text:
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 Notices IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar. Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer. If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email. NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 18th February 2011, 07:35 AM #2801 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig Yes, it's the mainstream view that 96% of the universe is dark, black, unknowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study the 4% of what's left. Why? Because of mainstream "gravity only" math. We live in a plasma universe and EU/PC views make better sense of it IMO. Wrong: It is scientific observations that give evidence that 96% of the universe is dark, knowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study 100% of universe.We live in a universe where there are ignorant people who think that just because a certain % of the universe is plasma means that electromagnetic forces dominate. These people are ignoring the basics of plasma physicss, i.e. that plasmas are quasi-neutral (no electromagnetic interaction above a given scale). One more time in case you do not want to be one of these ignorant people: Debye length Intergalactic medium = 10,000 meters (FYI Haig: a light year is 10,000,000,000,000,000 meters, cosmological scales are billions of light years). Is that clear enough for you Haig? Originally Posted by Haig Bit of a contradiction there. How can you make a map of something that’s an invisible and unknown substance? It is really easy. First realize that it is rather dumb to call something unknown when it is known to exist. The process is simple:Map everything. Map everything visible. Subtract the 2 maps What you get is a map of the invisible stuff. Or a bit more complex - look at my signature! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 08:11 AM #2802 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Reality Check Wrong: It is scientific observations that give evidence that 96% of the universe is dark, knowable "stuff" and all we can do is view and study 100% of universe.We live in a universe where there are ignorant people who think that just because a certain % of the universe is plasma means that electromagnetic forces dominate. These people are ignoring the basics of plasma physicss, i.e. that plasmas are quasi-neutral (no electromagnetic interaction above a given scale). One more time in case you do not want to be one of these ignorant people: Debye length Intergalactic medium = 10,000 meters (FYI Haig: a light year is 10,000,000,000,000,000 meters, cosmological scales are billions of light years). Is that clear enough for you Haig? It is really easy. First realize that it is rather dumb to call something unknown when it is known to exist. The process is simple:Map everything. Map everything visible. Subtract the 2 maps What you get is a map of the invisible stuff. Or a bit more complex - look at my signature! Well RC I think C. E. R. Bruce made a better fist of it back in 1968 Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution Quote: Summary The object is to show that all cosmic atmospheric phenomena can be explained as deriving from electrical discharges, resulting from the breakdown of electric fields generated by the asymmetrical impacts between dust particles, such as are effective in terrestrial electrical sand and dust storms and in thunderstorms. These electrical discharges form, for example, the solar photosphere at 6,000°K, superposed on an atmospheric background temperature of less than 4,000°K at which solids can and do form. Isolated discharges form the solar prominences and solar flares. The electrical discharge theory of the latter led to the prediction (1959) that they must emit X-rays before these were observed by the first U.S.N. satellite observations in 1960 and observations of the transverse magnetic fields surrounding two flares in 1966 by Severny have confirmed that the flares are, in fact, electrical discharges. Despite over 50 years of observations of longitudinal magnetic fields in the umbra of sunspots and of gas velocities limited to around 2 km per second in the Evershed effect, Severny confirmed that the former are actually transverse and Bumba confirmed that the latter reach 8 km per second, each in accordance with the theory's predictions. Quote: Introduction ............. These and. many other successful predictions of the theory are described in the present account. As each contributes to the significance of its fellows, it seemed desirable to collect them together with those not already discussed. This has been done under the heads of solar, stellar and galactic phenomena. It might have been more logical to have collected them under such headings as electric field building, discharge characteristics, discharge-generated gas jets, thermal and non-thermal cosmic energy sources, etc., but the present arrangement will probably appeal more to those who specialize in solar, stellar or galactic phenomena. http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
 18th February 2011, 10:10 AM #2804 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig Well RC I think C. E. R. Bruce made a better fist of it back in 1968 Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm Well, Haig, I see that you have found yet another crank web site to be fooled by ! I also see that you have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are about becauuse that link has nothing to do with them. C. E. R. Bruce's theory is easly seen to be wrong: The Sun's temperature (as he states) is 6000 K. This means that there are no "dust" because at that temperature there are no solids - look up melting point or even boling point. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 10:17 AM #2805 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens My bold And what do you think the modern answer to Ralph E. Juergens 1974 question is Haig? Could it be your ignorance of the observations since then of the missing neutrinos? The problem with the question when asked in 1974 is that he should have known that it is impossible for fusion in stellar atmospheres to fuse enough material to produce the energy that they are observed to do so. That would require all stars to be strong gamma ray emitters. This was not and still is not the case. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 18th February 2011, 04:05 PM #2807 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 30,709 Originally Posted by Haig Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens His claim that "the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers" is outdated and wrong, and his point about the fluctuations of the sun just mean that the feedback mechanisms are complex (which should be no surprise, since they involve fluid dynamics which is highly non-linear), it provides no evidence that fusion isn't happening in the core of the sun. And as I've pointed out to you before, this claim: "What are we to think, then, of man's efforts to simulate merely hypothetical conditions in the core of the Sun and thus achieve controlled fusion?" is also wrong. We aren't trying to replicate conditions in the core of the sun. That's not the path to fusion power on earth. We're taking a different path, both because the pressures required cannot be contained by any methods we have available, and because it's too slow. Our attempts to create fusion DO NOT operate the same way that the sun's fusion operates. And while there are significant challenges that need to be overcome to make such fusion useful, there's no question that we can make fusion occur, because we've done it. Quite often. And lastly, the part you bolded: "If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*" is quite plainly wrong too. Fusion in the stellar atmosphere would produce LOTS of gamma rays. We don't see the gamma rays. But we DO see the neutrinos from fusion (contrary to what he claimed). So fusion is occurring, but something is shielding the gamma rays from that fusion. Hmm... where could fusion in the sun occur so that the gamma rays would be shielded? I just can't figure it out. Juergens is an idiot. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 18th February 2011, 04:29 PM #2808 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth.
 18th February 2011, 04:31 PM #2809 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 The only problem with that is that ultimate truth is completely unattainable. So while what he says may be true for now, it may well not be in the future.
 18th February 2011, 10:07 PM #2810 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Electric Sun & Nuclear Fusion III Originally Posted by Haig Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph E. Juergens Quote: If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?* * My bold The answer is no. See my earlier post No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009, 2 years ago today). Fusion reactions generate readily identifiable narrow line gamma ray emission. The sun does not emit any of this gamma ray emission. Therefore it is not physically possible for any of the solar nuclear fusion energy to be generated anywhere near the photosphere of the sun. Physics closes the door on this idea easily. See my earlier post Electric Sun and Solar Neutrinos I (29 Dec 2010). The sun in fact produces all of the neutrinos it is expected to produce, given a standard solar model. Furthermore, the presence of neutrinos at very specific energy levels is not simply compatible with a nuclear energy source for the Sun, but actually require a nuclear energy source for the Sun, as there is no other way known to physics by which such neutrinos might be generated. Also see my earlier posts Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion II (25 Dec 2010), Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion I (24 Dec 2010). All of these posts were made only this last December, in direct & lengthy response to Haig. Evidently it was a useless gesture, assuming that he would actually pay attention. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 20th February 2011, 12:52 PM #2812 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz tbh, as usual, ziggurat speaks the truth. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The only problem with that is that ultimate truth is completely unattainable. So while what he says may be true for now, it may well not be in the future. TBH, I agree. I've found Ziggurat very truthful. He's made me think hard about the EU/PC ideas Vs mainstream ones. I'm sure he's convinced the mainstream models and assumptions about the Sun, Universe, etc are correct. I'm not so sure and if those models and assumptions ARE wrong the math will give misleading results. That's how we ended up with 96% dark, black, unknown "stuff" and only 4% of the Universe we can study. Yes, I think the "truth" will come out eventually but it took 1500 years before Ptolemy's Epicycles was replaced with a better "truth". Why? because the mathematicians, of those times, were in "total" control and loved to add each new circle to make the awkward data fit .......... just like now IMO.
