Speed of waves
 

"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
John - KD5YI wrote:


Again, I'm not sure "temperature" is the relevant measure for something
like that. You can define temperature for a very low pressure gas like
this, but it's not in the same sort of sense as one would apply to a
bulk tangible medium (like air at the Earth's surface or water)

Isaac Asimov touched on this in his book on physics. He said the
temperature up there is high because of the high molecule velocity, but
that *heat* is another matter. So, you can have a high "temperature" even
if the "heat" is practically nil.


I suppose, too, that the whole things still works in terms of, say,
propagation velocity of sound, because that is driven by velocity of
molecules/atoms (and is related to square root of Temperature).

Faraday supposed that this apply to the electric waves. Of course there the
electrons vibrate. The relation to temperature of electrons would be easy to
measure.

So, sound propagates very quickly in the ionosphere (it's got a fairly
high temperature), but because there's not a whole lot of atoms around,
the attenuation will be quite high (essentially infinite, I suspect)

No. Acoustic waves from the Sun (aurora) are et the Earth quite strong.

And that's totally different than propagating something by EM waves.

Electric waves propagate in metal and in space. In the both media the
electrons vibrate. "I suppose we may compare together the matter of the
aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through
which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their
essential constitution"(Faraday).


That makes you correct. One must carefully state what is meant by
temperature and what is meant by heat.

It would be easy after Schmidt's experiment in vacuum. There the hot cylider
in air bends the light rays and the shadow diameter is bigger than for the
cold cylinder.
The same experiment in vacuum tell us if speed of light is electrons
temperature dependent.
S*

Speed of waves
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
John - KD5YI wrote:

Again, I'm not sure "temperature" is the relevant measure for something
like that. You can define temperature for a very low pressure gas like
this, but it's not in the same sort of sense as one would apply to a
bulk tangible medium (like air at the Earth's surface or water)
Isaac Asimov touched on this in his book on physics. He said the
temperature up there is high because of the high molecule velocity, but
that *heat* is another matter. So, you can have a high "temperature" even
if the "heat" is practically nil.

I suppose, too, that the whole things still works in terms of, say,
propagation velocity of sound, because that is driven by velocity of
molecules/atoms (and is related to square root of Temperature).

Faraday supposed that this apply to the electric waves.

He was wrong.

Of course there the
electrons vibrate. The relation to temperature of electrons would be easy to
measure.


No, you have this wrong.


So, sound propagates very quickly in the ionosphere (it's got a fairly
high temperature), but because there's not a whole lot of atoms around,
the attenuation will be quite high (essentially infinite, I suspect)

No. Acoustic waves from the Sun (aurora) are et the Earth quite strong.

"acoustic waves" whatever you think they are do not propagate through a
vacuum. The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.


And that's totally different than propagating something by EM waves.

Electric waves propagate in metal and in space. In the both media the
electrons vibrate.

But that is not how the waves propagate. In either material.


"I suppose we may compare together the matter of the
aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through
which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their
essential constitution"(Faraday).

But this is wrong. You refuse to accept that 100+ year old statements
may be, and quite often are, wrong.


That makes you correct. One must carefully state what is meant by
temperature and what is meant by heat.

It would be easy after Schmidt's experiment in vacuum. There the hot cylider
in air bends the light rays and the shadow diameter is bigger than for the
cold cylinder.
The same experiment in vacuum tell us if speed of light is electrons
temperature dependent.

If you spent some time to understand the basic concepts, you might
realize just how wrong you are.


S*



What is the point of all this? You refuse to try to understand the basic
concepts, yet want to dig into the more esoteric stuff.

Speed of waves
 

"joe" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
John - KD5YI wrote:

Again, I'm not sure "temperature" is the relevant measure for
something
like that. You can define temperature for a very low pressure gas like
this, but it's not in the same sort of sense as one would apply to a
bulk tangible medium (like air at the Earth's surface or water)
Isaac Asimov touched on this in his book on physics. He said the
temperature up there is high because of the high molecule velocity, but
that *heat* is another matter. So, you can have a high "temperature"
even if the "heat" is practically nil.

I suppose, too, that the whole things still works in terms of, say,
propagation velocity of sound, because that is driven by velocity of
molecules/atoms (and is related to square root of Temperature).

Faraday supposed that this apply to the electric waves.

He was wrong.

Why. Molecules and ions vibrate. Electrons also.

Of course there the
electrons vibrate. The relation to temperature of electrons would be easy
to measure.


No, you have this wrong.


So, sound propagates very quickly in the ionosphere (it's got a fairly
high temperature), but because there's not a whole lot of atoms around,
the attenuation will be quite high (essentially infinite, I suspect)

No. Acoustic waves from the Sun (aurora) are at the Earth quite strong.

"acoustic waves" whatever you think they are do not propagate through a
vacuum.

"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of hot
plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun in all
directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's outermost
layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a velocity
around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field intensity
around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically 30,000-50,000
nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in particular, flows
can be several times faster; the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) may
also be much stronger."

