Message from the Dawn of time...

[lesliedellow]

From your perspective, apparently the only people who are qualified to discuss astronomy are individuals who've been officially brainwashed/indoctrinated into the topic, and who've been taught to bow the the invisible, impotent on Earth Lambda-CDM deity without question. :

From my perspective, the only people qualified to discuss atronomy are those with an education in astronomy, and who have spent many years earning their living as astronomers, as opposed to an amateur who thinks he knows more than them, even though he lacks both the relevant education and the relevant experience.

 

[bhsmte]

From my perspective, the only people qualified to discuss atronomy are those with an education in astronomy, and who have spent many years earning their living as astronomers, as opposed to an amateur who thinks he knows more than them, even though he lacks both the relevant education and the relevant experience.

You know, people follow this in most areas of their life, except when it comes to a belief that is so important to them. When a belief comes into play, anyone who agrees with them, becomes legit.

If someone has cancer, are they going to go to a cardiologist or family practice doc for expert advice on treatment? No, they will go to an oncologist, because, that oncologist forgets more about diagnosing and treating cancer, then the cardiologist or family practice doc will ever know. Do the cardiologist and family practice know medicine? Sure they do, but they know very little and have no experience in dealing with cancer, compared to the oncologist.

 

[Michael]

From my perspective, the only people qualified to discuss atronomy are those with an education in astronomy, and who have spent many years earning their living as astronomers, as opposed to an amateur who thinks he knows more than them, even though he lacks both the relevant education and the relevant experience.

I can just see you ripping on Einstein now. "You're just a patent clerk for God sake!" You think you're going to overturn Newton? You're a rank amateur! Yada, yada, yada....."



Based on your own logic, Alfven literally wrote the book on Plasma physics and 99+ of the known universe is in the plasma state. Your 'astronomers' are not qualified to describe a plasma universe, whereas Alfven and Peratt have no problem describing a plasma universe *without* exotic nonsense.

It works both ways. How many of your experts have a Nobel in MHD theory? What even makes them qualified to *discuss* a plasma universe in the first place when they constantly *mistreat* plasma as a 'hot gas' without respect to charge?

 

[Michael]

From my perspective, the only people qualified to discuss atronomy are those with an education in astronomy, and who have spent many years earning their living as astronomers, as opposed to an amateur who thinks he knows more than them, even though he lacks both the relevant education and the relevant experience.

FYI, you're doing it again. You're bearing false witness against me. What makes you think I lack a relevant education and the relevant experience? I've read many books and hundreds of papers on this topics. Just because I didn't become a professional astronomer does not mean that I haven't studied the topic my whole life. It didn't prevent me from reading at least 5 textbooks on the topic of MHD theory since college either. How do you know anything at all about my "experience"?

 

[lesliedellow]

I can just see you ripping on Einstein now. "You're just a patent clerk for God sake!" You think you're going to overturn Newton? You're a rank amateur! Yada, yada, yada....."

a.) Einstein did actually have an education as a physicist.

b.) His work passed the peer review process.

c.) He had an IQ of 160.

 

[lesliedellow]

FYI, you're doing it again. You're bearing false witness against me. What makes you think I lack a relevant education and the relevant experience?

Because a few days ago you were a computer programmer.

 

[Michael]

Because a few days ago you were a computer programmer.

So what? Einstein was a patent clerk! That doesn't mean I haven't made the effort to understand the basics of Lambda-CDM, as well as *other alternatives* to Lambda-CDM. As I see it they have *half* of an education, and missed the necessary part related to MHD theory. Have you for instance even read a textbook on MHD theory, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

a.) Einstein did actually have an education as a physicist.

He was a professional patent clerk, not a professional astronomer.

b.) His work passed the peer review process.

arXiv.org Search

c.) He had an IQ of 160.

Ok, you got me there.

 

[lesliedellow]

He was a professional patent clerk, not a professional astronomer.

His famous 1905 paper was not about astronomy, and it was also not the first paper he had had accepted and published. He was already well known as a physicist, having settled the question about whether or not atoms really existed (still an open question at the end of the nineteenth century) and he had published a paper which kicked off the development of quantum physics.

arXiv.org

So which peer reviewed journal did it appear in?

 

[bhsmte]

So what? Einstein was a patent clerk! That doesn't mean I haven't made the effort to understand the basics of Lambda-CDM, as well as *other alternatives* to Lambda-CDM. As I see it they have *half* of an education, and missed the necessary part related to MHD theory. Have you for instance even read a textbook on MHD theory, yes or no?

