New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

Status
Not open for further replies.

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Thornhill *clearly* predicted fusion in the *photosphere* regardless of how much you'd like to ignore and misrepresent the very quote that *you* selected from his work.

And I frankly couldn't give a toss about Thornhill. He is a scientifically illiterate Velikovskian. You said that SCOTT put the fusion below surface. He didn't, as shown. Deal with that. It goes to the very reliability of this woo merchant, who has supposedly got rid of dark matter due to the 'paper' which is the subject of this thread.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Yes, there is. Read the paper, and many others like it.


Oh for crying out loud, you evidently didn't even read the abstract, let alone the paper.

One proposed mechanism is heating via a large number of small, unresolved, impulsive heating events called nanoflares2.

Emphasis mine. They *didn't* see nano-flares, they *made them up*.

Nanoflares heat corona

Unfortunately, detecting these relatively faint nanoflares is exceptionally challenging and beyond our current capabilities. The researchers hope that the next FOXSI flight, slated for August 2018, will hint at more dense, hot pockets of plasma within the Sun’s corona, strengthening the case for nanoflare heating.

In other words, just like with your metaphysical "dark matter" claims, they *didn't* see anything, so they just *assumed* that nano-flares did it.

It doesn't matter what happens in a lab. The Sun isn't in a lab, and never will be.

This kind of irrational nonsense is exactly why you folks are not real 'scientists' to start with.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
This kind of irrational nonsense is exactly why you folks are not real 'scientists' to start with.

Well you certainly aren't. Iron Suns? CNO fusion at the surface? Whatever you may be qualified in, it most certainly doesn't include astrophysics. Or likely any other type of physics. Hence why you hang out with the EU nutjobs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Yes you did.

No, I didn't.

As pointed out by Tim, who knows far more about the subject than you do.

No, Tim *falsely* asserted that we don't see gamma rays which are consistent with CNO fusion, and I showed him a reference that proves that he's dead wrong. So much for Tim knowing more about the subject.

As I said, look at the paper I linked somewhere upthread. That is fusion, and is narrow line.

Coronal loops and solar flares emit *broad spectrum* gamma ray emission which also include those exact lines.

That is what we don't see in the paper you referred to. And is why nobody else has made such a silly claim.

We *do* see those wavelengths in the paper I referred to.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
We *do* see those wavelengths in the paper I referred to.

Nope. Rewrite your 'paper' and submit it ApJ, or A & A or MNRAS etc. Then get back to us after the peer reviewers have stopped laughing long enough to reply.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Well you certainly aren't. Iron Suns? CNO fusion at the surface? Whatever you may be qualified in, it most certainly doesn't include astrophysics.

Well, I'm definitely not qualified in inflation, dark energy, dark matter or space expansion, and nobody else is either since those claims have failed more "tests" than they've ever passed, and they're mostly just placeholder terms for human ignorance in the first place. If that's your concept of "astrophysics", I want no part in it. Its pure *metaphysical* garbage.

Hence why you hang out with the EU nutjobs.

So says the guy peddling four metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance and doesn't bother to even read his own references.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
So says the guy peddling four metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance and doesn't bother to even read his own references.

I did read the abstract. I read the whole paper. Here is another one:

PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING
Brosius, J. W. et al
PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING - IOPscience

So, while real scientists make real observations, and apply viable hypotheses, your lot are heating up a metal ball and doing 'looks like a bunny' 'science'. None of you have got a workable model. None of you have got any evidence. None of you, quite frankly, have got a clue. As per Scott. Why on Earth do you think you are completely ignored? Homeopathists and astrologers have more followers, and nobody takes them seriously. You lot are way off the radar.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian

Yep! You cannot and will not name one CNO wavelength that figure 5 doesn't cover. Watch you run.

Rewrite your 'paper' and submit it ApJ, or A & A or MNRAS etc. Then get back to us after the peer reviewers have stopped laughing long enough to reply.

Your so call 'peer reviewers' aren't my "peers" to start with. All they seem to know and publish is metaphysics and made-believe, like your non-existent nano-flares and exotic matter which they can never actually *see* in the first place. The don't publish any *actual* physics, just pseudoscience and metaphysics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I did read the abstract. I read the whole paper. Here is another one:

PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING
Brosius, J. W. et al
PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING - IOPscience

S

Name the *visible* evidence. Pervasive faint Iron line emissions aren't "nano-flares", they're caused by *constant current* and Thompson scattering.

 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Just out of curiosity what other "handles" have you posted under and how many times have we bumped heads before under your various handles? You sound *remarkably* like RC, including your bogus and false liar, liar, pants on fire routine.
Hilarious paranoia, :D:D, totally irrelevant .... and none of your business!
:p
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Nah. There aren't that many of you to start with, and I'm curious. He seems to be avoiding the answer too.
And I'll repeat again ... you have no rights to impose yourself as a moderator. If you continue with such GOADING, TAUNTING behaviours, I will report your post!
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Name the *visible* evidence. Pervasive faint Iron line emissions aren't "nano-flares", they're caused by *constant current* and Thompson scattering.

