Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yada yada yada. Peratt's ancient model has failed. Why would I study it? Or his nonsense about petroglyphs? The guy has clearly lost it. Alfven's model failed. His cosmology stuff was weird to say the least.Peratt's model.........
but depth of the electrode would be exactly the same as my model, and the bulk of the electrical discharge activity would never reach the surface of the photosphere, and I'd expect the gamma rays to be absorbed as per that previous image I've cited.
fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).
What an idiotic comment. They will have never heard of them or their stupid models.
The fact that they detect the predicted amount of neutrinos from p-p fusion, and that it isn't from heavy element fusion falsifies the claims of those woo merchants.
Typical crank response.
They detected what they detected.
I guess it's all a conspiracy to keep down idiotic, scientifically impossible woo as proposed by EU cultists?
That these scientists will almost certainly never have heard of. Or their silly models.
Yep, it's all a huge conspiracy. Pathetic.
And you never will. It's all word salad. However let me repeat this for the hard of understanding: they predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at the surface. Is that what is seen? No, it isn't and their model is therefore dead in the water, isn't it?
Hahaha. Nowhere near hot nor dense enough.
It's obvious that this is a pointless exercise, as you appear to be intellectually incapable of understanding the subject matter.
Yada yada yada. Peratt's ancient model has failed.
Why would I study it?
Or his nonsense about petroglyphs? The guy has clearly lost it.
Alfven's model failed.
His cosmology stuff was weird to say the least.
Could you cite a specific example of where his model failed or is that just another rumor you heard somewhere?
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[16] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.
They are *plenty* hot enough and it's a plasma *pinch* so they are dense enough too. There are even satellite observations that are entirely consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmologye
Which would be why nobody takes it seriously. Same with Peratt. The COBE, WMAP and Planck results show it to be wrong.
No there aren't. You had all that explained to you by Tim Thompson and others at ISF. That is not CNO fusion! Dear me.
If they never heard of them, then their papers cannot possibly include a falsification of a model they never heard of. You're *still* confusing a "supporting" document for the standard model with a *falsification study* of another model. They aren't the same thing!
Muon neutrino beams have been shown (3 sigma only) to probably oscillate into electron neutrinos,....
Tim Thompson published a rebuttal paper?
Why would he need to?
The paper has been pretty much ignored, due to it not being in an astrophysics journal.
Had such a thing been confirmed, it would be headline news. I don't see anyone else claiming the RHESSI results show CNO fusion to be occurring.
Ya, what does the Journal of Fusion Energy know about fusion anyway?
Yes they are. Try to understand this - Thornhill and Scott predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at or above the surface.
Heavy elements are not hydrogen, are they?
Yes we can detect neutrinos from 'heavy' elements, such as O and N and Be, but they are a teeny tiny fraction of what is observed.
And is fully in agreement with the standard model.
It is totally out of line with the claims of Scott and Thornhill.
The vast majority of neutrino production is from the fusion of hydrogen.
Which, I remind you, is NOT A HEAVY ELEMENT.
Therefore Scott and Thornhill are wrong. Their models are dead.
No fusion at the surface,
and no excess of heavy element neutrinos.
Still waiting to see where Scott puts all this non-existent heavy element fusion deep in the photosphere, by the way.
Not that it matters, as observation shows it to be wrong. Which is why it has never been published in the scientific literature.
It is not the journal one would choose to make such a claim. The peer reviewers are likely not astrophysicists, who would understand the processes described, and the significance of such a claim.
They also publically dissociate themselves from the EU delusions.Oh please. People who work with fusion on a daily basis understand the processes and the conditions required for fusion, and they'd understand the significance of such a claim just fine.
They also publically dissociate themselves from the EU delusions.
I think Tim suggested it was a P-P fusion event rather than CNO fusion but I don't recall him claiming it wasn't fusion.
Then there is the curious publication venue: The Journal of Fusion Energy. Just read the "Aims and Scope" of this journal: "Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction." So you submitted a paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that specializes in nuclear reactor technology and social policy. If you are so confident in your claims, why did you not submit your paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that publishes papers on stellar astrophysics? You chose a venue that would effectively hide your results from the very community of scientists whom you should most want to read the paper. Why did you do that?......................................So, I stand by what I said before: RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. Furthermore, I cite your paper as a specific reference to back me up. After all, your paper specifically says the gamma rays observed come from positron annihilation and neutron capture, and nowhere claims that they come directly from CNO reactions.
Oh please. People who work with fusion on a daily basis understand the processes and the conditions required for fusion, and they'd understand the significance of such a claim just fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?