Understanding the magnetic sun

January 29, 2016 by Sarah Frazier
(Illustration) This comparison shows the relative complexity of the solar magnetic field between January 2011 (left) and July 2014. In January 2011, three years after solar minimum, the field is still relatively simple, with open field lines concentrated near the poles. At solar maximum, in July 2014, the structure is much more complex, with closed and open field lines poking out all over - ideal conditions for solar explosions. Credit: NASA/SVS

The surface of the sun writhes and dances. Far from the still, whitish-yellow disk it appears to be from the ground, the sun sports twisting, towering loops and swirling cyclones that reach into the solar upper atmosphere, the million-degree corona - but these cannot be seen in visible light. Then, in the 1950s, we got our first glimpse of this balletic solar material, which emits light only in wavelengths invisible to our eyes.

Once this dynamic system was spotted, the next step was to understand what caused it. For this, scientists have turned to a combination of real time observations and computer simulations to best analyze how material courses through the corona. We know that the answers lie in the fact that the is a giant magnetic star, made of material that moves in concert with the laws of electromagnetism.

"We're not sure exactly where in the sun the magnetic field is created," said Dean Pesnell, a space scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "It could be close to the solar surface or deep inside the sun - or over a wide range of depths."

Getting a handle on what drives that magnetic system is crucial for understanding the nature of space throughout the solar system: The sun's magnetic field is responsible for everything from the solar explosions that cause space weather on Earth - such as auroras - to the interplanetary magnetic field and radiation through which our spacecraft journeying around the solar system must travel.

The video will load shortly
NASA Goddard solar scientist Holly Gilbert explains a computer model of the sun’s magnetic field. Grasping what drives that magnetic system is crucial for understanding the nature of space throughout the solar system: The sun's invisible magnetic field is responsible for everything from the solar explosions that cause space weather on Earth – such as auroras – to the interplanetary magnetic field and radiation through which our spacecraft journeying around the solar system must travel. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Duberstein

So how do we even see these invisible fields? First, we observe the material on the sun. The sun is made of plasma, a gas-like state of matter in which electrons and ions have separated, creating a super-hot mix of charged particles. When charged particles move, they naturally create magnetic fields, which in turn have an additional effect on how the particles move. The plasma in the sun, therefore, sets up a complicated system of cause and effect in which plasma flows inside the sun - churned up by the enormous heat produced by nuclear fusion at the center of the sun - create the sun's magnetic fields. This system is known as the solar dynamo.

We can observe the shape of the magnetic fields above the sun's surface because they guide the motion of that plasma - the loops and towers of material in the corona glow brightly in EUV images. Additionally, the footpoints on the sun's surface, or photosphere, of these magnetic loops can be more precisely measured using an instrument called a magnetograph, which measures the strength and direction of magnetic fields.

Next, scientists turn to models. They combine their observations - measurements of the and direction on the solar surface - with an understanding of how solar material moves and magnetism to fill in the gaps. Simulations such as the Potential Field Source Surface, or PFSS, model - shown in the accompanying video - can help illustrate exactly how magnetic fields undulate around the sun. Models like PFSS can give us a good idea of what the looks like in the sun's corona and even on the sun's far side.

A complete understanding of the sun's magnetic field - including knowing exactly how it's generated and its structure deep inside the sun - is not yet mapped out, but scientists do know quite a bit. For one thing, the solar magnetic system is known to drive the approximately-11-year activity cycle on the sun. With every eruption, the sun's magnetic field smooths out slightly until it reaches its simplest state. At that point the sun experiences what's known as solar minimum, when are least frequent. From that point, the sun's magnetic field grows more complicated over time until it peaks at solar maximum, some 11 years after the previous solar maximum.

"At , the magnetic field has a very complicated shape with lots of small structures throughout - these are the active regions we see," said Pesnell. "At solar minimum, the field is weaker and concentrated at the poles. It's a very smooth structure that doesn't form sunspots."

Take a look at the side-by-side comparison to see how the magnetic fields change, grew and subsided from January 2011 to July 2014. You can see that the magnetic field is much more concentrated near the poles in 2011, three years after . By 2014, the has become more tangled and disorderly, making conditions ripe for solar events like flares and coronal mass ejections.

Explore further: Image: Supercomputer simulation of magnetic field loops on the Sun

Related Stories

SOHO image: Here comes the sun

July 13, 2015

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been watching the Sun for almost 20 years. In that time it has seen solar activity ramp up and die down repeatedly. Its Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope has taken images ...

