I should point out that thanks to the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), we can see things that we’ve never seen before. So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual” for old Sol. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard. – Anthony
From NASA Science News: On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.
It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.
“The August 1st event really opened our eyes,” says Karel Schrijver of Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. “We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before.”
For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened during the “Great Eruption.” They had plenty of data: The event was recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin STEREO spacecraft. With several colleagues present to offer commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over breathtaking distances. Solar flares, tsunamis, coronal mass ejections–they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.
“To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of isolated active regions,” says Title, “we have to know the surface magnetic field of practically the entire sun.”
This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters, but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.
“The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,” commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, CO. “This in turn would provide improved forecasts to our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen significant shock waves, flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning 180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of the sun’s magnetic field.
Title describes the Eureka! moment: “We saw that all the events of substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers.” A “separatrix” is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.
Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was possible. “The notion of ‘sympathetic’ flares goes back at least three quarters of a century,” they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes observers would see flares going off one after another–like popcorn–but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.
“For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers,” says Lika Guhathakurta, NASA’s Living with a Star Program Scientist. “Together, the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see connections that they could only guess at in the past.”
To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth, yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO’s measurements of the sun’s magnetic field revealed direct connections between the various components of the Great Eruption—no statistics required.
Much remains to be done. “We’re still sorting out cause and effect,” says Schrijver. “Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one eruption triggered another–bang, bang, bang–in sequence? Or did everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in the sun’s global magnetic field?”
Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant–one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at a time may be just as limiting.
“Not all eruptions are going to be global,” notes Guhathakurta. “But the global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored.”
As if the sun wasn’t big enough already….
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Re: “To: Chris Reeve: … Are you proposing that there is no such thing as dark energy nor dark matter???”
Quasars have been observed to be in front of galaxies and even linked to galaxies with filaments. Not only that, but their raw redshifts appear to possess a quantized component. The EU view is in accordance with Halton Arp’s observations that redshift is more a reflection of a cosmic object’s age than its velocity. We see populations of quasar pairs surrounding energetic galaxies.
None of us should be fooled into imagining that Big Bang theorists will “surrender” on any of the principal dogma which drives the theory. They will argue against any evidence which discounts the Big Bang event or its expansion. Halton Arp was a highly respected astronomer who lost his telescope time for insisting that conventional theorists consider his *observations* of quasars. To argue against him, conventional theorists would publish the spectral imagery which happened to not show the bridge (see the YouTube video, Universe – Cosmology Quest). Then, they would question his statistics. Once they decided that he was wrong, as for the plasma cosmology debate, they stopped paying attention to whether or not his model was actually working.
Consensus-driven science should really be called critic-ignorant science. It’s really a decision to stop reading. It’s an artificial constraint on the flow of information.
We humans come to science with a lot of baggage. Scientists are not priests, and none of us should treat them as such. We rely heavily upon philosophy of science to keep the human element out of our scientific theories. Where any of you see evidence that a particular approach is devoid of philosophy, expect to find human preferences and prejudices imprinted upon the theories themselves. When people ignore philosophy of science, they abandon the sanctity of science which is what compels us to listen to them to begin with.
Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?
Chris Reeve says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm
============
Brilliant post. Well said.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris Reeve says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm
that the conventional theories propose a mostly benign universe.
On the contrary, the Universe is extremely violent and deadly
Your timescales are off-the-charts long compared with plasma cosmology. In plasma cosmology, the Sun is not as stable, and the Earth is subjected to catastrophe on the order of thousands of years.
Here you show your cards, that you are a ‘young Earther’ or worse. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old. If you claim otherwise, you have put yourself outside serious discussing.
Re: “And compare with: “Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. “A comparison of the observed cosmic-ray electron spectrum with the non-thermal radio spectrum arising from galactic synchrotron radiation indicates that the magnetic field is 10 to 20 microgauss near the galactic center, 5 to 10 microgauss near the solar system and approximately 2.5 microgauss for the halo.” … Magnetic fields in space were first reported as far back as 1949 by Hall and Hiltner and has been part of mainstream science ever since … Getting your facts straight would be your first order of business. Lacking that, there is no challenge.”
