Two Theories

Cosmic ray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cosmic radiation)
"Cosmic radiation" redirects here. For some other types of cosmic radiation, see cosmic background radiation and cosmic background (disambiguation). For the film, see Cosmic Ray (film).

Cosmic rays are immensely high-energy radiation, mainly originating outside the Solar System.[1] They may produce showers of secondary particles that penetrate and impact the Earth's atmosphere and sometimes even reach the surface. Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei, they are of mysterious origin. Data from the Fermi space telescope (2013)[2] have been interpreted as evidence that a significant fraction of primary cosmic rays originate from the supernovae of massive stars.[3] However, this is not thought to be their only source. Active galactic nuclei probably also produce cosmic rays.

The term ray is a historical accident, as cosmic rays were at first, and wrongly, thought to be mostly electromagnetic radiation. In common scientific usage[4] high-energy particles with intrinsic mass are known as "cosmic" rays, and photons, which are quanta of electromagnetic radiation (and so have no intrinsic mass) are known by their common names, such as "gamma rays" or "X-rays", depending on their frequencies.

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[9]

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements.[10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.
 
Last edited:
They're ALL idiots but SSDD S H I N E S in this regard. Notice the CMB is not mentioned once.

ps: the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all thermodynamics IS statistics.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard ANYONE use the term cosmic radiation to refer to the CMB. Never. Where do you get that crap?
 
Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
2. That you screwed something up.

Apply Occam's razor to the facts we know regarding the climate and CO2. Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were supposedly safe...the small bit of warming that happened after 1940 stopped around 1998 while CO2 levels have continued to rise. Further, we know that CO2 follows temperature and we know that the present ice age began with CO2 levels above 1000ppm.

Which is more likely? CO2 drives the temperature, or CO2 does not drive the temperature and correlation is being construed as causation?
 
Last edited:
Go type "cosmic radiation" into wiki, and you'll get the same page as "cosmic rays". The two terms are basically interchangeable.

What SSDD is rambling about here is .... well, some of it is about "cosmic background radiation", a rather different thing. And some is just him getting hysterical. The basic point is that he doesn't know what he's talking about either.


Wiki??? I am laughing in your face again.
 
Cosmic ray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cosmic radiation)
"Cosmic radiation" redirects here. For some other types of cosmic radiation, see cosmic background radiation and cosmic background (disambiguation). For the film, see Cosmic Ray (film).

Cosmic rays are immensely high-energy radiation, mainly originating outside the Solar System.[1] They may produce showers of secondary particles that penetrate and impact the Earth's atmosphere and sometimes even reach the surface. Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei, they are of mysterious origin. Data from the Fermi space telescope (2013)[2] have been interpreted as evidence that a significant fraction of primary cosmic rays originate from the supernovae of massive stars.[3] However, this is not thought to be their only source. Active galactic nuclei probably also produce cosmic rays.

The term ray is a historical accident, as cosmic rays were at first, and wrongly, thought to be mostly electromagnetic radiation. In common scientific usage[4] high-energy particles with intrinsic mass are known as "cosmic" rays, and photons, which are quanta of electromagnetic radiation (and so have no intrinsic mass) are known by their common names, such as "gamma rays" or "X-rays", depending on their frequencies.

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[9]

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements.[10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.


Oh look...another wikidiot.
 
ps: the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all thermodynamics IS statistics.

Really? You think a branch of mathematics is an actual mechanism, or is it a means to attempt to describe a mechanism?

Think carefully. Perhaps you need a definition of the word mechanism. " the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished." You think mathematics is the actual force that causes energy to behave in one way or another?

You lost this discussion when you were abraham and you are losing it again. Congratulations.
 
I have never heard ANYONE use the term cosmic radiation to refer to the CMB. Never. Where do you get that crap?


Unlike you, I do not turn to dubious sources like wiki when I want to learn something. I referred to Physlink.com. Doubt that you have ever heard of them...they aren't your sort of people, no agenda.

The PhysLink.com is a comprehensive physics and astronomy online education, research and reference web site. In addition to providing high-quality content, PhysLink.com is a meeting place for professionals, students and other curious minds.
 
The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley" to a question posted by another reader. The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from : Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.

Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.

No one was talking about the CMB.
 
Last edited:
Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.

To SSDD, however, the century-old field of Statistical Mechanics is some kind of socialist plot. Quite of bit of the past century of physics is considered to be a vast conspiracy by the Sky Dragon Slayer kooks. Crafty, how all those physicists over all those years were part of the conspiracy, one just coming to fruition now. Illuminati, maybe?

The conclusion: SSDD is a bitter cult retard. And he can't be saved. He's too deeply entrenched in his hatred of rational people, so he'll go to his grave a bitter cult retard.
 
Last edited:
The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley" to a question posted by another reader. The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from : Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.

Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.

No one was talking about the CMB.

Because no student has ever taught a professor?

And because no textbook has ever contained "information" that turned out, upon further research, to have been in error?

Face facts, pricky, you use wiki because you cannot possibly comprehend any source that might have genuine science in it.
 
Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.

To SSDD, however, the century-old field of Statistical Mechanics is some kind of socialist plot. Quite of bit of the past century of physics is considered to be a vast conspiracy by the Sky Dragon Slayer kooks. Crafty, how all those physicists over all those years were part of the conspiracy, one just coming to fruition now. Illuminati, maybe?

The conclusion: SSDD is a bitter cult retard. And he can't be saved. He's too deeply entrenched in his hatred of rational people, so he'll go to his grave a bitter cult retard.

^ Classic projection from a Cult member. This is what a cry for help looks like
 
The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley" to a question posted by another reader. The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from : Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.

Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.

No one was talking about the CMB.

Because no student has ever taught a professor?

And because no textbook has ever contained "information" that turned out, upon further research, to have been in error?

Face facts, pricky, you use wiki because you cannot possibly comprehend any source that might have genuine science in it.

Tell you what Swifty, here's a little challenge. Why don't we each go looking for OTHER sources - NAMED SOURCES that back up our contentions? Let's see if you can find another physics reference source that says the terms "cosmic radiation" or "cosmic rays" most commonly refer to the cosmic background radiation.
 
The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley" to a question posted by another reader. The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from : Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.

Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.

No one was talking about the CMB.

Because no student has ever taught a professor?

And because no textbook has ever contained "information" that turned out, upon further research, to have been in error?

Face facts, pricky, you use wiki because you cannot possibly comprehend any source that might have genuine science in it.

Tell you what Swifty, here's a little challenge. Why don't we each go looking for OTHER sources - NAMED SOURCES that back up our contentions? Let's see if you can find another physics reference source that says the terms "cosmic radiation" or "cosmic rays" most commonly refer to the cosmic background radiation.

Oooh. Pricky has come up with a withering new moniker alteration: "Swifty."

Impressive.

Now, that aside, why would I elect to go on a search mission to satisfy your curiosity?

You have Google and you have wiki. So you're all set, little boy.

Go spend your days in that intelligent effort.

Get back to us in a few months.


GO!

:lol::lol:
 
http://three.usra.edu/concepts/SpaceRadiationEnviron.pdf

NRC: Glossary -- Cosmic radiation

Cosmic Rays - Introduction

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

cosmic ray: Definition from Answers.com (This gives four separate answers from four different encyclopedias)

Cosmic Rays

Space radiation hits record high - space - 29 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cosmic rays | Define Cosmic rays at Dictionary.com

CosmicRay.com

In three pages of results from searching ixQuick with "cosmic radiation, cosmic rays", the ONLY response that did not support my position was the one you used. EVERY other result understood the terms cosmic radiation and cosmic rays to refer to high energy particles, NOT to the CMB.

Fucking idiot.
 
Last edited:
Are Cosmic Rays Electromagnetic Radiation?
On one of your web pages it is stated that "Particles and high-energy light that bombard the Earth from anywhere beyond its atmosphere are known as cosmic rays." Yet on one of the linked pages it is stated that "For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum." I would like to know if some cosmic rays consist of high energy electromagnetic radiation (or are they all particulate?).

Some people still call high energy photons (x-rays and gamma rays) cosmic rays, and you'll still see that in some textbooks. The more common usage (at least in scientific circles) is to call particles cosmic rays, and to call photons either x-rays or gamma rays.

Dr. Eric Christian
-- NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Cosmic Rays

I hope you do realize, pricky/abe, that people sometimes do speak with a level of imprecision that doesn't amount to actual ignorance of the subject matter.

Nah. A tool like you would never admit the obvious if it doesn't suit your hackneyed agenda.
 
If you don't want me to come back at you so hard, don't be so quick to insult me.

However, I am will to offer a truce. No more names.
 
Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.

To SSDD, however, the century-old field of Statistical Mechanics is some kind of socialist plot. Quite of bit of the past century of physics is considered to be a vast conspiracy by the Sky Dragon Slayer kooks. Crafty, how all those physicists over all those years were part of the conspiracy, one just coming to fruition now. Illuminati, maybe?

The conclusion: SSDD is a bitter cult retard. And he can't be saved. He's too deeply entrenched in his hatred of rational people, so he'll go to his grave a bitter cult retard.

^ Classic projection from a Cult member. This is what a cry for help looks like

The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?

Albert Einstein once said that of all his contributions to science, he though his theories in statistical physics were probably the ones that would endure because the only logical assumptions were assumption based on large numbers.

But Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics in the 19th century, was definitely a scientific pioneer swimming against a huge consensus of 'settled science' that rejected faith in or study of aggregate behavior in any system. But as Boltzmann's theories gradually gained credibility, a whole new field of science was born and now the concept is so widely accepted, it is a component of almost all advanced curriculum in engineering and Earth sciences.

So perhaps the skeptics who are looking at the big picture of aggregate influences on Earth's climate are more reasonable than those who are determined to make CO2 a primary villain in climate change
 
They Mythbusters "Experiment" was, um , not really clear on the amounts of CO2 in the tanks, were they?

It might have been none in one and 380PPM in the second, but we have no way of knowing.

All we know is that the CO2 tank was only 1 degree above the control tank.

Weird.
 
The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?

Nope. It's only SSDD and the "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!" crowd who deny that the Second Law is based on statistics, and other basics of Statistical Mechanics.

Albert Einstein once said that of all his contributions to science, he though his theories in statistical physics were probably the ones that would endure because the only logical assumptions were assumption based on large numbers.

But Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics in the 19th century, was definitely a scientific pioneer swimming against a huge consensus of 'settled science' that rejected faith in or study of aggregate behavior in any system. But as Boltzmann's theories gradually gained credibility, a whole new field of science was born and now the concept is so widely accepted, it is a component of almost all advanced curriculum in engineering and Earth sciences.

Just like how global warming science slowly changed the consensus. Why? Because it got correct results.

Denialism could change the consensus ... if it could get correct results. So far, it doesn't.

So perhaps the skeptics who are looking at the big picture of aggregate influences on Earth's climate

The mainstream scientists, in other words. Where on earth did you get the crazy idea that scientists don't look at aggregate influences?
 

Forum List

Back
Top