 20th February 2011, 01:09 PM #2813 Haig Muse     Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 978 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The answer is no. See my earlier post No RHESSI Fusion (18 Feb 2009, 2 years ago today). Thanks for the link to your 2009 discussion with MM and this paper: Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf Quote: III. CONCLUSIONS The above findings [7-21] suggest that Bethe's solar CNO cycle [2] has made 13 N, 13 C, 15 O and 15 N at the surface of the Sun over geologic time [7-11] and now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares [21]. Temporal changes in sunspot activity likely explain variations in the solar 15 N/ 14 N ratio. If light elements like H, C, N and O had not moved selectively to the solar surface [12, 13, 17, 19], H-fusion via the CNO cycle [2] might have occurred deep in the Sun. We look forward to other explanations for these findings [7-21]. So you accept that Fusion can take place on the surface of the Sun and (my bold) ...... "now makes these unstable or rare isotopes in electrical discharge loops of solar flares"? Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Fusion reactions generate readily identifiable narrow line gamma ray emission. The sun does not emit any of this gamma ray emission. Therefore it is not physically possible for any of the solar nuclear fusion energy to be generated anywhere near the photosphere of the sun. Physics closes the door on this idea easily. As I posted to Ziggurat above "the distinction between gamma rays and X-rays, at their transition zone is somewhat arbitrary, since a 100 keV gamma is the same as a 100 keV X-ray. The distinction is related to the origin. X-rays are generally defined at those photons originating from atomic reactions, i.e. transitions from atomic electrons, with photon energies above ultraviolet. Brehmstrahlung (braking radiation) originates from free electrons accelerating in a nuclear electric field. Synchrotron radiation is probably distinguished from gamma radiation since it is usually originating from an accelerated proton or light nucleus." So it seems, to me, that if Fusion can take place at the much cooler Sun's surface then it could more easily take place in the 2 million K Corona! As Scott says: (my bold) The Corona Quote: The Sun's corona is visible only during solar eclipses (or via sophisticated instruments developed for that specific purpose). It is a vast luminous plasma glow that changes shape with time - always remaining fairly smooth and distributed in its inner regions, and showing filamentary spikes and points in its outer fringes. It is a "normal glow" mode plasma discharge. If the Sun were not electrical in nature this corona would not exist. If the Sun is simply a (non-electrical) nuclear furnace, the corona has no business being there at all. So one of the most basic questions that ought to arise in any discussion of the Sun is: Why does our Sun have a corona? Why is it there? It serves no purpose in a fusion-only model nor can such models explain its existence. Originally Posted by Tim Thompson See my earlier post Electric Sun and Solar Neutrinos I (29 Dec 2010). The sun in fact produces all of the neutrinos it is expected to produce, given a standard solar model. Furthermore, the presence of neutrinos at very specific energy levels is not simply compatible with a nuclear energy source for the Sun, but actually require a nuclear energy source for the Sun, as there is no other way known to physics by which such neutrinos might be generated .Thanks for the link to that earlier discussion, it was interesting and I had missed it. I think I've answered it in my posts to you and Ziggurat above. Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Also see my earlier posts Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion II (25 Dec 2010), Electric Sun and Nuclear Fusion I (24 Dec 2010). All of these posts were made only this last December, in direct & lengthy response to Haig. And I answered you HERE and HERE on the 30th Dec 2010 Then you post more on the 1st Jan 2011 and I replied HERE on the 2nd Jan 2011 .... then I had few chances to post for quite a while such is the pressures of work and family Quote: Evidently it was a useless gesture, assuming that he would actually pay attention. Not at all IMO. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to a layman like me and I did pay as much attention as my free time would allow. However, I'm not convinced by your arguments just as you are not convinced by the arguments of Donald E. Scot. Solar Surface Transistor Action http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf Quote: VI. SUMMARY The failure of the hypothetical magnetic reconnection mechanism to explain several observed solar phenomena is clear. A three-layer charge density structure, similar to the SL, DL anode tufting combination that is familiar to plasma engineers is a hypothesis that offers a reasonable explanation of the temperature minimum at the base of the corona and also the as-of-yet otherwise unexplained fluctuations in the amplitude of the solar wind. or the arguments of Peratt: Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D. Life Fellow, IEEE Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998. Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Associate Directorate for Experiments and Simulations, 1999–2003. Electric Currents and Transmission Lines in Space Quote: “As far as we know, most cosmic low density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, all of which are observed or are likely to be associated with electric currents: •In the aurora, filaments parallel to the magnetic field are often observed. These can sometimes have dimensions down to about 100 m. \item Inverted V events and the in-situ measurements of strong electric fields in the magnetosphere ($10^5-10^6$ A, $10^8$ m) demonstrate the existence of filamentary structures. •In the ionosphere of Venus, flux ropes", whose filamentary diameters are typically 20 km, are observed. \item In the sun, prominences ($10^{11}$ A), spicules, coronal streamers, polar plumes, etc., show filamentary structure whose dimensions are of the order $10^7-10^8$ m. •Cometary tails often have a pronounced filamentary structure. •In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures [e.g., the Veil nebula, the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula, and the Crab nebula]. •The center of the Galaxy, where twisting plasma filaments, apparently held together by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components, extend for nearly 60 pc ($10^{18}$ m). •Within the radio bright lobes of double radio galaxies, where filament lengths may exceed 20 kpc ($6 \times 10^{20}$ m). •In extended radio sources and synchrotron emitting jets. Regardless of scale, the motion of charged particles produces a self-magnetic field that can act on other collections of particles or plasmas, internally or externally. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled via currents that they drive through each other. Currents are therefore expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes.” http://plasmauniverse.info/elec_currents.html IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS Quote: “According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.' The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances between the stars. Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye. Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand billion amperes. "The individual filaments in space are often called Z-pinches. These Z-pinches occur when current-carrying plasma 'pinches' itself into a filament by a magnetic field the current produces around the plasma. Z-pinches, such as those produced on the Sandia National Laboratories 'Z' machine, are among the most prolific producers of X-rays known," cited Peratt.” “Alfvén predicted that the signature of his plasma theory in space would be the observation of filaments and his discrete velocities. AlfvÈn calculated that the critical velocity of all the elements in the periodic table could be grouped into just four velocity bands, the first at 51 kilometers per second from hydrogen, the second at 34 kilometers per second from helium, the third centered around 14 kilometers per second from oxygen, neon, and carbon, and a fourth centered around 6 kilometers per second from calcium, sodium, and other heavy elements. ÒThe observed data show precisely these velocities,Ó remarked Peratt. ÒDiscrete velocity components are seen 51, 32, 14, and 5 kilometers per second. Moreover the lines cascade from higher velocity to lower velocity, as they must as the radiotelescope is sighted closer to a filament according to the theory,Ó he said. M. Garcia, a physicist and electrical engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and C. Chan, director of the Plasma Science Laboratory at Northeastern University suggested the possibility of of using new high-power laser and generator facilities at the National Laboratories to further study the filamentation processes and critical velocity effects occurring in the interstellar medium. In any event, a consensus that space is far more electric than earlier imagined suggests a revision of our understanding physical processes in space as far ranging as the formation of planets to the sources of high energy particles and radiation. 'Electrical currents seem to play a significant role,' concluded Peratt. A full description of the discovery will appear In the September 1999 issue of the Astronomical Journal and the December 2000 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.” http://plasmauniverse.info/CIVmonterey.html Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure “The possible origin of the distinct line width regimes is briefly examined, and it is concluded that a new interpretation is needed, one that involves a plasma phenomenon known as the critical ionization velocity,” http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/118/3/1252 GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE Quote: 9. CONCLUSIONS We have presented evidence that neutral hydrogen emis- sion proÐles produced by gas in the local interstellar medium are characterized by three, and probably four, line width regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have widths of order 5.2, 13, and 31 km s~1, and limited evidence has been found for a very broad component D50 km s~1 wide. The data are consistent with all three major com- ponent line width regimes caused by gas conÐned to the Galactic disk. A simplistic interpretation might suggest that the gas is somehow found in ““clouds ÏÏ in pressure equi- librium with a hierarchy of structures, but we are unable to formulate a reasonable picture along these lines. Instead, we note that the line width regimes show a striking resem- blance to a set of velocity regimes described by a plasma physical mechanism called the critical ionization phenome- non. When a low-density neutral gas Ñows through a low- density plasma permeated by a magnetic Ðeld, neutral atoms ionize when their velocity relative to the plasma is such that their kinetic energy exceeds the ionization poten- tial of the neutrals. The magnitudes of the critical ionization velocities (CIVs) for common atomic species fall into three distinct bands. Band I includes hydrogen, with a CIV of 51 km s~1, and He, with a CIV of 34 km s~1, band II includes C, N, and O, with CIVs around 13.5 km s~1 ; and band III includes heavier atomic species such as Na and Ca, with CIVs around 6 km s~1. We regard the coincidence between the magnitudes of the CIVs for common interstellar atoms and H I line width regimes discussed above as more than fortuitous and in a subsequent paper will conclude that H I proÐle shapes are a†ected by the CIV phenomenon in inter- stellar space. This implies the existence of a previously unrecognized source of ionization that needs to be taken into account in the study of interstellar gasdynamics, physics, and chemistry http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/...118_3_1252.pdf The Electromagnetic Force Quote: “Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity. If the dominant form of matter were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism. An indication of the dominance of the magnetic force is given by a ball bearing on a table. All of the Earth's mountains, seas, core, sand, rivers, and lifeforms exert a gravitational pull on the bearing preventing it from flying off into space. Yet the smallest horseshoe magnet easily snatches it away. But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation. Moreover, the electromagnetic force can be repulsive if the streams in interaction are flowing in opposite directions. Thus immense plasma streams measured in megaparsecs, carrying galaxies and stars, can appear to be falling towards nothing when they are actually repelling.” http://plasmauniverse.info/EM_forces.html
