National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.
Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.
Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.
Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.
“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa’s Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
“It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.
“Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”
Peter Taylor says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:47 am
Science does not know how the energy is transferred along the invisible rope and even the mathematicians who delve into this last great mystery, have to invoke eleven further dimensions!
I had a high school teacher, and he drew a circle on the blackboard.
He was not a very good teacher, as teachers go, but this has remained with me:
Knowledge is the inside of the circle, and we increase it and the radius grows. The larger the radius the greater the periphery of our contact with the unknown.
He was talking of Socrates: I know one thing, that I know nothing.
Nevertheless, the conquest within the circle, what we now know is not thrown out as the radius of our known science increases. It may be reinterpreted, reformulated in new formalisms, but it is a conquest in the exploration that is not lost.
The 11 dimensions of string theories do not negate the 4 dimensions of relativity, nor do the four dimensions of special relativity negate the three dimensions plus time of ordinary mechanics. Like russian dolls one fits inside the other, or the other encompasses the previous, according to the pov.
And in all these expansions nobody will be negating the constants of motion, which is what planetary/barycentric theories do.
Now about apparent correlations. Some of them, to a simple physicist, look forced and fortuitous. In chaotic systems, which the planetary system is, and the sun internal cycles is, there will be periodicities, and periodicities can have fortuitous coincident time series.
Let us suppose that we do find very good correlations between, for example, sunspot activity and planetary time tables. Rather than throwing away conservation of energy and momentum, working within my circle of knowledge, I will invoke synchronicities of these large clocks, similar to the one established that makes the moon face the earth .
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1TMZASCR-I&feature=related
Over the millions of years, it may be that there are modulations imprinted from one gravitational clock to the other, by the tiny energies involved accumulating over time. The same about earth and weather.
Now consciousness is not within the realm of physics, at the moment, though I know physicists who try to formulate theories of consciousness. If they succeed the knowledge within the circle will enlarge, but not be thrown away.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:26 am
Is not Meeus aware that Kepler, Gallileo, Copernicus, Tycho and Newton all practised planetary weather astrology? Who is he to decide it is bunkum eh?
I think this accurately sums up what Sagan warned about in the “Demon-Hunted World”.
Yesterday, I brought up the subject of heliocentric alignments involving Ceres, knowing well that it would cause some sparks! Very aptly, I also listened on BBC Radio 4, the story of Gauss and his development of Gaussian distribution, through the various different measurements that had been made of the positions of Ceres.
This morning, we had a heliocentric conjunction of Earth and Ceres, accompanied by new new region 1083 (positioned directly towards the alignment), and a CME within hours of said alignment.
The only possible cause of the 23yr monthly temperature anomaly strings in CET, is this alignment. I can also show heliocentric Ceres alignments with Mercury and Venus, that repeatedly give monthly temperature anomalies over hundreds of years.
@anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:59 am
“In chaotic systems, which the planetary system is,”
All my reasoning tells that the planets should tend towards a well harmonised order.
The actual intergers concerned in orbital ratios within our solar system, are highly interesting and very `Pythagorean`, and I suggest are very likely to be found in other planet systems around other stars.
Hush Ulric, don’t confront the demon hunters (sic) with empirical evidence of planetary/solar electromagnetic interactions. It’ll only make their hackles stand on end while their feet are planted firmly in the clay. The uninquisitive inquisition will sentence you to a good stoning. They’ll probably want to use apples in reverence of their great prophet Newton. 😉
anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:59 am
Let us suppose that we do find very good correlations between, for example, sunspot activity and planetary time tables.
Who is this royal “we” Anna? You and Leif already decided you’d rather remain ignorant of them, as they are “just coincidence”.
The amalgamated union of planetary-solar pseudo-science astrologers, cranks and ne’er do wells are the ones putting in the effort here, while you and Leif stand on the sidelines telling us we are wasting our time.
