Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #575860 > unrolled thread

Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:16 -0500
    Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-06 23:11 +0000
      Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 18:20 -0500
        Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 18:15 +0200
          Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 11:38 -0500
            Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 19:10 +0200
              Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:17 -0500
                Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 19:45 +0200
        Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-07 18:11 +0000
          Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 20:26 +0200
      Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 18:15 +0200
        Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-07 18:00 +0000
          Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 20:18 +0200
    Re: Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:49 -0700

#575860 — Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed

Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/mysterious-x-ray-binaries-have-relativistic-gas-outflows/


> Researchers are gaining ground in the struggle to understand the
> mysterious objects known as UltraLuminous X-ray sources (ULXs). These
> objects, named for their extreme brightness at X-ray wavelengths, are
> thought to be dense, compact objects like black holes or neutron
> stars. Their luminosity (which extends to other wavelengths) arises
> as they actively draw matter from an orbiting companion.
>
> “We think these ‘ultra-luminous X-ray sources’ are somewhat special
> binary systems, sucking up gas at a much higher rate than an ordinary
> X-ray binary,” said Ciro Pinto from the Institute of Astronomy in
> Cambridge, UK, an author of a recent study. “Some host highly
> magnetised neutron stars, while others might conceal the
> long-sought-after intermediate-mass black holes, which have masses
> around 1000 times the mass of the Sun. But in the majority of cases,
> the reason for their extreme behaviour is still unclear.”


   Astrophysics Mysteries -- Wonderful to have all these mysteries to
   solve.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#576090

On Thu, 05 May 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed
>

It has been speculated long ago (relatively speaking) that cosmic
rays, via their potentially destructive effects on biomolecules
such as DNA, have been a driving force in the genetic variability
that leads to evolutionary change.

One way of looking at this is:

No cosmic rays, no Sammy.

But we all know that life at high altitudes and/or latitudes leads to
more cancers.  Airline pilots AND frequent flyers beware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576094

On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.

   No cosmic rays ==> no lightning and no C14


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576209

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
> 
>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning

How did you get that idea?

>    and no C14

True.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576211

On 5/7/16 11:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
>>
>>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning
>
> How did you get that idea?
>

   Perhaps the 100% correlation between lightning discharges and
   cosmic ray showers... and the active research being done to
   understand how lightning gets triggered.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576224

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/7/16 11:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
>>>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
>    Perhaps the 100% correlation between lightning discharges and
>    cosmic ray showers...

… which does not exist.

>    and the active research being done to
>    understand how lightning gets triggered.

Cite it.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576227

On 5/7/16 12:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/16 11:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>>> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
>>>>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning
>>> How did you get that idea?
>>
>>    Perhaps the 100% correlation between lightning discharges and
>>    cosmic ray showers...
>
> … which does not exist.
>
>>    and the active research being done to
>>    understand how lightning gets triggered.
>
> Cite it.
>

   There is plenty of literature linked on the web from Florida
   Institute of Technology's lightning research.

   Scientists find clues to the mystery of what causes lightning
 > http://phys.org/news/2016-02-scientists-clues-mystery-lightning.html


 > In a new paper published in Nature Communications, researchers from
 > Langmuir Laboratory at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
 > Technology near Socorro, New Mexico, have reported observations of a
 > rare but extremely powerful type of lightning spark, or discharge,
 > called narrow bipolar events. The scientists found that this powerful
 > type of lightning is caused by a newly recognized type of discharge
 > called fast positive breakdown, and the data suggests that this same
 > discharge initiates most or even all of the lightning flashes
 > typically seen in thunderstorms. These sparks travel at speeds that
 > are fast even for lightning—around 10 to 100 million meters per
 > second—and produce very powerful radiofrequency (RF) radiation as
 > high as a few megawatts, making them the strongest natural sources of
 > RF radiation on Earth.

 > Since the 1990s, one of the leading proposals for lightning formation
 > is that the initial spark comes from relativistic electrons that come
 > from either high-energy cosmic rays or a process called relativistic
 > runaway electron avalanche. However, the new results cast doubt on
 > this idea.
 >


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576234

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/7/16 12:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 5/7/16 11:15 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/16 6:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>>>> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
>>>>>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning
>>>> How did you get that idea?
>>>
>>>    Perhaps the 100% correlation between lightning discharges and
>>>    cosmic ray showers...
>>
>> … which does not exist.*
>>
>>>    and the active research being done to
>>>    understand how lightning gets triggered.
>>
>> Cite it.
> 
>    There is plenty of literature linked on the web from Florida
>    Institute of Technology's lightning research.

