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
Good luck on your SSN project, Leif.
Leif Svalgaard (16:51:39) :
tallbloke (15:00:30) :
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
For each of the two correct ways of looking at the redshift there are an unlimited number of pseudo-scientific ‘explanations’ that as the author stresses: “differ from the current approach of modern physics”.
Marmet’s work on Hydrogen and it’s effect on light transmission has been published in peer reviewed eminent astonomy journals. Your montheism is misplaced. If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
Dr. Paul Marmet recently retired from the Physics Faculty at the University of Ottawa. He was formerly a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, and from 1967 to 1982, he was director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Quebec. A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Marmet also served as a member of the executive committee for the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada from 1979 to 1984.
He is the author of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity vs. Classical Mechanics, published by Newton Physics Books in Gloucester, Ontario.
[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]
Hi Evan, we are discussing the redshift of the light from distant objects and it’s interpretation within the framework of cosmology and astronomy, “the queen of the sciences”. This is the best science blog – right?
This has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with evolution.
rbateman (21:22:50) :
I mentioned Picard and La Hire, who calibrated their drawing by transit.
Which does not help with the sunspot count or areas, because we do not know what criterion was used to include a spot.
I mentioned Greenwich who ran a system of imaging and projections to painstakingly measure for the purpose of taking the data aquisition out of the pencil & paper age and into the photographic revolution.
Greenwich is not in doubt, but does not help for the time before 1875.
You don’t know how to calibrate technology from 150 years ago?
I do not need to, just to calibrate the result.
You can beat the SSN record into proxied mush for all it’s worth, but it won’t do anything to prevent the recurrence of the problems that have repeatedly plagued it..
Since we know what those problems were we can certainly prevent them from recurring.
tallbloke (23:09:11) :
If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
We are not broad enough to handle just ANY competing theory, e.g. that the Earth is flat or hollow, that the Sun is solid iron, that special relativity is wrong, etc.
Marmet was a well-known crank, who not only believed that the redshift wasn’t a Doppler shift, but also that just about any theory since Newton are wrong: special & general relativity, Maxwell’s equations, quantum mechanics, you name it.
Now, he was correct about the redshift not being a Doppler shift, but for the wrong reason [‘tired light’]. The redshift is due to expansion of space and is not a Doppler shift. The galaxies are motionless in space [apart from very small individual – and real – proper motions around their mean position].
Marmet is so far out that nobody bothers with him. It reflects badly on you that you have been taken in by this nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (23:44:58) :
tallbloke (23:09:11) :
If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
Marmet was a well-known crank,
This is also the line adopted by the AGW ‘mainstream scientists’ like your old colleague Stephen Schneider against people like Dr Roy Spencer and Steve MacIntyre, and it reflects badly on you.
Marmet is so far out that nobody bothers with him.
Apart from the editors and reviewers of prominent astronomy journals apparently.
I witness the closing of ranks and the shuffling of feet among the astronomy community. It’s the closing of ranks and the suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field. It’s a tactic backed up by the same attitude in the Queen of the sciences through the efforts of people like yourself to convince the public that there is one voice, one theory, and one truth.
Nothing could be further from the it.
You have reverted to personal insult despite Charles the moderators admonition, and I tend to give as good as I get, so perhaps we should leave it there and ‘move on’.
Leif Svalgaard (23:44:58) :
Good luck with your project, Leif.
tallbloke (00:13:18) :
suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field.
Not to worry, science is in the end self-correcting, and nonsense like AGW and Marmet [and his ilk] is eventually weeded out.
Leif Svalgaard (01:51:27) :
tallbloke (00:13:18) :
suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field.
Not to worry, science is in the end self-correcting, and nonsense like AGW and Marmet [and his ilk] is eventually weeded out.
I hope science does get out of the quagmire of self delusion it has sunk into. Historically, wrong views have been able to persist for a very long time when the fonts of knowledge have become enclosed in the corridors of power. The power mongers need for a simplistic coherent public message to bolster their hegemony has over-ridden the many faceted search for a better description of reality, and the institutions of science have been willing accomplices in order to garner more golden eggs from the goose of state.
Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!
tallbloke (02:22:31) :
Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!
Nice words, but hollow, as the seekers’ definitions of ‘true’ are often at variance with the facts.
Leif Svalgaard (02:38:31) :
tallbloke (02:22:31) :
Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!
Nice words, but hollow, as the seekers’ definitions of ‘true’ are often at variance with the facts.
It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only. It used to be a fact that the Hubble ‘constant’ was a lot different to what it is now. It used to be a fact that the atom was indivisible. Facts are not immutable. Especially the ones based on assumptions and inadequate observation/mensuration, which in the final analysis, is nearly all of them.
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
That’s science.
Or you can continue to vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade yourself in the eyes of others.
That’s not science, it’s rhetoric.
I wonder why aren’t the MODS deleting this mess which has nothing to do with the subject of this Article.