I’m confident in that claim, as it is transcribed from a conversation with a plasma theorist who was there.
One of the things that I’ve learned in speaking with advocates for the conventional theories is that they are really quite liberal in their interpretation of history of science. They are frequently very quick to present something like a single paper as proof of a prior consensus. One of the things you learn, as you pick up on the debate over electricity in space, is that conventional theorists always strenuously argue against any suggestion that electricity can exceed the consensus box for this current era. But, once it is proven that they are wrong, they then subsequently claim credit that they came up with the idea all along. This has turned out to be a repeating pattern.
Amongst the EU theorists, they already know that conventional theorists will ultimately TRY to take credit for the discovery of electricity’s driving role in the universe’s dynamics. The problem for them is that we already know that it’s happening right now, today, with the data that we already have. And, their tortuous, argumentative path will instead waste another hundred years to get there, if it ever truly does.
As a species, we really need to take a look internally at what you’re doing here. What is the point of defending the consensus view on a forum? Are you actively trying to convince people to not educate themselves? You guys always claim on these forums that it is the burden of the critic to prove the theory. Is it really? Is it not true that at some point before “proof” that people might decide to read something because it is merely promising? What is really at stake in these conversations?
In my own view, what you’re really trying to do is to convince the public to remain ignorant of alternatives. You’re just trying to convince people to NOT read. You’re trying to convince them that it’s not worth their time to do something as simple and innocent as learning.
Chris Reeve says:
December 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Re: “And compare with: “Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
I’m confident in that claim, as it is transcribed from a conversation with a plasma theorist who was there.
Well, you can go look it up to see that your confidence is misplaced. I was a working scientist back then and knew quite well the observations [and acceptance] at the time. We had also firmly measured magnetic fields in interplanetary space since 1961. I even used these measurements myself in my work.
You may consider that the plasma guy might have been less than candid with you. [or you with us].
This August 2010 event is pretty small compared to the CMEs on Dec 12 2010
Check out the SOHO Movie Theatre – LASCO C2
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/soho_movie_theater
Leif Svalgaard says:
The L&P effect is an observed fact [whether it persists remains to be seen], yours is just numerology.
Nop.
Based on the Kepler’s planetary orbits observations and calculations and the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Vuk etc. says:
December 16, 2010 at 12:42 am
“yours is just numerology.”
Nop.
Based on the Kepler’s planetary orbits observations and calculations and the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations.
The numerology is connecting the two.
Given enough time and a smidgin or more iq I might possibly be able to work out if EU has explained this, the first is still just about feasible, the second… So as simply as possible, what is it exactly at the centre of our galaxy?
“E pur si muove”
Galileo Galilei
To Chris Reeve: The problem with EU advocates over here is that after buffeting with Leif for a few rounds…the battle field goes silent. Engage the arguments. If you are challenged……….answer. So, for instance, Leif has questioned your view on the age of the sun. Has challenged your assertion about magnestism in space. I’m no scientist but I do follow the reading recommendations and am trying to get an understanding; your point about
‘……….Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?……….’
I definately agree. But pure physics can be weired that way; quantum entanglement and the weired communication between the two; mass dissappearing(If the LHC is right) and so you tell us…….under what basis are they being so picky??? Why, if the evidence is so…..obvious by the looks of it, does this EU thing lack……traction in the Main Stream Science?
Then….are these not “eruptions” of a healthy and strong Sun, but thermo-sphere disruptions of a weakening and feeble Sun?
Very nice to see that somebody got the colorization balance right.
The impression I have always gotten from the Active Regions is that they throw up a lot of ‘smog’ in thier later stages.
Re: “I definately agree. But pure physics can be weired that way; quantum entanglement and the weired communication between the two; mass dissappearing(If the LHC is right) and so you tell us…….under what basis are they being so picky??? ”
If any of you permit anybody to convince you that common sense no longer has bearing upon the inferential step in physics, then you’ve just been had. The quest for simpler, more physical inferences never ends. Conventional theorists frequently imagine that they have “ruled everything else out,” when what they’ve actually done is artificially constricted their set of inferences to suit the “framework” within which they operate.
