KorbenDallas Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: The northern lights were seen on Mt. Washington in New Hampshire yesterday. During the Carrington Even of 1859 Northern Lights were seen as far south as Washington D.C. We're pretty well protected from cosmic radiation by Earth's atmosphere here on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said: We're pretty well protected from cosmic radiation by Earth's atmosphere here on the ground. During the Carrington Event several telegraphers were burned by sparks jumping from the electromagnets that make the clickers click (1859). Had something like the Carrington event happened in modern times it would have burned out dozens if not hundreds of mainline transformers. Out atmosphere does NOT protect us. It is the magnetic field that diverts electrically charged particles from the sun to the poles which protects us. The atmosphere will block IR portions of the light from the sun (photons which were not charged) but will not block UV. That is why people get sunburns. From the UV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Out atmosphere does NOT protect us. It is the magnetic field that diverts electrically charged particles from the sun to the poles which protects us. The atmosphere will block IR portions of the light from the sun (photons which were not charged) but will not block UV. That is why people get sunburns. From the UV. Ba'al, what do you make of this? It indicates its both the atmosphere and the magnetic field... pulled from Wikipedia: Secondary cosmic rays When cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere they collide with atoms and molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen. The interaction produces a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower secondary radiation that rains down, including x-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons.[55] All of the produced particles stay within about one degree of the primary particle's path. Typical particles produced in such collisions are neutrons and charged mesons such as positive or negative pions and kaons. Some of these subsequently decay into muons, which are able to reach the surface of the Earth, and even penetrate for some distance into shallow mines. The muons can be easily detected by many types of particle detectors, such as cloud chambers, bubble chambers or scintillation detectors. The observation of a secondary shower of particles in multiple detectors at the same time is an indication that all of the particles came from that event. Cosmic rays impacting other planetary bodies in the Solar System are detected indirectly by observing high energy gamma ray emissions by gamma-ray telescope. These are distinguished from radioactive decay processes by their higher energies above about 10 MeV. Cosmic-ray flux The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays. At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%. However, the strength of the solar wind is not constant, and hence it has been observed that cosmic ray flux is correlated with solar activity. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle. The magnetic field lines deflect the cosmic rays towards the poles, giving rise to the aurorae. The combined effects of all of the factors mentioned contribute to the flux of cosmic rays at Earth's surface. The following table of participial frequencies reach the planet[57] and are inferred from lower energy radiation reaching the ground[58] particle energy (eV) particle rate (per square meter per second) 1×109 (GeV) 1×104 1×1012 (TeV) 1 1×1016 (10 PeV) 1×10−7 (a few times a year) 1×1020 (100 EeV) 1×10−9 (once a century) The table here shows how unlikely cosmic radiation is a problem for us here on the ground, and for the experiment. That's why the scientists never considered it explicitly, it's not an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Ba'al, I found this, too: Question What is cosmic radiation? Is it dangerous?Asked by: George T. Answer Cosmic radiation is a collection of many different types of radiation from many different types of sources. When people speak simply of 'cosmic radiation' they are usually referring specifically to the cosmic microwave background radiation. This consists of very, very low energy photons (energy of about 2.78 Kelvin) whose spectrum is peaked in the microwave region and which are remnants from the time when the universe was only about 200,000 years old. There are also very old remnant neutrinos in the cosmic radiation. Neutrinos pass through just about everything with no effect so they are harmless. The photons are too low in energy to be dangerous. On top of these there are higher energy particles that are being created constantly by all luminous objects in the universe. Photons of all different energies/wavelengths are being created by our sun, other stars, quasi-stellar objects, black-hole accretion disks, gamma-ray bursts and so on. These objects also produce high-energy massive particles such as electrons, muons, protons and anti-protons. These higher energy particles are potentially dangerous, but most of these particles never make it to the earth. They are deflected by magnetic fields between us and the source, or they interact with other particles, or they decay in flight. The particles that do make it to the earth interact with our atmosphere, which acts as a 'radiation shield.' The high-energy cosmic rays bombard us all the time, but they interact quickly, producing particles of much lower energy which impact the earth harmlessly. If this was dangerous to us, we wouldn't be here to discuss these things! Some particles, like neutrinos and high energy muons, are