Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Not long ago, while argueing ver whether some of the Images we are seeing from SOHO might actually be a solid object or just Cosmic Rays, I sort of accepted a challange to show that they might not be cosmic rays.

I've written anarticle on this, but it is rather large for this format. However if anyone is interested; Here is a link to it.

I can't go into uch detail here, but I do highly recommend that everyone read these two articles, even IF you don't read mine.
1. Cosmic Rays
2. CCD Arrays

These will help greatly in understanding all this.

In figure 1 we have a streak that enters from the edge of the array, looses energy and ends after several hundred pixels.




This is the “trace” or “trail” of a cosmic ray that enters the array parallel to the plane of the array and perhaps only a few tenths of a nanometer below the surface. This ray had enough energy to penetrate several hundred pixels, or “cells” before running out of energy. The few “dots” , seemingly at the end of the streak, are actually other cosmic ray strikes.

Figure 2 shows us another cosmic ray streak, though this time it is two with an interesting alignment.




The cosmic ray labeled “cosmic ray 2” while appearing to be an extension of the longer one likely isn’t. The reason is that the first ray has lost energy and ends rather abruptly some number of pixels before the second starts. It is highly unlikely that the cosmic ray has somehow “gained” energy and was able t continue on in the second “trace”.

It must also be considered that “streaks” like these can only be “made” in a rather limited number of circumstances.

1. A cosmic ray whose vector is parallel to the plane of the CCD, and strikes and enters the side in such a manner that it penetrates the device at a point where it can transfer a charge to the “imaging” cells.

2. A cosmic ray whose vector is not parallel, but within 4 or 5 degrees of parallel; thus leaving a “streak” that does not begin at any edge, yet continues for several pixels. The number of pixels “illuminated” being determined by the angles of that vector.

3. A large number of cosmic rays that “happen” to be so aligned to each other, that they “paint” a line or “streak”.

This “style” I believe to be single cosmic rays making each “trace.





In figure 3 we see two more cosmic ray streaks, the rays appear to be moving from left to right.





Nearly all of the samples of these Cosmic Ray “streaks” I’ve looked at seem to exhibit similar properties. In this case the trailing edge; seems to “trail off” or fade. This can be cause by the cosmic ray penetrating the CCD below the level of its “depletion region”, yet still imparting some energy to the cell.

And, of course, all the bright isolated dots are single cosmic rays that enter at an angle greater than what will support a “streak”. Also, cosmic rays striking the CCD at angles of less than 86 degrees (or so), May, if they strike near the edge of a cell, “illuminate” two adjacent cells.

The reader should have noticed that around most of the single pixel “hits” and around the “streaks” there appears to be a slight “bloom”. This is caused by charge “bleeding” from one cell to an adjacent one. These cells are well insulated electrically, but, the insulator between the cells is Silicon Dioxide, and, it too can make for a “fair” dielectric, and may thus allow coupling of charge to adjacent cells.

It also important to understand the “sensing” portion of this device; for those who read the link, you will remember, a charge is coupled when a photon or electric charge is delivered to the surface of the device. Directly under these photon / charge sensing “plates” is what is termed the “depletion region”. This is semiconductor material that has it’s “PN” junctions “reverse biased”, this causes a condition known as “cutoff”, a state where only minimal current is allowed (in these kind of devices, that current is almost 0). The residual current is considered noise. So, this depletion region, the (semi)conductor above it, and the semiconductor below it form a “capacitor” with a dielectric of less than 100 nanometers (up to 100 nm must be considered due to SOHO’s age; Circa 1995). All of the oblique angled cosmic rays must deliver all their charge within this small region.

Now let us consider another class of SOHO image; the so-called “massive UFO near the Sun”.

Actually this class of image is rather unique, in that every instance requires several (more than one cosmic ray to construct it, and each of these cosmic rays must occur within a 12 second window, that is available once every 12 minutes.

In figure 4 we have two intersecting cosmic rays, both traveling toward a bright spot where they intersect. It should be noticed that this “bright spot” is also the terminus of both vectors. There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.




In Figure 5 we see much the same, but with an added feature.



The image looks straightforward enough, two apparent cosmic rays radiating out.

However, there is that central bit of pixels that is bothersome; it forms a straight line some 10 or so pixels in length. It begins and ends abruptly and has no “halo” despite its apparent intensity. In as much as it does not seem to behave like other cosmic recordings; it is very unlikely to be a cosmic ray.

In Figure 6 we have yet another interesting image.