 20th February 2011, 03:55 PM #2814 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 30,709 Originally Posted by Haig The electromagnetic forces, in my understanding, are NOT either cancelled out OR full blown 10 39 like some off/on switch but can vary proportionally between those extremes, according to conditions. And since it never gets close to the 1039 side at large scales, but it frequently does get close to the 0 side, the 1039 number is irrelevant. So why do you cling to it? Quote: Here's a better quote then, from Peratt: The Electromagnetic Force “Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity. That's nice. It's also irrelevant since at least partial cancellation ALWAYS happens at large scales. Quote: But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. This is NOT a difference between electromagnetism and gravity. It is a difference between a point-like source and a line-like source. It applies to BOTH gravity and electromagnetism. This is freshman-level physics. So either Peratt is an idiot, or he's being dishonest. In either case, he's plainly wrong. This isn't exotic stuff, it isn't controversial, any halfway-competent physicist can tell you that a line source gives you a 1/r field, even for gravity. So why do you believe Peratt when he's telling you stuff which is so transparently wrong? Quote: "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation" (my bold) My highlight. And it's true, under certain conditions electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But you have to actually crunch the numbers to find out when. And it's not nearly as often as you presume. But in no case is the 1039 number of ANY relevance at large scales. Quote: I demand an apology You're not getting one, because you don't deserve one. What I said about you is true, and this post doesn't show otherwise. The fact that you're not the only person without a clue doesn't make you any more knowledgeable. Quote: Well these suggest he did: No, those quotes do not. 1039 appears no where within them. Nothing resembling 1039 appears within them. Those quotes make no such claims. Quote: Well I think he did, as my quotes from Peratt's SITE have shown. This time around (but not last time) you find a quote from Peratt (but still nothing from Alfven) referencing the 1039 number. But the quote from him did not actually claim that the number described any actual large-scale force disparity. Quote: The Electromagnetic Force “Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out And how often does that happen? Why, it happens all the bloody time. Quote: It supports the Electric Sun theory because the small acceleration towards the Sun can be explained by a charged spacecraft travelling in the weak electric field of the Sun. But that's just it: if the anomalous acceleration is from the electric field of the sun, that electric field is still MUCH weaker than the sun's gravity, because the anomalous acceleration is MUCH smaller than the predicted acceleration. We know that gravity cannot power the sun, so how would an even weaker electric field power the sun? It couldn't. So... fail. Quote: Harsh words Ziggurat. The calculation has been done and confirmed as real. Sure it's ironic but you shouldn't blame the EU/PC crowd for pointing out a confirmation. You don't get it. Gravitational calculations have been done. Those high-precision calculations reveal a very small discrepancy between our gravitational model predictions and our observations. Who did that calculation? The NASA folks, not the EU folks. Now, there are many conceivable explanations for this discrepancy. The EU folks have an idea about electric fields. But where are their calculations of electric field effects on the satellite? Where are their calculations showing how much of an acceleration to expect based on their model? Where are their calculations showing what sized fields, due to what sort of charge distributions, would be required to produce such accelerations? Nowhere. There are no such calculations. They haven't done them, because they can't. Quote: Sure, mainstream would like to think it's outdated and wrong and the missing neutrinos problem has been solved as the story is told HERE but there are mainstream physicists who do NOT agree: You really didn't get the point of that at all. The point was that, despite the confidence in early neutrino models and uncertainty about the solar model, it WAS the early neutrino model which was wrong, and NOT the standard stellar model. What the author is explaining is why that was hard for physicists to accept. But they did, because that's the way the facts pointed, once we had enough facts to make the picture clear. Quote: So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists are entitled to point this out: You can point out whatever you like to. But you're still wrong. Quote: Sure, but the problems persist and the idea is to get more energy out than you put in This is a problem, but it's a problem which has nothing to do with the sun. We are not trying to fuse hydrogen nuclei. We are trying to fuse deuterium and tritium nuclei. One of the problems with getting more energy out than you put in is getting the reaction rates sufficiently fast. And there's no way we could ever do that by replicating stellar fusion, because stellar fusion is too slow. So Juergens has no point, except to mislead the ignorant and gullible. Quote: Juergens isn't the only one to suggest fusion is the stellar atmosphere: People have also suggested the earth is hollow, that aliens shot Kennedy, and that fluoridated water is a communist plot. Quote: We don't see LOTS of gamma rays but we DO see LOTS of X-rays coming from the solar atmosphere: If fusion is happening at the surface of the sun, we should see LOTS of gamma rays, with very specific characteristic energies. We don't really see any at those energies. So... no fusion on the surface of the sun. It's ruled out by observation. Quote: So, is there much difference between X-rays and gamma rays? Well, not so much as you might think: (my bold) You can call them x-rays if you want, it doesn't matter. The photons created by hydrogen fusion will still have characteristic energies, and we do not see any significant flux of photons with those energies. Quote: So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) No, we cannot. We can distinguish the energies of x-rays coming from the sun. The x-rays produced by hydrogen fusion have very specific energies. We can look for x-rays with these energies, and when we do, we find basically nothing. So no, we cannot have any significant amount of fusion in the stellar atmosphere. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 20th February 2011 at 03:58 PM.
 20th February 2011, 05:00 PM #2815 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,220 I have lost track of the number of times I have seen the points that we see in the above post made in these threads. It seems to be beyond hope that these EU crackpots will ever pay attention. Do they understand? Do they want to understand? Do they try to understand? Are they able to understand? It does not seem to matter since they will cling to their crackpot notions like true believers in some religious cult. Facts have no effect. Science has no effect. Physics has no effect. Mathematics has no effect. Logic has no effect. These threads just go on and on like some endless Abbott and Costello comedy routine. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 20th February 2011, 06:35 PM #2816 W.D.Clinger Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,875 Did Peratt actually write that nonsense? Originally Posted by Ziggurat This is NOT a difference between electromagnetism and gravity. It is a difference between a point-like source and a line-like source. It applies to BOTH gravity and electromagnetism. This is freshman-level physics. So either Peratt is an idiot, or he's being dishonest. In either case, he's plainly wrong. This isn't exotic stuff, it isn't controversial, any halfway-competent physicist can tell you that a line source gives you a 1/r field, even for gravity. So why do you believe Peratt when he's telling you stuff which is so transparently wrong? Are we certain that Peratt wrote that text? There's no question about the wrongness of that web page. Its author is making freshman-level mistakes. I'm just wondering how we know that Peratt is the person responsible for those mistakes. Haig certainly blames Peratt: Originally Posted by Haig Here's a better quote then, from Peratt: And yes, it's at Peratt's site. Originally Posted by Haig Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D. Life Fellow, IEEE Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998. Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Associate Directorate for Experiments and Simulations, 1999–2003. FYI: A "Life Fellow" of the IEEE is just an IEEE fellow who is more than 65 years old, and the IEEE names about 300 new fellows per year. Although EEs seldom have to deal with gravity, it's surprising to see an IEEE Fellow and PhD make the freshman-level mistakes you've been spamming. If you can prove that Peratt wrote that web page, however, then I will admit the mistakes are Peratt's. Those mistakes would not be his first. Have I mentioned the Tapamveni petroglyph in this thread?
 21st February 2011, 05:26 AM #2817 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Haig So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists are entitled to point this out Huh? How on Earth did you gather that from that piece of text? A piece of text which nicely explains why some people had doubts about neutrino oscillations before neutrino oscillations were discovered?
 21st February 2011, 05:37 AM #2818 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Haig So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the right amount of neutrinos actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours) Fusion of what exactly? If it were the same p-chains as the standard model then where is the 478 keV gamma ray from the decay of 7Be to 7Li? This peak would be absolutely huge.
 21st February 2011, 12:47 PM #2819 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Haig ...snipped 10^39 quotes... Everyone (except you is seems ) knows thatthe electromagnetic force is conventionally considered to be 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force. the electromagnetic force cancels over large scales because it depends on positive and negative charges and on large enough scales the universe is neutral. the gravitational force never cancels out because it depends on mass which is only positive. Originally Posted by Haig Another outdated link., There are no missing neutrinos from the Sun. All 3 types of neutrinos have been detected from the Sun. Neutrino oscillations are an experimental fact. Originally Posted by Haig So we can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the right amount of neutrinos actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours) Fusion in the Sun's core seems unnecessary. You are wrong:The problem is that there are not enough gamma rays of specific energies emitted from the Sun to explain the energy output from fusion at the surface. There are different flavors of neutrinos. This is not a fudge. They have been detected. Neutrino oscillations are an experimental fact. Fusion at the Sun's core is a physical necessary given the lack of the required amount and type of gamma rays and the lack of the conditions on the Sun's surface to produces the required amount of energy. FYI, Haig: Fusion of hydrogen produces positions. Plasma contains electrons. A positrons and electron annihilate to create 2 gamma rays that have an energy of 0.51 MeV. It is these gamma rays that are missing. Another point in the p-p fusion chain produces gamma rays with a peak energy of 5.49 MeV. They are also missing. The CNO cycle is unlikely to be going on in the Sun (it is not massive enough to produce the required temperature). It aso produces specific gamma rays at 1.95, 7.54 and 7.35 MeV. Also missing. ETA Haig: I take it that you think that the Sun is about the size of Earth?Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth! This is quite simple physics. Stars are the size that they are because there is a balance between the force of gravity and the pressure of the stellar plasma. Reduce the pressure and the star gets smaller. In order for the Sun to be the size that it is measured to be, it needs internal temperatures that are greater than the surface. If it is externally heated this is impossible. Thus the Sun must be internally heated. Think about a star that is only externally heated so that it has the temperature of its surface (e.g. ~5700 K for the Sun). Gravity pulls everything together until there is no plasma. The star becomes a white dwarf star which is about the size of the Earth. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 21st February 2011 at 01:05 PM.
 21st February 2011, 01:42 PM #2820 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I have lost track of the number of times I have seen the points that we see in the above post made in these threads. It seems to be beyond hope that these EU crackpots will ever pay attention. Do they understand? Do they want to understand? Do they try to understand? Are they able to understand? It does not seem to matter since they will cling to their crackpot notions like true believers in some religious cult. Facts have no effect. Science has no effect. Physics has no effect. Mathematics has no effect. Logic has no effect. These threads just go on and on like some endless Abbott and Costello comedy routine. Ace tale, chap.
 21st February 2011, 02:12 PM #2821 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ace tale, chap. You mean "Ace facts supported by evidence, chap". Look at the evidence provided by Haig and his decision or inability to understand the science that has been presented to him. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2011, 02:28 PM #2822 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Would I be counted as an "EU crackpot" in this instance then?