passing through us all the time, but they interact so weakly that they have no effect on our bodies. Of course, if we were in space without the protection of our atmosphere then we would need some other type of shielding from the radiation (spacesuits and protective covering on our spacecrafts). The radiation to worry about, of course, is the 'cosmic' radiation produced by our sun. There is only one type of cosmic radiation known to adversely affect us and that's UV radiation from our sun, which causes skin cancer in millions of people every year.. Again, our atmosphere serves as a shield, but ultraviolet photons do make it through -- and without that protective ozone layer which blocks these photons we're all going to need a lot more sunscreen!Answered by: Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said: Ba'al, what do you make of this? It indicates its both the atmosphere and the magnetic field... pulled from Wikipedia: Secondary cosmic rays When cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere they collide with atoms and molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen. The interaction produces a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower secondary radiation that rains down, including x-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons.[55] All of the produced particles stay within about one degree of the primary particle's path. Typical particles produced in such collisions are neutrons and charged mesons such as positive or negative pions and kaons. Some of these subsequently decay into muons, which are able to reach the surface of the Earth, and even penetrate for some distance into shallow mines. The muons can be easily detected by many types of particle detectors, such as cloud chambers, bubble chambers or scintillation detectors. The observation of a secondary shower of particles in multiple detectors at the same time is an indication that all of the particles came from that event. Cosmic rays impacting other planetary bodies in the Solar System are detected indirectly by observing high energy gamma ray emissions by gamma-ray telescope. These are distinguished from radioactive decay processes by their higher energies above about 10 MeV. Cosmic-ray flux The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays. At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%. However, the strength of the solar wind is not constant, and hence it has been observed that cosmic ray flux is correlated with solar activity. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle. The magnetic field lines deflect the cosmic rays towards the poles, giving rise to the aurorae. The combined effects of all of the factors mentioned contribute to the flux of cosmic rays at Earth's surface. The following table of participial frequencies reach the planet[57] and are inferred from lower energy radiation reaching the ground[58] particle energy (eV) particle rate (per square meter per second) 1×109 (GeV) 1×104 1×1012 (TeV) 1 1×1016 (10 PeV) 1×10−7 (a few times a year) 1×1020 (100 EeV) 1×10−9 (once a century) The table here shows how unlikely cosmic radiation is a problem for us here on the ground, and for the experiment. That's why the scientists never considered it explicitly, it's not an issue. If we are talking about electrically charged particles, then it is the magnetic field that diverts them. If you are talking about photons (which have no charge) the the atmosphere stops photons of certain frequencies but not of others. UV gets through. IR does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 41 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: If we are talking about electrically charged particles, then it is the magnetic field that diverts them. If you are talking about photons (which have no charge) the the atmosphere stops photons of certain frequencies but not of others. UV gets through. IR does not. So how 'bout that experiment? No UV, no IR, no neutrinos, no cosmic radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: So how 'bout that experiment? No UV, no IR, no neutrinos, no cosmic radiation. Anything out in the open can be bombarded with cosmic rays. For the experiment to be really kosher the subjects must be insulated to make sure no external physical influence is affecting their brain processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightyearsaway Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 I edited a video presenting some of the evidence for the notion that our self-esteem is an unconscious death anxiety reflex & cultural Illusion, as well as an interpretation of human history from this perspective. Definitely puts the work of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden in a different light: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Do you have an article to link to? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightyearsaway Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Do you have an article to link to? --Brant Here's a paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289309102_Thirty_Years_of_Terror_Management_Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 On 4/19/2017 at 11:45 AM, Lightyearsaway said: Here's a paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289309102_Thirty_Years_of_Terror_Management_Theory I perused but did not read this book. I don't have time. But managing terror requires self esteem. And if you want to refute Branden first state Branden's case. As to what I got from the link is a bunch of referenced opinions requiring maybe a year of reading what one hopes are primary sources and not just more of the same. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now