Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Ludwik Kowalski writes:
On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 13:38 US/Pacific, Leigh Palmer wrote:
> . . . Is it not true that the great majority of nuclear
> reactions taking place in the universe are driven
> by gravity? . . .
Yes, but you were referring to the "intergalactic
space that is nearly completely ionized," not to
stellar interiors.
> . . . It is thought that the ionization is due to
> gravitational interaction. . . .
That is very interesting and puzzling. I would think
that partial ionization of intergalactic atoms is due
to cosmic rays, UV, etc. But conditions near the
"edges of the infinite universe" are likely to
generate a lot of surprises. How reliable and
trustworthy is "experimental evidence"?
It's puzzling because it's wrong.
> I would think
that partial ionization of intergalactic atoms is due
to cosmic rays, UV, etc.
Well, that correctly explains how they *get*
ionized. But then you need to explain why
they *stay* ionized. (In epidemiological
terms, this is the difference between incidence
and prevalence.)
They would stay ionized if the responsible agent
was constantly present, for example, very strong
flux of cosmic rays.