Image: SDO sees 3 coronal 'holes'

September 17, 2015

The sun was visually dominated by three substantial coronal holes that rotated across its face the week of Sept. 8-10, 2015. Coronal holes are areas where the sun's magnetic field lines extend out into space and don't return ...

Using maths to unravel the Sun's magnetic fields

December 22, 2015

Complex magnetic fields in the Sun's atmosphere help heat it to multi-million degree temperatures and create explosive events such as solar flares that affect us here on Earth.

Video: NASA's SDO captures cascading magnetic arches

January 18, 2016

A dark solar filament above the sun's surface became unstable and erupted on Dec. 16-17, 2015, generating a cascade of magnetic arches. A small eruption to the upper right of the filament was likely related to its collapse.

Video: SDO sees tangled connections

January 22, 2016

These images from NASA's Solar Dynamic Observatory, or SDO, show magnetically active regions on the sun on Jan. 8-9, 2016. When such regions are close-set, magnetic field lines create a tangle of arches snaking through the ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

109 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeffhans1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
I want to see this for other stars including Magnetars and super massive black holes as well.
baudrunner
1.2 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2016
The sun is made of plasma
That's misinformation. The sun is surrounded by a very thin atmosphere of neon plasma. There is an actual surface on the sun, which is made of a solid iron mantel. Yes, solid iron. In the laboratory, researchers have been able to maintain the solid structure of iron at pressures and temperatures exceeding those at the surface of the sun. It is generally accepted by forward thinkers that NASA is dragging its behind in accepting the idea that the sun is anything but a giant gas ball. Now, come on, isn't that ludicrous?

If you have the stamina to read everything you need to understand this, then go here.. http://www.thesur...sun.com/
Phys1
4 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2016
@br
Dude, what are you smoking ?
You are solidly maintained on my ignore list.
___
Presently ignoring:
Benni bschott baudrunner plasmarevenge cantdrive45 gkam kaiserderden Shootist antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW bluehigh Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos
This list is updated continuously.
matt_s
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2016
" It is generally accepted by forward thinkers" - here forward thinkers means idiots with no proof, no models, and no scientific background.
TechnoCreed
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2016
@Phys1
You would be wrong to think that baudrunner fell sorry about that. To the contrary, crank posters are absolutely delighted by the kind of reaction you have; they take pleasure from it. The best way to get them upset is not to give them feedback of any kind.

The real problem is Physorg, they are the one who are allowing this kind of bullshit online. Feel free to tell them how you feel about that when they are campaigning for donations. AFAIK, you can be sure that they will not have a penny from me until they get their act together. At the moment the best thing that could happen to science is to see PO going bankrupt.
HannesAlfven
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2016
Re: "The real problem is Physorg, they are the one who are allowing this kind of bullshit online."

The real problem is that articles like this seem more intended to create a belief than report on a potential discovery. They're trying to frame the questions which other people ask by encouraging people to adopt their assumptions ...

(1) "Once this dynamic system was spotted ..."

(2) "We're not sure exactly where in the sun the magnetic field is created"

What is the point of creating a consensus on a model which still cannot make accurate predictions?
indio007
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2016
" It is generally accepted by forward thinkers" - here forward thinkers means idiots with no proof, no models, and no scientific background.

The first 2 matter. The third doesn't.
The number one logical fallacy on this site is the appeal to credentials.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
"Far from the still, whitish-yellow disk it appears to be from the ground..."

I'm still waiting for a photo of what the Sun looks like from space. Is it pure white, can the sunspots be seen?
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2016
" It is generally accepted by forward thinkers" - here forward thinkers means idiots with no proof, no models, and no scientific background.

The first 2 matter. The third doesn't.
The number one logical fallacy on this site is the appeal to credentials.

Disagree. A scientific background is required to understand nature.
By the way, so far it is primarily real crackpots like Benni who claim scientific credentials (Differential Equations !) here.
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2016
"Far from the still, whitish-yellow disk it appears to be from the ground..."

I'm still waiting for a photo of what the Sun looks like from space. Is it pure white, can the sunspots be seen?

It is yellow ( https://en.wikipe...Data.png )
and the sunspots can of course be seen.
Check out the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory site :
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2016
Check out the gif movies as well:
http://sohowww.na...ime/gif/
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2016
The sun is made of plasma
That's misinformation. The sun is surrounded by a very thin atmosphere of neon plasma. There is an actual surface on the sun, which is made of a solid iron mantel. Yes, solid iron. In the laboratory, researchers have been able to maintain the solid structure of iron at pressures and temperatures exceeding those at the surface of the sun. It is generally accepted by forward thinkers that NASA is dragging its behind in accepting the idea that the sun is anything but a giant gas ball. Now, come on, isn't that ludicrous?

