SOLAR SURPRISES: An image from the new Solar Dynamics Observatory shows activity on the sun's surface; the solar cycle has proved difficult to accurately predict.
Image: NASA/GSFC/AIA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
MIAMI—In very rough terms, the sun's activity ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle, with flares, coronal mass ejections and other energetic phenomena peaking at what is called solar maximum and bottoming out at solar minimum. Sunspots, markers of magnetic activity on the sun's surface, provide a visual proxy to mark the cycle's evolution, appearing in droves at maximum and all but disappearing at minimum. But the behavior of our host star is not as predictable as all that—the most recent solar minimum was surprisingly deep and long, finally bottoming out around late 2008 or so.
Solar physicists here at the semiannual meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week offered a number of mechanisms to shed light on what has been happening on the sun of late, but conceded that the final answer—or more likely answers—remains opaque. Beyond scientific understanding, motivations for better solar weather forecasts include hopes to use them to safeguard against electrical grid disruptions, damage to Earth-orbiting satellites and threats to the health of space travelers posed by solar radiation flare-ups.
One researcher has looked for clues to solar weather in the meridional flow, which moves from the solar equator toward the poles, and which seems to change speed during the shifting solar cycle. Another looked at the solar "jet stream," a slow current that originates at solar mid-latitudes and pushes in a bifurcated stream toward both the equator and the poles. Another scientist examined the inner workings of the sun through the oscillation of sound waves propagating through the solar interior; yet another looked at magnetic maps to chart the shifting flux across the sun.
"I think we're almost in violent agreement that this is an interesting minimum," said David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. By several measures—geomagnetic activity, weakness of polar magnetic fields, flagging solar deflection of galactic cosmic rays—the minimum was the deepest on record, Hathaway said, although some of those records contain just a few cycles. Hathaway focused on shifting speeds of the meridional flow, finding that the flow was anomalously fast at the most recent minimum. But, speaking of heliophysics forecasting techniques in general, he cautioned against leaping to any conclusions based on small-number statistics. "We need to be careful about extending what we've seen in one or two cycles to all of them," he said.
Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) instead examined the jet stream, a periodic east–west flow of material that corresponds with the onset and end of the solar cycle. With helioseismology data, which track acoustic oscillations on the sun, researchers can check in on the progress of the jet stream at depths of roughly 1,000 kilometers, potentially allowing for better forecasts of the timing of the solar cycle. But it is "still too early to tell" if the jet stream can robustly predict solar activity, Hill acknowledged, noting that the stream could be a cause or an effect of the cycle.
Hill's NSO colleague Sushanta Tripathy also turned to helioseismology to investigate the recent solar minimum, finding that in acoustic oscillations deep within the sun there were in fact two separate minima—one in late 2007 that did not correspond to the sunspot minimum, and one around late 2008 that did. In prior data, from 1995 to 2007, the frequency shifts in the oscillations had matched up well with the sunspot counts. And at shallower depths within the sun, the seismic and sunspot activity were in phase for the most recent solar minimum as well. All in all, the cycle was definitely unusual, Tripathy said.
Julia Saba of SP Systems, Inc., and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., had yet another approach, turning to magnetic maps to track regional differences on the sun. Her approach accurately forecast the timing of the 2008 solar minimum 18 months in advance, she said, but acknowledged that the forecast had been revised from an earlier prediction. Based on current data, Saba said, the next solar cycle looks like it will be weak and prolonged. But that could all change—her predictions assume "that the sun doesn't change on us again."
