKER!"
Dear me! At the most I might be a thread wrecker. If the thread says "No scientist drinks beer" and I point out that there are several documented incidents of beer drinking scientists, then I accept I have wrecked the thread. On the other hand I don't feel that I have done anything wrong.

"If you are such a knowledgeable person as you claim to be, please answer my original question.
What launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots if it isn't heat?
(Magnetism is not a valid answer because it begs the question. It just changes the question to 'What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots?')"

Which do you want?
Do you want me to try to answer the question? How can I do that when you have banned the right answer?
Mind you I think you are getting closer to the truth when you realise the question you ask is equivalent to "What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots".
I think the answer to that is a combination of convection currents and the sun's magnetic field- as I said before, plasma physics is very complicated. You need to study it before you can tackle these questions. I don't know enough to give a detailed answer. Good luck in your research.

"Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?"
It does.
http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/ST/58-ST-A0996.pdf

"Do the ionised particles leaving sunspots have the same properties as the ionised particles in the solar wind?"
what properties do you have in mind? They are small particles- they don't have many properties. The only ones that I can think of that might matter are their translational velocity, their temperature and their elemental make-up. To take the last of these first, I think that both sets are almost entirely hydrogen.

I believe their temperatures will be similar a and that any differences are likely to be washed out due to the sun's corona.
I think their translational velocities may be different - pretty much by definition- the solar wind escape the sun so it must have exceeded the escape velocity. On the other hand many particles from the sun spots may well fall back.

"Is there a possibility that a region of the sun has similar properties to the ionised particles in the solar wind?"
for a given definition of "similar" the answer must be yes.

I really don't see how these properties can matter much but you now have your answers.
You might understand that I didn't duck them- I ignored them because they couldn't matter.
The first simply illustrates that, once again, you are wrong. The second and third demonstrate that you can't ask a properly defined question.
Since the rest of your theories rely on things that are not true - like the lack of radiation from the solar wind, I didn't feel inclined to waste time on them/
May I remind you that, since you are putting forward a new theory, it falls to you to prove that it is true rather than anyone else to show that it is false. That's the way science works.

"Judging from the way you have contributed NOTHING useful to this topic, I would like to suggest to the moderator that destructive contributors like you should lose a star for every destructive comment you make about the topic in question. Then your status should change from hero to WRECKER."
I have every confidence in the moderators' ability to judge what label should be given to whom.
Among other things they may wish to consider inappropriate use of capital letters and exclamation marks.
They may also wish to have a quick look here.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200503/zero-gravity.cfm


 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?
« Reply #27 on: 18/10/2010 12:08:39 »
To Bored Chemist
You wrote quoting me:
"Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?"
It does.
http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/ST/58-ST-A0996.pdf [nofollow]

The above shows how truthful you have been in most of your posts to my topic.
It starts: "The  Solar  Probe  will  fly"
In my English the word WILL applies to a future occasion..
The piece refers to a prediction or a forecast or a prophecy that you claim as a fact.
As a result of this indication of the lack of your general veracity I will regard any future comments that you make on my topic as irrelevant noise that should be ignored.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?
« Reply #28 on: 18/10/2010 17:58:25 »
This is becoming far too personal. Thread locked.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?
« Reply #28 on: 18/10/2010 17:58:25 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums