There’s no guessing about these. They aren’t anemic sunspecks that may or may not have been visible a couple of centuries ago. They are the real deal. Sunspot group 1026 on the lower left edge and newly formed group 1027 above the equator. While a couple of spots aren’t yet enough to end the solar drought we’ve seen, they are encouraging.
All of the spots are about the size of the Earth. You may recall that group 1026 was first, ahem, “spotted” by the stereo behind system which we covered last week on WUWT. The two groups have the potential to produce some solar flares. Group 1026 produced a few B-Class solar flares, 1027 has been quiet. Here’s the SWPC report defining both regions:
:Product: Solar Region Summary :Issued: 2009 Sep 23 0031 UTC # Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, # Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force. # Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary SRS Number 266 Issued at 0030Z on 23 Sep 2009 Report compiled from data received at SWO on 22 Sep I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type 1026 S30E54 217 0030 Cso 09 02 Beta 1027 N24E32 239 0040 Dro 05 04 Beta IA. H-alpha Plages without Spots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Sep Nmbr Location Lo None II. Regions Due to Return 23 Sep to 25 Sep Nmbr Lat Lo None Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/SRS.txt
The 10.7 cm solar radio flux took a jump to 75 today, it may go higher as 1026/1027 continues to grow. It remains to be seen whether this is just a temporary energetic burst, with a lapse back to spotlessness, or if it heralds a new more active period of solar cycle 24.
:Product: Solar Region Summary :Issued: 2009 Sep 23 0031 UTC # Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, # Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force. # Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Region Summary SRS Number 266 Issued at 0030Z on 23 Sep 2009 Report compiled from data received at SWO on 22 Sep I. Regions with Sunspots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Nmbr Location Lo Area Z LL NN Mag Type 1026 S30E54 217 0030 Cso 09 02 Beta 1027 N24E32 239 0040 Dro 05 04 Beta IA. H-alpha Plages without Spots. Locations Valid at 22/2400Z Sep Nmbr Location Lo None II. Regions Due to Return 23 Sep to 25 Sep Nmbr Lat Lo None
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tallbloke
A quick look at google shows a wiki article that quotes early research showing quantised redshifts (not the quantisation you quote 72 years being smallest quantisation) but the majority of the later research finds little if any evidence for quantisation.
A good 30% of the google hits are from creationists sites trying to disprove the big-bang to further their beliefs.
—-
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2002)
Abstract: We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency.
Famed modern geocentrist Gerardus Bouw declares that redshift quantization implies that the Earth is at the center of the universe in his book Geocentricity (Cleveland , 1992).
Answers in Genesis discusses Halton Arp’s advocacy of redshift quantization as evidence against the Big Bang
Can someone explain how such small redshifts can be detected?
The earth is being flung around like a Lotto ball, The atmospheric density is certainly not stable.
A few hundred nanometres of movement would upset readings.
So how is it done – a question not a criticism!
tallbloke (13:47:53) :
get your facts straight before trying to rubbish people who obviously know more than you about the subject.
Most of those folks are pseudo-scientists [creationists and the like] and it is not so much them that I rubbish [as they do not post here], it is you.
And try to understand that you are confused about the different sources of the redshifts. The motion of the Earth through space, the motions of the Galaxy within of local group of ~19 galaxies, and the motion of our local group with your local super cluster all gives rise to a [small] combined signal in the measured redshift, but the largest part of the cosmological redshift, e.g. from a quasar with a redshift corresponding to 6 times the speed of light does not arise from motion through space at all. Instead, space is expanding, stretching the light we observed and making it redder. no motions are involved.
What Arp and some of those people were trying to do was to argue that the redshift was due to matter trown out of distant galaxies at high speeds. But all of that is water under the bridge a long time ago. Nobody pays any attention to those [observationally disproved] ideas, except assorted pseudo-scientists and creationists, of which we unfortunately have a fairly high [and vocal] proportion on this very blog.
tallbloke (13:47:53) :
observed by Tift, Arp, Guthrie, Napier, Arlikar and others. […]
Get off your high horse and get your facts straight
Fact: ‘Arlikar’ does not exist, except on pseudo-scientific websites wherefrom ignorant people pick up their garbage. The name is Narlikar, and he was a co-worker of Hoyle, trying to maintain the Steady-State hypothesis, and BTW was no observer.
bill (04:41:31) :
They take a spectrographic image of a galaxies nucleus.
Sloan Digital Sky Survey has lots of them.
NED has a search form for the object you wish to check for redshift data:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/z.html
The Milky Way, such as it is structured and our location within it, interferes also.