After hearing his colleagues' various approaches to investigating the sun's behavior, Hill took stock of a field with many open questions. "My main impression of all this is I'm gratified to see that we all agree that this is an interesting minimum," Hill said. "What's not so gratifying is we have no clue why any of these effects are happening."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add CommentSee:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1034&page=1
Through this most recent as of 5/27/2010
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1034&page=40
More generally, see
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general
Agreed candide. And that anyone would think that an 11 year cycle would be consistent, on a time scale of billions of years? And how long have we "known" about this cycle, let alone studied it in any detail?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCandide: The difficulty of forecasting short term effects is present on both the sun and the earth. Predicting average temperature requires understanding the bulk physics of the system, whereas predicting specific fluctuations requires understanding the exact state and then running rediculously complicated equations(The Navier-Stokes equations), through super computers. These are VERY different problems. In many respects the sun is easier to study then the earth - the physics is simpler(and I have a degree in physics incidentally) - but we're more ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth you and way2ec seem to be glorifying a position of cautious ignorance. The fact is that we have most of the tools necesarry to understand these problems, and we need to try to understand them. Your own comments reflect a position taken by climate science deniers who don't understand whats being done, either by your meteorologist or by a climate scientist.
This is clearly Bush's fault.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur lack of understanding reflects our lack of correct physics and simulation tools. This is the study of plasma physics within a vacuum on a massisve scale. Just using obersavtion of a particular incident will give insight but complete understanding will be furnished by a simulation of a plasma ball as large as the sun, then inject a few peturbations such as planetory rotation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might prove to be an interesting study of a new theory of gravity.
Rufus: Thats ridiculous. New theories of gravity are not going to be done produced in the sun at this stage. The models of the suns density are already very complex, and match pretty well in any event. The physics is correct, the problem is that the sun is very complicated in some respects. The exact understanding on the microstructure and the magnetic field, as well as "solar weather" is far from complete. But this isn't because the fundemental physics is flawed, but rather because we arn't sure which elements need to be included. Other things like the exact make up of rare and unstable nuclei and so forth are also rather uncertain, but again arn't important on the scale we're talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe must know the causes to anderstand this phenomena we must know the relative compatibility in gnostic and scientific range to understand the activity and this activity effect to climate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone thought to investigate the influence the planet Jupiter may have on the solar cycle. Jupiter himself takes around 11 years to circle the Sun. But then he also receives himself gravitational and other influences from the other planets rotating around the Sun. Astrologers believe to know more then astronomers about that, but who can say he/she knows the ultimate truth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPure conjecture and cheap alarmism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPure conjecture and cheap alarmism...For a so called respectable Scientific Magazine, this article reads like a tawdry Supermarket checkout rag!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that it's tied to the orbit of Jupiter, which has an annual orbit of 11.86 years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the gravitational pull of the planet is stirring some flow of denser materials on the sun, which corresponds to the sunspots. (Possibly non-combustible materials we're seeing being brought to the surface of the sun, or a complex interaction with gravitational or magnetic interactions with Jupiter relative to some kind of mineral or chemical deposit on the sun)
Is there a correlation between Jupiter's location and storms and the sunspots?
The sun is in motion around the Galaxy; the Galaxy is in motion through Space - maybe it's just a result of the area through which the Sun is moving through at the moment. Is it possible the Space "environment" (Space isn't really empty - it's just that the material is more or less diffuse) can affect the Sun in various ways?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGee, this is fun. So many "science" types admitting that there is way more to learn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs these same "science" types are certain of Global Warming! Even when they have falsify and hide their own data, they want us "normals" to pay them $11 Trillion to "fix" us up.
Okay. I'm convinced.
"... why should we think that we could understand the Sun ?" - Candide
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor, Confused Candide...
Actually meteorologists generally do a very good job of predicting the weather three days hene. At 5 days, they aren't so good.
Some of us here realize that understanding something - doesn't neessarily mean you can predict it's evolution of state.
What makes you think it does?