Einstein likely had a mind that comes along every 100 years or so. Are you comparing yourself to Einstein Michael?

 

[Michael]

Einstein likely had a mind that comes along every 100 years or so. Are you comparing yourself to Einstein Michael?

I admitted she got me there with the last question didn't I?

I was only actually taking a swipe at her "only astronomers" should write theories related to astronomy. The history of astronomy tells a very different story actually.

 

[Michael]

His famous 1905 paper was not about astronomy, and it was also not the first paper he had had accepted and published. He was already well known as a physicist, having settled the question about whether or not atoms really existed (still an open question at the end of the nineteenth century) and he had published a paper which kicked off the development of quantum physics.

You're sort of ignoring the point (intentionally of course). He wasn't a "professional astronomer" by trade!

So which peer reviewed journal did it appear in?

Observational Confirmation of the Sun’s CNO Cycle - Springer
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars - Springer
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass - Springer

 

[RealityCheck01]

Observational Confirmation of the Sun’s CNO Cycle - Springer
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars - Springer
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass - Springer

I should point out (rather belatedly !) that
* even credible journals publish bad papers
* papers about astronomy that are not published in astronomy journals are unlikely to be reviewed by astronomers who know about astronomy!

To take The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass published in Physics of Atomic Nuclei as an example. The other two papers were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy.
* It is basic solar physics that turbulence mixes up plasma in stars like the Sun. That is what the convection zone is - a zone where convection currents mix up plasma. The convection zone in the Sun is about the outer third of the Sun.
* Fig 1 (top) is a image taken with a 171A filter that detects iron at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2 million K. This is not at "iron-rich sub-surface". This is the transition region that is above the photosphere and is "iron-poor". Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) never looked below the photosphere or surface of the Sun.
* The idea that the Sun contains a neutron star is ridiculous for many reasons, e.g.
** neutron stars have magnetic fields orders of magnitude greater then the Sun,
** the gravity at the surface of a neutron star squeezes matter until it fuses and explodes (x-ray burster).
** isolated neutron stars are never considered in the paper. But they should have this unknown "energy released in neutron-emission".
** This ignores the simple fact that a ball of gas with the observed composition of the photosphere will have nuclear fusion happening at the core producing the neutrinos that we observe.

There is also a form of the "chicken and egg" problem - if all stars need a neutron star then where did the first neutron star come from?
Alternately: How can we tell the difference between a star with a neutron star inside it and a star that does not have a neutron star inside it?
Or: Is the Sun the only star in the universe with a neutron star inside it ?

 

[mzungu]

Or: Is the Sun the only star in the universe with a neutron star inside it ?

Considering that both Michael and Justa believe that GR only applies to our solar system; it is little wonder that they come up with all manner of crackpot theories.

 

[Michael]

I should point out (rather belatedly !) that
* even credible journals publish bad papers

Well, in the case of the Bicep2 paper that this thread is actually about (as opposed to your hijack), the peer review process pretty much destroyed the whole claim. By the time they got done with it, the entire claim had pretty much turned to 'dust'.

* papers about astronomy that are not published in astronomy journals are unlikely to be reviewed by astronomers who know about astronomy!

To take The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass published in Physics of Atomic Nuclei as an example. The other two papers were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy.

Sure, what do fusion experts and nuclear chemists know about fusion, right?

* It is basic solar physics that turbulence mixes up plasma in stars like the Sun. That is what the convection zone is - a zone where convection currents mix up plasma. The convection zone in the Sun is about the outer third of the Sun.

The problem for your mainstream models RC is that they've already been falsified by SDO. It turns out that your so called "jet speed convection' claims were off by two whole orders of magnitude, and it's no faster than about walking speed at best case. Even still, apparently you intend to claim iron, lead and gold will stay mixed together with wispy light hydrogen and helium atoms?

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Ooooops? Darn those pesky solar physicists that blew your convection claims out of the water!

* Fig 1 (top) is a image taken with a 171A filter that detects iron at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2 million K. This is not at "iron-rich sub-surface".

Actually, large, electrified coronal loops traverse the entire solar atmosphere, from the iron rich "surface", through the photosphere, through the chromosphere, and *far* into the corona. They aren't a single dimensional structure to begin with. The iron ion lines that are seen in SDO (and other satellite) images are indeed related to iron that is *hot*, and well above 160,000 degrees. The pinch processes in the loops and inside the double layers is what ultimately causes "fusion" to occur. It's certainly not a "cold" process by any stretch of the imagination.