This time the cosmic rays are converging as in Figure 4, I took the liberty of extending the vectors so that we may see where they might have intersected (thin Yellow lines). Nothing “special” about this except for the “blob” just above the intersection of the vectors; not to sure what to make of it, it could be a distant celestial object, a “group” of cosmic rays (doubtful), or most anything. It has some of the characteristics of cosmic ray strikes, but, the size might suggest something else.

There is a single fundamental difference between the first set of images and the second. That is; in all three of the second set of images there are two cosmic rays with intersecting vectors. This makes the whole proposition much less tenable. From two separate sources a cosmic ray must be emitted with such timing that it intersects another on, or, very near the sensing plates of the CCD, either before or just after the actual intersection point, and within the same 12 second _ The probability of this, despite the sheer quantity of cosmic rays is massively small.

****END PART ONE****
edit on 7-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
****Of Cosic Rays and SOHO continued****

This time the cosmic rays are converging as in Figure 4, I took the liberty of extending the vectors so that we
may see where they might have intersected (thin Yellow lines). Nothing “special” about this except for the “blob” just above the intersection of the vectors; not to sure what to make of it, it could be a distant celestial object, a “group” of cosmic rays (doubtful), or most anything. It has some of the characteristics of cosmic ray strikes, but, the size might suggest something else.

There is a single fundamental difference between the first set of images and the second. That is; in all three of the second set of images there are two cosmic rays with intersecting vectors. This makes the whole proposition much less tenable. From two separate sources a cosmic ray must be emitted with such timing that it intersects another on, or, very near the sensing plates of the CCD, either before or just after the actual intersection point, and within the same 12 second _ The probability of this, despite the sheer quantity of cosmic rays is massively small.

When One considers the probability that one of these images might be a physical object, as opposed to simply cosmic ray strikes; One must consider the various probabilities.

If it is a single line in the image, regardless of length, in all probability is only a cosmic ray. However if we investigate this a little further, we may gain additional insight.

For this part of our discussion, I’m going to introduce Probability (see en.wikipedia.org...). This is a case where probability and it’s mathematics can be our friend. What we are “seeing” is a collection of random events; these events being cosmic rays on some given vector. Further our vectors are in three dimensions thus creating a probability that isn’t quite as simple as it might seem.

The CCD has its entire “back side” shielded by the spacecraft, so there are two dimensions where we don’t have the full 360 degrees, only 180 degrees are available. Thus if we compute the probability of any given vector: P(x) * P(y) * P(z) = P

Where P(x) is probability of x axis origin
P(y) is probability of y axis origin
P(z) is probability of z axis origin
P is overall probability

In this case that works out to (1/180) * (1/180)*(1/360) = (0.0055) * (0.0055) * (0.0028) = 0.0000000847. These seem like rather “slim odds”, but remember, this isn’t the probability that we will “see” a cosmic ray, but rather, that that cosmic ray will have a specific / required vector. Actually we haven’t even factored in the probability of a comic ray, and I don’t want to overly complicate it. However, it should be understood, that the probability of a cosmic ray is something less than 1. If it were “1” then there would be a continuous stream of cosmic rays that would in all likelihood overload our sensor. That said, I don’t think leaving out that probability will have much effect of our discussion.

Converting this to something that makes a bit more sense; we have one chance in 11,806,375.44 for one of our “special” vectors.

Remember, our “object” images have two cosmic ray vectors; using the same formula as above we can work out the probability of the image. P(1)*P(2 = P or 0.0000000847 * 0.0000000847 = 0.00000000000000717409 or 1 chance in 139,390,501,094,912.3861 (1 in 139 trillion). While this seems almost impossible, One should also remember that as it has a probability, then the event must occur, and even given it’s randomness, we still may have the opportunity to observe it.

So, that explains a single event, but, now we have three and the probability has become 0.000000000000000000000607645423 or 1 chance in 1,645,696,589,078,068,312,875.2868101501.

Given the probability; do you really think that all of these are simple “Cosmic Rays?”

When One investigates these phenomenon, One must acknowledge the “rareness” or probability of the event(s). While cosmic rays are more abundant than perhaps we would like, each and every one of them has a set of probabilities. We have examined three of them; being the x, y, and z angles of its vector. What I feel needs to be understood is that if you “see” a rare event once, it is random, twice and perhaps one begins to take notice. In this case, a third has caused to probabilities to become rather untenable. The rarity of three such events is beyond “astronomical”. In the case of some of these images I think a bit closer “look” is warranted.

While they may not be “Giant UFOs” they most certainly are not simple cosmic rays.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Very interesting read

My only comment is.....We have troubling deciphering images of UFO’s, Bigfoot, clouds, shapes etc here on our own planet, understanding images of space is whole new ball game….
edit on 7-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
While they may not be “Giant UFOs” they most certainly are not simple cosmic rays.