RE: pgosselin says: (June 19, 2010 at 6:01 am) “This may interest some people here – from a Russian scientist. [Link: top russian scientist says theres no scientific basis for 2013 solar devastation prediction]”
I suspect that an examination of the NASA statement would reveal that they are not making a prediction but making a statement about elevated probabilities of a rather improbable event. The 500-year average interval between events of this magnitude is equivalent to about a 99.8 percent chance that it will *not* happen on any given year if we do not know the state of the sun. If we know that these events only happen at solar maxima, (that occur once every 11 years) then we raise 0.998 to the 11th power to determine the probability that it will *not* happen during any given solar maximum. You may also use this method to determine the probability that it will not happen during your remaining expected lifetime.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:06 am
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:26 am
Is not Meeus aware that Kepler, Gallileo, Copernicus, Tycho and Newton all practised planetary weather astrology? Who is he to decide it is bunkum eh?
“I think this accurately sums up what Sagan warned about in the “Demon-Hunted World”.”
Yes, I did notice that you firmly make up your mind before you have the evidence at hand, and that is not scientific practise, it is prejudice.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:10 am
anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:24 am
I had said”
“These planetary theories, coming from the times when astrology and astronomy were all mixed up together, fail on the conservation of energy, primarily, and conservation of momentum and angular momentum when they try to use the barycenter as a real fulcrum of the forces acting on the planetary system.”
Once again you completely ignore the force which is billions of times stronger than gravity.
Force is not a conserved quantity. It is not a constant of motion.
Energy is.
Momentum is.
Angular momentum is.
The relative strength of forces is meaningless unless the energy involved is known.
Can I pick up a ton of iron with a natural magnet of 1cm^2?
Why not? the magnetic force constant is many zeros larger than the gravitational force constant holding that ton on the surface.
These billions you throw around have no meaning outside solutions of equations.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:37 am
I don’t think Astrology is about consciousness, but rather the belief that the mere positions of heavenly bodies have effects beyond ordinary physical causes, e.g. causing solar cycles or your finances or your health [check your newspaper’s horoscope to see what’s in store for you today]. I would think that if this were so, the sun would cycle even if there were no conscious beings around, e.g. 100 million years ago.
Appeal to ‘other forces’ we know nothing about etc is not science.
This is mostly fine as far as it goes, but your conflation of what some people here are doing with the help of the NASA/JPL ephemeris and newsaper horoscopes is a deliberately calculated slur, and it diminishes my generally good opinion of you, because I know you know better.
We are not making appeals to ‘other forces’. We are postulating the possibility that science doesn’t yet fully appreciate the effectiveness of the ones we already know about.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:11 am
The amalgamated union of planetary-solar pseudo-science astrologers, cranks and ne’er do wells are the ones putting in the effort here, while you and Leif stand on the sidelines telling us we are wasting our time.
The ‘effort’ has a certain entertainment value, and as people often seek entertainment [which is a pleasant way to waste time] the waste of time may be justified on that ground alone. People also laugh at Bozo, the Clown.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:53 am
but your conflation of what some people here are doing with the help of the NASA/JPL ephemeris and newsaper horoscopes is a deliberately calculated slur
Go tell Ulrich that, and keep in mind that my comment was about Astrology being about consciousness.
We are not making appeals to ‘other forces’.
A royal ‘we’?
We are postulating the possibility that science doesn’t yet fully appreciate the effectiveness of the ones we already know about.
My comment was in response to
Peter Taylor says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:47 am
“I wonder, the centre of mass may have no ‘power’ to influence things, but it might act as a proxy for some other forces operating…….? ”
Apparently, he is is not included in your royal ‘we’. Perhaps he is not a member of the esteemed “amalgamated union of planetary-solar pseudo-science astrologers, cranks and ne’er do wells” that you claim to belong to.
The forces we know about all have a firm empirical foundation. We know their ranges and strengths, and how matter reacts to force [Maxwell’s and Newton’s laws – at the scale of the Sun]. Postulates without specific evidence are just that: ‘postulates’. You could also postulate that the World was created last Tuesday [there are takers for that one, BTW]
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:33 am
that is not scientific practise, it is prejudice.
Scientists have a very strong prejudice when it comes to science, namely that things must make sense and be verifiable, and that one should not keep a mind so open, that the brain has fallen out.
anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:37 am
Can I pick up a ton of iron with a natural magnet of 1cm^2?