 21st February 2011, 02:50 PM #2823 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Would I be counted as an "EU crackpot" in this instance then? No. For a start, I have seen no sign that you are guillible enough to believe in the EU crackpottery. I am sure that you are not so ignorant to think that gravitational and electromagnetic forces are stringer than gravitation forces by factor of 10^39 in one situation means that EM forces are always stronger. I am fairly sure that you can understand the implications of the Debye length, i.e. EM forces cancel out from plasma on tiny scales compared to astronomical scales. I hope that you can understand that the Sun needs internal heating to be the size that it is. The worst that I could say is that you appear to be a "plasma cosmology crackpot" - given your belief that it is right even though it is not really defined and certainly is not a scientific theory. But that is a subject for another thread. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 23rd February 2011, 11:09 PM #2825 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,018 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson But fusion cannot and does not happen in the solar photosphere. And don't let the coronal temperature fool you. The density of the corona is so low that one could hardly expect fusion to happen even if the temperature were high enough, which it might be in some locations where the temperature is extremely high compared to the average 1 or 2 million Kelvins (a minimum of 10 million Kelvins is required for proton-proton fusion). But the temperature in the corona is such that even if it were 100 million one would still not get fusion. Let's look at some numbers on the density question. The Sun's core has a density of 150 grams/cm^3. At that density, if you heat it to 15MK, you get fusion amounting to about 300W/m^3. (Not much, eh? If your fusion power plant did that little, you'd scrap it. If your digestive tract did that little, you'd freeze to death. But the Sun has a large volume.) Two-body reaction rates vary as the density squared. The density of the photosphere is 0.0000002 grams/cm^3. At 15MK (which isn't the case), due to the low density, photospheric fusion would generate 0.0000000000000005 W/m^3. (5x10^-16W). The corona is another factor of 10^12 less dense, so another factor of 10^24 lower fusion power density. If the corona were at a best-case uniform, isotropic 15MK (it's not) you would get 5x10^-40 watts per meter^3 of fusion there. I invite you to multiply 5x10^-40 by the volume of the corona, or multiply 5x10^-16 by the volume of the photosphere, and tell us whether you think that fusion in these regions can add up to 3x10^26 watts total.
 24th February 2011, 02:43 AM #2826 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson No it is not. The distinction is due to energy and energy alone. Excellent post in general Tim, but I object to this part. In nuclear physics (at least as far as I'm aware) a photon from a nuclear transition is generally referred to as a gamma ray. Photons from transitions of electrons to the inner shells are usually referred to as X-rays. There are many many known nuclear transitions with lower energy than the K lines in lead (for example) , these are generally referred to as (low-energy) gamma rays while the lead lines are X rays. One exception to this might be that 511 keV photon from electron/positron annihilation which I see regularly referred to as a gamma ray. I try to call it annihilation radiation since it is, by the above definitions, neither an X or a gamma ray but I often call it a gamma. I'm not an expert on high-energy astronomy but I do have a little experience from which I would suggest your distinction may be more appropriate since I think 'you' are often dealing with high energy continuum sychrotron radiation where no physical distinction exists. Quote: Any energy below 100 kev is an X-ray. In the energy range 100-200 kev there is some ambiguity in whether or not to say "X-ray" or "gamma ray". For energies above 200 kev you will rarely if ever see the word "X-ray" used, and certainly anything above 1 meV is a gamma ray. I presume you mean "1 MeV". Lead X-rays go up to around 85 keV. Lead is pretty heavy and so has pretty high energy transitions to the K and L shells. Most nuclear transitions have an energy greater than 100 keV. Hence the astronomical distinction can be thought of as an approximation to the nuclear/atomic distinction for a continuum.
 25th February 2011, 07:31 AM #2827 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson No, I don't accept any such thing. As I said before, the gamma rays known to come from the Sun, and the only gamma rays that paper talks about, are already known to come from neutron capture reactions and electron - positron annihilation. Despite the use of the phrase "the above findings suggest ...", the above findings do not suggest any such thing. CNO reactions involve the fusion of protons onto C, N & O nuclei, so the observations mentioned in the paper are irrelevant to CNO cycle physics. Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. In terms of your criticism of my paper for a lack of appropriate citations, you may (probably do) have a point. In terms of actual physics however, you're dead wrong Tim. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00108.004.html Take a look at figure 5a and tell me which part of the CNO spectrum is not represented in the spectrum and how exactly did you explain those bumps labeled C, N and O?
 25th February 2011, 08:18 AM #2828 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina In terms of your criticism of my paper for a lack of appropriate citations, you may (probably do) have a point. In terms of actual physics however, you're dead wrong Tim. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00108.004.html Take a look at figure 5a and tell me which part of the CNO spectrum is not represented in the spectrum and how exactly did you explain those bumps labeled C, N and O? In case Tim does not bother replying (the error is fairy basic and MM has a track record of not being able to understand things): No part of the "CNO spectrum" (the emission from the CNO cycle) is in that figure. It is a spectrum with labels of C= Carbon, N = Nitrogen, O = Oxygen, Fe = Iron, Mg = Magnesium, Si = Silicon, Ne = Neon and n (= neutron?). I think that labels refer to the peaks of the gamma radiation from the capture of a neutron by C, N, O, Fe, Mg, S and Ne. Some overlap (thus Ne+O). I hope that you are not ignorant enough to think that a figure with C and N and O in it means that it is about CNO . In which case what about CN or CO or NO? The figure is in fact evidence against the CNO cycle since there are no peaks for the gamma rays emitted by the cycle, e.g. look for 7.54 MeV gamma radiation. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 25th February 2011 at 08:28 AM.
 25th February 2011, 08:54 AM #2829 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 4,995 Originally Posted by Reality Check It is a spectrum with labels of C= Carbon, N = Nitrogen, O = Oxygen, Fe = Iron, Mg = Magnesium, Si = Silicon, Ne = Neon and n (= neutron?). Actually, there's no "N = Nitrogen" on that plot or in the corresponding text. Neon shows up twice (I always thought that Neon was a bit full of itself). __________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
 25th February 2011, 09:06 AM #2830 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by dasmiller Actually, there's no "N = Nitrogen" on that plot or in the corresponding text. Neon shows up twice (I always thought that Neon was a bit full of itself). Whoops - an even more basic error by MM (and me!). __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 10:17 AM #2831 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Whoops - an even more basic error by MM (and me!). Actually I think the n represents n_capture 2.2Mev, so Das technically missed it too. Quote: Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. Emphasis mine. FYI RC, Tim said that those wavelengths were not present "at all". They are however clearly present in the spectrum. It's pretty obvious that there is in fact a peak in C, but we're at the limit of that equipment at the high end of the scale, so the peaks in the 7+mev range may not be as obvious, assuming those wavelengths are not selectively captured again in the first place. The point is that the *ENTIRE* CNO spectrum is observed. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 25th February 2011 at 10:19 AM.
 25th February 2011, 10:53 AM #2833 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Emphasis mine. FYI RC, Tim said that those wavelengths were not present "at all". Quote: Furthermore, the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. (emphasis mine) Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Emphasis They are however clearly present in the spectrum. You are wrong: The gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are clearly missing from that figure. No peak at 1.95 MeV No peak at 7.35 MeV No peak at 7.54 MeV Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's pretty obvious that there is in fact a peak in C And that peak is the gamma rays emitted by the neutron capture by C. It is nothing to do with the CNO cycle where C captures a proton and emits a 1.95 MeV or 7.54 MeV gamma ray. The point is that the *ENTIRE* CNO spectrum (gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions) is not observed from the Sun. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. To suggest that that figure whichhas no peaks corresponding to the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions and does not even have an N (nitrogen) label is absurd. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:04 AM #2834 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The bumps labeled "C" and "O" are due to the relaxation of the nuclei from an excited state to the ground state and have nothing at all to do with fusion. How did you decide that Tim?
 25th February 2011, 11:06 AM #2835 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson What is this supposed to mean? Certainly the range of energies of interest is observed, but that is of course not the point at all. Yes, Tim, that is the point. You claimed they weren't there "at all".
 25th February 2011, 11:25 AM #2836 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Yes, Tim, that is the point. You claimed they weren't there "at all". No he did not: He claimed that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. There are no gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions in that figure. The peaks that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are missing from that figure. You have misinterpreted (to be charitable) "gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all" to mean "gamma rays are in fact not seen in the Sun at all". You are wrong. It is the specific gamma rays that are emitted by the CNO cycle that are missing from the figure. It is the specific gamma rays that are emitted by the CNO cycle that are have not been measured. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:26 AM #2837 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check (emphasis mine) You are wrong: The gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are clearly missing from that figure. There's nothing "missing" from the spectrum RC, it's all there. There are even bumps in C and O that are quite obvious in the data. The 7+ MEV ranges are simply at the end of the scale so its not as easy to discern the "bump", but that wavelength is definitely present in the spectrum! Nothing is "missing".
 25th February 2011, 11:27 AM #2838 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check No he did not: He claimed that the gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions are in fact not seen in the Sun at all. And that is clearly wrong since all those wavelengths are present in the data.
 25th February 2011, 11:35 AM #2839 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 15,260 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina How did you decide that Tim? That is an interesting question with a easy answer. We know that it can be ruled out as part of the CNO cycle because carbon captures protons and produces gamma rays at energies of 1.95 and 7.54 MeV. The label is at ~4.8 MeV and so cannot be labeling any gamma radiation from the CNO cycle . That is obvously how Tim decided this. That leaves the question of what is the labal labeling? My guess is C + n. I suspect that there is a nuclear physics book that lists the energy of gamma radiation from C + n. But my Google skills have not produced it. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 25th February 2011, 11:41 AM #2840 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina And that is clearly wrong since all those wavelengths are present in the data. I really cannot comprehend what you are talking about. There is a spectrum that spans the range 300 keV to 8 MeV. This includes 0 N peaks. There is one peak marked C just under 5 MeV. The strongest transition following thermal neutron capture on 12C is 4.945 MeV. There is no peak at 1.95 MeV, no peak at 7.35 MeV and no peak at 7.54 MeV. Therefore the spectrum does not show any evidence for the CNO cycle.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit

