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
“… Einstein said that ether was essential for his theory of relativity, that it didn’t work without it. I’ve just found that others like Maxwell used it, but it seems to have become superceded by the idea of vacuum. Can’t yet find why.”
Einstein may well have believed that. As I said, I doubt the ether is a physical reality, as such, separate from space itself, but that has been a debate for some time, hasn’t it?
The Ionosphere is where it’s made by the action of UV light from the sun, so I’ve read, doesn’t this mean that it is also being made in the Troposphere or is the greater density and pressure lower down that precludes this happening?”
I’d be surprised if there was NO plasma in the troposphere, and if nothing else there will be during electrical storms (which EU proponents say is because the planet is acting as a capacitor and discharging electricity with space, which also explains high-atmospheric lightning). However, I have no significant knowledge of the troposphere and you’re better off asking someone else that question.
Christoph – very many thanks for your post explaining plasma, especially for being able to work out what I meant.
I saw a programme recently on TV about EU, Thunderbolts Part I, and it, so to speak, sparked my interest in exploring further. As in all situations when one finds oneself in the middle of an argument between two people using terms familiar to them, they can both seem credible, but I was impressed by the scalability scenarios, does it actually work according to its known properties a touchstone for me in the AGW CO2 arguments.
Leif – on thinking again about Christoph’s post and now having explained the problem I have with understanding the arguments, would you look at this page and tell me if you think the reasons given for dismissal of the Big Bang theory are valid, credible? (Particularly re the red-shift)
http://davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm
Christoph –
As I said, I doubt the ether is a physical reality, as such, separate from space itself, but that has been a debate for some time, hasn’t it?
I’m only just catching up..
..glad it’s still going on and the science isn’t settled..
Wow! Coming to you every 8 minutes..
http://science.nasa.gov/science-new/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/
Interesting how these tubes bend from the equator towards north or south pole depending on time of year, seem to have some similarity with wind patterns?
Geologists getting in on the act – http://www.geulogy.com
How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?
Myrrh says:
December 18, 2010 at 2:40 am
tell me if you think the reasons given for dismissal of the Big Bang theory are valid, credible? (Particularly re the red-shift)
None of these ‘reasons’ have any validity. In particular, the ‘tired light’ hypothesis is in discordance with observations, see e.g. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
The problem with the mainstream big bang theory is that it is constantly being tweaked to match new observations. This is not a sign of a good theory.
“Inflation” was created to explain why observation did not match theory. Then dark energy, dark matter, and now dark flow. At some point in time the obvious answer it quite simple. The underlying hypothesis is wrong.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080923_wmap.htm
Sept. 23, 2008
Courtesy NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
and World Science staff
Scientists have measured an unexpected motion in distant clusters of galaxies—possibly caused, they say, by the gravitational pull of something outside the visible universe. “We never expected to find anything like this,” said lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md
“How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?”
Gravity.
To their credit, earlier this year NASA Goddard invited EU proponent, Professor Emeritus in electrical engineering, Don Scott, to address some of their scientists. You can easily find that video on YouTube, however, I’ll say that in my opinion Scott is a much better writer than he is a speaker.
I agree with what you said that Big Bang cosmology has been tweaked far too many times for my liking. It doesn’t seem to predict much, really, except after the fact and following adjustments, which is not my definition of a prediction.
This is what I call a prediction:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nq9zna2m
I also think it makes one heck of a lot more sense than than the incredibly visible cometary trails in the sky visible from umpteen miles away being ice perpetually melting into (mostly) water vapour along with dust.
This is more or less than standard astronomy theory of comets, and how it makes any sense at all, I don’t know.
Electrical discharge and a resulting plasma trail makes so much more sense. Not only would it be more visible, but it wouldn’t run out either.
Besides, we found out even our humble moon has an invisible sodium ion tail back in 89 or so, I believe. Venus has an ion tail too. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception, but comet tails are much more visible, EU proponents assert, because of their highly elliptical orbits rapidly bringing them from very far away to very close to the Sun, which is to say in regions of vastly different electric charge.
It’s an elegant explanation. Far more so than to think when I look in the night sky and see a massive comet tail I’m seeing water vapour.
What’s more, actual NASA probes impacting with comets don’t seem to bear that out. I wonder if that’s why they invited Professor Scott to speak?
I look forward to more EU comments sometime in the far distant future.
There are strong parallels between cosmology and climatology:
1) They both tend to fund only the mainstream view, which is self re-inforcing.