If you have the stamina to read everything you need to understand this, then go here.. http://www.thesur...sun.com/


OMG, Iron Sun! Oliver you old dog, still hanging around kiddies?

The cranks this site attracts are remarkable for their tenacity.
indio007
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2016
" It is generally accepted by forward thinkers" - here forward thinkers means idiots with no proof, no models, and no scientific background.

The first 2 matter. The third doesn't.
The number one logical fallacy on this site is the appeal to credentials.

Disagree. A scientific background is required to understand nature.
By the way, so far it is primarily real crackpots like Benni who claim scientific credentials (Differential Equations !) here.


You can disagree all you like. You'd simply be wrong. It's not even debatable. It's a known logical fallacy. It's the reverse of an ad hominem. Instead attacking the speaker to disprove a theory, you claim a theory is right because of WHO said it.

The character/knowledge/etc... of the speaker has no bearing on the correctness of a theory/model.
The sad part is you probably have a degree and don't know this.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2016
baudrunner claims
The sun is surrounded by a very thin atmosphere of neon plasma
Really, how "thin" ?

baudrunner claims
There is an actual surface on the sun, which is made of a solid iron mantel
No, otherwise we'd see evidence of ALL facets of solid materials, we see none of that & your idea fails thermals !

baudrunner says
In the laboratory, researchers have been able to maintain the solid structure of iron at pressures and temperatures exceeding those at the surface of the sun
Sure but, read what YOU wrote at pressures "exceeding", these are likely material properties, since 'surface' is lower pressure ie its gas/plasma !

baudrunner claims
..It is generally accepted by forward thinkers
Define "forward", ie forward from any formal contact with basic Physics education demonstrated in labs etc ?

baudrunner says
to understand this, then go here.. http://www.thesur...sun.com/
No !

Do a basic conductive thermal calc re photon flux !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2016
indio007 claims
The number one logical fallacy on this site is the appeal to credentials
No. Its called education, when you Miss basic education in Physics indio007, you get very easily influenced by emotive argumentative propaganda like the nut Crothers !

You still havent answered my questions re why Crothers just *has to* misinterpret & proves he doesn't understand Gauss ?

At very least indio007, learn Gauss' theorems, its not as hard as it might appear & is *perfectly* sensible too as key foundation of Einstein's field equations, the maths just needs a *little* discipline to get to grips with

If you won't or cannot do that re basic education then frankly indio007, you paint yourself as a Crank & Fail to make any headway at all re All your obtuse redneck/bogan claims to know anything pertinent

To get a grip & sound education in Gauss, visit a uni, ask about sitting in on a lecture - instead of random propaganda U tube videos which only manipulate emotions
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2016
[Disagree. A scientific background is required to understand nature.
By the way, so far it is primarily real crackpots like Benni who claim scientific credentials (Differential Equations !) here.


You can disagree all you like. You'd simply be wrong. It's not even debatable. It's a known logical fallacy. It's the reverse of an ad hominem. Instead attacking the speaker to disprove a theory, you claim a theory is right because of WHO said it.

The character/knowledge/etc... of the speaker has no bearing on the correctness of a theory/model.
The sad part is you probably have a degree and don't know this.

You claim that knowledge is irrelevant. That people in order to be to the point might as well be ignorant.
That is not even a fallacy, that is stupidity in its naked, purest and ugliest form.
Knowledge is a required (but not sufficient) condition for making relevant statements.
If you don't believe me get surgery from a mechanic for all I care.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2016
Solon oddly asks to be spoon fed
I'm still waiting for a photo of what the Sun looks like from space. Is it pure white, can the sunspots be seen?
Why the hell are you "waiting" FFS ?

Why not learn & determine where to look if you were at all interested, because instead of idly writing you are waiting tells us you *only* want to utter complaint which wastes all our time & not actually get your intellect up to speed :-(

Start with Sol's spectra & consider the intensity is so very high you wouldn't be able to discriminate any change in output re sun spots by the naked eye - ie in a second your retina would be destroyed if you looked directly without well designed filters !

Education Solon, is also about effective time management, application of effort which has highest leverage for the level at which you value your time, can you appreciate that ?

Start here with patience for YOU to learn essential Physics
https://en.wikipe...Sunlight

Physics Please
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2016
TechnoCreed offered
To the contrary, crank posters are absolutely delighted by the kind of reaction you have; they take pleasure from it. The best way to get them upset is not to give them feedback of any kind
Hmmm, I prefer not to generalise, especially as you can observe behavior variance

I used to think as you at first on here but, considered that without serious challenge AND that challenge *converging* on core Physics then they have no negative reinforcement which means their pattern becomes more set ie Operant Psychology facet

I'm running a profiling script re all denier/crank nicks I encounter Eg For claims, linguistics, responsiveness & what they don't say re emotional factors & sockpuppet timing etc.