The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported it's
time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is traveling
fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy sweeps by the
earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of aurora activity".
From: http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction.php

Do you think that ions and atoms in the solar wind do not vibrate?



And that's totally different than propagating something by EM waves.

Electric waves propagate in metal and in space. In the both media the
electrons vibrate.

But that is not how the waves propagate. In either material.

How then?


"I suppose we may compare together the matter of the
aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire
through which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike
in their essential constitution"(Faraday).

But this is wrong. You refuse to accept that 100+ year old statements may
be, and quite often are, wrong.

Heaviside's statements are also old.


That makes you correct. One must carefully state what is meant by
temperature and what is meant by heat.

It would be easy after Schmidt's experiment in vacuum. There the hot
cylider in air bends the light rays and the shadow diameter is bigger
than for the cold cylinder.
The same experiment in vacuum tell us if speed of light is electrons
temperature dependent.

If you spent some time to understand the basic concepts, you might realize
just how wrong you are.


What is the point of all this? You refuse to try to understand the basic
concepts, yet want to dig into the more esoteric stuff.

The topic is: " It was known that different frequencies travel with
different speeds on a
long cable".

Is the same in air and space?"

The answers were YES.

What do you want to add?
S*

Speed of waves
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of hot
plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun in all
directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's outermost
layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a velocity
around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field intensity
around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically 30,000-50,000
nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in particular, flows
can be several times faster; the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) may
also be much stronger."


Sure... the number density of ionized particles is somewhat bigger than
the 5/cc you describe above, so solar wind is actually not a big
contributor to it. Most of the ionization comes from UV ionizing the
air atoms/molecules. (that's what the whole daytime sky wave off the F
layer is all about, after all.. working Australia from the California on
20 meters at 5AM CA time probably isn't a good bet)



The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported it's
time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is traveling
fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy sweeps by the
earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of aurora activity".
From: http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction.php


That's not acoustic. That's just particles streaming out into space,
and because there's not many other particles to bump into, most of them
get to Earth

Speed of waves
 

"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of
hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun
in all directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's
outermost layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a
velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field
intensity around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically
30,000-50,000 nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in
particular, flows can be several times faster; the interplanetary
magnetic field (IMF) may also be much stronger."


Sure... the number density of ionized particles is somewhat bigger than
the 5/cc you describe above, so solar wind is actually not a big
contributor to it. Most of the ionization comes from UV ionizing the air
atoms/molecules. (that's what the whole daytime sky wave off the F layer
is all about, after all.. working Australia from the California on 20
meters at 5AM CA time probably isn't a good bet)

In space is also the dust. The ionized particles can come from them also.
The Moon is a big dust.

The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported
it's time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is
traveling fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy
sweeps by the earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of
aurora activity". From: http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction.php


That's not acoustic. That's just particles streaming out into space, and
because there's not many other particles to bump into, most of them get to
Earth

Cars produce the hot wind (exhaust pipe) with the acoustic waves. Is
possible to produce only streaming?
There must be the oscillatory flow.
S*

Speed of waves
 

On Apr 2, 7:48*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Jim Lux" napisal w ...



Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of
hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun
in all directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's
outermost layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a
velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field
intensity around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically
30,000-50,000 nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in
particular, flows can be several times faster; the interplanetary
magnetic field (IMF) may also be much stronger."

Sure... the number density of ionized particles is somewhat bigger than
the 5/cc you describe above, so solar wind is actually not a big
contributor to it. *Most of the ionization comes from UV ionizing the air
atoms/molecules. *(that's what the whole daytime sky wave off the F layer
is all about, after all.. working Australia from the California on 20
meters at 5AM CA time probably isn't a good bet)

In space is also the dust. The *ionized particles can come from them also.
The Moon is a big dust.



The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported
it's time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is
traveling fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy
sweeps by the earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of
aurora activity". From:http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction.php

That's not acoustic. *That's just particles streaming out into space, and
because there's not many other particles to bump into, most of them get to
Earth

Cars produce the hot wind (exhaust pipe) with the acoustic waves. Is
possible to produce only streaming?
There must be the oscillatory flow.
S*

you produce hot wind also... you should learn to listen and get into
this century. no, the solar wind is not oscillatory, it flows from
the sun all the way past pluto. it also varies in speed quite a bit
so if the light was being propagated by the particles in the solar
wind we would see large changes in the velocity and intensity coming
from the sun that would be very easy to measure, and would likely have
killed off all life long ago.

Speed of waves
 

napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Apr 2, 7:48 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Jim Lux" napisal w
...



Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of
hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun
in all directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's
outermost layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with
a
velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field
intensity around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically
30,000-50,000 nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in
particular, flows can be several times faster; the interplanetary
magnetic field (IMF) may also be much stronger."

Sure... the number density of ionized particles is somewhat bigger than
the 5/cc you describe above, so solar wind is actually not a big
contributor to it. Most of the ionization comes from UV ionizing the air
atoms/molecules. (that's what the whole daytime sky wave off the F layer
is all about, after all.. working Australia from the California on 20
meters at 5AM CA time probably isn't a good bet)

In space is also the dust. The ionized particles can come from them also.
The Moon is a big dust.