format: plain


text:
Discrete Math: In how many ways can 30 ident. balls be put in 7 distinct boxes, s.t.

sita

New member
1. In how many ways can 30 identical balls be distributed into 7 distinct boxes (numbered "Box 1, Box 2, ..., Box 7") subject to the following conditions?

(a) With no constraints.

(b) Each box gets at least three balls.

(c) Each of the odd-numbered boxes gets exactly one ball, and each of the even-numbered boxes gets at least one ball.

(d) Each box gets an even number of balls.

For the 1st one i get 36C6 is this correct?

Last edited by a moderator:

ksdhart2

Full Member
It's not immediately obvious what you mean by "1st one," but I'll guess that you probably mean part (1a). Assuming that's the case, your proposed answer is not correct. Since you've not shown any work or reasoning for how you arrived at your answer, I cannot be certain, but it looks to me like you're treating the rules and formulas you've learned in class as mystical, magical "black boxes." That is, you're trying to using them despite not really understanding what they mean or what they're doing.

Let's take a step back and consider what we mean when we say 36C6. It is typically read aloud as "36 choose 6," which right away clues us in that this is the number of ways we can choose 6 objects from a collection of 36. In the context of the problem, what are the 36 objects you're choosing from? Why are you choosing 6 from that collection? So now you might ask yourself: Does my answer make sense for the problem?

Instead, we can think of it in a different way. We have 30 balls to assign to 7 boxes. For now let's focus only on just the first ball. We can assign this ball to any of the seven boxes, so clearly there's 7 possible arrangements for one ball. But what if we added a second ball to play with? Well now we can assign each of them individually to any of the seven boxes. In other words, we can assign the first ball to any of the seven boxes, and then regardless of which box we choose (this is the important part here), we can assign the second ball to any of the seven boxes. That means there are 49 possible arrangements for two balls. Do you see why? What would happen if you had three balls? Four? How does this scale up to give you insight into the full problem with 30 balls?

sita

New member
It's not immediately obvious what you mean by "1st one," but I'll guess that you probably mean part (1a). Assuming that's the case, your proposed answer is not correct. Since you've not shown any work or reasoning for how you arrived at your answer, I cannot be certain, but it looks to me like you're treating the rules and formulas you've learned in class as mystical, magical "black boxes." That is, you're trying to using them despite not really understanding what they mean or what they're doing.

Let's take a step back and consider what we mean when we say 36C6. It is typically read aloud as "36 choose 6," which right away clues us in that this is the number of ways we can choose 6 objects from a collection of 36. In the context of the problem, what are the 36 objects you're choosing from? Why are you choosing 6 from that collection? So now you might ask yourself: Does my answer make sense for the problem?

Instead, we can think of it in a different way. We have 30 balls to assign to 7 boxes. For now let's focus only on just the first ball. We can assign this ball to any of the seven boxes, so clearly there's 7 possible arrangements for one ball. But what if we added a second ball to play with? Well now we can assign each of them individually to any of the seven boxes. In other words, we can assign the first ball to any of the seven boxes, and then regardless of which box we choose (this is the important part here), we can assign the second ball to any of the seven boxes. That means there are 49 possible arrangements for two balls. Do you see why? What would happen if you had three balls? Four? How does this scale up to give you insight into the full problem with 30 balls?
Please could you tell me where i've gone wrong, i did mean part (a)

j-astron

Junior Member
Please could you tell me where i've gone wrong, i did mean part (a)
I think you did it exactly right! It's combination with repetition. ksdhart2 seems to be barking up the "permutation with repetition" tree, which doesn't make sense, since the balls are indistinguishable.

JeffM

Elite Member
Please could you tell me where i've gone wrong, i did mean part (a)

My original answer was incorrect, and incorrect in an unhelpful way. I have replaced it with this acknowledgement.

Last edited:

JeffM

Elite Member
I think you did it exactly right! It's combination with repetition. ksdhart2 seems to be barking up the "permutation with repetition" tree, which doesn't make sense, since the balls are indistinguishable.
To be sure, the balls are indistinguishable, but the boxes are distinguishable. If you place one ball at a time in a box, you have seven choices with respect to each ball.

EDIT: This is true, but unintentionally misleading. When the process is complete, all that matters is how many balls are in a particular box, not when the balls were placed in the box sequentially.

Last edited:

j-astron

Junior Member
You have made an entirely unjustified assumption, namely that each box must contain at least one ball. That is what your six dividers represent. To answer the problem as given, you need to consider that one or more boxes contain no balls.

With respect: what are you guys talking about? How has the OP assumed this?

In the diagram he/she has six sticks and 30 circles that can be laid out in a line in any order. He/she permutes them. That covers all possibilities: e.g. you could end up with a permutation where it's

| | | | | | all circles here

i.e. all 30 balls ended up in bin 7.

How many ways are there to permute six sticks and 30 circles? Well that's 36 objects, so that's 36!. However, all the circles are the same, you have to divide this answer by the number of ways of permuting them, which is 30!. Also, all the sticks are also identical (reordering them within a given permutation doesn't change the result), so you also have to divide the answer by the number of ways of reordering the sticks amongst themselves, which is 6! In the end, you end up with:

$$\displaystyle \dfrac{36!}{6!30!}$$

Oh, what do you know, this is exactly equal to $$\displaystyle _{36}C_6$$

Suppose it were 3 balls and 2 bins. That would give you one divider and 3 circles. How about I just draw every single permutation?

ooo |

oo | o

o | oo

| ooo

And using my reasoning, the answer would be given by $$\displaystyle _4C_1 = \frac{4!}{1!3!} = 4$$. Are there any cases in the above example that I haven't covered, that would be added by whatever your proposed solution is? EDIT: and is your proposed solution 2^3 ??