Well, there's one thing that no one has yet mentioned, what the analysts were all dancing around, so I'll speculate: an unusually low number of sunspots has been historically associated with global cooling, especially the 70 year Maunder minimum that seems to have been a significant contributor to the Little Ice Age. So, what's the chances that global warming will be overcome by global cooling?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKyros, you think we have all of the basic knowledge needed to understand the Sun? What a laugh! THAT is rediculous!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuziQQ, you may be on to something,
David
kyros... seem to be glorifying in "cautious ignorance", am I? Let me try this again. We have a cycle on the sun that we have known about for a very short period of time, especially given that any given 11 years of the sun's life is like a nanosecond against the backdrop of billions of years. Your reference to supercomputers is almost comical given the time since the invention of computers is shall we say, another nanosecond in the history of mankind. Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory is quoted in this article "still to early to tell", and later, "What's not so gratifying is we have no clue why any of these effects are happening". For you to then connect this "cautious ignorance" to those who deny that global climate change is man-made is... stupid. Your response to Rufus "Thats ridiculous"? Do you have two thats or did you mean to write that's? You end with "arn't important on the scale we're talking about" which is where I left off... I was talking about the time scale. You are right about new theories of gravity arn't going to "be done produced in the sun at this stage". AREN'T you supposed to use your spell checker Mr. I have a degree in physics? You "done produced" a few too many boo-boos of your own. Luk wat hukt on foniks did fur u.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect the underlying cause of the solar cycle as well as the Pleistocene Epoch, the glacial and interglacial periods that have been going on for over 1.6 million years, has to do with the sun's evolution as the helium "ash" builds up and interferes or possibly retards (like control rods in a nuclear furnace) the hydrogen fusion within the core. Helium stratification could be separating the core's fusion into several individual solar furnaces. As the helium builds up, the sun may react by "stirring the pot" to redistribute the helium ash. We see this as sunspot cycles on a short term basis and glacial/interglacial periods on a long term basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cause and effect we see are spurious magnetic fields, generated by isolated and focused fusion reactions as well as sunspots, coronal mass ejections and various flares. after the helium is redistributed somewhat by such violent occurrences, the sun quiets down for a while.
The sun does not have to get brighter or dimmer to affect our weather or climate. an increase or decrease in solar radiation will do the trick. Energy is transformable and after entering the Earth's environment, manifests itself ultimately as heat.
I suspect the solar (sunspot) cycle as well as the Pleistocene Epoch (glacial/interglacial periods) are caused by the sun's evolution and the subsequent build up or stratification of helium "ash" left over from the fusion of hydrogen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the helium builds up it tends to separate the hydrogen fusion into pockets with an energy release that could be focused in various directions. On a short term basis, we see this as the solar cycle with an increase/decrease in solar activity with spurious magnetic fields, sunspots, Coronal Mass Ejections (CME's) and various solar flares within the interglacial period we are now in; and on a long term basis, our glacial/interglacial periods that have been going on for over 1.6 million years. The increased activity tends to "stir the pot" and distribute the helium, quieting things down for a while.
The sun does not have to get brighter or dimmer to affect our weather or climate. the energy from the increased solar radiation and charged particles from solar flares and CME's is transformable and once it enters the Earths environment, manifests itself as light (northern/southern lights), magnetically induced electricity (overcharged transmission lines and electrified railroad tracks), and ultimately heat.
Solar cycle is a magnetic phenomenon. Polar magnetic fields are closely observed during last 50 years and are considered an accurate precursor of the cycles intensity. A simple mathematical formula gives a long term approximation of the polar fields and subsequent cycles. For details see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Solar pole reversals needs to be included as one of the variables?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So many 'science' types admitting that there is way more to learn!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup that is how it works . . nothing more to learn = no sense in doing anything scientific. People forget science is dynamic a WAY of learning and never absolute. (yes I said 'never absolute', but then again consistency and predictability to the point that probabilities of something else happing are so low it may not happen in the lifetime of the planet/system/universe comes close . . but still is not precisely an absolute - yes scientists make that distinction - most people do not and that is lost in translation when people harp about science not being SURE about something)
With more complex systems that probability is lower, but lower still means a statistical significance of ~5% or better . . or it would not be worth while to report. And when lower science looks for ways to find out more of what is going on to fix/update tests and understanding to where they are consistent and predictable.
In this case they have 'simple' models and they work simplistically, and can be wrong . . more complex and hopefully more correct ones are being worked on. This will continue till we need a even better model and so on.
The behavior of the Sun will remain a mystery so long as NASA hides and manipulates data that shows the Sun:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) Controls Earth's climate;
b) Is heated by Neutron Repulsion in the solar core;
c) Acts as a plasma diffuser that sorts elements by mass; and
d) Discharges H as a waste product (Neutron-Decay product).