Evidence supports view that if you challenge but, admittedly *primarily* head on re Physics then likes of Benni, Water_Prophet, ubavontuba, docile etc retreat & reduce frequency of their claims Eg degrees, some even get wrought up trying they get banned
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2016
Solon oddly asks to be spoon fed
I'm still waiting for a photo of what the Sun looks like from space. Is it pure white, can the sunspots be seen?
Why the hell are you "waiting" FFS ?

It is amazing isn't it. He can type on this blog but googling "what does the sun look like from space" is beyond him. And he likens himself to Solon.
https://en.wikipe...ki/Solon
indio007
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016


You claim that knowledge is irrelevant. That people in order to be to the point might as well be ignorant.
That is not even a fallacy, that is stupidity in its naked, purest and ugliest form.
Knowledge is a required (but not sufficient) condition for making relevant statements.
If you don't believe me get surgery from a mechanic for all I care.


Saw the straw man fallacy i.e. (You claim knowledge is irrelevant) is your followup? That's almost comical.

Not a fallacy?
http://www.nizkor...ity.html

You even have the apples to oranges fallacy i.e. performing surgery (corporeal) to constructing a descriptive model (incorporeal).

I hope you didn't pay for that degree.
Solon
2 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2016
@Phys1
"Check out the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory site :"

I'm looking for a photograph, from a camera, not from an instrument that sees what our eyes can not. Perhaps "portrait" would be a better term, as there are "snapshots" of the Sun from EVA astronauts on various missions, but I am looking for something like this, but taken from space so we can compare images:
http://mcalisteri...it-2.jpg
200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.
tblakely1357
3 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2016
I am curious why our sun is classified as a 'yellow' star yet appears to be pure white when directly above. Also, since our atmosphere scatters blue light from the sun (thus why our sky looks blue) wouldn't that 'yellow' our sun even more when observed from the ground?
katesisco
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2016
https://www.ras.o...e-dynamo

Valentina Zarkova proposes a DOUBLE DYNAMO for Sol.
"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%," said Zharkova.

Perhaps the electrical theory that under lies the universe will become yet another discarded concept like the ether and fail to be understood as part of magnetism while science falls into a gravity well.
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
@Phys1
"Check out the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory site :"

I'm looking for a photograph, from a camera, not from an instrument that sees what our eyes can not. Perhaps "portrait" would be a better term, as there are "snapshots" of the Sun from EVA astronauts on various missions, but I am looking for something like this, but taken from space so we can compare images:
http://mcalisteri...it-2.jpg
200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.

Something like those? https://www.flick...ostream/ , https://www.flick...ostream/
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
I know, the over exposition of the light source do not allow for a correct color rendering of it. Sorry about that.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
I am curious why our sun is classified as a 'yellow' star yet appears to be pure white when directly above.
Talking about over exposition, our eyes are subject to the same effect; IOW our photoreceptor cells are saturated when you look up at the sun and it appears white but, in reality because of Rayleigh scattering it is yellow.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
The sun is yellow at the zenith and a deeper yellow at the horizon because the sun rays have to travel through more air.
Solon
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2016
The Apollo missions would have been a good opportunity to view the Sun from space, but the only images are from the Lunar surface, and with no ND filter they couldn't get a good image. There are no images of anything at all from cislunar space though.
http://www.lpi.us...-46-6762
Phys1
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2016
@idiot007
You do claim:
"The character/knowledge/etc... of the speaker has no bearing on the correctness of a theory/model."
So among others "The K N O W L E D G E of the speaker has no bearing on the correctness of a theory/model."
This is "stupidity in its naked, purest and ugliest form".
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
... they couldn't get a good image ...

We have satellites in orbit that continuously stream high resolution images of the Sun in any relevant wavelength. Besides Earth no other object is so completely and continuously monitored by the most advanced refined tools.
Here is probably the closest to what you are looking for
http://sohowww.na...igr/512/
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2016
If you don't believe me get surgery from a mechanic for all I care.

You even have the apples to oranges fallacy i.e. performing surgery (corporeal) to constructing a descriptive model (incorporeal).