Jeff Schmidt’s book “Disciplined Minds” discusses this concept of a theoretical framework in great depth. He argues that our scientific institutions have decided to adopt a single set of theories and assumptions for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method. In a philosophical sense, theorists are supposed to be trying their hardest to maximize this set of inferences, as this represents one of the biggest philosophical problems in science. Conventional scientists typically do the opposite for reasons which are purely human in nature — to, for instance, prevent hierarchical challenges to their authority, and to maintain control over the funding channels.
For those who are asking, “how is this possible?”, Jeff Schmidt’s book is an excellent starting point.
Re: “Why, if the evidence is so…..obvious by the looks of it, does this EU thing lack……traction in the Main Stream Science?”
The evidence is only clear to those of us who have spent time trying to understand the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory. To all others, it is not. Consider that plasmas represent the universe’s preferred state for matter, and yet only a minute number of people in this world are familiar with their laboratory behavior. This is a major problem.
Electricity also has a history of being elusive because charged particles can clearly transfer in the absence of any emissions. Plasmas can conduct electricity and do things of great importance within this “dark mode” (it’s one of their three fundamental operating modes). This is why radio astronomers have to observe the 21-cm wavelength, subtle HI energy state transition in order to observe the behavior of the interstellar plasma “clouds” (which are really filaments).
Complicating things further, electrons can move in circles while still exhibiting an overall net movement. This is called an electron drift, and it is the principle within the EU by which the Sun is powered. Electron drift is not a “new physics” concept; it’s how electrons move along copper wire. And yet, conventional theorists behave as though they need not check for it in space.
Advocates for the conventional theories will oftentimes complain that this movement of electrons is not obvious, even as they argue that it’s not their responsibility to validate one way or another that it’s there. They appear to not realize that they work for us — the public — and that the public expects them to, when necessary, investigate ideas which they don’t actually prefer, and which they didn’t learn in school. When scientists and theorists exhibit obvious displeasure for a confirmed prediction — like Wal Thornhill’s successful Deep Impact predictions — this should raise red flags with the public that they are exhibiting preferences and prejudices in their scientific methodology which will have ultimately have a profound impact upon their findings.
Of those who do begrudgingly accept the challenge — like Tom Bridgman — they will ignore the plasma cosmology texts and laboratory plasma physics fundamentals in their analysis of plasma cosmology. And then, based upon an electrostatic or some other analysis which has little to do with plasma physics, they’ll claim that we should be seeing something like x-rays coming from coronal holes. In the process, they’ve made assumptions about what they *should* be seeing. What they’re doing is filling in the gaps that they created themselves with respect to the behavior plasmas.
The very notion that conventional astrophysicists see no problem with telling plasmas physicists what the plasma physics models should look like should alarm everybody. There is a complete disconnection between the models which they use for cosmic plasmas and observations of laboratory plasmas made by plasma physicists. We’ve permitted them to let the framework drive the plasma models.
I’m not convinced that there are really very many astrophysicists or cosmologists today who actually know what plasma cosmology or EU Theory actually states. There’s something that happens when people try to learn a theory which they already disagree with: They tend to obstruct their own educations.
When they learned the conventional theories, they did not argue against it as they were learning it. For those students who have completed their four-year training and are in the process of getting their PhD’s, this would have been sufficient reason to boot them from the program. This is what I mean when I say that we are all bound to philosophy of science as a means of removing our natural human tendencies from our scientific theories. When a person refuses to objectively learn a new paradigm on its own terms, we say that the person “knows too much.” They’ve abandoned all pretense of being objective and fair-minded. We are all susceptible to this. The difference is that the heretics are just more aware of the phenomenon, since they battle it every day.
Let’s say that a small child lives in a remote village next door to a little girl. This girl is not exactly the cutest of girls. In fact, she’s kind of ugly. But, to that boy, she’s the most beautiful girl in the world. It’s not until that boy goes into the city before he realizes what’s going on. When we obstruct our own educations, we deprive ourselves of an ability to make effective, meaningful decisions.