See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun" Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144 (2009): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
You are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe love affair that NAS and NASA have had for the Standard Solar Model (SSM) of the Sun as a giant ball of Hydrogen has long prevented progress in our understanding of Earth's heat source - the Sun.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Great to see that we now at least say something about what once was 'incomprehensible'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the fact that there are still people in the world who feel that research is not necessary on subjects that we have yet to completely understand. Curiosity is the basis for research. In not finding the answer to a single question, new information is still yielded from the process. And you are one step closer to determining the answer. ALL things take time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the fact that there are still people in the world who feel that research is not necessary on subjects that we have yet to completely understand. Curiosity is the basis for research. In not finding the answer to a single question, new information is still yielded from the process. And you are one step closer to determining the answer. ALL things take time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskyros: predicting the average temperature of a system requires much more than just understanding of the bulk physics of the system. The average temperature of the earth has changed drastically over its history, well before man even was on earth. Our understanding of chaotic systems, explains why it is impossible to accurately predict the weather for more than a few days into the future, even with the most powerful computers. The same applies to climate change. It is the same problem over a different time scale. It is very difficult for some people to face the facts, but mans contributions to climate change are vastly overstated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how this article fails to mention that solar cycles (when combined with our orbital variances) are primarily responsible for large temperature changes on Earth. The truth of the matter is that until humans can change the orbit of the earth or alter the sun cycle, we can have almost no effect on global temperatures. However, the liberal hacks at Scientific American not only have no grasp of basic scientific principals, but no integrity, and thus will missinterpret the statements of real scientists to further their horrible political agenda. I would believe an article in the National Enquirer more than I would believe an article in Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbernsten69...yeah i think it interesting we are at a deep solar minimum ie less radiance from the sun ( ok only a one tenth of a percent dip)....yet the global temp is climbing...get a grip...the temp rise has nothing to do with the sun....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you need the facts go to www.nasa.gov(i know..gotta trust those untrust worthy people)...
here's a link...http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.pdf
The 11 year solar cycle is only a "cycle" in the broadest sense of the word. To be truely cyclical there has to be some underlying causality that defines the period of the cycle. If an 11 year solar mechanism exists it remains unproven by science. What we could be observing as the 11 year cycle may in fact be self-similar chaotic behavior (fractal) in nature or even totally random sequence of events that appears to be a "pattern" when it isn't. As the great Dr Sagan once stated "Humans evolved to see patterns in nature, however sometimes we see patterns where none exist"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you know the Earth is (approximately) 70% covered by an average of 3Km of water. Another (approximately) 17% is covered by ice. These are incredibly large sinks and sources of thermal energy. Control theory shows us that system with conjugate variables such as these can respond to forcing function pertubations by exhibiting "over-shoot" and "under-shoot". It is not at all unusal that a drop in a forcing function causes a spike in the system output.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith so many variables and billions of years involved it iis a complete bunch of boloney to think that we can understand 11 year cycles,and predict any thing from such a short study of the subject..The fact is that the sun is completely unpredictable,and we will never have enough information to know whats really going on.The best we can hope is to early warning of solar storms.As for thinking we understand the relationship between the sun,and Earth's cycles or the notion that we can save the world is pure crap,anything we do most likely will cause more harm than good.As for those who think they know what's going on they are full of it up to their ears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistry thinking out side the circle and looking at some of the old text and the new science and find nibrui you will have all your answers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistry thinking out side the circle and looking at some of the old text and the new science and find nibrui you will have all your answers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum Physics research here on Earth is causing mass-quanta changes within the core of the Sun. This is the cause of the Sun's 'very odd' behaviour. We would be wise to seize all experiments, such as being done in the LHC until we have a better theoretical model that takes into account what we already know about Quantum Physics. Does that mean that we should stop all research in Physics: no. It means we need to be much more careful about what we are doing, and most likely we need to devise much better shielding/isolation technology before we continue messing with the unknown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJean-Pierre A, Fenyo, Philosopher and Theoretician.