I agree AnthraAndromda, I have been trying to figure oout what they were from various threads i would see them within.. Sometimes I get a feeling of star wars or a PREVENTION of ACCESS somehow other times I get a PLASMA CREATURE feeling with things seen near SOL. Either way good presentation



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Wow, A ++ for effort Anthra!

When you put the event in the context of such probabilities your point is well-made.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Question. You are a real alien, correct?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RongoRongo
Question. You are a real alien, correct?


Correct.
But off topic.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Well the whole particles aspect to rays can very much be challenged and replaced with waves, and even twin magnetic forces at play in the universe, a system of opposition.

freeenergynews.com...
Magnetic Current.

I beleive we have a lot of crafts, and interesting objects joining us, defense wise perhaps, also here for whatever is occurring in this time period, it maybe a history lesson for some, but I really doubt that is their sole purpose.

The sun is part of the whole network system, joined with every other.

Size as we see it, is a program, and probably irrelevant to this whole thing. In fact, a super large planetary craft could come up for close observation the size of a small orb.

The universe is far more quantum than we realize, and its waves not particles, electric, not nuclear, and holographic, not substantial, and size is mere perception.
edit on 7-8-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


S n F

Very interesting, I nevver thought about the odds of multiple cosmic ray strikes being captured, that is very very interesting.

I agree if there is a chance it will happen, space and time are too big and too long, absolutely everything can and will happen with infinite time and space( assuming of course either time or space are infinite that is.)

So now that you have provided proof through math that these events are either the one in a googleplex or they are misinterpreted as phenomena that they aren't, do you have a theory about what they might be?

Oh and say hello to your peeps for me, I think it is wanderful they have made it past the beating things they don't understand with a rock or stick stage. Now if only we could manage to........



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

The CCD has its entire back side shielded by the spacecraft, so there are two dimensions where we don't have the full 360 degrees, only 180 degrees are available.
What? You claim that one side is shielded by the spacecraft and that leaves only 180 degrees? Are you sure you know how LASCO is mounted on SOHO? Are you sure you know the design of the instrument?


These seem like rather slim odds, but remember, this isn't the probability that we will see a cosmic ray, but rather, that that cosmic ray will have a specific / required vector.
Cosmic rays come from every direction in space. The probability of one coming from any particular direction is exactly one.


Given the probability; do you really think that all of these are simple Cosmic Rays?
Yes I do. Your calculations are quite inadequate. Among other things your complete ignoring of flux levels. You are essentially assuming one cosmic ray for the entire 19 second exposure. That is absurd. The ACE satellite records an average of protons (cosmic rays) occuring at about 1 per square cm per second. The CCD is 4.6 square cm. This means that on any given exposure there can be about 85 proton hits. It's not unreasonable that occasionally some appear near each other.

Another flaw in your reasoning has to do with your ideas about the direction of the cosmic rays. Here is an image taken during a proton storm. These protons were produced by the Sun. Tell me, why do they produce such varied tracks on the CCD?



While they may not be Giant UFOs they most certainly are not simple cosmic rays.
If they are not cosmic rays and if they "may not" be Giant UFOs do you think they are some physical objects? How is it then that they appear in a single frame minutes after and minutes before frames in which they do not appear? Even a comet moving at more that 100,000 mph appears in many frames. If they are objects which are moving at extreme speeds, why is there no motion blur demonstrated during that 19 second exposure.
edit on 8/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
What? You claim that one side is shielded by the spacecraft and that leaves only 180 degrees? Are you sure you know how LASCO is mounted on SOHO? Are you sure you know the design of the instrument?


Well, Phage, It kinda like this. I can find images, and I am an Engineer.



I can make "educated guesses" on the design and construction. From the image One can easily tell that Optical devices must be ounted on the front. We can easily tell it's not on the back, there's an antenna there, the sides are clear for the most part, but for the solar panels. So, yeah; reasonably sure.


Cosmic rays come from every direction in space. The probability of one coming from any particular direction is exactly one.


Yes cosmic rays come from every possible direction, however, if the probability was 1, there would always be a cosmic ray on every possible vector. That amount of radiation would pay little to no attention to Earth's atmosphere. And, I sure you know the result of that.

Also, by your own image to demonstrate cosmic rays, there are areas where there are no streaks or strikes. So, no, the probability is, fortunately, not 1.


Yes I do. Your calculations are quite inadequate. Among other things your complete ignoring of flux levels. You are essentially assuming one cosmic ray for the entire 19 second exposure. That is absurd. The ACE satellite records an average of protons (cosmic rays) occuring at about 1 per square cm per second. The CCD is 4.6 square cm. This means that on any given exposure there can be about 85 proton hits. It's not unreasonable that occasionally some appear near each other.