Last edited:

JeffM

Elite Member
5 balls 3 boxes So I am guessing that this is a 2 divider problem and that you think the answer should be

$$\displaystyle \dbinom{5}{2} = \dfrac{5!}{2! * 3!} = \dfrac{5 * 4}{2} = 10.$$

5, 0, 0 1
0, 5, 0 2
0, 0, 5 3
4, 0, 1 4
4, 1, 0 5
0, 4, 1 6
1, 4, 0 7
0, 1, 4 8
1, 0, 4 9
3, 0, 2 10
3, 2, 0 11
0, 3, 2 12
2, 3, 0 13
0, 2, 3 14
2, 0, 3 15
3, 1, 1 16
1, 3, 1 17
1, 1, 3 18

18 is not 10.

Of course 18 is not 125 either. I am changing my first answer to say that it is wrong.

EDIT: See next two posts.

Last edited:

j-astron

Junior Member
5 balls 3 boxes So I am guessing that this is a 2 divider problem and that you think the answer should be

$$\displaystyle \dbinom{5}{2} = \dfrac{5!}{2! * 3!} = \dfrac{5 * 4}{2} = 10.$$

5, 0, 0 1
0, 5, 0 2
0, 0, 5 3
4, 0, 1 4
4, 1, 0 5
0, 4, 1 6
1, 4, 0 7
0, 1, 4 8
1, 0, 4 9
3, 0, 2 10
3, 2, 0 11
0, 3, 2 12
2, 3, 0 13
0, 2, 3 14
2, 0, 3 15
3, 1, 1 16
1, 3, 1 17
1, 1, 3 18

18 is not 10.

Of course 18 is not 125 either. I am changing my first answer to say that it is wrong.
I think the answer should be (7 choose 2)

http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~ggbaker/zju/math/perm-comb-more.html#rep-comb

j-astron

Junior Member
JeffM: for the 5 ball, 3 box version, I think you forgot

2,2,1
2,1,2
1,2,2

18 + 3 = 21 = (7 choose 2)

ksdhart2

Full Member
Oh dear. I seem to have majorly messed up here. Sorry about that. Upon further reflection I see now that my proposed solution of 730 would only be valid if the balls were in some way distinguishable from one another (like if, say, they were numbered). However, that's not the case in this problem. I agree with the others that sita's solution of 36C6 is correct. Again, I do sincerely apologize for my mistake. I hope I didn't sow too much confusion.

JeffM

Elite Member
JeffM: for the 5 ball, 3 box version, I think you forgot

2,2,1
2,1,2
1,2,2

18 + 3 = 21 = (7 choose 2)
Yes I did. So that answer was wrong too. However, in that case, I shall not delete it because that would leave your correcting post without context.

stapel

Super Moderator
Staff member
A bit off-topic, but:

I want to say a big "Thank you!" to all responders in this thread for being clear and complete, for kindly suggesting corrections, and for honorably admitting errors. This decent kind of give-and-take is a big part of what makes this forum so enjoyable and helpful! Again, thank you!

JeffM

Elite Member
A bit off-topic, but:

I want to say a big "Thank you!" to all responders in this thread for being clear and complete, for kindly suggesting corrections, and for honorably admitting errors. This decent kind of give-and-take is a big part of what makes this forum so enjoyable and helpful! Again, thank you!
I truly appreciate your kind words. Of course I wish that I had not needed to be one to admit that my answers were completely insane. But my wife says that I should be grateful for my rare moments of sanity.


text:
After teaching guitar and music theory to thousands of students over past three decades, I thought that I had basically 'seen it all' when it comes to guitar instruction. Then I discovered Justin’s website, and man was I impressed! Justin’s caring spirit, attention to detail, vast knowledge base, and especially his lucid, laidback and nurturing style, allow students to fall in love with the learning process. You see, it’s not enough to simply find out how to play a few cool licks or chords. A truly great teacher will make you fall in love with the process of discovery so that you can unlock the best within you. Justin is one of these great teachers, and I highly recommend justinguitar.com to anyone who wants to tap into their best selves.
Justin Sandercoe has thought long and hard about how to teach people to play the guitar, and how to do this over the internet. He has come up with a well-designed series of courses that will take you from nowhere to proficiency. I tried to learn how to play years ago, using books, and got nowhere. I've been using Justin's site for just over a year and I feel I've made real progress. What's more, Justin offers his lessons for free - a boon for any young player who has the urge to play, but whose pockets are empty. I've seen and used other sites for learners: none of them offer as clearly marked a road as Justin does.
First off, there are two more techniques I want to talk about. These are fret placement and finger posture. Place your first finger on the first fret of the B string. For fret placement, you’ll want to have your finger right behind the fret. In the video, you can see that the further away from the fret I place my finger, the more buzz the note has.
We were privileged to have worked with hundreds of top artists and educators who authored the original magazine articles and then recorded audio lessons in their own studios. While video is the medium of choice today, these 1,200+ audio lessons still deliver amazing instruction from some of the best in the biz — perfect for those long drives and commutes!
Are you stuck in a musical rut? New tunings and tricks can help you keep learning guitar in fresh, fun ways. Try one of these great tips from guitar teacher Samuel B. to breathe new life into your guitar playing... One of the first things I tell any new student is that I don't specialize in a formal discipline. If jazz or classical training is your objective, then I'm not your guy. Instead, I specialize primarily in American roots music (that which we tend to casually lump together as "folk"
Renaissance and Baroque guitars are the ancestors of the modern classical and flamenco guitar. They are substantially smaller, more delicate in construction, and generate less volume. The strings are paired in courses as in a modern 12-string guitar, but they only have four or five courses of strings rather than six single strings normally used now. They were more often used as rhythm instruments in ensembles than as solo instruments, and can often be seen in that role in early music performances. (Gaspar Sanz's Instrucción de Música sobre la Guitarra Española of 1674 contains his whole output for the solo guitar.)[10] Renaissance and Baroque guitars are easily distinguished, because the Renaissance guitar is very plain and the Baroque guitar is very ornate, with ivory or wood inlays all over the neck and body, and a paper-cutout inverted "wedding cake" inside the hole.

Conventionally, guitarists double notes in a chord to increase its volume, an important technique for players without amplification; doubling notes and changing the order of notes also changes the timbre of chords. It can make a possible a "chord" which is composed of the all same note on different strings. Many chords can be played with the same notes in more than one place on the fretboard.
On a day when there's a temptation to go into a dark place, and only see all the bad stuff there is in the world ... greed, cruelty, exploitation, selfishness ... I get days like that pretty often .... it's great to find someone giving out, and giving out good, and operating on an honour basis ... There are so many people who can't afford Guitar lessons .... well, here's a wonderful guy who has set up a whole system of teaching guitar ... Blues, Jazz, Rock, even Songwriting, from the basics, tuning the guitar, etc ... upwards ... If you use his site, it's up to you to determine how much you can contribute ... but this is an amazing site .... he is also very aware of issues in the world which need attention ... a great channel .. Check him out. He's a giver.
School of Rock's highly-trained guitar instructors are experts when it comes to inspiring teens to learn to play the guitar like a pro. Our proven formula for learning to play the guitar effectively and quickly starts with private guitar lessons plus group rehearsals in a safe and friendly environment. All teens are enrolled in or audition for one of the following programs: Rock 101, Performance, House Band, and AllStars.
Unlike a piano or the voices of a choir, the guitar (in standard tuning) has difficulty playing the chords as stacks of thirds, which would require the left hand to span too many frets,[40] particularly for dominant seventh chords, as explained below. If in a particular tuning chords cannot be played in closed position, then they often can be played in open position; similarly, if in a particular tuning chords cannot be played in root position, they can often be played in inverted positions. A chord is inverted when the bass note is not the root note. Additional chords can be generated with drop-2 (or drop-3) voicing, which are discussed for standard tuning's implementation of dominant seventh chords (below).
A few years back, I dusted off the ol' Takamine I got in high school to try some 'music therapy' with my disabled son, who was recovering from a massive at-birth stroke. This reignited my long dormant passion to transform myself from a beach strummer to a 'real' musician; however, as a single mom, taking in-person lessons was financially difficult. Then I found Justinguitar! Flash forward to today; my son is almost fully recovered (YAY!), my guitar collection has grown significantly, and I'm starting to play gigs. None of this would have been possible without your guidance and generosity, Justin. Thank you for being part of the journey!
Paul Gilbert has made Guitar World's "50 Fastest Guitarists of All Time", and his guitar shredding is legendary. Paul picked up his first guitar when he was 5 years old. By the time he was 15, he was featured in Guitar Player magazine. After graduating from the Guitar Institute of Technology (GIT) in Los Angeles, Paul immediately joined the faculty as a guitar teacher. While teaching, he formed the band Racer X and Grammy-nominated group Mr. Big. Paul breaks down his iconic playing techniques and practice drills. He's known for his enthusiastic and approachable guitar lessons, which are founded on decades of experience.
I think for all parties, if we had the ability to send a "two day backstage pass" (you can use that), where we can send a friend a link and they could try the sight for free but couldn't submit videos. I have a few friends that I keep trying to sell them on but they just are not totally sold and I think it's because the beauty of this site is the personalized VE's are. The interaction between student and teacher is what really makes this magical and it's really hard to describe. The search feature could be a little better, more precise and sometimes it finds no VE hits on simple searches like street. Otherwise I am one of your biggest fans.
The neck joint or heel is the point at which the neck is either bolted or glued to the body of the guitar. Almost all acoustic steel-string guitars, with the primary exception of Taylors, have glued (otherwise known as set) necks, while electric guitars are constructed using both types. Most classical guitars have a neck and headblock carved from one piece of wood, known as a "Spanish heel." Commonly used set neck joints include mortise and tenon joints (such as those used by C. F. Martin & Co.), dovetail joints (also used by C. F. Martin on the D-28 and similar models) and Spanish heel neck joints, which are named after the shoe they resemble and commonly found in classical guitars. All three types offer stability.