The standard model predicts a core of mostly hydrogen and helium. I believe the Sun has an iron core which is made evident by the amount of iron ions recently detected by satellites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to update our textbooks.
My response only indicates that understanding what is happening with the sun and other large balls of plasma may explain a lot about our misunderstanding of gravity. Asuuming gravity as a reshaping of space might give correct calculations but does not explain it all, its more like changing the numbers upon your micrometer to obtain a correct measurement . Assuming gravity is strictly a function of mass seems a bit flawed, since Einstein's theory pratically does away with mass altogether. Check the math. So esssentially we do not hace a truly plasible theory of gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAww cmon, cut the man some slack. He was in recovery, they never should have let him take the job. Besides, the answer is obvious even though people don't like to talk about religion in public anymore. We're obviously not throwing enough virgins down the well to appease the sun god... we're goners!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the previous poster:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The time of Jupiter's Orbit doesn't equal the Solar Cycle, so give up on your astrology bunk!
- Jupiter's orbit is 11.8592 years.
- The solar cycleUntil recently it was thought that there were 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008, giving an average length of 11.04 years, but recent research has showed that the longest of these (1784-99) seems actually to have been two cyclesso that the average length is only around 10.66 years. Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
To the previous poster:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The time of Jupiter's Orbit doesn't equal the Solar Cycle, so give up on your astrology bunk!
- Jupiter's orbit is 11.8592 years.
- The solar cycleUntil recently it was thought that there were 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008, giving an average length of 11.04 years, but recent research has showed that the longest of these (1784-99) seems actually to have been two cyclesso that the average length is only around 10.66 years. Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
Then again much of what they know about the sun could be wrong. The 11 year cycle is likely a cycle, within a cycle, within a cycle, wrapped in scientific speculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems rather funny to me that the Earth's magnetic field seems to be showing increasing instability even as the sun's does so. The South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly may indicate that we are getting ready for another polar flip-flop. Apparent correlation is not proof of causation, of course, but you do have to wonder. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Your own comments reflect a position taken by climate science deniers who don't understand whats being done, either by your meteorologist or by a climate scientist...." Nice try. It's obvious from the F work done by our "climate scientists" that they don't understand much either. It's best that they go into a profession where idiocy reigns supreme - perhaps a good congressional or senatorial spot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"....Your own comments reflect a position taken by climate science deniers who don't understand whats being done, either by your meteorologist or by a climate scientist."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your reply places you in the D- physics GPA class - please run for congress where your lack of intelligence will not stand out.
Wow. Finally a bunch of scientists who admit they don't have an answer for something! Perhaps they could pass on some of this humility to the advocates of anthropoligical global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Finally a bunch of scientists who admit they don't have an answer for something! Perhaps they could pass on some of this humility to the advocates of anthropoligical global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amzement of the blind men looking at the elephant! Solar cycles will be understood only when we know what causes it. The almost unpredictable, non-linear, quasi-periodic phenomenon has its origins in the nuclear reactions taking place there. The spacio-temporal self-organising phenomenon is not unlike Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in a petri dish - except that it is due to nuclear reactions and chemical and that the spacial dimensions are much larger. Time is of course, not far when a nuclear chemist will explain sun's behaviour and the composition of solar wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike, the flip flop of the magnetic polar orientation of the sun is supposed to have a 22 year cycle. Whereas that of the earth is much longer. Perhaps both have their own internal drivers. But I join in your wonder about the influence of one on the other. A distinct possibility, given the magnetic interactions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, Bill B about the bit on Helium "ash". Could we also add Berillium ash, Calcium ash, Iron ash...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Cota - I just happened to spot you statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The sun is a perfect non linear system that may be influenced by magnetic and gravitational forces we are unaware of. Just the fact that we cannot measure dark matter is enough to leave wild fluctuations available..."
Throughout the rest of the universe, some unidentified form of dark matter is proposed to account for some perceived discrepancy between observed gravitational effects and those predicted by astronomers' specific applications of established gravitational theories.
