The sun has seen a resurgence of activity in December, with a number of cycle 24 sunspots being seen. The latest is group 1039 seen below:
2009 is ending with a flurry of sunspots. Indeed, if sunspot 1039 holds together just one more day (prediction: it will), the month of December will accumulate a total of 22 spotted days and the final tally for the year will look like this: From Spaceweather.com
The dark line is a linear least-squares fit to the data. If the trend continues exactly as shown (prediction: it won’t), sunspots will become a non-stop daily occurance no later than February 2011. Blank suns would cease and solar minimum would be over.
If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.
Leif Svalgaard (09:46:04) :
2) that it makes sense [strike two, so far as we know from what meager info he has provided – one would expect more from the self-proclaimed greatest scientist alive]
No Leif, You proclaimed him the greatest scientist alive, He says:
I am neither:
(a.) a fool, nor
(b.) unusually talented.
Such simplistic binary thinking is not productive.
And I agree with him on this. What’s with the all or nothing, right or wrong, black or white, rhetoric? These are all tentative theories, including the mainstream ones on star formation. Get real.
At least Oliver is offering real data, empiical observations, and links to peer reviewed papers.
tallbloke (10:00:36) :
No Leif, You proclaimed him the greatest scientist alive
He says “I do not envy those who sat on the sidelines”
He employs the Holberg proof: ‘Greatest scientists against consensus; Oliver against consensus; Ergo …”
And if he is correct [which he presumably does not dispute] would make him the greatest of all time [proving thousands of astrophysicists wrong]. I’m just giving him the benefit [and the obligations that go with that] of possibility of being correct.
At least Oliver is offering real data, empirical observations, and links to peer reviewed papers.
Data that are not relevant for the issue. The paper in question is a review [and brings nothing new] at a conference and if peer-reviewed at all [I would like to see the reviewer’s report] only cursorily as peer-reviews are not supposed to also review papers cited and reviewed by the author.
You also avoided the issue [in spite of your protestations] namely to show where in the paper it was demonstrated that the Sun is not mainly Hydrogen as all other main sequence stars. you had two choices:
1) show where it shows so
2) agree with me that it does not show so or that you couldn’t see it either.
Oliver K. Manuel (09:16:40) :
Stars do not form out of the interstellar medium, Leif.
I guess here is where we must part.
I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
Oliver?
tallbloke (11:02:49) :
I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
And where the supernova came from?
I’d also like to know why Leif thinks self swirling clouds of hydrogen don’t have a problem transferring angular momentum to the spin of the proto-stars they allegedly form, but also thinks it’s impossible for the planets to transfer angular momentum to the spin of the sun.
Hmm? 🙂
tallbloke (11:07:40) :
I’d also like to know why Leif thinks self swirling clouds of hydrogen don’t have a problem transferring angular momentum to the spin of the proto-stars they allegedly form, but also thinks it’s impossible for the planets to transfer angular momentum to the spin of the sun.
1) the proto-star form from the cloud so has the angular momentum already
2) the proto-star has a stellar wind a hundred times stronger than the present Sun
3) frozen-in strong magnetic field lines provide the couple between star and planetary disk and AM is transferred FROM the star to the proto-planets, in the process slowing the star’s rotation to a crawl
4) as the system settles down, the wind abates and the transfer of AM FROM the star TO the planets effectively stops as the couple is essentially gone
5) without a couple there is no transfer of AM. At present the couples provided by the wind and tides are to weak to have any effect.
The flintstones universe!
shwarzenegger
I’ll be back.
/shwarzenegger
🙂
Quote: tallbloke (11:02:49) :
“I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
Oliver?”
Thanks, tallbloke.
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].
Likely in this manner: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
In 1983 Nature even acknowledged the demise (death, end) of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System [3].