The deepest redshifts are commonly to be found at 90 degrees or close to it from the galaxy plane (Lynx in the N. Hemisphere). High-latitude galactic clouds do the rest of the interfering, so one has to avoid them (pick the holes) also.
Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field areas were chosen specifically to take advantage of these facts. They didn’t just aim Hubble anywhere.
Reminds me of my fascination for galaxy clusters (Abells):
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/aco851.htm
The cosmological yardstick of galaxy clusters.
What I was doing before this Sun thing came along.
Do you think that the AGW mob is celebrating the return of sunspots? Even although they don’t believe that the sun has anything to do with the climate…..
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
space is expanding,
All your reasoning for this proposal rests on circular definitions and self referential arguments, dressed up with a lot of extraneous supposition and observations reinterpreted to fit a half baked theory.
Other theories such as Hoyle’s steady state theory also have their own lacunae and difficulties. At least they don’t rely on dark matter and the biggest violation of the most fundamental law of physics though.
I don’t regard any of these theories as supreme, or correct, or wrong. I recognise them for what they are. Tentative hypotheses with known difficulties. In short, I approach them scientifically.
And I don’t needlessly slag people off while I do it either.
bill (04:18:12) :
Tallbloke
A quick look at google shows a wiki article that quotes early research showing quantised redshifts (not the quantisation you quote 72 years being smallest quantisation) but the majority of the later research finds little if any evidence for quantisation.
“1. Many of the surveys use data that is not accurate enough. Tifft has shown that statistically (and I am a trained statistician and can confirm this) you cannot find a 72 km/s periodicity if the data has typical errors of more than 18 km/s. I would say that it is highly desirable that the data be more accurate than 10 km/s. I have been told that you will not get these results when you use the newer, bigger surveys of galaxies. That is correct, because the 2sF survey has accuracy of +/-85 km/s and the SDSS survey +/-30 km/s, both insufficient to detect a 72 km/s periodicity.”
—-
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2002)
“2. Most of the astronomers do not use the reference frame of the centre of our galaxy. We are moving around the galaxy at something like 220 km/s and so depending on which direction in the sky we look, this affects each measurement by anything from -220 km/s through to +220 km/s, which would obviously totally destroy the delicate pattern. Actually, later Tifft reported that the periodicity was also present in the rest frame of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and we have a 370 km/s velocity relative to that.”
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
I’ll try to find what the error margin on the 2dF survey is compared with the 2sF survey Ray Tomes refers to. I’ll also try to access the paper you reference to find out the rest frame they run their calculations from.
Proving there are no periodicities from the incorrect rest frame is about as useful as proving there is no link between the sun and temperature if you use the wrong statistical technique to look for it.
tallbloke (09:05:35) :
In short, I approach them scientifically.
Your posts demonstrate otherwise.
Jimmy Haigh (08:52:12) :
If they are, it’s liable to be another thorn in thier sides (regret).
They have not ‘returned’ as much as they have re-spiked, as in no steady stream having materialized to this point.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/1024_1027ssn_fac.PNG
(if image not available, use this page and graph is at bottom)
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin4.htm
I have no way to tell you how much magnetic strength is consumed in producing facula as opposed to sunspot umbra/penaumbra. I suspect it is far less.
Leif Svalgaard (09:45:58) :
Your posts demonstrate otherwise.
[snip ~ back down that tone ~ ctm]
tallbloke (09:32:07) :
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
Figure 2 shows the result form what is claimed to be 48 spirals in the Virgo cluster in 11 km/s bins with no smoothing. The total range is from 0 to 1100 km/s, so there should be 100 bins. When you try to distribute 48 spirals into 100 bins, at least 52 bins have to be empty, which they clearly are not…
The ‘trained statistian’ really has a problem here. And what happened to your ‘common sense’.
[snip, Leif please try to be more polite ~ ctm]
[snip]
I’ll help you along. Here
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galgrps/vir.html
are the best modern data from the Virgo cluster [unless I’m mistaken – and I’m not in the mood to chase down every single measurement]. There is a table with the 164 largest galaxies [includes all of the spirals]. The average speed is 1571 km/s. All speeds are relative to the CMB. You can see there is a large scatter because of motions of the individual galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster. And here is a histogram of the distribution in 11 km/s bins as suggested by your link: http://www.leif.org/research/Virgo-Cluster-Velocities.png As you and everybody else can see, there is no clustering about velocities 71 km/s apart [marked by the vertical lines]. This is science, and independent verification [debunking in this case]. This is the view from the high horse.
Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24) :
tallbloke (09:32:07) :
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
What Arp was trying to show [and failed] was that there were large explosions in galaxy clusters that would perturb or propel waves of galaxies every so often. That would produce peaks [not observed, but let that slide] at regular interval in the observed redshift. But as you can see there is already a very large spread [between 0 and 3000 km/s with mean at 1591]. The redshift we observe is the combination of real motions of the galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster and of the cosmological redshift that does not correspond to any motion of the galaxies. Since Virgo is relatively close, the two effects are about equal, but as we go to galaxies farther away, the [real] motions within the group become negligible compared to the cosmological redshift, the latter not the result of motion at all, but to expansion of space.
Leif Svalgaard (11:49:09) :
The redshift we observe is the combination of real motions of the galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster and of the cosmological redshift that does not correspond to any motion of the galaxies.
So, even if Arp and Tiffs were correct, those peaks would still only reflect the periodic explosions in groups, but not have any bearing on the BB or cosmology. The mixing of such things is a sure sign of the ignorance that surrounds this subject and how such may be used to further whatever other agenda may be peddled. ctm, this is but a general comment not directed at anybody in particular.
Leif, your data comes from LEDA, but you are using it at too small a scale to see anything interesting, because the error range is too large to resolve the smaller periodicities. However, the LEDA data is very useful in a broader analysis, see below.
The LEDA galaxy distribution
I. Maps of the local universe[*]
H. Courtois1 – G. Paturel1 – T. Sousbie1 – F. Sylos Labini2
1 – Centre de Recherche Astronomique de Lyon (CRAL), 9 avenue Charles André, 69561 Saint Genis Laval Cedex, France
2 – Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Paris XI, Bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Received 17 November 2003 / Accepted 1 March 2004
“One structure that can be seen very clearly in Fig. 5 is a kind of wave in the structures appearing in the upper left part of the figure and in the lower right. Such a deformation in a 2D map can be due to a large scale plane of galaxies in the 3D distribution.”
“In Fig. 9, one can see the first public datarelease (DR1) of the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey (SDSS; Abazajian et al. 2003). The first amazing fact to note is the continuity of bubbles, walls and void sequences up to a scale 6 times larger than the one we just discussed: up to z =0.2. The second point is the structure size: we can see a chain (or a wall) of galaxies extending about 300 Mpc. As a comparison, we plotted the CfA2 (Huchra & Burg 1992; Huchra et al. 1995) redshift survey containing the Great Wall of galaxies, which is about 100 Mpc long. We are now seeing a structure 10 times larger than the Great Wall. The 2dF redshift survey (Colless et al. 2001) probed a region with comparable depth to SDSS, revealing large-scale structure with equally impressive detail and complexity. Combined, these redshift surveys suggest structures as large as 300 Mpc in extent, probably associated with “walls” of galaxy clusters.”
“One structure that can be seen very clearly in Fig. 5 is a kind of wave in the structures appearing in the upper left part of the figure and in the lower right. Such a deformation in a 2D map can be due to a large scale plane of galaxies in the 3D distribution. This wave passes through Perseus-Pisces, Pavo-Indus, Hydra-Centaurus, Virgo and Coma superclusters.”
“We can really begin to speak about hierarchy in the large-scale structures, another word for scale invariance. Studies of the statistical properties of such distributions are ongoing and we will present them soon.”
“With the astonishing large-scale structure observed by 2MASS, SDSS, 2dF and through the LEDA archive, it is increasingly clear that cosmological models must account for structures ten times larger than previously simulated, going up to 300 Mpc long. We cannot simply estimate the scale at which one is looking at the structure, just by looking at the maps: we are seeing similar structures at different scales.”
=============================================
So despite the resolution being insufficient to identify the 72km/s periodicity found by Tifft, Guthrie, Napier and others in their small scale – high accuracy studies, astronomers are currently discovering large scale structures which “look similar at different scales”. In other words, harmonically related structures.
The Big Bang theory didn’t predict this, not does it have any particularly convincing explanations for it. It does dovetail perfectly with the wave harmonic theory of the universe however.
I love puzzles and mysteries .. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (11:49:09) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24) :
tallbloke (09:32:07) :
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
What Arp was trying to show [and failed] was that there were large explosions in galaxy clusters that would perturb or propel waves of galaxies every so often.
Yeah, but this is not what Ray Tomes or I am trying to discuss. Whatever Arp’s theory was is not so important, it’s the data he collected which matters.
What Guthrie and Napier set out to do was to disprove Tiffts findings. Instead, they ended up agreeing with them and extending them.
tallbloke (12:10:11) :
The Big Bang theory didn’t predict this, not does it have any particularly convincing explanations for it. It does dovetail perfectly with the wave harmonic theory of the universe however.
