Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
The charge-exchange reaction producing X-rays was not predicted by Juergens, was it?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P.Asmah
This is a strawman. No one has made the claim that Juergens made any such prediction. The point is that he was one of the first to predict energetic electrical reactions in relation to comets.
|
No, it is not a strawman. It is a perfectly valid point. You are operating under the extreme misconception that anything that involves charged particles is contrary to the mainstream view of physics, and indicative of an EU interpretation.
The charge exchange process is not "electrical" in the EU sense. It does not involve the flow of anything identifiable as "electricity", it cannot be simulated using a closed circuit model. It does not compare with anything that Juergens predicted. Furthermore, there are no indications that I am aware of, either from theory or observation, that any of Juergens' predictions can be considered valid.
It was Biermann who first predicted the existence of a corpuscular solar wind, by implication from the observed behavior of comet tails, which were already known to be plasma (
Biremann, 1951). And the mainstream view that the magnetic field in the solar wind "piles up" around the head of the comet is due to Alfven (
On the Theory of Comet Tails, Hannes Alfven, Tellus 9: 96). As for X-rays, nobody predicted them in advance, so far as I know, before they were observed by the soft X-ray camera onboard the
Extreme UltraViolet Explorer (
Krasnopolsky, 1997;
Mumma, et al., 1997; publication of the scientific papers was delayed, which allowed the paper by
Northrup, et al., 1997, to precede them by a few months).
And the point here is that the plasma nature of comet tails, as well as the plasma nature of the solar wind, was well established before Juergens predicted anything. So you cannot single out his predictions as in any way exceptional without demonstrating that his predictions were both (a) radically different from anything in mainstream science, and (b) validated, or at least not contradicted, by observation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P.Asmah
... My point is that EM radiation is a signature of EM phenomena in space on a much broader scale than just the behaviour of comets.
|
EM phenomena in space are well involved in all of mainstream astrophysics. So it is not enough to simplistically assume that any mention of them must be some kind of problem for mainstream science. We expect, and predict, that there will be extensive EM phenomena everywhere. You need to go further, you need to demonstrate that the EU interpretation of observed EM phenomena is at least as good as the mainstream, if not better.
So, since were are talking about comets in particular, I return to my previous reference:
X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets; Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil, Space Science Reviews 113(3): 271-374, August 2004. You'll have to go find the original, you can't get it online without a subscription. But the detailed physics of cometary X-ray emissions is worked out therein. It is consistent with both laboratory & astronomical observation, and of course, it is consistent with standard physics. You can also refer to my
post #18, and some subsequent discussion, in the UT story thread "
Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour".
You, or somebody else (maybe
sol88, he started this thread), needs to show why & how the EU interpretation of cometary X-rays is at least as good as this, if not better.