Get surgery from a mechanic and you will see what I mean ;-)) .
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2016
@indio
Since I am a nice guy, I will explain the elementary logical error that you make.
Having knowledge of a subject, I think we agree on this, is not a _sufficient_ condition for being right. No matter how extended the knowledge is.
However, it _is_ a necessary condition for being right.
I assume that the statement is sufficiently complex to exclude being right by chance.
Your mistake is to consider only the first fact and to disregard the second.
We all make mistakes but this is a really big one.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2016
I am curious why,,,,,


Maybe you would be even more curious if you knew the Sun is actually mostly green looking if you looked at him from out in the space. On the temperature scale it is between yellow and orange. At least that is what I am getting from the book I read about him. But check with one of the smart Skippys to be sure. (Not one of the electric space Skippys, they get their stuffs on this stuff from really unreliable sources.)

I think Techno-Skippy is right. The sky is blue because the blue temperature photons gets scattered about by the atmosphere. That is also why the sun looks more red in the morning and evening, even more of the yellow and green temperature photons are getting scattered out and about leaving behind the red ones.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
Salut vieux Ira, how are you? It's the week-end, time to cheer with good people.
Alright, the peak luminosity of the sun is indeed in the green part of the visible spectrum, but it does not mean that it looks green. The sun radiates in a very wide range of the EM spectrum; it follows Planck's law of blackbody. If you want to have an idea of what the general color of the sun would be like, you have to know its effective temperature. Since our buddies at NASA are nice enough to tell us that it is 5778 Kelvin http://nssdc.gsfc...act.html we can then go see another buddy who will take care of the rest http://www.wolfra...w+5778+K One thing this link shows is the perceived color; this is about the colour that you would see in space if you looked at it through some very dark neutral density glass and notice that it is the same color that they use in the video of the article.

tbc
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
...

Notice that I wrote "...this is about the color...", because the sun is not a perfect blackbody, so it might be a little different but not much. Now, for the green part, if you look again at the WolframAlpha link of my last comment, it says the peak wavelength is 501.518nm. If we look at this specific wavelength we get this: http://www.wolfra...nm+color But remember; this is not the color of the sun.

It might also be interesting to know what Fraser Cain have to say about the color of the sun. https://www.youtu...kfAGPHtw
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
I am curious why our sun is classified as a 'yellow' star yet appears to be pure white when directly above. Also, since our atmosphere scatters blue light from the sun (thus why our sky looks blue) wouldn't that 'yellow' our sun even more when observed from the ground?

tblakely,
it's a frequency characterization.
Annndddd... "blue light from the sun..."?!?
Our sky looks blue because of atmospheric reflectivity of ALL wavelengths, NOT just 'blue light' from the sun...
Benni
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
You claim that knowledge is irrelevant. That people in order to be to the point might as well be ignorant.
That is not even a fallacy, that is stupidity in its naked, purest and ugliest form.
Knowledge is a required (but not sufficient) condition for making relevant statements.
If you don't believe me get surgery from a mechanic for all I care.


Hey there Stumpy,

Well spoken, just as foul mouthed as ever. I see you're even voting for yourself under the old Stumpy sign-on handle. I think axemaster needs to start looking into this.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
@ Techno-Skippy. I knew you could tell it better than me. I read the book called "The Life and Death of Stars" by Lang-Skippy. He is professor that teaches star astrophysics. It is a really good book if somebody wants something easy to understand about what goes on with stars. It is probably too easy for you but it was good for me.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2016
No. Its called education, when you Miss basic education...blah..blah..blah.bitty...blah..

Mutterin' Mike blabbers.
Wow, you have an education. Really??? https://en.wikipe...iki/Miss
It's too bad you have no intelligence or integrity.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
@ Techno-Skippy. I knew you could tell it better than me. I read the book called "The Life and Death of Stars" by Lang-Skippy. He is professor that teaches star astrophysics. It is a really good book if somebody wants something easy to understand about what goes on with stars. It is probably too easy for you but it was good for me.
Then you probably know much more about stars than me, and if you read this one http://lt-jds.jin...pace.pdf you will also know much more about the sun than I do ;-)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
Then you probably know much more about stars than me, and if you read this one http://lt-jds.jin...pace.pdf you will also know much more about the sun than I do ;-)


Hooyeei Techno-Skippy, laissez les bons temps rouler. That one is going to keep me busy for a long while. That is more like the kind of book that the students studying to be scientists read to be professionals. When I read stuffs like that I have to keep looking up things as I go along. I will try with him though, thanks. I just download him and look him up on Google-Skippy. You save me 109 dollars if I had to buy him from the Amazon.

But it is by the same Lang-Skippy who wrote the book I bought. The one I bought is just for the regular peoples like me who need things explained in simple everyday words.
Solon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
... they couldn't get a good image ...