2) They are poor at prediction, requiring after-the-fact-correction to explain new observations.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
The Flyby Anomaly and Pioneer Anomaly come to mind.
Christoph Dollis says:[December 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm]
““How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?” Gravity.”
So EU uses gravity only when it is convenient.
Christoph Dollis says:
[December 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm]
““How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?” Gravity.”
Everything that happens is in the end caused by Gravity. Gravity forms the galaxies, the stars, even the planets. The stars shine because gravity compresses [which heats] them enough to enable nuclear fusion. Gravity holds the planets in their orbits, ensuring stable conditions for life in the habitable zone. Etc.
“So EU uses gravity only when it is convenient.”
Yes, EU uses gravity when convenient. Of course they do. If it’s the right explanation for a given thing, why wouldn’t it? I mean, obviously we DO orbit the Sun; we CAN send probes into space to intersect with things.
EU says, in essence, that electricity plays a far bigger role in space than is thought by consensus science and the standard model of cosmology. It doesn’t say gravity is non-existent.
EU argues electricity is more fundamental than gravity, not that gravity isn’t a factor. Jump! Gravity worked, didn’t it?
Now look at your computer. Wait — electricity is working too, isn’t it?
Everyone on all sides of the debate agrees these are real forces. Which is more fundamental, how they came to be, which is more important under what circumstances, etc. … these are among the items under debate. Such things as are hugely massive black holes amazing amounts of high energy plasma to eject from the cores of galaxies … or is there another explanation?
I am hardly an unabashed EU proponent. You could find Wallace Thornhill’s most recent video online and you’d see how I criticized limited aspects of Thornhill and especially David Talbott’s beliefs in no uncertain terms, as well as objected to how some (one of the commenters: Not Thornhill nor Talbott) EU proponents claim a certain plasma physicist is one of their supporters when he isn’t (but believes in an alternate, competing model).
It’s a good summary video, and shows that, yes, EU acknowledges much of mainstream astrophysics works.
The standard “it is gravity” model of the cosmos has had a low success rate at prediction, which suggests it has little value as a theory. Instead, the model is adjusted to fit observation, similar to the circles within circles model of planetary orbits. Very little funding goes towards research into other models, which makes it difficult to find a better model.
This is similar to what we see in climate science, where the “it is CO2” models have poor predictive ability and are continually being adjusted to fit observation. Research into alternative models is similarly hampered by funding.
ge0050 says:
December 19, 2010 at 9:46 am
The standard “it is gravity” model of the cosmos has had a low success rate at prediction, which suggests it has little value as a theory
Prediction of what? The stock market?
The standard model is very successful in describing [and predicting] the cosmos. Some successful predictions:
1) solar neutrino flux
2) the cosmic microwave flux and its acoustic fluctuations
3) the upcoming prediction of a lunar eclipse on 21st Dec will be successful as well. If that eclipse doesn’t happen as predicted, I’ll retract everything and eat my old hat.
Leif, thank for the link. It will take me a while to work through and compare… The page on estimating the age of the universe is interesting too.
Neither the lunar eclipse nor the solar nutrino count rely on the standard big bang model.
Predictions about the CMBR rely on the “creation” of dark matter to make pediction match observation. Prior to that, the observations did not match prediction.
With sufficient added terms, such as inflation (faster than light travel), dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc., just about any theory can be “curve fit” to match observation.
However, as has been seen with the standard model, this sort of curve fitting has no skill as a predictive tool, except to predict the past. This is what has happened to the climate models as well.
none of which have been shown to have a any physical basis. They are simple made up.
ps: none of this is to say I believe the EU model is better. Rather, there are problems with the standard model, and the addition of inflation, non-local expansion, dark matter and dark energy to explain the model in terms of observation is not good science.
1) Inflation breaks c – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
2) non local expansion – if space is expanding, why are the orbits of the solar system not?
3) dark matter – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
4) dark energy – ditto
The underpinning for the standard model is the assumption that the red-shift is a result of motion of the universe away from us. This is give rise to a finite universe with a finite age. It also gives rise to a number of contractions with observation, requiring an increasing number of “circles within circles” to explain the observations.
However, there are other explanations for the red-shift that do not require motion, that explain the other “problem” observations without the “fudge factors”. These alternatives are themselves largely unexplored becuase they threatend funding of the status quo, as has happened with climate science.