This is the transition region that is above the photosphere and is "iron-poor". Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) never looked below the photosphere or surface of the Sun.

Nobody doubts that the fusion processes observed in that particular event occurred in the corona RC.

* The idea that the Sun contains a neutron star is ridiculous for many reasons, e.g.

Mostly because you can't accept any idea that isn't "mainstream".

** neutron stars have magnetic fields orders of magnitude greater then the Sun,

That depends of course upon the size of the star in question along with it's rotational components. In this case the size of the core would represent something like 10-20 percent of the total mass at most.

** the gravity at the surface of a neutron star squeezes matter until it fuses and explodes (x-ray burster).

Sure, and we observe at lot of fusion processes as evidenced by the neutrino counts that come from our sun.

** isolated neutron stars are never considered in the paper. But they should have this unknown "energy released in neutron-emission".

Actually they're typically just called "neutron stars" or "pulsars" if they have no appreciable atmosphere around them.

** This ignores the simple fact that a ball of gas with the observed composition of the photosphere will have nuclear fusion happening at the core producing the neutrinos that we observe.

If I weren't also claiming that the sun has a fusion based process, your objection might have merit. As it stands, it's a moot point.

There is also a form of the "chicken and egg" problem - if all stars need a neutron star then where did the first neutron star come from?

That's like asking where the pre-big bang "stuff" came from. It's simply a *primordial* substance, that acts of the 'glue' (and source material for hydrogen and other heavier elements) of the universe. All you need to create a universe is heavy neutrons and spin. The rest is a given as neutrons decay into hydrogen and fusion creates heavier elements.

Alternately: How can we tell the difference between a star with a neutron star inside it and a star that does not have a neutron star inside it?
Or: Is the Sun the only star in the universe with a neutron star inside it ?

It's typically a "size" and "atmosphere" issue. Once a heavy atmosphere forms around the spinning core, we call it a 'sun'. Otherwise it's simply a pulsar or ordinary neutron star.

 

[Michael]

Considering that both Michael and Justa believe that GR only applies to our solar system; it is little wonder that they come up with all manner of crackpot theories.

Considering how little actual scientific reading you do, it's no wonder you're always forced to resort to petty personal insults. Your entire argument is based on a pure "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle. Whatever you don't understand, you simple label a 'crackpot' claim, and you refuse to educate yourself one step further.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Well...

Well then, Michael, I was responding to your hijack of this thread by citing three easily seen to be wrong papers.

The problem for your mainstream models RC is that they've already been falsified by SDO.

Which is a wrong - SDO has not shown that the Sun is not powered by fusion, Michael, which is what that paper claims !

It turns out that there are convection currents detected in that Sun, Michael! These are mixing up the contents of the Sun thus debunking the that paper. The current problem is that the speed of these measured convection currents do not match those of computer simulations . Thus it is likely that the computer simulations are wrong in some way.

So I will stick with the claim of just every person who can read basic English that convection in "convection zone" means convection!

And I will not cite a climate denier crank site in preference to the scientific literature, Michael!

Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)! from 29th October 2013 goes further into the problems with that invalid paper.

Nobody doubts that the fusion processes observed in that particular event occurred in the corona RC.

There have been no fusion events observed in the corona even for an unspecified event, Michael .
What I wrote was:
This is the transition region that is above the photosphere and is "iron-poor". Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) never looked below the photosphere or surface of the Sun.

I cannot accept any idea that is physically wrong or even delusional, Michael, e.g.
That the Sun has an iron surface (or mountain ranges) at the temperatures of the photosphere which are ~5700 K and get greater with depth.
Or that the photosphere (Fe = 0.16% by mass) is iron rich or the Sun's atmosphere somehow magically becomes iron rich.
...
Or that images of solar flares are images of maintain ranges.
Or 2nd December 2012: Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! (an analysis of Michael's web site).
I am sure that people reading this thread get the idea!

No, Michael: Neutron stars have strong magnetic fields because they form from stars with magnetic fields!

Almost right, Michael: We observe at lot of fusion processes as evidenced by the neutrino counts that come from our sun that match the predictions from fusion at the core of the Sun.
But you missed the point. All of the matter outside of the neutron star will be squeezed until it all fuses - that is not sustained fusion, that is a supernova !