There is different research, namely at the Department of Meteorology of the 
University of Reading (UK), that says otherwise:

<http://www.iop.org/news/14/may/page_63245.html>

In essence, it says that the lightnings are enabled (not: caused) by 
incoming cosmic rays *and* solar wind particles.  IOW, your  statement “No 
cosmic rays ==> no lightning” is falsified by it.

Granted, it is slightly older (2014-05) than what you are citing (2016-02), 
but that does not make it wrong.
 
>    Scientists find clues to the mystery of what causes lightning
>  > http://phys.org/news/2016-02-scientists-clues-mystery-lightning.html

The headline is misleading:
 
>  > […] the data suggests that this same discharge initiates most or even
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > all of the lightning flashes typically seen in thunderstorms. […]
     ^^^
> > 
>  > Since the 1990s, one of the leading proposals for lightning formation
>  > is that the initial spark comes from relativistic electrons that come
>  > from either high-energy cosmic rays or a process called relativistic
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > runaway electron avalanche. However, the new results cast doubt on
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > this idea.
     ^^^^^^^^^
So, the very research that you are citing (please use a non-ambiguous 
quotation character next time, like “|”), which merely “suggests” a cause of 
lightnings, “cast[s] doubt on [your] idea”?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576237

On Fri, 06 May 2016 18:20:22 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> 
>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning and no C14
>

No cosmic rays, no Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576239

Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Fri, 06 May 2016 18:20:22 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>    No cosmic rays ==> no lightning and no C14
> 
> No cosmic rays, no Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

Nonsense.  Your very reference falsifies that claim.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576208

Fabian Russell wrote:

> It has been speculated long ago (relatively speaking) that cosmic
> rays, via their potentially destructive effects on biomolecules
> such as DNA, have been a driving force in the genetic variability
> that leads to evolutionary change.
> 
> One way of looking at this is:
> 
> No cosmic rays, no Sammy.
> 
> But we all know that life at high altitudes and/or latitudes leads to
> more cancers.  Airline pilots AND frequent flyers beware.

This reasoning is flawed because “destructive” is a matter of perspective.  
As you have indicated, effects of potentially hazardous environmental 
conditions on cells can result in mutations that have a positive effect on 
the development of a species in the long run, enabling it to adapt better to 
its surroundings.

As always, it is a matter of the dosage.  A tumor as the result of an 
abnormal cell function is only considered cancer if its starts spreading and 
impeding the function of an organism.  I think there is not enough knowledge 
and research about the causes of cancer yet to support your argument.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576235

On Sat, 07 May 2016 18:15:15 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> This reasoning is flawed 
>

Fuck you.

Your understanding is flawed because your fucking brain is flawed.

Get back into your hole, you fucking ignoramus retard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576238

Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Sat, 07 May 2016 18:15:15 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> This reasoning is flawed
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Your understanding is flawed because your fucking brain is flawed.
> 
> Get back into your hole, you fucking ignoramus retard.

Forgive me, somehow I had the misconception that I were communicating with
an *intelligent* individual interested in *constructive* *discourse*.

Score adjusted

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576246

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:16:25 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Strange X-ray sources are shooting ions at us at 20 percent of light speed
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/mysterious-x-ray-binaries-have-relativistic-gas-outflows/
> 
> 
> > Researchers are gaining ground in the struggle to understand the
> > mysterious objects known as UltraLuminous X-ray sources (ULXs). These
> > objects, named for their extreme brightness at X-ray wavelengths, are
> > thought to be dense, compact objects like black holes or neutron
> > stars. Their luminosity (which extends to other wavelengths) arises
> > as they actively draw matter from an orbiting companion.
> >
> > "We think these 'ultra-luminous X-ray sources' are somewhat special
> > binary systems, sucking up gas at a much higher rate than an ordinary
> > X-ray binary," said Ciro Pinto from the Institute of Astronomy in
> > Cambridge, UK, an author of a recent study. "Some host highly
> > magnetised neutron stars, while others might conceal the
> > long-sought-after intermediate-mass black holes, which have masses
> > around 1000 times the mass of the Sun. But in the majority of cases,
> > the reason for their extreme behaviour is still unclear."
> 
> 
>    Astrophysics Mysteries -- Wonderful to have all these mysteries to
>    solve.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Trillion of ions between your nose and the ground. Lightning storm and their number is 10/ 116 or more  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web