Leif, you failed with your prediction (flux +80) so give it up, ~snip~ nobody knows what’s happening with the sun.
tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Well said….some of us might whimper, but others can see through the mist.
rbateman (00:02:47) :
Max in 2014, September?
Late 2015 according to my graph. And a long haul to 24/25 minimum.
tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Leif Svalgaard (02:38:31) :
tallbloke (02:22:31) :
It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only.
Still is.
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
H2 has been detected: there was about one hydrogen molecule for 250 hydrogen atoms in the early universe about the time which ended with ultraviolet light from the first galaxies and quasars transforming opaque, molecular hydrogen into the transparent, ionized universe we see today.
The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light]. What makes that idea crackpot is the need to modify all the rest of astronomy and physics to conform, e.g. to claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB] is not cosmological, but simply the temperature [3K] of space. But the real hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict. The BB theory predicts that there should be a rather complicated structure to the CMB, a structure that shows up as slightly warmer patches at certain distances from each other. Such a structure is observed, and the result matches very closely the predicted pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg
I see your [and your cohorts] preference for pseudo-science and crackpot theories as peddling the idea of ‘mainstream’ science [as you say] closing ranks as dictated by the power-mongers out there and that there should be a vast sort of conspiracy trying to keep the ‘truth’ from you. This sort of paranoia is not helpful, and is downright detrimental to science. Your ‘vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade’ bit you can keep to yourself as it is just frustrated diatribe.
tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space
To learn more about H2 in space you can consult:
Molecular hydrogen in space By F. Combes, Guillaume Pineau des Forêts, Cambridge University Press, 2000
Book overview
Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the Universe. In recent years, advances in theory and laboratory experiments coupled with breakthrough observations with important new telescopes and satellites have revolutionized our understanding of molecular hydrogen in space. It is now possible to address the question of how molecular hydrogen formed in the early Universe and the role it played in the formation of primordial structures. This volume presents articles from a host of experts who reviewed this new understanding at an international conference in Paris. It covers the theory of the physical processes and laboratory experiments, as well as the latest observations. It will be an invaluable reference for all students and researchers in astrophysics and cosmology.
Leif Svalgaard
tallbloke (02:22:31) :
It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only.
Still is.
OK Leif, I need an education. (it’s been quite awhile since I took physics) If I remember my physics, light sometimes acts like a wave and sometimes acts like a particle. ie, black holes, singularities (whichever is current) are strong enough gravity wells to trap light. Then there’s the slit experimint where waves counter each other making dark and light stripes. Like I said…may have changed in the last 20 years, I’d like to know what’s new.
Leif Svalgaard (07:11:22) :
tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
H2 has been detected: there was about one hydrogen molecule for 250 hydrogen atoms in the early universe about the time which ended with ultraviolet light from the first galaxies and quasars transforming opaque, molecular hydrogen into the transparent, ionized universe we see today.
According to Mermet’s citations, there are still plenty of hydrogen atoms floating about in space which are easier for UV to ionise than hydrogen molecules. Due to their strong associative tendency, around twenty times more hydrogen atoms are now paired up as hydrogen molecules now, but due to the spin/charge canceling, they are not detectable via absorption lines with radio telescopes.
The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
But according to you, the galaxies aren’t moving, it’s space which is expanding. Nice try at obfuscation though.
What makes that idea crackpot is the need to modify all the rest of astronomy and physics to conform, e.g. to claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB] is not cosmological, but simply the temperature [3K] of space.
This is what is observed in the steady state universe we are left in after the redshift is accounted for by light being delayed by the interstellar medium of hydrogen molecules, according to Mermet’s theory. The hydrogen also accounts for the ‘missing mass’ in Big Bang theory, and has been observationally confirmed by studies of galactic rotation, without the need for ‘dark matter’, (the mysterious black spackle which glues the Big Bang universe together), or the ‘clouds of brown dwarfs’ or other space junk dreamed up by those anxious to save Big Bang theory.
But the real hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict. The BB theory predicts that there should be a rather complicated structure to the CMB, a structure that shows up as slightly warmer patches at certain distances from each other. Such a structure is observed, and the result matches very closely the predicted pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg
There is lots of large scale structure in the universe, as my earlier post from the LEDA data examination shows. It isn’t explained and wasn’t predicted by Big Bang theorists. In fact, it was a steady state theoretician who got the closest to predicting the temperature of the CMB, and the Big Bangers were out by a margin of more than an order of magnitude.
I see your [and your cohorts] preference for pseudo-science and crackpot theories as peddling the idea
I’ve patiently explained to you several times that I examine and evaluate the competing theories, Big Bang included, without being “taken in” by any of them. Yet you persist in characterising me and others here as ‘pseudo science crackpots’ ‘taken in’ by other theories than those you personally subscribe to.
of ‘mainstream’ science [as you say] closing ranks as dictated by the power-mongers out there and that there should be a vast sort of conspiracy trying to keep the ‘truth’ from you. This sort of paranoia is not helpful, and is downright detrimental to science.