The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported
it's time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is
traveling fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy
sweeps by the earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of
aurora activity". From: http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction.php

That's not acoustic. That's just particles streaming out into space, and
because there's not many other particles to bump into, most of them get
to
Earth

Cars produce the hot wind (exhaust pipe) with the acoustic waves. Is
possible to produce only streaming?
There must be the oscillatory flow.
S*

you produce hot wind also...

But also with nois.

you should learn to listen and get into this century. no, the solar wind
is not oscillatory,

Yes. But if no the sunspost (explosions).

it flows from the sun all the way past pluto. it also varies in speed
quite a bit
so if the light was being propagated by the particles in the solar
wind we would see large changes in the velocity and intensity coming
from the sun that would be very easy to measure

Good idea. Have you a procedure for such measurements. But the changes are
rather small.

, and would likely have killed off all life long ago.

The changes makes auroras only.
S*

Speed of waves
 

On Apr 2, 4:05*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
napisal w ...
On Apr 2, 7:48 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"Jim Lux" napisal w
...

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of
hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun
in all directions, a result of the two-million-degree heat of the Sun's
outermost layer, the corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with
a
velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cm3 and magnetic field
intensity around 2-5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically
30,000-50,000 nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in
particular, flows can be several times faster; the interplanetary
magnetic field (IMF) may also be much stronger."

Sure... the number density of ionized particles is somewhat bigger than
the 5/cc you describe above, so solar wind is actually not a big
contributor to it. Most of the ionization comes from UV ionizing the air
atoms/molecules. (that's what the whole daytime sky wave off the F layer
is all about, after all.. working Australia from the California on 20
meters at 5AM CA time probably isn't a good bet)

In space is also the dust. The ionized particles can come from them also.
The Moon is a big dust.

The aurora is NOT caused by acoustic waves.

" In the explosive event that a coronal mass ejection (CME) is reported
it's time to hop into action because this super-charged solar wind is
traveling fast (maybe 3-to-5 million miles per hour). When this energy
sweeps by the earth 1-to-3 nights later there is a very good chance of
aurora activity". From: *http://aurorahunter.com/aurora-prediction..php

That's not acoustic. That's just particles streaming out into space, and
because there's not many other particles to bump into, most of them get
to
Earth

Cars produce the hot wind (exhaust pipe) with the acoustic waves. Is
possible to produce only streaming?
There must be the oscillatory flow.
S*

you produce hot wind also...

But also with nois.

you should learn to listen and get into this century. *no, the solar wind
is not oscillatory,

Yes. But if no the sunspost (explosions).

it flows from the sun all the way past pluto. *it also varies in speed
quite a bit
so if the light was being propagated by the particles in the solar
wind we would see large changes in the velocity and intensity coming
from the sun that would be very easy to measure

Good idea. Have you a procedure for such measurements. But the changes are
rather small.

, and would likely have killed off all life long ago.

The changes makes auroras only.
S*

no, the changes don't always make aurora, and they are definately NOT
small. watch the speed on this for a few months, even without aurora
and see how much it changes. if the waves were traveling on the
charged particles then they would change speed just as much:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html

Speed of waves
 

napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Apr 2, 4:05 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The changes makes auroras only.
S*

no, the changes don't always make aurora, and they are definately NOT
small. watch the speed on this for a few months, even without aurora
and see how much it changes. if the waves were traveling on the
charged particles then they would change speed just as much:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html

"A large solar flare jettisoned from the sun, striking the Earth four days
later"

Read mo Effects of Solar Wind | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/about_5124161_ef...#ixzz1ITcThhIf

150 000 000km / 4days = 150 000 000 / 350 000s = 430 km/s.

For you it is the speed of the solar wind.
For me it is the speed of acoustic waves.

According to Faraday and today scientist the plasma is like metal.
Ions are the medium for acoustic waves and electrons for the electric (in
metals and in plasma).

Have you a link with the method for measure the speed of solar wind?

S*

Speed of waves
 

On Apr 3, 4:26*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
napisal w ...
On Apr 2, 4:05 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



The changes makes auroras only.
S*
no, the changes don't always make aurora, and they are definately NOT

small. *watch the speed on this for a few months, even without aurora
and see how much it changes. *if the waves were traveling on the
charged particles then they would change speed just as much:http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html

"A large solar flare jettisoned from the sun, striking the Earth four days
later"

Read mo Effects of Solar Wind | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/about_5124161_effects-solar-wind.html#ixzz1ITcThhIf

150 000 000km / 4days = 150 000 000 / 350 000s = 430 km/s.

For you it is the speed of the solar wind.
For me it is the speed of acoustic waves.

According to Faraday and today scientist the plasma is like metal.
Ions are the medium for acoustic waves and electrons for the electric (in
metals and in plasma).

Have *you a link with the method for measure the speed of solar wind?

S*

go to that link i gave you above, the 'normal' speed of the solar wind
like now is over 500km/s, it gets much faster when there is a coronal
hole or from a cme.