Are you suggesting that there is some observed gravitational effect of the Sun that is not explained by established gravitational theory? If so, please identify this unexplained gravitational effect of the Sun that requires the existence of some undetected additional mass.
By the way, if the typical proposed increase in undetectable matter is present at the periphery of the Sun's visible mass, the Earth's magnetic field would not just be deflecting the particulate solar wind but the majority of mass in the entire Solar system!
Your new discovery of Solar Dark Matter would revolutionize planetary physics! Please explain.
mikehattan: I see no alarmism in the article! It is simply a statement of facts and a report on a meeting of scientists discussing what is observed and what they think may be causes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Oliver K. Manuel, "The behavior of the Sun will remain a mystery so long as NASA hides and manipulates data that shows the Sun..." and you will be nothing more than a paranoid nut until you get treatment for your psychosis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sheband, perhaps you can learn something from that yourself. They at least took the time and did the ground work to try and understand the system. People such as yourself listen to your favorite politicians and bloggers and take their opinions about science as gospel, then parrot back the B.S. any chance you get. An ignorant armchair scientist ranting about things he/she knows nothing about is as far from humility as you can get.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does seem like a modification to the theory of gravity is going to be inevitable. There is a theory called MOND proposed by an Israeli that assumes that at a certain distance from the center of a galaxy the rate at which gravity falls off is not proportional to the distance squared, but simply to distance to the first power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMOND seems to work well within galaxies, but not so well addressing superclusters or intergalactic gravity. MOND does away with having to postulate Dark Matter.
One of many problems with Dark Energy as the driver of the accelerating expansion of the universe itself is that the wildly popular string theories can't accomodate Dark Energy well. A guy named Lee Smolin who specializes in supergravity has written an excellent book titled THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS which details all the woes that are appearing with strings, our traditional conception of gravity, and the once sacred doctrine of inflation concerning the early universe.
One point about inflation theory that I have always attacked is the assumption that the universe inflated to many orders of magnitude beyond the boundaries of what we can actually see. This was a pretty convenient assumption for scientists to make because it cleared up the awkward theological question about why we appear to be at the exact center of the visible universe. Inflation proponents suggest that for the expansion to stop abruptly at the edge of the visible universe there would have to be an unknown "stop" constant.
Left to chance, they say, it is more likely that the universe is much larger than it appears. This is the science of conjecture, not empiricism. Empirical science only allows us to talk confidently about what we can actually see and measure.
Worse yet, the visible universe is not distributed isometrically, as we were told when I was a lad, but it seems to have an axis, which disturbed astronomers call "the axis of evil."
Altogether, physics is quite troubled at the moment, and if physics is troubled, our understanding of what is going on in the Sun has to be suspect as well.
mike cook – I can’t agree that, since Dark Matter and Dark Energy are effectively cancerous ideas feeding on the credibility of astrophysics, that all of astrophysics must be discredited. It’s a stretch to address this in response to an article about the Sun, but I think these problems can be solved very simply, but solution requires dismissal of much of the conceptual foundation on with these misconceptions are based.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo learn how a simple misconception of the gravitational characteristics expected for spiral galaxies led to the establishment of requirements for compensatory Dark Matter, please review the essay, "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem" posted at:
http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/Mass_Distribution-_Galaxy_Rotation_Problem.pdf
I think the perceived acceleration of universal expansion arose from a much simpler misconception, but one that now, after 40 years, requires a much greater shift in the established perceptional paradigm of astronomers. In the simplest terms, this misconception is based on a spatial rather than temporal interpretation of the observed universe.
Analyses based on observation of the most distant type Ia Supernovae indicated that they had receded further from the Milky Way than predicted by standard cosmological models. It was concluded that the spatial periphery of the universe was expanding at a greater rate that the ‘interior’ of the universe.
The SN observation data should been interpreted to indicate that the most ancient light emissions indicated that the early universe had expanded at a greater rate that current cosmological models predict. More recent (nearby) light emissions are consistent with the predictions of standard cosmological models. From this it should only be concluded that the expansion of the universe has decelerated, as had been predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. No dark energy is necessary.