We have satellites in orbit that continuously stream high resolution images of the Sun in any relevant wavelength. Besides Earth no other object is so completely and continuously monitored by the most advanced refined tools.
Here is probably the closest to what you are looking for
http://sohowww.na...igr/512/


HMI is not a camera. You can read about how it works online. There are no photographs of the Sun from clear space.
Stevepidge
not rated yet Feb 01, 2016

Disagree. A scientific background is required to understand nature.


Then how do you explain the observation regarding color by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Scroofinator
not rated yet Feb 01, 2016
There are no photographs of the Sun from clear space.

Ok, we get it... what's your point?
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
You claim that knowledge is irrelevant. That people in order to be to the point might as well be ignorant.
That is not even a fallacy, that is stupidity in its naked, purest and ugliest form.
Knowledge is a required (but not sufficient) condition for making relevant statements.
If you don't believe me get surgery from a mechanic for all I care.


Hey there Stumpy,

Well spoken, just as foul mouthed as ever. I see you're even voting for yourself under the old Stumpy sign-on handle. I think axemaster needs to start looking into this.

Of course you are upset. My comment directly affects you, as you have no knowledge of science in general. You are however an expert sock puppet voter. Me, I have no sp's. I only happen to have two accounts, my2cts and phys1.
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
I am curious why our sun is classified as a 'yellow' star yet appears to be pure white when directly above. Also, since our atmosphere scatters blue light from the sun (thus why our sky looks blue) wouldn't that 'yellow' our sun even more when observed from the ground?

tblakely,
it's a frequency characterization.
Annndddd... "blue light from the sun..."?!?
Our sky looks blue because of atmospheric reflectivity of ALL wavelengths, NOT just 'blue light' from the sun...

Don't see your point, tblakely's comment is correct.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
@WG
it's a frequency characterization.
No, it is a general classification it tell you the spectral type; yellow and 'G' are synonyms for the spectral type, dwarf and V (the roman numeral) are synonyms for main sequence stars; the sun is a G2V star the 2 gives you the mass range.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
...

Annndddd... "blue light from the sun..."?!?
Our sky looks blue because of atmospheric reflectivity of ALL wavelengths, NOT just 'blue light' from the sun...
Light scattering is not like reflection or diffusion; it involves photonic interactions with the atomic structure. There are many types of light scattering. For the color of the atmosphere it is the Rayleigh scattering that is involved. It is a coherent process; the atoms absorb and release the photons at the same energy thus same frequency, leaving them at the same energy level that they were before the photon interaction. As a musician you should understand it; it is a resonant process a specific wavelength range making atoms ring. So yes, the atmosphere absorbs a part of the blue light from the sun and it gives it back as its own colour. So the sun you see through the atmosphere and the atmosphere itself are components of the true color of the sun as seen from space.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2016
I only happen to have two accounts, my2cts and phys1.


Oh man, I hate to be behind Bennie-Skippy on something. It's really embarrassing. Well now I know too. Yeah, Bennie-Skippy is using a few puppets to change the karma score. I doubt I can do much to help since he has so many but I will try by making you one of my regulars like you were before.

Don't tell ol Mike-Skippy about it because he will be jealous (he's working on his own to do it too but he hasn't got all the bugs out yet), but according to Ira-Skippy's super duper CIA approved NASA grade computer these are Bennie-Skippy's puppets,

iamsmarterthanyou
GoshYouStupid
Mike Masson with the o
DQM
pongobongo
broadway 105.

I don't know where he gets the time to do it. I wish I didn't have a job like he doesn't so I could sit around voting all day and all night too.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
..according to Ira-Skippy's super duper CIA approved NASA grade computer these are Bennie-Skippy's puppets,

iamsmarterthanyou
GoshYouStupid
Mike Masson with the o
DQM
pongobongo
broadway 105.

I don't know where he gets the time to do it. I wish I didn't have a job like he doesn't so I could sit around voting all day and all night too.

I dunno, Ira. Why would he use those SP's to upvote my comments, when he downvotes with Benni sign-on?
Benni
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
WG, puuuuleeeze notice, I gave you a 5 Star.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
No, it is a general classification it tell you the spectral type; yellow and 'G' are synonyms for the spectral type, dwarf and V (the roman numeral) are synonyms for main sequence stars; the sun is a G2V star the 2 gives you the mass range.

Thanks, TC, for clearing me up on that. Was not aware of that classification method.
As to the light from the sun - The light comes in all wavelengths from the sun. In space there is insufficient matter for it to refract, reflect or diffuse from. It will look white in space - to our eyes that see only in the "visible" range. Our eyes will only see the aggregate. TO specialized equipment - oh, yeah, lots of colours (as translated BY that equipment - due to humans programming it to do so).
Here on earth our eyes see colours as a product of photonic interaction with the huge variety of elements and molecular compositions on both the surface and in the atmosphere.
So - we might be using different "dictionaries" to describe the same thing.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2016
WG, puuuuleeeze notice, I gave you a 5 Star.