2. Astronomers assure us that the Sun is a very ordinary star.
3. When stars explode, a neutron star and lots of iron are commonly seen, not Hydrogen like the stellar surface.
My conclusions:
a.) There is a neutron star at the core of the Sun.
b.) There is probably a neutron star at the core of each star.
c.) With greater certainty a neutron star is expected at the core of any star that is orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
[1] “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-209 http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
[2] “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277 (1979) 615-620
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
[3] “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System”, Nature 303 (1983) 286
REPLY: and the thread hijack continues…….A
JonesII (11:50:19) :
The flintstones universe!
Where even the Sun is made of stone
Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].
And where did that star come from?
Quote:
“REPLY: and the thread hijack continues…….A”
I apologize, Anthony. There will be no more posts here from me.
I deeply appreciate your efforts to bring the spotlight of public attention on Chimategate.
Thanks for your patience,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver:
Anthony is indicating he doesn’t want a discussion about your observations on the origin of the solar system here. It’s a fascinating subject, and I’ll set up a post with some of your material so we can continue this on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/oliver-manuel-on-the-solar-system/
Anthony and Leif, thanks as always for your patience.
Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].
You did certainly not observe that event.
Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
In 1983 Nature even acknowledged the demise (death, end) of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System [3]
The dogma was [back then] that ‘strange’ isotopic abundances were due to fractionation [as you seem to claim]. The consensus that seemed to emerge from that meeting was that a nearby supernova probably was responsible for the abundances. This is now the new [well-supported] dogma that supernovae may help trigger star formation by compressing the interstellar medium. It seems that you have misunderstood [or over-interpreted] what Swart was trying to say. Here is the Swart paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swart-1983.pdf
Your ‘demise-death-end’ bit is overblown. Swart calls it a ‘mild controversy that has simmered’. Time to be more honest, now.
Leif Svalgaard (12:34:21) :
And where did that star come from?
Stargate.
tallbloke (13:32:16) :
“And where did that star come from?”
Stargate.
It’s supernovae all the way down for Oliver’s thesis to make even a modicum of sense.
Leif Svalgaard (13:56:05) :
tallbloke (13:32:16) :
“And where did that star come from?”
Stargate.
It’s supernovae all the way down for Oliver’s thesis to make even a modicum of sense.
I think Oliver’s distinction between stars with orbiting planets and others may be a clue.
Bye for now.
Oliver writes:
Thanks, tallbloke, for continuing the discussion here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/oliver-manuel-on-the-solar-system/
I hope Leif will join us.
Can we let folks know that this a continuation of a discussion that was started on Watts Up With That:
Let the turtle piling commence!
anna v (10:08:40) :
Happy New Year to all and cold enough to throw a sokein the cart of fools’ wheels of AGW, but not too cold for the rest of us 🙂
Welcome to 20-10 Anna v. Perhaps a tribute for the “working man,” should be the best way to welcome in the NEW YEAR!
My little selection is called, “The Man With Hoe,” by Edwin Markam.
“As I looked at Millet’s “The Man With the Hoe,” I realized that I was looking on no mere man of the field: but was looking on a plundered peasant, typifiying the millions left over as the debris from the thousand wars of the masters and from their long industrial ooppressions, extending over the ages. This Hoe-man might be a stooped consumptive toiler in a New York City sweat-shop: a man with a pick, spending nearly all his days underground in a West Virginia coal mine: a man with a labor-broken body carrying a hod in a London street: a boatman with strained arms and aching back rowing for hours against the heavy currrent of the Volga.” E.M.
Painting by Millet
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~wyllys/LHommeALaHoue20081226small2.jpg
Poem by Edwin Markam
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~wyllys/manwhoe.html
Ooops forgot to do this the other day.
Carry on guys.
I like that painting. The man is breaking new ground, evidenced by the stones on the surface. He rests with his hands braced on top of the mattock haft. In the background and oxen team plough previously broken soil, and another man burns the straw from the previous crop on his land.
To me, it represents the self willed continuity and necessity of honest labour for the common man.
Another OT but releated to the sun
Here is an amazing video of a comet being vaporized by the sun.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1240591/Comet-eaten-orbits-close-sun.html
Scroll down in the article to get to the video.
JT