It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: Bedlam
You also said, and continue to maintain, that x-rays ARE electrons, which is not true. You can get x-rays from other sources. Hell, you can even get them more than one way from electrons.
Not only did I not say that, I absolutely do not continue on maintaining it.
But since we're on the subject, a simple yes or no question - can a stream of electrons striking an object (lets say a metallic object) cause x-rays from the resulting electromagnetic waves? (I would appreciate it if you simply answered yes or no)
The claim that changes in cosmic rays can cause changes in the climate is unsupported, but there does appear to be a change in the cosmic rays.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Despite claims from some people that there is no evidence that the Earth is receiving more energy from either the Sun, or from other sources outside of the Earth which could explain why the Earth's climate is changing. In fact there is evidence that the Earth is receiving more energy, not only from the sun even at a time when it's activity is not as high. There is als an unknown source which is sending high energetic X-Rays to our Solar System. This increase in X-Rays and other cosmic rays can cause changes in the climate and can cause warming on Earth's atmosphere.
I have much more confidence in the likelihood that those two papers have reached the correct conclusion about cosmic rays not significantly affecting climate than in your unsupported claim that "This increase in X-Rays and other cosmic rays can cause changes in the climate".
Sloan & Wolfendale (2013) examined the influence of cosmic rays on the climate over the past billion years. They found that changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity are too small to account for significant climate changes on Earth. This was also the conclusion of Feng & Bailer-Jones (2013).
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
*snip*
That is simply not true. You may be referring to the solar wind, which is made up of such components. Cosmic rays are simply ultra-high energy electromagnetic waves, so high in energy as to be interesting. Lower-energy Cosmic Rays can be produced by the sun as a component of the solar wind, but the higher-energy Cosmic Rays cannot.
Cosmic Rays are what I work on every day. It's my job to detect them.
TheRedneck
In astroparticle physics, an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (UHECR) is a cosmic ray particle with a kinetic energy greater than 1×1018 eV, far beyond both the rest mass and energies typical of other cosmic ray particles.
One suggested source of UHECR particles is their origination from neutron stars. In young neutron stars with spin periods of less than 10ms, the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) forces from the quasi-neutral fluid of superconducting protons and electrons existing in a neutron superfluid accelerate iron nuclei to UHECR velocities. The magnetic field produced by the neutron superfluid in rapidly rotating stars creates a magnetic field of 108–1011 tesla, at which point the neutron star is classified as a magnetar. This magnetic field is the strongest in the observed universe and creates the relativistic MHD wind believed to accelerate iron nuclei remaining from the supernova to the necessary energy.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
So, which is it...
originally posted by: Bedlam
No. It does not
Or...
You can get an electron to produce x-rays
?
I would ask you for a citation but since that's wrong I don't think you can provide one. The cosmic rays themselves are mostly protons at various energy levels, but there are also nuclei of heavier elements, and none of those are electromagnetic radiation.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
End result: Cosmic rays are EM radiation of extremely high energy/frequency, high enough to exhibit unique properties. That's why we are studying them.
The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ∼3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10–20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. In addition we show that the variation of the GCR intensity, as the trajectory of the Solar System oscillates about the Galactic Plane, is too small to account for the extinctions of species as has been postulated unless, again, conventional assumptions about the GCR parameters are not correct.
The terrestrial fossil record shows a significant variation in the extinction and origination rates of species during the past half-billion years. Numerous studies have claimed an association between this variation and the motion of the Sun around the Galaxy, invoking the modulation of cosmic rays, gamma rays, and comet impact frequency as a cause of this biodiversity variation. However, some of these studies exhibit methodological problems, or were based on coarse assumptions (such as a strict periodicity of the solar orbit). Here we investigate this link in more detail, using a model of the Galaxy to reconstruct the solar orbit and thus a predictive model of the temporal variation of the extinction rate due to astronomical mechanisms. We compare these predictions as well as those of various reference models with paleontological data. Our approach involves Bayesian model comparison, which takes into account the uncertainties in the paleontological data as well as the distribution of solar orbits consistent with the uncertainties in the astronomical data. We find that various versions of the orbital model are not favored beyond simpler reference models. In particular, the distribution of mass extinction events can be explained just as well by a uniform random distribution as by any other model tested. Although our negative results on the orbital model are robust to changes in the Galaxy model, the Sun's coordinates, and the errors in the data, we also find that it would be very difficult to positively identify the orbital model even if it were the true one. (In contrast, we do find evidence against simpler periodic models.) Thus, while we cannot rule out there being some connection between solar motion and biodiversity variations on the Earth, we conclude that it is difficult to give convincing positive conclusions of such a connection using current data.