No, actually I'm not addressing the quantity of cosmic ray nor the probability that one exists. I addressing the probability of its "vector", the "direction" it travels from creation to dissolution. So it doesn't matter howmany cosmic rays there are, the probability of its vector remains the same.

Also, it is important to understand the difference between "near" and "adjacent". If a an atomic neuclui enters the sensor and is stopped by a "cell" (pixel), it is likely to release additional energy. This can easily saturate the "event cell", and can "bleed" to adjecent cells, but not to near ones.



Another flaw in your reasoning has to do with your ideas about the direction of the cosmic rays. Here is an image taken during a proton storm. These protons were produced by the Sun. Tell me, why do they produce such varied tracks on the CCD?



Two words; Proton Storm.


If they are not cosmic rays and if they "may not" be Giant UFOs do you think they are some physical objects? How is it then that they appear in a single frame minutes after and minutes before frames in which they do not appear? Even a comet moving at more that 100,000 mph appears in many frames. If they are objects which are moving at extreme speeds, why is there no motion blur demonstrated during that 19 second exposure.


Are they physican objects? Without further study, this can't be determined. I'm not at all sure there is enough data available, though, I am also sure that there is mor data in the images.

On Giant UFOs. I don't beleive in them.

Firstly, 100,000 mph isn't very fast, not in space. Why don't they appear in more than one frame? Actually, I can't answer that, at least not until this is better understood.

I'm not putting forth any hypothesis as to what these "objects" are, I'm only stating that given the "math" this should bereexained. There is also a fourth, that I know of, of this sae sort of "formation", and that has the effect of making the probability ositively stupid.

Nw, you need to understand that I'm not arging that all cosmic rays are suspect, nor "rare". However these "formations" of two or more vectors are becoming quite impossible.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Well, Phage, It kinda like this. I can find images, and I am an Engineer.

Congratulations but you didn't answer my questions. Do you know where LASCO is mounted? Do you know where the CCD is located in each device of the suite? Do you know in which direction relative to the CCD the shielding lies?


Yes cosmic rays come from every possible direction, however, if the probability was 1, there would always be a cosmic ray on every possible vector.

There are. Just not all at the same instant.


So, no, the probability is, fortunately, not 1.
It is, just not at the same instant.


No, actually I'm not addressing the quantity of cosmic ray nor the probability that one exists. I addressing the probability of its "vector", the "direction" it travels from creation to dissolution. So it doesn't matter howmany cosmic rays there are, the probability of its vector remains the same.

Exactly. Cosmic rays occur from all vectors. By ignoring the flux level you are ignoring the exposure time of the image. The more hits there are during an exposure, the more likely that one will occur from any particular vector. Occasionally two will present the vectors you are interested in.


Two words; Proton Storm.

Three words. Proton flux level. Probabilities. High flux level, many of those "unusual" arrangements. Normal flux level, not so many but they still can and do occur. They are certainly not impossible.
edit on 8/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 



Congratulations but you didn't answer my questions. Do you know where LASCO is mounted? Do you know where the CCD is located in each device of the suite? Do you know in which direction relative to the CCD the shielding lies?


Relevence?


Yes cosmic rays come from every possible direction, however, if the probability was 1, there would always be a cosmic ray on every possible vector.

There are. Just not all at the same instant.


So, no, the probability is, fortunately, not 1.
It is, just not at the same instant.


No, actually I'm not addressing the quantity of cosmic ray nor the probability that one exists. I addressing the probability of its "vector", the "direction" it travels from creation to dissolution. So it doesn't matter howmany cosmic rays there are, the probability of its vector remains the same.

Exactly. Cosmic rays occur from all vectors. By ignoring the flux level you are ignoring the exposure time of the image. The more hits there are during an exposure, the more likely that one will occur from any particular vector. Occasionally two will present the vectors you are interested in.


You don't seem to understand Phage. I'm not assigning any probability to the "production" of cosmic rays. This has the effect of giving the cosmic ray a probability of 1, it exists.

Further you seem to not quite understand what a probability of 1 means. SO; just for clearity; a probability of 1 means the object exists. Given this definition, the probability of any given cosmic ray existing at all is something less than 1. Toough, in a general sense, given the size of the Universt, the overall probability of a cosmic ray existing is 1. But its vector's probability still remains unchanged.

And the probabilities I've given, although heavily favoring your position, reain unchanged.

If we were to factor in all of the probabilities involved, we would find that the probabilities have becoe orders of magnetude less.