One need only spend a lot of time on forums to learn all of this. This process of discussing competing theories online is extremely educational on the topic of human psychology. It doesn’t take long to realize that logic and evidence oftentimes take a back seat to more human tendencies. Most of us will perhaps start out by imagining that the social phenomena we observe on the forums can’t possibly be representative of how professional scientists and theorists think. But, it’s just not true. What it means to be a professional scientist or theorist today is that they are fully educated in the conventional framework. We don’t train any of them to be experts in plasma cosmology, so why should we expect them to even have any need for philosophy of science?
The answers, if you ask me, to some of the greatest riddles in the universe are really right in front of our eyes. It’s these social phenomena that the people of the WUWT forums are already familiar with that are shaping the scientific views of the world. And there is no small irony in this fact: That we humans are our own worst enemies, and that we will not understand the truth of the universe until we are truthful with ourselves.
It may sound almost cheesy, but it’s true.
Re: “Well, you can go look it up to see that your confidence is misplaced. I was a working scientist back then and knew quite well the observations [and acceptance] at the time. We had also firmly measured magnetic fields in interplanetary space since 1961. I even used these measurements myself in my work.
You may consider that the plasma guy might have been less than candid with you. [or you with us].”
I cannot reveal my source, but for the sake of the remainder of you on the forum, I will produce a partial quote which demonstrates that I’m not artificially coloring my reporting on this subject …
“The universal outcry from these gravitationalists was ‘There Is No Observational Evidence for Magnetic and Electric Fields in Space’.
And they were correct. Magnetic Fields in space were not to be discovered until 1986, at the Effelsberg Radio Telescope outside Bohn, Germany. And the word ‘Plasma’ became taboo to the tens of thousands of gravitational astronomers and particle physicists (if you wished to have any chance at all of funding).
The desired result was achieved; that Astronomers could now make their own ‘discoveries’ and ‘stories’ on how these electromagnetic fields came to be.”
It’s an unfortunate fact that many scientists, theorists, and astronomers who privately support the Electric Universe must do so under cover of secrecy. We live in an era where there are real and profound personal consequences for those who openly challenge the conventional framework. In the past, when I’ve made the mistake of directly quoting my sources on forums, critics of EU Theory launched letters directly to those overseeing the laboratories at which these people worked at, in hopes of interfering with their research.
So, people will just have to take my word that this is indeed a professional scientist who is highly respected on the subject of plasmas. And there will be times when I simply cannot reveal identities.
To be clear, although I’m certainly not immune to mistakes, nearly everything I’m saying here has already been vetted by plasma physicists and theorists.
It seems reasonable that both gravity and electricity shape the universe. Given the relative strengths of the two forces, it seems reasonable the electricity could be the dominant force.
For example, (outside of exotic particles) isn’t electricity the only know force that repels? It seems much simpler to explain an accelerating expansion of the universe in terms of electrical repulsion, than the current “dark matter/dark energy” theories. Does it not make sense to first consider the acceleration in terms of electric charge, as per Occam’s Razor, rather than postulate “dark” physics.
Dr. Svalgaard stated: “As these papers demonstrate… all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”
I appreciate your comment, thank you.
And I do appreciate the discussions and your application of the Socratic Method. I do learn from the discussions, and it does prompt me to refine my understanding of the subject. It forces me to better formulate my ideas and be able to articulate those ideas on the written page.
Criticism and objection forces the writer to “grasp the nettle” and understand his subject better and confront gaps in his own understanding.
The ability to formulate ideas and write those ideas on “paper” is critical for both scientific understanding and communication. The refining of ideas based on specific observations & measurements, i.e., laboratory experiments and in situ satellite probes, is the “meat & potatoes” of learning.
So, let’s study “exciting stuff” — I do agree with you — this is a Golden Age of in situ satellite probe observation & measurement.
Chris Reeves:
I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Remember, you can win a battle and still lose the war. I appreciate Anthony Watts allowing vigorous discussion in his “living room”, we are his guests in his forum. (Mr. Watts has shown supreme forbearance and patience with myself, as I have often engaged in raucous debate and argument which has tested Mr. Watts’ general “full discussion” policy. For that, Mr. Watts, I thank you.)