Actually a neutron star or pulsar is always called a neutron star or pulsar! But according to that paper they would be called enormously bright neutron -star-like objects.

If I weren't also claiming that the sun has a fusion based process, your objection might have merit. As it stands, it's a moot point.

As I am not addressing your claims (I am addressing the claims in that invalid paper), you claiming that the Sun has a fusion based process, is an almost irrelevant point. The only relevant bits are:
* Why did you co-author a paper in 2006 claiming that the Sun is not powered by fusion if you thought that it was?
* If you changed your mind then why are you still citing that paper now that you know its claim is invalid?

That's like asking where the pre-big bang "stuff" came from.

No it is not. The evidence is that universe started in a hot dense state (the Big Bang). This cooled down into basically a cloud of hydrogen that formed the first stars. But this paper implies that these these first stars have to contain neutron stars. Thus

There is also a form of the "chicken and egg" problem - if all stars need a neutron star then where did the first neutron star come from?

and if this is not the claim, i.e. there are stars that do not have neutron stars in them:

Alternately: How can we tell the difference between a star with a neutron star inside it and a star that does not have a neutron star inside it?[/

 

[Michael]

Well then, Michael, I was responding to your hijack of this thread by citing three easily seen to be wrong papers.

You're the one doing the actual hijacking of this thread, as well as the projecting. The title of this thread has nothing to do with any of my papers RC. It turns out that the message Bicep2 saw wasn't from the dawn of time as first (falsely) advertised, it was actually a message from the *dust* of spacetime.

Which is a wrong - SDO has not shown that the Sun is not powered by fusion, Michael, which is what that paper claims !

You're wrong on both points. The paper in question does insist that at least some of the sun's energy *does* come directly from fusion, and in fact other papers I've published make it clear that the sun *is* in fact at least partially powered by fusion.

Secondly the SDO data makes it clear that your rationalization for heavy and light elements remaining "mixed together" in the photosphere are ridiculously flawed and utterly falsified. You've also got a *serious* problem explaining anything related to the solar corona based on your now falsified theories about how magnetic fields below the photosphere surface are generated (via fast convection).

It turns out that there are convection currents detected in that Sun, Michael!

Of course you simply ignored the fact that they are *two entire orders of magnitude too small* to fit your now falsified theory!

These are mixing up the contents of the Sun thus debunking the that paper.

Boloney. The only theory that is "debunked" is your claim that convection currents are *fast enough* to mix up the elements and fast enough to generate those strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere. You've got zip to defend those claims. In fact your claims are two orders of magnitude blown out of the water.

The current problem is that the speed of these measured convection currents do not match those of computer simulations . Thus it is likely that the computer simulations are wrong in some way.

Ya, and the *measured* rates of convection are incapable of keeping hydrogen and helium "mixed" together with heavy elements like iron and nickel and gold and lead. There's *nowhere near* the amount of convection necessary to do such a thing, and nowhere near the current speeds necessary to generate strong magnetic fields from convection.

So I will stick with the claim of just every person who can read basic English that convection in "convection zone" means convection!

I'll explain it in clear English to you too: Your falsified solar model is *broken*, flawed and *outright falsified* by the SDO convection data which shows that your model is *two orders* of magnitude off in terms of convection speed, and your claims about how fast convection generates magnetic fields are *hopelessly broken*.

And I will not cite a climate denier crank site in preference to the scientific literature, Michael!

You're the only crank here RC, hence the resumption of your pathetic stalking routine and your blatant hijack of this thread.

Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)! from 29th October 2013 goes further into the problems with that invalid paper.d

The link doesn't work, and I'm sure your arguments were all bogus and wrong anyway.

There have been no fusion events observed in the corona even for an unspecified event, Michael .

The *published* scientific papers say otherwise, whereas your *personal and unpublished* rants are utterly and completely scientifically irrelevant RC.

What I wrote was:
This is the transition region that is above the photosphere and is "iron-poor". Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) never looked below the photosphere or surface of the Sun.

I really don't care what you wrote RC, mostly because you're in pure denial of the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma. You're scientifically clueless and intent on remaining that way. Have you even bothered to read a real textbook on MHD theory yet?

I cannot accept any idea that is physically wrong or even delusional, Michael, e.g.