Puhlease. So you don’t think AGW science has been influenced by the paymasters of the political agenda?
Your ‘vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade’ bit you can keep to yourself as it is just frustrated diatribe.
No, it’s yours. Look:
Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (17:18:12) :
the pseudo-science is demonstration on your part.
Reply: Leif could you tone it down..pretty please? ~ ctm
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
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.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
assorted pseudo-scientists and creationists, of which we unfortunately have a fairly high [and vocal] proportion on this very blog.
Leif Svalgaard (16:51:39) :
pay more attention to what is known that to this rambling nonsense.
[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]
You might have fooled Evan the moderator, but you are not fooling me, so leave off the insults, misdirection, obfuscation and general breast beating, and let’s discuss the science.
Steve M. (07:31:24) :
OK Leif, I need an education.
Would be too much for this forum, but there are excellent stuff on the web [just steer clear of the junk]. Wikie has some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
And on light and straight lines [or more correctly: straightest lines]: http://www.astro.washington.edu/courses/astro211/CosmicPersp/Chapter15.pdf
tallbloke (07:48:26) :
The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
But according to you, the galaxies aren’t moving, it’s space which is expanding. Nice try at obfuscation though.
Redshifts are observed to be much larger than 1, z=8 for galaxies, and z=1100 for CMB
There is lots of large scale structure in the universe, as my earlier post from the LEDA data examination shows.
It seems that you did not bother to check out my link.
I’ve patiently explained to you several times that I examine and evaluate the competing theories, Big Bang included, without being “taken in” by any of them.
From your posts and the links you provide it is abundantly clear that you do not have the necessary background or elementary knowledge to evaluate those.
Puhlease. So you don’t think AGW science has been influenced by the paymasters of the political agenda?
But you cannot [as you do] generalize that to all science. The AGWers are the Marmets of science.
insults, misdirection, obfuscation and general breast beating
I call’um as I see’um. I fail to see how you can be insulted by being called a pseudo-scientist, after all that is as far away from mainstream science as one can get, and should make you proud to be on the forefront of your fight against the power-mongers of real science.
and let’s discuss the science
Your views forfeit that possibility, it seems. Science progresses nicely without your ‘evaluations’. In today’s climate of science illiteracy, it is important that real science is brought to the masses, and not the fringe stuff you find on dubious sites on the internet.
The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
I’d like a second bite of this cherry. What are you saying here Leif? That the many absorptions and emissions of photons by hydrogen molecules between distant galaxies and us can’t slow light down by more than a factor that would indicate an apparent recessional velocity of more than c?
Why would that be the case?
Leif, do you think we understand the nature of the universe? I think its nature is beyond human understanding, not that we shouldn’t try to understand as much as possible.
===========================
I don’t think we can even understand the limits of our understanding, but do suspect we are approaching them. Where’s the border beyond which our collective computers, that is human minds, cannot pass? I do think that the delineation of that border might be a useful thing.
=====================================
kim (08:29:21) :
Leif, do you think we understand the nature of the universe?
We do understand a lot already, and the pseudo-scientific theories people peddle claim to understand it even better, e.g.
Geoff Sharp (03:55:22) :
others can see through the mist.
tallbloke (08:23:04) :
That the many absorptions and emissions of photons by hydrogen molecules between distant galaxies and us can’t slow light down by more than a factor that would indicate an apparent recessional velocity of more than c?
Why would that be the case?
As I read Marmet [you might reread him and clear up any misunderstanding I might have – it is kind of dense and doesn’t make much sense, so perhaps easy to be mislead] to get a redshift, the light beam must decrease in energy [as redder photons have less energy – although Marmet also believes that E = h * frequency is wrong]. It can’t decrease to less energy than zero. Marmet doesn’t believe in relativity either [or in some of it – hard to tell from his obscure writings] and for instance claims that there is no gravitational bending on light, yet ignores the beautiful observations of gravitational lenses, e.g. at http://www.windows.ucar.edu/the_universe/images/ab2218_sm.jpg
The problem with him and other cranks is that they ignore the unity of science.
“I don’t think we can even understand the limits of our understanding, but do suspect we are approaching them.”
Not me! I’ve a long way to go before I reach my limits. Just exploring whether Einstein space can be made up entirely from boosts in Clifford algebra.
I do think that frontier science/philosophy/maths (because they are indistinguishable there) needs to explain itself better to the interested public.
Thanks Leif. If I understand what I read, light travels in a straight line, and it’s space that is “warped” by gravity making it appear that light is bent.
Sandy (09:38:18) :
I do think that frontier science/philosophy/maths (because they are indistinguishable there) needs to explain itself better to the interested public.
That is part of the reason I’m on this blog.