Staying on topic (in this instance, the Sun’s eruption) is important. There is plenty to discuss regarding the Sun which covers electric fields, electrical currents, charged particles, and just as important, magnetic fields, and the processes and objects associated with those forces and particles, i.e., see the peer-reviewed papers I presented in this post.
Besides, based on my experience in this and other forums, “going global” plays into opponents’ hands. They want plasma physics proponents to spin off into the furthest reaches of theory & hypothesis, as it distracts from the observations & measurements at hand and plays into the biases & prejudice of numerous readers and turns off other readers who want to focus on the present physical observations.
Theory & hypothesis are confirmed or falsified one example at a time, i.e., one experiment or in situ satellite probe observation at a time (unless a strong “connect the dots” argument can be made regarding a series of observations & measurements).
And remember, Mr. Watts has already shown great patience and has even reconsidered his ground rules. Let’s not make him revisit that decision, again. Thank you readers who have shown support for alternative hypothesis and discussion of those ideas and the facts & evidence which support those ideas.
Believe me, Chris, I’m sympathetic to your views and subscribe to your philosophical stance.
However, you are wrong in one respect:
Magnetic fields were observed & measured in space before 1986.
Magnetic fields could be detected via light polarity properties from ground observatories prior to 1986, that is why the “magnetic reconnection” concept was develope to explain CME’s in the 1940’s, because magnetic fields could be detected from ground observatories in association with CME’s.
(Electric fields and electric currents could not be observed & measured from ground observatories, so detection of those had to await in situ space satellite probes.)
I suggest Gerrit Verschuur observations were of intergalactic space, i.e., outside the Milky Way galaxy. These are important observations & measurements and support the ideas you have presented and cast doubt on, if not out-right falsify, mainstream astronomy theories.
See, when an alternative hypothesis is presented, it’s most important to correctly present the mainstream facts & evidence because when misstatements are made, incidental or not, opponents will latch on to those misstatements to discredit & distract from the argument they can’t directly challenge.
There will be other posts where electric fields, electrical currents and, just as important, magnetic fields will be of issue. Presentation of relevant scientific papers on those subjects have the maximum impact — general discussion has less impact, but can still be valuble if tied in with the post’s observations & measurements.
Take this as friendly advice: Each relevant post is an opportunity… I want to be able to present relevant data at those opportunities.
Somtimes less is more… and wisdom is knowing the difference…
“Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?”
Quite. “Dark Matter” may be the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Why not just call it what it really is – “There’s-a-truly-vast-gap-between-the-predictions-of-our-theories-and-our-observations”. It’s not such a sexy title as “Dark Matter”, but it’s a more accurate name.
Re: “It seems reasonable that both gravity and electricity shape the universe. Given the relative strengths of the two forces, it seems reasonable the electricity could be the dominant force. ”
The key to discounting the gravity-dominant paradigm is to get a strong handle on the distances involved between stars. Don Scott scales these light-year distances down to distances which we humans can recognize. In human terms, stars are literally specks of dust separated by miles. At these typical distances, common sense casts doubt that gravity is what’s holding them together in galaxies.
By contrast, the geometry of twisting plasma filaments, bound to one another with the incredible strength of the electric force, is limitless in its reach.
The ideas don’t actually have to be fully quantified for people to take them seriously — even though the mathematics are much further along than the critics will have you believe (see Hannes Alfven’s Cosmic Plasma). A cosmological theory need only have all of the fundamental components necessary to reproduce our observations in order to justify funding it further. Once this is realized, these ideas should be considered within the inferential step of all relevant peer-reviewed literature.
One has to expect that an empirically-derived cosmology will *always* be comparably less quantified than a model which has undergone numerous ad hoc overhauls. At the point where the mathematics works, but large amounts of the underlying physical processes remain hypothetical, philosophy of science dictates that we be concerned that the math is being used as a fudge factor, or glue.
Re: “For example, (outside of exotic particles) isn’t electricity the only know force that repels? It seems much simpler to explain an accelerating expansion of the universe in terms of electrical repulsion, than the current “dark matter/dark energy” theories. Does it not make sense to first consider the acceleration in terms of electric charge, as per Occam’s Razor, rather than postulate “dark” physics.”