The only "delusional" one here is you RC. Your pathetic use of loaded and personally derogatory language won't make up for the fact that unlike me, you've never published a single paper on any topic related to astronomy. Worse yet, you're utterly clueless about even the basics of plasma physics *by choice*! Have you even bothered to read a single textbook on MHD theory yet RC? Yes or no?

That the Sun has an iron surface (or mountain ranges) at the temperatures of the photosphere which are ~5700 K and get greater with depth.

The features in question have nothing to do with the photosphere or anything at temperatures close to photosphere temperatures. I've been over that issue with you *dozens* of times and it goes in one ear and out the other. Sunspots *routinely* demonstrate that cooler plasma is found in the solar atmosphere.

Or that the photosphere (Fe = 0.16% by mass) is iron rich or the Sun's atmosphere somehow magically becomes iron rich.

The sun's atmosphere isn't "iron rich" even in the paper you cited! Oh for crying out loud. You really are either completely clueless or completely unethical in your portrayal of my work, or both. Which is it?

Or that images of solar flares are images of maintain ranges.
Or 2nd December 2012: Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! (an analysis of Michael's web site).

You personally could not "debunk" anything. Are you even willing to admit yet that electrical discharges *do* occur in plasmas and conductors yet RC?

No, Michael: Neutron stars have strong magnetic fields because they form from stars with magnetic fields!

Oy Vey. How many papers related to the physics of neutron stars have you published RC? Let me guess. Zero? You obviously don't know anything about that area of physics theory, anymore than you understand that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasma.

Almost right, Michael: We observe at lot of fusion processes as evidenced by the neutrino counts that come from our sun that match the predictions from fusion at the core of the Sun.

Yes and no. They add up right in terms of the raw totals, so I'm certainly inclined to believe it's internally powered.

But you missed the point. All of the matter outside of the neutron star will be squeezed until it all fuses - that is not sustained fusion, that is a supernova !

No, as usual *you* missed the point. It's rotation speed, along with charge repulsion from the "crust" of the neutron core ensures that the fusion and emission processes remain stable over time. I'd imagine once the core stops rotating quickly that things could become unstable and it could go supernova.

Actually a neutron star or pulsar is always called a neutron star or pulsar! But according to that paper they would be called enormously bright neutron -star-like objects.

Funny you should mention that:

Mystery Neutron Star Brightest Ever Seen - Business Insider

Whereas our *published* theories about neutron stars predict such observations, the *mainstream* is baffled by such *basic* observations.

As I am not addressing your claims (I am addressing the claims in that invalid paper), you claiming that the Sun has a fusion based process, is an almost irrelevant point. The only relevant bits are:
* Why did you co-author a paper in 2006 claiming that the Sun is not powered by fusion if you thought that it was?

You're apparently in stanch denial of what the paper actually states. Even in our most conservative estimate (with no neutrino oscillation at all), fusion would *still* generate around 38 percent of solar luminosity, and the paper doesn't really make *specific* claims as to the full energy release. It simply notes that other options *might* apply.

* If you changed your mind then why are you still citing that paper now that you know its claim is invalid?

The only thing that has changed as far as I know is the improved observation of neutrino oscillation, which simply suggests that *more* of the total solar luminosity is related to fusion around the core, and less is probably related to neutron emissions from the core. The whole premise of the paper however is that the sun is *internally* powered, and that certainly hasn't changed.

[No it is not. The evidence is that universe started in a hot dense state (the Big Bang).

What evidence? You've got *zero* empirical evidence that photon redshift is caused by "space expansion" to begin with, and your Bicep2 claims about finding "dawn of time" evidence of inflation literally turned to dust by the time the paper passed the peer review process and was actually published. You've basically got *zero* evidence that the universe "started" at all!

This cooled down into basically a cloud of hydrogen that formed the first stars.

Cooled down? Why didn't the mass and gravity of the subatomic particles cause the whole thing to implode in an instant even *before* the first hydrogen atom formed? Let me guess? Your invisible and impotent on Earth friends did it?

But this paper implies that these these first stars have to contain neutron stars. Thus

and if this is not the claim, i.e. there are stars that do not have neutron stars in them:

Maybe so. Perhaps that's what a "brown dwarf" is. They sure don't seem real "energetic".

NASA scientists have discovered stars that are cool enough to touch

 

[mzungu]

OH no not another thread hijacked by Michael!

 

[Michael]

OH no not another thread hijacked by Michael!

Right. RC drags up a thread that's almost 6 month's old and focuses on something *other* than the topic of the thread, and somehow that's all my fault.