Other issues regarding quantum mass and the physical force of gravitation are more difficult to explain. Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult for those generations of students that have been educated in Dark Physics to abandon their deeply ingrained conceptions instilled by the teachings of unfounded ‘straw man’ fundamental theories. Perhaps some capable physicist can someday fully explain these simple misconceptions.
David Cota - If you can respond directly to my question I'd really appreciate it. I asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you suggesting that there is some observed gravitational effect of the Sun that is not explained by established gravitational theory? If so, please identify this unexplained gravitational effect of the Sun that requires the existence of some undetected additional mass.
Thanks in advance.
May be it's because of Bush, Al Gore or Obama or Palin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay be it's because of Niburu ancient texts or new blue beam project.
But I seriously think it's because of the forces that give equilibrium at the sun : Gravity an radiation pressure
may be it's because of BP, Baphomet, Rothschild or Vatican, or... myself
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisasking about a particle wave being developed by black hole in the center of the galaxie. My theory is that as the black hole absorbed all matter that comes into its grasp. It inturn releases particles like the the ones described In the Higgs Bosom theory In the from of waves that create in a centerfugal way. that is like pouring of water on a ball that is spining and it gives us the shape of the spiral arms of the galaxie. and that when our solar crosses the glalatic plane we recive a stronger dose so to speak of these particles. I also feel that these could combine with proton particles to create new mass in a way we are unaware of .this in turn adds to affects on our sun and other planets this could be kinda a delayed effect on the size of our planets. And incressed activity that affects not only our geophysics, quantum mech's , astrophysics . Could this also be a cyclictec affect that ancient culturals may have learned over time and trying to communicate this down to us in time. I would grately thank you if you could as David Darling what he thinks about what i have said. I realize this is a lot to ask but if you would just print this out for him. to think about. Thank you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. I would also like to ask if david thinks these particles could affect our DNA MOECULE. In a way that they work like off and on switches. That could change our bilogical make up to a point that we would change mentaly as well as phyiscaly over time. mabey even to affect other unseen planes of existences around us.I would like to just throw in 2 cent and get your comment. I feel that we are going about this the wrong way to try to find these particles. The higgs bosom are what ever you chose to call it . # 1 Its not one particle. Its many and it will be imposible to recreate with our limited techology. However a spherical analysis of oscillations could create possiible detection If set up at a depth within the earth to allow for matter to slighty impead the particles I belive this particles are created within the blach hole itself then due to the rapid spinning this particles are expelled in wave. they will be detecable through very tiny heat as they contact matter. There vibrational paterns that we have not looked for yet. Just a theory. Would like any comment you have on this theory. Thank you RAY
i think the jets given off by the black holes is the raw energy released by the total sublimation of matter. the only loss of energy directly from the black holes is gravitational , ultimate complete loss of knowledge. even if these particles existed then the rate of interaction with dna would probably be equal to cosmic ray interaction , thus vanishingly small . i think that the sun is to an extent similar to a pot of boiling water-but with the heat source in the center of the water(plasma). as with this heat influencing the surrounding environ not equally but hotter in some areas and less in others , as having to contend with different densities . the friction ,as the heat rises, rips the electrons from the atoms due to the electrons expanding away from the nucleus,they (-) swing away to a cooler point and as the nucleus heats its subatomics are ripped away piece by piece and as the nucleus moves to a cooler spot the subatomics of the partialy stripped nucleus share the remaining subatomics and then meet up with free electrons and form the new element . baby call will be back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison age, if one accepts the big bang, and the center point as -x- then unless the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light then the light recieved should be moving to the blue shift . i think we need to stop conjecturing and hold our tongues until we are sure. example - some exo planets have turned out to be phantoms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe ash redistribution theory seems to fit , edies and whirlpools do agragate and can cause narrowing and an initial breakage of log jam could cause a return to statis for the short term with a secondary or even teriary redistribution occuring at diminising durations . i find the heat and pressure gradiants tell the most . consider the jet stream as acting much like the gulfstream .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissince it take temp increase then those elements are still low level interferance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this