Those scientists that have come forward with alternative theories, have in large been treated much the same as “skeptical” scientists in climate science. Halton Arp for example and the quasar anomaly. Science in general, along with the scientific method has largely been hijacked by the large investment in the self perpetuating status quo.
ge0050 says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:59 am
1) Inflation breaks c – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
General relativity does not limit the expansion of space, only motion through space, and the universe is motionless in space [expect for small local random movements].
2) non local expansion – if space is expanding, why are the orbits of the solar system not?
Because gravity holds things together. Only on very large scales [greater than the Galaxy] where gravity is weak enough does the expansion of space show.
3) dark matter – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
By its gravitational effect [especially gravitational lensing] that allows its mass to be measured.
4) dark energy – ditto
We observe its effect as a speeding up of the expansion. What its nature is we still don’t know, but that does not mean we cannot observe its effects. Like we can observe that the Sun is hot. Until ~1938 we didn’t know why, but that does not preclude observing that it is hot.
This is give rise to a finite universe with a finite age.
The universe is infinite. The ‘finite’ bit is the ‘observable universe’. We cannot see further than light has had time to reach us. That distance is getting large as we speak.
Halton Arp for example and the quasar anomaly
Arp was taken seriously by most astronomers early on, but we have now data on many millions of galaxies and the statistics is so much better, than we can see that the alignments are well within expectation from random, so our modern data has proven him wrong.
None of these were predicted. They are fudge factors added after the fact to fit observation. A simpler explantion is that one of the assumed cosmic constants is only locally constant, or that our understanding of gravity is incomplete.
There is plenty of evidence that Arp is correct, that Quasars are much closer than indicated by their red shift. Otherwise they would show time dilation. Lack of time dilation is prima facia evidence that Arp is correct, that the red shift is not a result of expansion.
“Discovery that quasars don’t show time dilation mystifies astronomers”
http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627554.200-time-waits-for-no-quasar–even-though-it-should.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
OK, I offer this solution to the argument as I think I was along the right lines in the first place to confuse ether with plasma – Ether = Plasma (99.9% of observable universe) = Dark matter sought by Fusion scientists.
Quote: In a celebration-speech Einstein (1920 p.15) said:
Summarizing we can say: According to the general theory of relativity the space has certain physical aualities; in this sense an Ether does exist. According to the general theory of relativity a space without ether is unthinkable; because in a space like this, not only the transmission of light would be impossible, there could not exist measuringsticks or clocks, thus neither distances in time nor space in the physical sense. This ether should not be thought endowed with properties characteristic of ponderable media, or consist of parts that can be traced through time; the concept of motion is not used on it.
Thus Einstein acknowledges the existence of an Ether, but says that the concept of movement is not to be used on it. Thus the whole Theory of Relativity stands or falls with whether it is possible or not possible to measure velocity relative to the Ether. If it is possible the theory is falls. – Einstein (1925) wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan (Clark 1971 p.328):
I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards. Unquote from:
http://www.the-einstein-case.eu/Engtlish/4._Relativity.htm
http://www.the-enstein-case.eu/English/index.html
Now we’ve got ether as the fourth state of matter, what is quintessence?
Could Einstein’s “ether” which doesn’t disprove relativity be quintessence?
ge0050 says:
December 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm
There is plenty of evidence that Arp is correct, that Quasars are much closer than indicated by their red shift. Otherwise they would show time dilation.
The paper you refer to also says:
“Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.”
Quasars are extreme objects and not fully understood. Supernovae are much better understood, and they show the expected time dilation.
The paper says:
There would appear to be three possible explanations for the lack of a time dilation effect in quasar light curves, all of which conflict with broad consensus in the astronomical community.
and concludes:
Taking the various arguments outlined above at face value, and accepting the case against microlensing, there does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation for the absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/015104.text.html
I see very close parallels between cosmology and climate science in this regard. The reliance on consensus for funding, which limits examination of the underlying assumptions. The reliance on arbitrary “fudge factors” to make observation fit theory, without predictive power.
Here is an interesting approach. It matches observation without the need for dark matter or dark energy, including such problems as galaxy rotation and the pioneer anomaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar-tensor-vector_gravity
ge0050 says:
December 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Here is an interesting approach. It matches observation without the need for dark matter or dark energy, including such problems as galaxy rotation and the pioneer anomaly.
Interesting that you invoke an approach that predicts all things you object to. It just replaces ‘dark energy’ by an equally mysterious “repulsive fifth force due to the vector field”. This is just calling things by another name.
The strongest evidence for dark matter is its direct observation by gravitational lensing and that is not explained by the Scalar-Tensor theory.