Really? And where is this spelled out. Preferably in a respected, relevant journal.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Really? And where is this spelled out. Preferably in a respected, relevant journal.

Really!


For crying out loud they have *zero* visual evidence to support even the actual *existence* of nano-flares, nor do they offer any logical way to explain them, nor any explanation as to why they would be occurring everywhere all the time. Meanwhile, simple electrical current explains the same global heating process everywhere around the corona and it actually works in the lab!

Give me a break! Their whole claim is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy. 'We see Iron lines and no coronal loops, therefore (put whatever the hell you want here) did it."

None of it is based on *lab tested physics* and all they did is move the problem. They claim to 'explain' the heat source of the corona, but have no explanation for the nano-flares, let alone why they would occur everywhere around the whole surface of the sun all the time.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Yep! You cannot and will not name one CNO wavelength that figure 5 doesn't cover. Watch you run.

Like you ran from submitting your nonsense to an appropriate journal? For anyone interested, here is what a qualified astrophysicist told MM about his silly claims:

Mozina (??????):
I suggest you start by explaining why you feel the wavelengths in questions and that were actually observe were *NOT* due to CNO fusion, because those wavelengths certainly exist in the data.

Tim Thompson (astrophysicist):
I do argue that none of the wavelengths seen are due to CNO fusion and assert that there is significant evidence in favor of this position. The bumps in figure 5a are superimposed on top of a sloping background that resembles figure 5b. That background is a thermal continuum. The bumps indicate "background + process", where the neutron capture gamma rays (they are the "process" part) are emitted in addition to the background gamma rays. If there is any CNO fusion process in play then there must be a bump for that process. Furthermore, the CNO process is a cycle, so you don't just get a bump here or a bump there, you get all of the bumps simultaneously or you get none of the bumps at all, there is no middle ground.

Figure 5a covers the energy range 0.3 - 8.0 MeV. So for the CNO-I cycle we should see bumps at 1.95, 2.22, 2.75, 4.96, 7.35 and 7.54 MeV (not "or", but "and"), For the CNO-II cycle we should see bumps at 0.6, 1.19, 2.75, 2.76 and 7.35 MeV (the 12.13 MeV bump lies outside the plot range). The plot shows bumps at about 0.9, 1.5, 2.3, 3.0, 4.6 and 6.0 MeV (the latter being almost invisible and the 1.5 MeV bump being very broad). There are also significant dips at about 0.7, 2-3, 4.5-5.0 and 6-8 MeV. The ~2.3 MeV bump, labeled "n", coincides with 2.23 MeV neutron capture on a proton, and also with the 2.22 MeV gamma ray expected from the inverse beta decay (positron emission) of 13N to 13C in CNO-I . However, the locations on the plot where one would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 1.95 & 2.75 MeV are actually dominated by dips in the spectrum, indicating a deficit of gamma rays in the data, where CNO-I would present a surplus of gamma rays. The bump labeled "C" could mask a 4.96 MeV CNO-I bump, but again, there are actually dips rather then bumps, where we would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 7.35 & 7.54 MeV. This is not simply an absence of positive evidence that the CNO-I cycle is in play. The presence of dips where there should be bumps constitutes positive evidence in favor of the assertive proposition that the CNO-I cycle in fact is not in play in these data. Likewise, the last 3 bumps one would expect from the CNO-II cycle sit where the data plotted in figure 5a show negative features, while there is no sign of any bumps at 1.19 or 0.6 MeV. And once again, the presence of dips instead of bumps is equally positive evidence for the assertive proposition that the CNO-II cycle is not physically present for the time & place represented by these data.

And so I stand by my claim: These data do not indicate the presence of any CNO fusion cycle. Furthermore, these data do indicate that no CNO fusion cycle is in effect.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

And that is what any peer reviewer in an appropriate journal would have told them.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
And I'll repeat again ... you have no rights to impose yourself as a moderator. If you continue with such GOADING, TAUNTING behaviours, I will report your post!

I simply asked a simple question. In no way did I try to impose myself as moderator. You made that up.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
For crying out loud they have *zero* visual evidence to support even the actual *existence* of nano-flares, nor do they offer any logical way to explain them, nor any explanation as to why they would be occurring everywhere all the time. Meanwhile, simple electrical current explains the same global heating process everywhere around the corona and it actually works in the lab!

Nope. Irrelevant. A metal ball being heated tells us nothing. The Sun is gaseous, not metallic. There is no mains supply.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
We present spatially resolved, EUV spectroscopic measurements of pervasive, faint Fe xix 592.2 Å line emission in AR 11726 observed by EUNIS-13. The Fe xix line emission, formed at T ≈ 8.9 MK, provides strong support for nanoflare heating models of the solar corona;

The absence of large, significant upward velocities anywhere in the region, particularly in the microflare, indicates that the pervasive Fe xix emission is not propelled outward from the microflare site, but most likely is produced by localized impulsive heating (due to reconnection events, wave dissipation, or some other mechanism) consistent with the nanoflare heating model of the solar corona.

PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING - IOPscience

So, that to me looks a lot better bet than models that don't even get past first base, are scientifically unviable and possess zero evidence. And, essentially, don't exist.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.