The fine-structure of the universe: voids and sheets, etc is, of course, a fact, but has nothing to do with the Big Bang. the structure is due to gravity. Simple computer simulations show that if you have even the slightest clumpiness, those will be magnified by gravity [especially in the presence of dark matter, without BTW the clusters would have long since dispersed.]. the clumpiness is measured by the number Q = 1/100,000 and is one of the only six numbers that govern our universe: http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers-page-5-1_1230.html
And is, indeed, very much part of the BB.
I love puzzles and mysteries .. 🙂
There is even more grandeur and wonder in real knowledge. As you go hunting for pseudo-knowledge on the internet, a vast ocean of existing real knowledge lies unexplored before you.
tallbloke (12:19:47) :
What Guthrie and Napier set out to do was to disprove Tiffts findings. Instead, they ended up agreeing with them and extending them.
Instead of responding to specific points, e.g. Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24), you just drone on. My criticism of Figure 2 in their paper, you selectively fail to answer.
From the Guthrie and Napier paper:
“No significant periodicity was found for the sample of 77 irregular galaxies.”
Their result [which by no means is accepted, but I don’t want to get into a largely incomprehensible discussion of that] can be interpreted as some kind of flows inside each cluster [and only for spirals] and has no bearing of the BB or cosmology. The most distant object we know has a redshift of 8.2, corresponding to a recessional speed of 2.5 million km/s, which you can compare with your 72 km/s.
Leif, what you consider ‘real knowledge’ I have studied extensively both at university and in my own time. I also study ‘non mainstream’ theories because in them, although they may not have so extensive a supporting structure as the mainstream, there are hidden gems which may be applicable to the future development and refinement of ‘consensus mainstream science’, or indeed a revolutionary new theory which sweeps away the old order. Such is the nature of the progress of discovery.
Your belief in the correctness of the current mainstream consensus cosmology is your affair, just be aware that ultimately, a belief in the Astronomer Royale’s assertion that we are nearly there and we are just mopping up the last few inconsistencies is just that, a belief.
I’m a skeptic, so I like to keep an eye on all the different and competing theories out there, and have no discomfort in knowing that we are nowhere near having ‘real knowledge’, just ever more sophisticated apprehensions and formulations, which may at any time be overturned by a startling new discovery.
That’s the joy of science, it isn’t a rigid dogma. Scientific institutions can tend towards rigidity and dogma however, and turn out a fair number of rigid dogmatists.
I don’t think you are one of them.
tallbloke (13:13:48) :
Scientific institutions can tend towards rigidity and dogma however, and turn out a fair number of rigid dogmatists.
I don’t think you are one of them.
I know scientific institutions, and they do not tend to dogma. Every new generation of eager students bent on ‘proving Einstein wrong’, or at least their professor sees to that.
What they do learn is how to distinguish facts from fiction. The seemingly rigid structure comes from the simple fact that science is built on solid ground. There is no such thing as ‘mainstream science’. Science is one. If it is not ‘mainstream’ it is not science. This does not mean that all scientists agree. Disagreement is the life blood of science, but the ‘dogma’ of reason [and observation] eventually resolves every disagreement, or reduces them to irrelevancies.
Leif Svalgaard (12:50:17) :
The most distant object we know has a redshift of 8.2, corresponding to a recessional speed of 2.5 million km/s, which you can compare with your 72 km/s.
As the scientists in the foregoing quotes have discovered, there are structures which appear similar at different scales. The whole point of the harmonic theory is that it scales.
Figure 2 shows the result form what is claimed to be 48 spirals in the Virgo cluster in 11 km/s bins with no smoothing. The total range is from 0 to 1100 km/s, so there should be 100 bins. When you try to distribute 48 spirals into 100 bins, at least 52 bins have to be empty, which they clearly are not…
It’s worth reading the paper a bit more closely before jumping to hasty conclusions and intemperate language:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf
“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre) , while Fig. 2 is a
plot of the redshift differences. A periodicity ~ 71 km s–1 is easily seen by eye; the
power spectrum analysis yields 71.1 km s–1. Its significance may be assessed by
identical analysis of random datasets, suitably constructed: the distribution obtained
from 104 Monte Carlo trials is shown in Fig. 3, from which it may be inferred that the
chance probability p of obtaining a signal of the strength observed in this period
range is ~ 10–5.”
My parentheses.
Leif Svalgaard (13:31:27) :
There is no such thing as ‘mainstream science’. Science is one. If it is not ‘mainstream’ it is not science.
Nasif Nahle got himself banned for discussing semantics with you and I’m not going there.
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.
Since you have read it so carefully, perhaps you could explain that is plotted. Differences between what? There are 48 numbers in the game.
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
The whole point of the harmonic theory is that it scales.
Explain in your own words what that means