Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter team up to tackle 65-year-old sun mystery

[Admin]

The Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter may have finally solved a solar puzzle that has troubled scientists for decades.

Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter team up to tackle 65-year-old sun mystery : Read more

 

[Classical Motion]

I never thought of it as a mystery. I think it's due to the property of the atmosphere and density. The atmosphere of Sol is much different than ours. Our atmospheric particles are neutral. The acceleration from collision is very quick and short. If we lower the density, the speed of the particles does not increase.

But the Sun's particles are electrified, and the acceleration can continue until another collision. In the Sun's liquid, this high density insure short travel and limited V. But up in the rarefied atmosphere....the particles has a longer path and acceleration duration for a higher V than down in the liquid. Thus much greater V of the atmospheric particles. And thus a higher temp.

It never puzzled me.

 

[commonsensephycist]

The Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter may have finally solved a solar puzzle that has troubled scientists for decades.

Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter team up to tackle 65-year-old sun mystery : Read more

Seriously??!! How does anyone take science seriously these days I mean everyone whose ever done it knows you put your hand right above the flames of a camp fire, that it's insanely hot compared to sticking ypur hand thru the flame, I mean ypu don't need a degree to understand the sun is no different. Heat is heat and the surface of a campfire flame is no different (except in temperature) to surface of the sun. I truly laugh at some of the articles written saying stuff like this one. You could asked me a decade ago and I'd say well heat rises therfore heat coming off the sun is of course hotter than the surface. Just like red hot coals are hotter than the surface etc. of a flame, just like the core of the sun(red hot coals) is hotter than the surface etc. Common sense should tell everyone in science that the Universe is not chaos, there's an order to it. Yet still science argues about order and chaos.. I'm starting to think it's all just one big game to these people drip drip information to let the public think " wow their making progress" when in reality their not, their just guessing because in my opinion looking thru a telescope is only a quarter of the way there when trying to understand or mathematically solve the universe..

Hey science ask me anything and I bet I can answer it without all the fat you guys leave on it trying to act like a degree in something we haven't even figured out yet is an accomplishment

The problem with science these days is they keep asking why,why,why instead they should be asking how,how,how. Why does gravity act like a force pulling in whatever direction, or why is space so empty compared to the "models" that say it should be more full.. Why are things so far apart, why did we just settle on the big bang when it doesn't make sense at all, why is space moving at different speeds in different directions. Most of all why was Omohomoa such a big deal when it was only a dang rock, and why won't governments of the world let us tell the public about Extraterrestrial life. I mean stop with the dumb how's and start with the why's..

 

[Classical Motion]

From what I have read, the only way one can understand energy and mass and physicality....is thru the study of statistics....with the concepts of math and information. At least this is the only strategy that is being used at the present time. And the way all theories are addressed as.

Personally I believe it to be a huge failure. It restricts and limits intellect. But that's easy for me to say because I have no skin in this game.

I think our very fundamental concepts about energy, mass and light, and don't forget gravity.....all are mis-understood. I don't think physicality needs math or information. Life might, but not physicality. Life is the only singularity detected.

I am satisfied with the latest classical theories but others are just as satisfied with these modern math concepts of time and space. Although I fail to concept them myself.

I think we're just as fundamentally ignorant as thousands of years ago. We just have much more comparative knowledge, not fundamental knowledge. More statistics.This knowledge gives us technology, but only more questions and mysteries about the fundamentals.

Your post reminded me of a song, tell me why baby, why baby, why baby why. I was thinking, how baby, how baby, how baby how.

I believe it to be done with and via structure. That's how. I think all physicality has structure....even force.

But some believe the idea of structure at these minute scales is non-existent. Too small for physical structure.

So the new denies the old, and the old denies the new.