Measuring Ozone from Space Shuttle Columbia

Completely wrong.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090404141630/https://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm

Apparently, the particles that slammed into the ionosphere to paint the aurora borealis also energized enough atoms to head spaceward. (The same is true of the south pole where DE-1 made similar observations.) The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though.

"And lo and behold, there's all this low-energy plasma flowing out of the atmosphere and into the magnetosphere," Chappell said. Some of the material does fall back to Earth, mostly the heavier ions with low energies, but enough apparently is accelerated to reach into the tail of the magnetosphere.


They accelerate all the way to the magnetosphere, not on their way back.

Which means you do not know how to read a scientific paper.

There is only one source: a second Sun.

You, the RE, have nothing.

Completely wrong.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090404141630/https://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm

Apparently, the particles that slammed into the ionosphere to paint the aurora borealis also energized enough atoms to head spaceward. (The same is true of the south pole where DE-1 made similar observations.) The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though.

"And lo and behold, there's all this low-energy plasma flowing out of the atmosphere and into the magnetosphere," Chappell said. Some of the material does fall back to Earth, mostly the heavier ions with low energies, but enough apparently is accelerated to reach into the tail of the magnetosphere.


They accelerate all the way to the magnetosphere, not on their way back.

Which means you do not know how to read a scientific paper.

There is only one source: a second Sun.

You, the RE, have nothing.

Actually, according to your claims, you would need a third sun as well. One regular old Sun and one for the north pole and one for the south pole.

Additionally, you're citing NASA and the mention of satellites orbiting a globe earth as your source data. You know, all predicated on a round earth and all. Are you ok with that?

And are there three suns now? Does that mean we also need three black suns?

Quote from: sandokhan on May 25, 2020, 02:01:17 AM

Completely wrong.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090404141630/https://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm

Apparently, the particles that slammed into the ionosphere to paint the aurora borealis also energized enough atoms to head spaceward. (The same is true of the south pole where DE-1 made similar observations.) The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though.

"And lo and behold, there's all this low-energy plasma flowing out of the atmosphere and into the magnetosphere," Chappell said. Some of the material does fall back to Earth, mostly the heavier ions with low energies, but enough apparently is accelerated to reach into the tail of the magnetosphere.


They accelerate all the way to the magnetosphere, not on their way back.

Which means you do not know how to read a scientific paper.

There is only one source: a second Sun.

You, the RE, have nothing.

Actually, according to your claims, you would need a third sun as well. One regular old Sun and one for the north pole and one for the south pole.

Not only that, but the south pole being a ring means that we need to have a third sun in the shape of a ring.

Mainstream science cannot explain either the source of the ion streams which reach the ionosphere, or their tremendous acceleration.

Incorrect!
Who says that there are any ion streams reaching the ionosphere? The source of the ions is the ionosphere.
The Auroras need the ions of oxygen and nitrogen and they do not come from the Sun.
Some of the gases in the ionosphere are ionised by UV from the Sun.

Their "tremendous acceleration" is transferred from the electrons and protons from the Solar wind.

I fail to see your problem.

Aurora Borealis is created by a an INTERIOR (inside the atmosphere) source, not by solar winds at all.
There is a fantastic ion stream fountain at the north pole.
Which can only be created by a second Sun.
A 636 meter in diameter Sun creates the powerful ion streams on a flat earth. An even smaller Sun can do the same thing from the north pole.

Would you please present evidence for that fairy tale!

What you the RE have to explain is the tremendous acceleration of these particles and their source.

Already done numerous times. Your refusal to accept that is neither here nor there.

You are bamboozling your readers.

The phenomenon has nothing to do with solar wind.

The acceleration takes place in the ATMOSPHERE.

And its cause completely unknown.

The second Sun can accelerate ions in the ionosphere as well as create its own streams.

Completely wrong.

Yes, pretty much everything you have said is completely wrong.
Your own source clearly indicates the atmosphere is the source of the ions, which start out at low energies, which also means there is no need for a magical second sun.

Even the section you quoted:
"all this low-energy plasma flowing out"
Not high energy plasma from a sun.

And no, it doesn't mean I can't read a scientific paper. What you provided wasn't even a scientific paper, it was a press release.
But far more importantly, you are still blatantly lying about what it is saying.
Yes, it says some are accelerated to reach into the tail of the magnetosphere.
Notice how that isn't saying they have reached the massive energies associated with the auroras?
Here is the part you are ignoring:
"When it flows into the plasma sheet, it is dramatically energized - from about 5 eV to 5,000 eV."
"they go into the plasma sheet, and are energized at least a thousandfold.""

You are bamboozling your readers.

The phenomenon has nothing to do with solar wind.

The acceleration takes place in the ATMOSPHERE.

And its cause completely unknown.

The second Sun can accelerate ions in the ionosphere as well as create its own streams.

What about the third sun? Why do you keep leaving that one out?

Official science information:

This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV.

Low energy plasma still comes from the Sun.

The acceleration occurs because of the interaction of the energy imparted by the second Sun combined with the outburst of laevorotatory subquarks emitted by the north pole itself.