March 24, 2015
NASA-Funded Mission Studies the Sun in Soft X-Rays
Each wavelength of light from the sun inherently carries information about the kind of process that emitted the light, so looking at soft X-rays provides a new way to figure out what is happening on our closest star. For example, the sun's atmosphere, the corona, is 1,000 times hotter than its surface, and scientists do not yet understand the details of why. The soft X-ray detector brought home data showing that a significant amount of soft X-rays – more than expected – were seen when there are even a small amount of magnetically complex sunspots. Identifying what process within these magnetically active regions contributes to the great increase in soft X-rays could hold clues for what's helping to heat the corona. A paper on these results appeared in the Astrophysical Journal Letters on March 18, 2015.
...
Astrophysics
The Particle That Broke a Cosmic Speed Limit
Physicists are beginning to unravel the mysteries of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, particles accelerated by the most powerful forces in the universe.
...
Getting Hotter
In Utah, a three-hour drive from the site of the original Fly’s Eye, its latest descendant sprawls across the desert: a 762–square-kilometer grid of detectors called the Telescope Array. The experiment has been tracking the multi-billion-particle“air showers” produced by ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays since 2008. “We’ve been watching the hotspot increase in statistical significance for several years,” said Gordon Thomson, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Utah and spokesperson for the Telescope Array.
The hotspot of trans-GZK cosmic rays, which centers on the constellation Ursa Major, was initially too weak to be taken seriously. But in the past year, it has reached an estimated statistical significance of “four sigma,” giving it a 99.994 percent chance of being real. Thomson and his team must reach five-sigma certainty to definitively claim a discovery. (Thomson hopes this will happen in the group’s next data analysis, due out in June.) Already, theorists are treating the hotspot as an anchor for their ideas.
...
You are having reading comprehension problems, because that source doesn't mention any increase. It says they made measurements of soft x-rays during two measurements periods lasting about 6 minutes each, and found more soft-X-rays than expected. This doesn't infer any "increase", it just infers that our expectations were a bit lower than what was actually measured.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Funny, so you obviously want to ignore for example the fact that the sun itself is going through changes and these changes include an increase in soft x-ray emissions the sun is sending our way which wasn't expected.
www.nasa.gov...
No it's not, and bedlam is correct as usual in pointing this out. It's apparent you have no idea how to do the calculation related to climate change since you can't even do this much simpler conversion.
Just one billion electron volts is equivalent to a trillion watts consumed in one hour. It is also the same as 100,000 BTUs.
originally posted by: Bedlam
You've got a slip in there somewhere, a billion EV is not a lot. Certainly not a terawatt-hour. Maybe a millijoule. Not that I'm sure you're setting the calculation up right either.
...
Billion Electron Volts to Gigawatt Hours
Electrical energy consumption rate equivalent to a billion watts consumed in one hour. 1 Gigawatt hour is equivalent to 3.6 terajoules or 3.6 x 1012 joules. 1 GWh = 3 600 000 000 000 J.
...
During both flights, there were only a few complex active regions on the sun's surface – indeed, very few during the 2012 flight. Yet, in both flights the detector saw 1000 times more soft X-rays than had been seen by another experiment in 2009. Even a slight extra amount of solar activity in the form of these active regions, led to substantially more output in the soft X-ray wavelengths.
...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So eyeballing from that chart it looks like the GEOS XRS-B shows soft x-rays going from about .0000005 watts per square meter before the solar flare to 100 times that much or 0.00005 watts per square meter during the flare.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But I'm glad you brought up soft x-ray emissions so I can show you why I'm putting these things in perspective, not ignoring them. During a solar flare soft x-rays can increase by a factor of 100, so you might think that an increase of 10,000% might have a significant effect on the climate, but you would be wrong because you're not putting these things in perspective, so let me do that for you.
...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Even an increase of 1000x only would bring the percentage of GOES XRS-B X-rays up to 0.000037% of total solar irradiance which is still an insignificant amount, so while the example I cited was only 100x there could be 1000x solar flare events for all I know, but no need to quibble because 0.000037% is still insignificant even if it's 1000x. Thanks for admitting your conversion error on the eV to watts but I've still seen no significant calculations for your particle claims.
...