LOLOL...:-)
a 5 backatchya, then...:-)
Benni
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
WG, puuuuleeeze notice, I gave you a 5 Star.

LOLOL...:-)
a 5 backatchya, then...:-)


What're you trying to do? Ruin my reputation?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
As to the light from the sun - The light comes in all wavelengths from the sun. In space there is insufficient matter for it to refract, reflect or diffuse from. It will look white in space - to our eyes that see only in the "visible" range. Our eyes will only see the aggregate. TO specialized equipment - oh, yeah, lots of colours (as translated BY that equipment - due to humans programming it to do so).
Here on earth our eyes see colours as a product of photonic interaction with the huge variety of elements and molecular compositions on both the surface and in the atmosphere.
So - we might be using different "dictionaries" to describe the same thing.

And - I just read in another article, "blue light" wavelength scatters more readily, therefore explaining the blueness of sky.
So, I stand corrected. Doh.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
WG, puuuuleeeze notice, I gave you a 5 Star.

LOLOL...:-)
a 5 backatchya, then...:-)


What're you trying to do? Ruin my reputation?

I know, I know. you don't need my help. You're doing it just fine on your own...
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
I dunno, Ira. Why would he use those SP's to upvote my comments, when he downvotes with Benni sign-on?


@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good as I have a right to be me, thanks for asking.

Yeah, I know what you mean by the "I dunno". I missed it the first few days because the pattern was not a pattern, not one that made sense I mean. But then the no pattern became a pattern and got my attentions. Then, I ran him through my super duper CIA approved NASA grade computer, that is what popped out.

(Psst, this me whispering at you. Actually it's not that fancy of the computer, but MY computer can see numbers that yours can not see. If I tell you anything more than that I would have to kill you so we don't get the conspiracy article posted up about us.)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
@WG
Thanks to you too, science outreach is a wonderful thing.

I did not see much wrong in the second part of your reply, except that it gave me the feeling that you did not understood what I was talking about.
... refract, reflect or diffuse…
Those optics phenomenon that you mentioned, involves light as a wave. Light scattering involves the quantum particle named photon. It is a particle interaction and here is a brief lecture on Rayleigh scattering: https://www.youtu...ezIfdgAY
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
I did not see much wrong in the second part of your reply, except that it gave me the feeling that you did not understood what I was talking about.
... refract, reflect or diffuse…
Those optics phenomenon that you mentioned, involves light as a wave. Light scattering involves the quantum particle named photon. It is a particle interaction and here is a brief lecture on Rayleigh scattering: https://www.youtu...ezIfdgAY
Interesting (and enlightening) vid.Part of the confusion, I see now, is the concept of photon "size". And I also need to rephrase from, "refract, reflect or diffuse" to "re-emit"...?
However, I am still having a tuff time with the concept of "no loss of photon energy" since there is thermodynamic indication of energy transfer via heating of aforementioned molecules...
But I do get that polarization is what produces a particular color...
Enthusiastic Fool
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
Looks like you just stepped out of a Solon said:

HMI is not a camera. You can read about how it works online. There are no photographs of the Sun from clear space.


"The HMI instrument design and observing strategy are based on the highly successful MDI instrument, with several important improvements. HMI will observe the full solar disk in the Fe I absorption line at 6173Å with a resolution of 1 arc-second. HMI consists of a refracting telescope, a polarization selector, an image stabilization system, a narrow band tunable filter and two 4096 pixel CCD cameras with mechanical shutters and control electronics. The continuous data rate is 55Mbits/s."
(http://hmi.stanfo...ew.html)

You are so right buddy. It's TWO cameras, a refracting telescope, and some filters. Sounds like it's taking pretty clear pictures to me.
bschott
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
We know that the answers lie in the fact that the sun is a giant magnetic star, made of material that moves in concert with the laws of electromagnetism.


Oooops.....

I can't believe i saw this in an article on Physorg. Figured it would still be a few years before this type of "revelation" was in print in mainstream astrophysics.

Less stunning is the fact that Nocents and Phys1 are the same individual, the sloppy statements and lack of understanding were a dead give away....my favorite Nocents remark to date:

Of course the sun is immune to magnetic influence


It's almost like they published this article to show you what an idiot you are.....