That is where you get the extra acceleration from.

You are bamboozling your readers.

I'm not! You the one doing that with you fairytales about a "second Sun combined with the outburst of laevorotatory subquarks emitted by the north pole itself".

The phenomenon has nothing to do with solar wind.

Really, why then do you elsewhere write:
"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The acceleration takes place in the ATMOSPHERE.

And its cause completely unknown.

No, its cause not unknown.

Aurora
When the solar wind is perturbed, it easily transfers energy and material into the magnetosphere. The electrons and ions in the magnetosphere that are thus energized move along the magnetic field lines to the polar regions of the atmosphere causing the aurora.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The solar wind and magnetosphere
Schematic of Earth’s magnetosphere
The earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the sun in all directions, a result of the million-degree heat of the sun’s outermost layer, the solar corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cc and magnetic field intensity around 2–5 nT (nanoteslas; the earth’s surface field is typically 30,000–50,000 nT).

The second Sun can accelerate ions in the ionosphere as well as create its own streams.

These no need to invent stories like this! No "second Sun" is needed, which is just as well because there isn't any second Sun!

Official science information:

This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV.

Low energy plasma still comes from the Sun.

That plasma is the Solar wind:

Solar wind
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun, called the corona. This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV.

The acceleration occurs because of the interaction of the energy imparted by the second Sun combined with the outburst of laevorotatory subquarks emitted by the north pole itself.

You really do need irrefutable evidence for an outlandish claim like that.
Either provide that evidence forthwith of it heads straight for the WPB.

That is where you get the extra acceleration from.

That will remain rubbish until acceptable evidence is forthcoming!

Official science information

The "official science information", from your source, is that the ions start at low energy coming from earth's atmosphere with no need of any second sun.
While we are at it, the "official science information" is that Earth is round, rotates on its axis and orbits the sun.
So I guess that means its the end. You accept the "official science information", accepting Earth is round.

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

EXACTLY! A SECOND SUN, THAT IS.

You have just proven that my analysis is correct.

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

You insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

EXACTLY! A SECOND SUN, THAT IS.

But there is not the slightest reason why that plasma needs come from your imaginary second Sun.

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Technically no. Instead it shows that there is a source of ions inside the atmosphere.
It doesn't actually indicate any certainty on if the ions that produce the auroras come from the atmosphere or the sun.

But it has no need for any magical second sun.

But it has no need for any magical second sun.


That's not what your tag team partner says.

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Your tag team partners insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

But it has no need for any magical second sun.
That's not what your tag team partner says.

Try quoting him were he contradicts that.
He is saying it comes from Sol, i.e. our sun, not a magical second sun.

And again, repeating the same lies don't help your case.
The NASA article does not prove the ions don't come from the sun.

Exactly, from a Sun.

Not the visible Sun (the NASA article proves that the ion stream initiated in the atmosphere), but A SECOND SUN.

Your tag team partner just contradicted you, and proved my point.

Exactly, from a Sun.

Not A sun, THE sun.
i.e. sol, the sun that Earth orbits.

Yet again, no need for any magical second sun.

But it can't be THE Sun, since the NASA article proves that the ion stream come from the atmosphere, i.e., A SECOND SUN.

Your tag team partner nailed it best.

But it can't be THE Sun, since the NASA article proves that the ion stream come from the atmosphere, i.e., A SECOND SUN.

Again, PURE BS!
The NASA article proves that there is a source of ions in the atmosphere, without any magical second sun.
They explain that these CAN BE the source of the ions in the auroras, not that they must be.

There is no magical second sun involved at all.

That is not what your tag team partner said.

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Your tag team partners insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

That is not what your tag team partner said.

Quote

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Your tag team partners insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

WoW you used the [ quote] [ /quote] pair keep up the good work

That is not what your tag team partner said.

It is consistent with what he said.

Once more, NASA only proved there is a source of ions in the atmosphere, and demonstrated that they COULD be the ions in the Aurora.
They did not demonstrate that they MUST be.
Do you understand the difference?

Here is a key part of what they said:

Part of the challenge in these studies is that most of the magnetotail is made of the same material as the solar wind

But nothing indicates any need for a magical second sun.

That is not what your tag team partner said.

Quote

"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Your tag team partners insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

Unfortunately for your claim, a second (or third) Sun has never been observed by humanity in recorded history. That's a lot of humanity and a lot of history and nothing - No sun other than The Sun.

But it can't be THE Sun, since the NASA article proves that the ion stream come from the atmosphere, i.e., A SECOND SUN.

What's your problem?
The "NASA article proves that the ion stream comes from the atmosphere" and the ionosphere, the source of the ions, is part of the atmosphere.

As you've been told numerous times, the ions required for the Auroras are oxygen and nitrogen but:

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun, called the corona. This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV.

And again:

Plasma-Universe.com: Sun and stars
Stellar Winds and Coronal Heating
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles—a plasma—that are ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun and stars. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV.

Exactly as I said before.

You just make up fairy stories to fit your own narrative but don't bother with real evidence.