While I think that your approach is good, it’s important that we also carefully revisit fundamental assumptions regarding redshift. Conventional quasar theory is hardly impenetrable, and if that falls, then the entire justification for dark energy evaporates. The case is laid out in simple terms in “Universe – The Cosmology Quest” (Google Video or Youtube) by some world-renowned astronomers.
The concept of dark matter naturally disappears once the cosmic plasma models are corrected to reflect laboratory plasma behavior. Anthony Peratt and Winston Bostick have confirmed this point by both simulation and experimentation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 16, 2010 at 1:40 am
…………..
According to Kepler’s biographers he was not only astronomer but astrologer too, and looks like creationist ‘his work was motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason’.
Are you sure that the MWO data is not processed by an astrologer or creationist, there is higher probability (I would say ~ 30%) of that being the case, than that the observations and calculations by Kepler would be by chance ( say <1%) matched by the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations with the correlation factor of 93%.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
What do you say?
Enneagram says:
December 16, 2010 at 6:37 am
Then….are these not “eruptions” of a healthy and strong Sun, but thermo-sphere disruptions of a weakening and feeble Sun?
Interesting thought. I’d wager that the Sun is 1/2 way or thereabouts along in it’s ramp portion of the cycle.
Feeble is a good descriptor here.
vukcevic says:
December 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Correction : not MWO but WSO (Wilcox Solar Observatory)
To Chris: So. about the age of the Sun and Leif’s comment: does EU Cosmology possit a much younger Sun than the 13.7 Billion Year Standard cosmology model??? Because you don’t want to get painted into the same corner as the ‘discovery institute’ guys as being religiously predisposed to a young earth/sun. There should be some where where the EUC and SMC diverge in a way that can be empircally tested, published, etc. and a new winner declared.
And then the shielding issue. We can’t shield from gravity but we can electricity. What is Gravity anyway??
If it’s not a black hole, what is it? I’m sorry if this is irritating EU proponents, but I simply want to understand this. I’ve only just got my head around black holes..
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr17q
There’s a picture on this page of the “the plasmoid at the center of the galaxy” – what is creating it?
As an aside, there is a quote on this page from Martin Rees, I have heard him lecture on the subject of black holes. I take issue on the subject of the time line of understanding presented by majority scientists, presenting this a ‘we thought only a few centuries ago that …’. I think we’d be a lot further advanced if the “shoulders’ of giants” scientists stood on went back a lot further. The Vedas for example have easy familiarity with billions and trillions of years as time scales in our universe – a day and night of Brahma (the creator) is very exactly calculated, and the day of 4.32 billion years corresponds closely with the modern scientist’s take on the beginning of our solar world.
vukcevic says:
December 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
What do you say?
I say that the test of any theory is agreement with data. And your numerology does not pass that test. According to your formula the polar fields in 1965 should have been very large [even larger than in 1954]. All the data we have suggest that the PF in 1965 were small. The list of evidence of that is long:
1) attempts by Severny in the Crimea to measure any organized PF in 1965 were unsuccessful, so the PF must have been below his noise level. He did measure the PF in 1976, so PF(1965)<PF(1976)
2) MWO began measurements with their upgraded instrument in 1967 and found weak polar fields. At that time we were past minimum so the polar fields should have weakened, but since SC20 was a small cycle, there were not enough low latitude field drifting to the poles to diminish any strong 1965 fields to the value found in 1967.
3) the PF-precursor method [working very well for SC24] would have predicted a very strong SC20 [even stronger than SC19] contrary to the observed weak S20.
4) the heliospheric magnetic field at solar minimum has a large contribution from the PFs, so the HMF in 1965 should have been strong, contrary to observations [only 5 nT]
5) the PF determine the flatness of the corona [e.g. as it did for 1954] and the HCS, but for 1965 no particular large flattening was observed
6) as a result of 5) the cosmic ray sidereal anisotropy should have been very abnormal [more than in 1954 if PFs were stonger in 1965] and it was not.
Taken by themselves, one by one, the above reasons could perhaps have been explained away, but collectively they provide very strong evidence for weak PFs in 1965, so your formula must be discarded as incompatible with observations.
We have been over this many times before.