Many influences are cited as antecedents to the modern guitar. Although the development of the earliest "guitars" is lost in the history of medieval Spain, two instruments are commonly cited as their most influential predecessors, the European lute and its cousin, the four-string oud; the latter was brought to Iberia by the Moors in the 8th century.[7]
Another factor to consider are the alloys used to make the string. Acoustic strings may be phosphor bronze or an 80/20 bronze/zinc alloy, electric strings may be pure steel or a steel/nickel alloy, and the outer winding on the thicker strings may be either round wound or flat wound, which is typically used by jazz guitarists for smooth fingering with less fretting noise. Acoustic and electric strings are both now available with special super-thin coatings to protect them from sweat and corrosion. Coated strings cost more, but generally last much longer. Find out what type of string your favorite player uses, try guitars with different types of strings at your local guitar store, then try a few different sets on your guitar to see what feels and sounds best for your playing style. Major manufacturers include Ernie Ball, Martin, GHS, D'Addario, and Elixir, among others. Make sure you have a string winder to make installing the strings go faster, and some pliers with a fine wire cutter to clip the excess string from the tuning post, a well as some guitar polish - changing strings is a good time to perform some routine maintenance. Keep a clean cloth in your case to wipe down the strings after each use, along with extra bridge pins for your acoustic guitar. Regular string changes are the best way to keep your tone crisp and clear, so grab a pack and tune 'em up!
At least two instruments called "guitars" were in use in Spain by 1200: the guitarra latina (Latin guitar) and the so-called guitarra morisca (Moorish guitar). The guitarra morisca had a rounded back, wide fingerboard, and several sound holes. The guitarra Latina had a single sound hole and a narrower neck. By the 14th century the qualifiers "moresca" or "morisca" and "latina" had been dropped, and these two cordophones were simply referred to as guitars.[8]
Dots are usually inlaid into the upper edge of the fretboard in the same positions, small enough to be visible only to the player. These usually appear on the odd numbered frets, but also on the 12th fret (the one octave mark) instead of the 11th and 13th frets. Some older or high-end instruments have inlays made of mother of pearl, abalone, ivory, colored wood or other exotic materials and designs. Simpler inlays are often made of plastic or painted. High-end classical guitars seldom have fretboard inlays as a well-trained player is expected to know his or her way around the instrument. In addition to fretboard inlay, the headstock and soundhole surround are also frequently inlaid. The manufacturer's logo or a small design is often inlaid into the headstock. Rosette designs vary from simple concentric circles to delicate fretwork mimicking the historic rosette of lutes. Bindings that edge the finger and sound boards are sometimes inlaid. Some instruments have a filler strip running down the length and behind the neck, used for strength or to fill the cavity through which the truss rod was installed in the neck.

YellowBrickCinema’s Sleep Music is the perfect relaxing music to help you go to sleep, and enjoy deep sleep. Our music for sleeping is the best music for stress relief, to reduce insomnia, and encourage dreaming. Our calm music for sleeping uses Delta Waves and soft instrumental music to help you achieve deep relaxation, and fall asleep. Our relaxing sleep music can be used as background music, meditation music, relaxation music, peaceful music and sleep music. Let our soothing music and calming music help you enjoy relaxing deep sleep.
Almost all guitars have frets, which are metal strips (usually nickel alloy or stainless steel) embedded along the fretboard and located at exact points that divide the scale length in accordance with a specific mathematical formula. The exceptions include fretless bass guitars and very rare fretless guitars. Pressing a string against a fret determines the strings' vibrating length and therefore its resultant pitch. The pitch of each consecutive fret is defined at a half-step interval on the chromatic scale. Standard classical guitars have 19 frets and electric guitars between 21 and 24 frets, although guitars have been made with as many as 27 frets. Frets are laid out to accomplish an equal tempered division of the octave. Each set of twelve frets represents an octave. The twelfth fret divides the scale length exactly into two halves, and the 24th fret position divides one of those halves in half again.
If you are starting or just stuck in rut, this is the site for you. I had been playing three years and was not advancing as I wanted to, then I saw an ad for Paul Gilbert lessons at Artistworks. I decided to check it out and I have to say, if I had this from the beginning, I would be a much better guitarist. The main reason why, is that Paul is known for his fast playing, but he focuses you on rhythm to start off. That is were I had lacked. I thought I was a decent rhythm player, but I was not. So much thanks to Artistworks and Paul for the great site.
Do you play a warm-up exercise when you practice guitar? Guitar teacher Kirk R. shares three guitar exercises that are perfect for players at all levels... There are literally thousands of exercises and studies for the guitar. There are some that are great for beginners who are just getting used to having their fingers on the guitar, and some that are designed to challenge and grow the technique of seasoned players. But who has time to learn thousands of guitar exercises, even over man
Jump up ^ "The first incontrovertible evidence of five-course instruments can be found in Miguel Fuenllana's Orphenica Lyre of 1554, which contains music for a vihuela de cinco ordenes. In the following year, Juan Bermudo wrote in his Declaracion de Instrumentos Musicales: 'We have seen a guitar in Spain with five courses of strings.' Bermudo later mentions in the same book that 'Guitars usually have four strings,' which implies that the five-course guitar was of comparatively recent origin, and still something of an oddity." Tom and Mary Anne Evans, Guitars: From the Renaissance to Rock. Paddington Press Ltd, 1977, p. 24.

# The guitar is a fretted musical instrument that usually has six strings.[1] It is typically played with both hands by strumming or plucking the strings with either a guitar pick or the finger(s)/fingernails of one hand, while simultaneously fretting (pressing the strings against the frets) with the fingers of the other hand. The sound of the vibrating strings is projected either acoustically, by means of the hollow chamber of the guitar (for an acoustic guitar), or through an electrical amplifier and a speaker.

In acoustic guitars, string vibration is transmitted through the bridge and saddle to the body via sound board. The sound board is typically made of tone woods such as spruce or cedar. Timbers for tone woods are chosen for both strength and ability to transfer mechanical energy from the strings to the air within the guitar body. Sound is further shaped by the characteristics of the guitar body's resonant cavity. In expensive instruments, the entire body is made of wood. In inexpensive instruments, the back may be made of plastic.
Don't settle for the first guitar instructor you find via classifieds or online search. Compare multiple rated candidates before picking the teacher who works best for you. Whether it's narrowing the search down to guitar instructors in your part of Apple Valley or selecting someone based on their hours of availability, the details are there for you to consider before taking on the task of learning the guitar.

Anyone playing and/or teaching guitar needs staff paper, blank tab, guitar chord charts, guitar scale charts, and fretboard diagrams to chart their guitar lessons and musical ideas. You can find books with some combination of these blank charts and grids, but you can’t find one with all of them organized in a practical way. That’s why we chose to design our own.
On the other hand, some chords are more difficult to play in a regular tuning than in standard tuning. It can be difficult to play conventional chords especially in augmented-fourths tuning and all-fifths tuning,[20] in which the large spacings require hand stretching. Some chords, which are conventional in folk music, are difficult to play even in all-fourths and major-thirds tunings, which do not require more hand-stretching than standard tuning.[21]

Phosphor bronze strings have a warmer sound with a smooth (if somewhat understated) high end response. This makes them a great fit for genres that benefit from a mellower tone, like a lot of folk or finger-style work. These strings pair well with smaller bodied guitars, though many musicians who play more relaxed genres prefer these strings on larger bodied instruments as well.