No, but I can pick up a paper clip from some distance above with that 1cm^2 magnet, while the gravitational effort of the 8000 mile diameter Earth is trying to keep it on the ground.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:19 am
My comment was in response to
Peter Taylor says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:47 am
“I wonder, the centre of mass may have no ‘power’ to influence things, but it might act as a proxy for some other forces operating…….? ”
Apparently, he is is not included in your royal ‘we’.
You can’t conclude that Peter Taylor meant ‘forces other than those known to current physics’ from his statement. You are projecting your prejudice. I suggest you google some of his other contributions to this blog, a more level headed and well informed man you couldn’t hope to meet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:03 am
The ‘effort’ has a certain entertainment value, and as people often seek entertainment [which is a pleasant way to waste time] the waste of time may be justified on that ground alone. People also laugh at Bozo, the Clown.
Always happy to make you smile Leif. :o)
I recognise great value in having you ‘serious if a little staid’ scientists on hand to push us to be rigorous about our work.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:03 am
“People also laugh at Bozo, the Clown.”
By all means laugh, mock, and even engage in agressive opposition. The more you do so, the bigger laugh we get, when what is self evident has to be accepted.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:44 am
You can’t conclude that Peter Taylor meant ‘forces other than those known to current physics’ from his statement.
Well, perhaps Peter could tell us which other forces he meant.
And which other forces do you think there are?
Or which ones of the ones we know, do you think are involved?
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:00 am
I recognise great value in having you ‘serious if a little staid’ scientists on hand to push us to be rigorous about our work.
Unfortunately, it has little effect. If anything, the royal ‘us’ are getting less rigorous with time as the “The amalgamated union of planetary-solar pseudo-science astrologers, cranks and ne’er do wells” is expanding its membership.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:25 am
“Scientists have a very strong prejudice”
Speak for yourself, not others. Your solar theory is highly deficient in many respects.
If you had a very open mind, I am not too sure there would much that could fall out.
[Please, let’s not get too insulting. ~dbs]
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:16 am
[Please, let’s not get too insulting. ~dbs]
I think we have moved so far from the science that the insults are the only things left with redeeming value. Let’s see how low they can go…
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:19 am
The forces we know about all have a firm empirical foundation. We know their ranges and strengths, and how matter reacts to force
This reminds me of the C18th physics experts who said they could prove that air pressure would crush the rib-cages of train passengers above 35mph. The idea that we already know enough to be able to rule out unexpectedly high resonant feedbacks from electro-magnetic activity in the interplanetary electro-magnetic soup is more laughable than Bozo’s best slapstick efforts.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:21 am
The idea that we already know enough to be able to rule out unexpectedly high resonant feedbacks from electro-magnetic activity in the interplanetary electro-magnetic soup is more laughable than Bozo’s best slapstick efforts.
And here is where you show yourself to be just another pseudo-scientist. We go with what we know [or reasonably surmise]. Everything else is not science.
“And here is where you show yourself to be just another pseudo-scientist. We go with what we know [or reasonably surmise]. Everything else is not science.”
We don’t know what we know well enough to make a priori judgements about excluding alternative possibilities. It’s claiming certainty where it’s not justified by the state of knowledge as it currently stands.
It’s an attempt to exclude other interpretations and ideas, and it has no scientific value. It serves only to impede scientific progress in a vain attempt to preserve the status quo.
You’ve told us you want to get entertainment by seeing how low you can go with insults.
Have fun.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:38 am
“anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:37 am
Can I pick up a ton of iron with a natural magnet of 1cm^2?”
No, but I can pick up a paper clip from some distance above with that 1cm^2 magnet, while the gravitational effort of the 8000 mile diameter Earth is trying to keep it on the ground.
Do you understand that what you have done is picking a particular solution of the equations involved? As also I did with the ton of iron?
So the relative strength of the four known forces is useful in the specific solution with given boundary conditions, but is not global to the problem.
Constants of motion are global to the problem. One does not have to solve the equations to know whether energy conservation is violated. One just needs to do the energy balance and the answer is clear.
If there is not enough energy in the interplanetary electric/magnetic fields, and from measurements there is not, it does no good to say the electric force constant is billions of times stronger than the gravitational force constant. The problem is not of one electron moving another electron electromagnetically or gravitationally . It is of whether there is enough energy in the planetary electromagnetic fields to manifest what you think you are manifesting, massive effects on the sun.