Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by ngchunter
Humorous, actually not much point arguing with you until you do a bit more study instead of watching discovery universe specials and copying the
arguments of others without understanding the complexity of the thing your arguing about. It's a waste of my time.
Yet you feel compelled to play thread necromancy and try to argue it with me anyway? I demand a retraction of your accusation. I wrote this argument
myself. If I sound like others who have ripped this theory apart it's because we're all speaking the same truth on why your theory fails. I did
not educate myself on the sun from "discovery universe specials" I did it by reading these neat things called books. I wrote my counter argument
and backed it up with realtime space weather data, I did not plagerize anyone else.
Yes your argument is practically a complete copy and paste of the same stuff all over the net on this issue, nothing new there.
I could say the same for you, but unlike you I don't assume that the other person is copying someone else just because I've heard the same faulty
line of reasoning before.
At least Tim Thompson goes about his argument scientifically for the most part, I respect that and your attempts fall far below that level of critique
when you can't get the basics right and are oblivious to the new observations and some old ones it seems.
This from a person who didn't even bother to notice that their own sources said the phenomenon either stopped short of the sun or was caused by the
sun itself. Meanwhile you can't even show me a significant amount of electrons reaching the sun at all times and powering it, yet that is your
assumption.
This is not verification of a source of power just showing the error in many of your assumptions.
Translation: I can't prove my theory at all so let me try to poke holes in yours.
[1] Observed electron distribution functions of the solar wind permanently exhibit three different components: a thermal core and a suprathermal
halo, which are always present at all pitch angles, and a sharply magnetic field aligned strahl which is usually antisunward moving. Whereas Coulomb
collisions can explain the relative isotropy of the core population, the origin of the halo population, and more specifically the origin of its
sunward directed part, remains unknown.
Could be from interstellar space or it could be from jupiter, who knows, what is important to note is that this is out in the halo and strahl and
decreases in density as it approaches the sun.
In this study we present the radial evolution of the electron velocity distribution functions in the fast solar wind between 0.3 and 1.5 AU. For this
purpose we combine data measured separately by the Helios, Wind, and Ulysses spacecraft. We compute average distributions over distance and normalize
them to 1 AU to remove the effects of the solar wind expansion. Then we model separately the core, halo, and strahl components to compute their
relative number density or fraction of the total electron density. We observe that, while the core fractional density remains roughly constant with
radial distance, the halo and strahl fractional densities vary in an opposite way. The relative number of halo electrons is increasing, while the
relative number of strahl electrons is decreasing with distance.Therefore we provide, for the first time, strong evidences for a scenario that is
commonly assumed: the heliospheric electron halo population consists partly of electrons that have been scattered out of the strahl.
Great, so the electrons that make it out of the strahl and into the halo become less and less dense as radius to the sun decreases. By the time
you're looking at the core you're seeing electrons that come nearly entirely from the sun. If there's one thing this study proves it's that
nothing from outside could be electrically powering the sun. Your own source disproved your theory.
[edit on 30-9-2008 by ngchunter]
[edit on 30-9-2008 by ngchunter]
