In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:21:34 -0400:
Hi,
...but it's the light that we are measuring, so affects that delay the
propagation of light are significant.
>More...
>
>here is another very good simulation of magnetic effects in a supernova
>
>http://www.space.com/25771-b
More...
here is another very good simulation of magnetic effects in a supernova
http://www.space.com/25771-big-bang-universe-supernova-simulations.html
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
> More...
>
> http://vimeo.com/27247968
>
> This simulation depicts a exploding star that
More...
http://vimeo.com/27247968
This simulation depicts a exploding star that produces load of magnetic
field lines that can disrupt the surface of the exploding star.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
> There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the s
There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the sun
to the surface via photons. This is most likely not true.
Magnetic field lines may well move most of the energy from inside the sun
to the surface where it excites the corona to very high temperatures in the
millions of deg
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, wrote:
That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 & 17
> years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound
> footing.
> If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then
> I'm
> surprised tha
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:23:03 -0700:
Hi,
That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 & 17
years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing.
If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM, wrote:
The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the
> plasma
> and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have
> to
> fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud ...
Note also that in a star like the s
hours along the
way. :-)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
BTW there may also have been also have
neutrino event lasts since that
would imply how long the star remains intact.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
BTW there may also have been also have been other external gas/dust/plasma
clouds between the us and the explosion.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Of course we have data comparing nearby super nova explosions to those of
>distant ones. I do not recall anyone finding the delay in relation to the
>nearby ones. The other issue to consider is that these
microseconds?)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 2:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
The time delay is anticipated as follows:
SN 1987A was first observed in February, 1987 when it baffled some scientists
with an intriguing
the
star is measured in seconds instead of hours.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700:
Hi,
I suspect tha
ight just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay (
> highly dispersive, though, I'd guess).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
> >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM
&
>
>
>From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
>
>
>
>Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of
>electromagnetic fields through space. C
Any light that originates as a result of absorption and then re-emitted would
surely move at the speed of 'c' relative to the scattering source.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:31 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A complica
Interesting idea.
Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly
dispersive, though, I'd guess).
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Con
Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of
electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much
larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take
into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for
l
18 matches
Mail list logo