Two words; Proton Storm.

Three words. Proton flux level. Probabilities. High flux level, many of those "unusual" arrangements. Normal flux level, not so many but they still can and do occur. They are certainly not impossible.


Actually, while I have only given that Proton Storm image a cursory look, I didn't see any of the class I'm referring to. But I will take a close look

True, they are not impossible, just.; 1 chance in 139 trillion trillion.



edit on 7-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Further you seem to not quite understand what a probability of 1 means. SO; just for clearity; a probability of 1 means the object exists. Given this definition, the probability of any given cosmic ray existing at all is something less than 1.
I thought you were talking about the vector of cosmic rays, not their existence.


But its vector's probability still remains unchanged.

Yes, it seems you were. Now please explain why the probability of a cosmic ray with a vector from the direction of, say for example, the center of M31 is less probable that one from the direction of M42. It would be really cool if you could provide some data to back it up but just an explanation would suffice for now.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

I thought you were talking about the vector of cosmic rays, not their existence.


I am talking about the vector, you are the one who brought up flux density. Flux density will only affect the probability of existance, not the vector.



But its vector's probability still remains unchanged.

Yes, it seems you were. Now please explain why the probability of a cosmic ray with a vector from the direction of, say for example, the center of M31 is less probable that one from the direction of M42. It would be really cool if you could provide some data to back it up but just an explanation would suffice for now.


Did I somewhere imply that any given vector had a different probability than any other? I don't believe I did, but in the off chance I was interpreted that way; all vectors have equal probability.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

Equal probability. Correct.

Since cosmic rays can arrive on any vector (in space) the probability of a cosmic ray arriving on that vector is 1. The only other probability would be 0. Either it can or it can't.

Now, if you want to modify that to say, "Well, sure. Over time cosmic rays will arrive from every direction", fine. And that's where flux comes into the picture. You cannot ignore flux, as the image from the proton storm demonstrates.
edit on 8/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

Is this what you meant to say about figure 4?


There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

Is this what you meant to say about figure 4?


There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.



Yes, that is what I meant to say. In fig. 4 the two "vectors" have the "ear marks" of a cosmic ray entering at an oblique angle. The "trace" starts with great energy (as it enters the "top" (sensing area) of the device. And "looses" energy as it travels through the structure, then terminates at the substrate.

Bothe of these "traces" could easily be cosmic rays, even the terminis of the "dot" in front seems consistant with cosmic rays. So, yes, what I said.

The problem with it is the probability.
.
edit on 8-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 

Equal probability. Correct.

Since cosmic rays can arrive on any vector (in space) the probability of a cosmic ray arriving on that vector is 1. The only other probability would be 0. Either it can or it can't.

Now, if you want to modify that to say, "Well, sure. Over time cosmic rays will arrive from every direction", fine. And that's where flux comes into the picture. You cannot ignore flux, as the image from the proton storm demonstrates.
edit on 8/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Again, I am not addressing the probability of a cosmic ray existing, only the path it follows. Like this:

P(x) * P(y) * P(z) * p(e) = P or (1/180) * (1/180) * (1/360) * 1 = 8.5733882030178326474622770919204e-8

What this is saying is that no matter what the vector there is always a cosmic ray existing following it. If you wan to try and argue the concurance of these cosmic rays, then we shall have to include that in our calculations. When we do; the probabilites of these "structures" will degrade and become significantly less. Perhaps, if you want to hold on to your narrow, short sighted view on this; you should simply accept the inevitable.

But, I know you won't, so; I'll go and research the probability of a cosmic ray right after I do some work for a client.

By the way; your Proton Storm.
1. Lots of nice images. The "zoo" of strike types, and frequency is truly amazing. I've done a bit of looking, WOW!

2. There is not a single instance of the "type" of strike we are addressing here. I looked, I'm not sure IF I beleive it yet.

3. A proton storm really IS a special case, and can not be used in the analysis of "noral" condition data. Sorry, all it really is; is noise. While it does contain much data in its own right, it quite simply masks the "kind" of data we are loking for in this instance. Oblique strikes from multiple converging, or diverging points, the diverging ones are the most interesting.

edit on 8-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


2. There is not a single instance of the "type" of strike we are addressing here. I looked, I'm not sure IF I beleive it yet.
I see. Nothing exactly like your "not cosmic rays". So we're going subjective. Ok, show us some of your "not cosmic rays" which are exactly alike.


3. A proton storm really IS a special case, and can not be used in the analysis of "noral" condition data. Sorry, all it really is; is noise.

Cosmic rays are "noise". The only difference between a proton storm and background levels is the flux.



edit on 8/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join