School of Rock's highly-trained guitar instructors are experts when it comes to inspiring teens to learn to play the guitar like a pro. Our proven formula for learning to play the guitar effectively and quickly starts with private guitar lessons plus group rehearsals in a safe and friendly environment. All teens are enrolled in or audition for one of the following programs: Rock 101, Performance, House Band, and AllStars.
Do you play a warm-up exercise when you practice guitar? Guitar teacher Kirk R. shares three guitar exercises that are perfect for players at all levels... There are literally thousands of exercises and studies for the guitar. There are some that are great for beginners who are just getting used to having their fingers on the guitar, and some that are designed to challenge and grow the technique of seasoned players. But who has time to learn thousands of guitar exercises, even over man

# {"eVar4":"shop: accessories","eVar5":"shop: accessories: strings","pageName":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings: guitar strings","reportSuiteIds":"musiciansfriendprod","eVar3":"shop","prop2":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings","prop1":"[mf] shop: accessories","evar51":"default: united states","prop10":"category","prop11":"guitar strings","prop5":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings: guitar strings","prop6":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings: guitar strings","prop3":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings: guitar strings","prop4":"[mf] shop: accessories: strings: guitar strings","channel":"[mf] shop","linkInternalFilters":"javascript:,musiciansfriend.com","prop7":"[mf] sub category2"}

Don't settle for the first guitar instructor you find via classifieds or online search. Compare multiple rated candidates before picking the teacher who works best for you. Whether it's narrowing the search down to guitar instructors in your part of Apple Valley or selecting someone based on their hours of availability, the details are there for you to consider before taking on the task of learning the guitar.
The history of stringed instruments dates back thousands of years, while the modern guitar can be traced back to the oud and the lute of the 8th and 9th centuries. Today's guitars come in countless variations and at JustStrings.com, we have a dazzling variety of guitar strings and other types of strings for many different instruments. Advanced technology combined with traditional craftsmanship produces some of the finest strings that boast long-lasting durability and exceptional tonal quality. Whether you're looking for rugged, great-sounding electric guitar strings to take on tour with you, or the perfect set of strings for your lap steel, we're bound to have exactly what you need. We take great pride in bringing you the best quality strings from the world's leading innovators. Our acoustic guitar strings, from manufacturers like Ernie Ball, GHS, Thomastik-Infeld and Fender, are available in many varieties, from silver-plated copper flat wound to 80/20 bronze round-wound. You'll find plain uncoated strings and coated strings that improve longevity. Classical guitar strings, traditionally made from gut, are now strung with nylon or advanced synthetic materials for better performance. Electric guitar strings are available in nickel-plated steel, pure nickel or stainless steel. We also have strings for resophonic guitars (also known as Dobros), Steinberger guitars and pedal steel guitars. Browse our bass guitar strings, and find 7-string, 8-string or 12-string guitar strings. We also carry banjo strings, harp strings, and strings for octave, tenor, baritone and Renaissance guitars. We are the leading source of premium strings for nearly every type of instrument.
The saddle of a guitar refers to the part of the bridge that physically supports the strings. It may be one piece (typically on acoustic guitars) or separate pieces, one for each string (electric guitars and basses). The saddle's basic purpose is to provide the end point for the string's vibration at the correct location for proper intonation, and on acoustic guitars to transfer the vibrations through the bridge into the top wood of the guitar. Saddles are typically made of plastic or bone for acoustic guitars, though synthetics and some exotic animal tooth variations (e.g. fossilized tooth, ivory, etc. ) have become popular with some players. Electric guitar saddles are typically metal, though some synthetic saddles are available.

#### The ratio of the spacing of two consecutive frets is {\displaystyle {\sqrt[{12}]{2}}} (twelfth root of two). In practice, luthiers determine fret positions using the constant 17.817—an approximation to 1/(1-1/ {\displaystyle {\sqrt[{12}]{2}}} ). If the nth fret is a distance x from the bridge, then the distance from the (n+1)th fret to the bridge is x-(x/17.817).[15] Frets are available in several different gauges and can be fitted according to player preference. Among these are "jumbo" frets, which have much thicker gauge, allowing for use of a slight vibrato technique from pushing the string down harder and softer. "Scalloped" fretboards, where the wood of the fretboard itself is "scooped out" between the frets, allow a dramatic vibrato effect. Fine frets, much flatter, allow a very low string-action, but require that other conditions, such as curvature of the neck, be well-maintained to prevent buzz.

Some piezo-equipped guitars use a hexaphonic pickup. "Hex" is a prefix meaning six. A hexaphonic pickup produces a separate output for each string, usually from a discrete piezoelectric or magnetic pickup for each string. This arrangement lets on-board or external electronics process the strings individually for modeling or Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) conversion. Roland makes hexaphonic pickups for guitar and bass, and a line of guitar modeling and synthesis products. Line 6's hexaphonic-equipped Variax guitars use on-board electronics to model the sound after various vintage instruments, and vary pitch on individual strings.
Extending the tunings of violins and cellos, all-fifths tuning offers an expanded range CGDAEB,[25] which however has been impossible to implement on a conventional guitar. All-fifths tuning is used for the lowest five strings of the new standard tuning of Robert Fripp and his former students in Guitar Craft courses; new standard tuning has a high G on its last string CGDAE-G.[26][27]
If you are brand new to the guitar, we recommend you start with the Beginner Guitar Quick-Start Series. It’s a collection of 12 step-by-step videos that will give you a solid foundation for all future lessons. You’ll learn how to play guitar, how to hold the guitar, how to tune your guitar, how to strum the guitar, how to play your first chords, and even how to play your first song on guitar.
Getting to grips with how chords are formed gives you a basic introduction to music theory and helps you understand the ways you can alter them to create more interesting sounds. All chords are built from certain notes in scales. The C major scale is the easiest, because it just runs C, D, E, F, G, A and B. These notes are numbered (usually using Roman numerals) in that order, from one (I) to seven (VII).
The intensive A.A. curriculum prepares musicians to perform in any professional situation, along with learning professional development skills such as basic computer use, EPK creation, resume and bio writing, and social media as a tool for business and networking. The Associate of Arts Degree is intended to equip students with the knowledge and training needed to become professional performers in today’s music industry.


text:
# Table of numbers less than $n$ of a certain type

If I have a large number, for example,

2^11

is there code to list a table of positive integers less than this number which are not of the form

p^k *j

where $p$ is prime and $j\not=p$ is either prime or 1?

Update: The restriction

p^k * j < 2^11

forces (in case j=1)

p^k < 2^11

for each given p. So for each $p$, the largest $k$ (let's denote it $k_p$) for which $p^{k_p}<2^{11}$ is $k_p=$

Floor[11 Log[2] / Log[p]]

• Any conditions on k? Jul 12 '17 at 10:00
• k can only be so large so that the product is less than 2^11. I'll edit the post. Jul 12 '17 at 10:08
• does this give what you need: Pick[#, Not[PrimeQ[FactorInteger[#, 2][[-1, 1]]]] & /@ #] &@ Range[2^11]?
– kglr
Jul 12 '17 at 10:11
• @kglr I don't think so. When I try a smaller number, such as $2^6$, I obtain output {1, 30, 60}, but 2*3*7=42 should also be in the list. Jul 12 '17 at 10:15

max = 2^11;

ps = Prime[Range[PrimePi[max - 1]]];
ks = Range /@ Floor[Log[ps, N[max - 1]]];
js = # /. (# -> Append[ps[[;; First[FirstPosition[ps, n_ /; n > #, -1,
{1}]]]], 1] & /@ DeleteDuplicates[#]) &[Floor[(max - 1) ps^-1]];

Complement[Range[max - 1], Flatten[MapThread[Outer[Times, #, #2] &, {ps^ks, js}]]]

{1, 30, 36, 42, 60, 66, 70, 72, 78, 84, 90, 100, 102, 105, 108, 110 .......

1 is included because i didn't use $k=0$. If thats wrong it should be ks = Range[0, #]& /@ Floor[Log[ps, N[max - 1]]];

If I understand your question correctly, then the form you describe can be tested with the following function:

PKJFormQ[k_Integer] := With[
{factors = FactorInteger[k]},
And[
Length[factors] <= 2,
Length@Cases[factors[[All, 2]], Except[1], {1}] <= 1]];
SetAttributes[PKJFormQ, Listable];

(I.e., there are at most 2 prime factors and either one or both of the prime factors has an exponent of 1.) You can then use any number of given Mathematica tools (like Pick or Reap) to do the rest; here are a couple examples on the limited range of up to 2^6:

First@Last@Reap@Do[If[!PKJFormQ[k], Sow[k]], {k, 2^6}]

{30, 36, 42, 60}

Pick[#, PKJFormQ[#], False]&@Range[2^6]

{30, 36, 42, 60}

The full list is a bit long for 2^11, so I won't paste it here, but it takes no time to run:

Length@Pick[#, PKJFormQ[#], False]&@Range[2^11]

773

• I think 36 = 2*2*3*3 is missing, because there is two factors with multiplicity >1 Jul 12 '17 at 11:08
• Thanks; good catch! Was because Complement eliminated identical coefficients; now fixed.
– nben
Jul 12 '17 at 17:47