Hat1208
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
@Uncle Ira

Bonjour Mes Ami. I thought I had seen in earlier posts where you had tried to explain to Mike Massen that you had mistaken him for Mike Masson and apologized for the honest opinion of his posting. Also I had a suspicion that Benni and Phys1 where one and the same.

p.s. I don't want to know about your computer.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Well bs, display your superior model again.
I remember you believe that the Sun and the galaxy are held together by magnetism and not by gravity. Please confirm that or are you chicken ?
By the way, I have always stated explicitly that my2cts==phys1, Sherlock.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
I had a suspicion that Benni and Phys1 where one and the same.

That is an insult to me, but an incredible compliment to Benni.
Hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
@Phys1,my2cts

Sorry for that I read the earlier comment and somehow had misunderstoodnessness.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
Well bs, display your superior model again.
I remember you believe that the Sun and the galaxy are held together by magnetism and not by gravity. Please confirm that or are you chicken ?


Oh shit dude...I thought you had me on ignore....I wasn't looking to interact directly with you.

But since you ask, yes, the galaxy is held together by interacting magnetic fields and as the article quite clearly states, the sun is a magnetic star dominated by EM forces. The "superior model" you ask for is still in the making but being the mainstream has been looking at it for over a hundred years and still completely botched it, I figure I have time to sort everything out properly.

By the way, I have always stated explicitly that my2cts==phys1, Sherlock.


Easy, I just noticed the posting similarities. I really don't care about "sock puppets". Just had to speak up on this one because this article uses exact terminology that I have in posts here, and debated you about.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
@bs
"The "superior model" you ask for is still in the making "
Exactly. You claim that we're all nuts believing that gravity plays any role in keeping the sun, the planets, the solar system, the galaxy together. But you have absolutely nothing to prove your completely weird statements that it is all magnetism. Any back of the envelope calculation proves you hopelessly wrong. And then you go around insulting people because they point out that you are a crank.
That is sooo cranky.
Easy ...

What I am telling you is that I have regularly stated "my2cts==Phys1".
This is why it was "easy".
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
@WG
...I see now, is the concept of photon "size"...
" The horror....... The horror "

Photons have no physical dimension. I know, you are not the one responsible for this abomination. Notwithstanding this, it as the best video I have found to explain the basics of Rayleigh scattering. Still I have to do some damage control; I hope it will not leave any scars.

The quote was my best interpretation of colonel Kurtz; I hope you have appreciated.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
Photons have no physical dimension. I know, you are not the one responsible for this abomination.

I understand that. It's just that so many discuss photons as a tiny particle, not as a quantum entity.
Notwithstanding this, it as the best video I have found to explain the basics of Rayleigh scattering.

It cleared me up on the scattering process.
Still I have to do some damage control; I hope it will not leave any scars.

Scars just mean you've not been afraid to do things. And chicks dig 'em...:-)
The quote was my best interpretation of colonel Kurtz; I hope you have appreciated.

Not sure who he was, but I do think -
"Ohh, the humanity!..." is equally appropo...:-)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016
Ok then
"Ohh, the humanity!..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YY0xw5r1ro

But we are talking about "the size of a photon" aren't we a bit too dramatic?
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
You claim that we're all nuts believing that gravity plays any role in keeping the sun, the planets, the solar system, the galaxy together.


As I have stated many times (but i will happily knock down your strawman yet again) Gravity is not the prime driver of structure on a universal scale, it is a factor in the solar system. I have never said that doesn't play a role locally. If I were some of the other posters here I'd be objecting that you would lump them in with you as being nuts....but hey, nobody likes to be alone so I am sure they won't blame you.

Any back of the envelope calculation


I'll ask it here too, calculation of what? (maybe you'll answer it in this thread....)

And then you go around insulting people because they point out that you are a crank.


You call people who don't believe in math fairy tales cranks, that is insulting so you get it thrown back at you. Don't throw what you can't catch when it comes back.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016
@bullschitt
... the galaxy is held together by interacting magnetic fields

Why don't you give as a numerical estimate of the magnet forces involved?
Oh I forgot you hate math.
and as the article quite clearly states, the sun is a magnetic star dominated by EM forces.

The article does not say that.
The authors assumed, correctly, that everyone knows that is dominated by gravity.
The gravity at the surface is 27g and the escape velocity is 55 times that on Earth.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
and as the article quite clearly states, the sun is a magnetic star dominated by EM forces.

The article does not say that.


From the article: "We know that the answers lie in the fact that the sun is a giant magnetic star, made of material that moves in concert with the laws of electromagnetism."

You really want to keep doing this to yourself?

The authors assumed, correctly, that everyone knows that is dominated by gravity.


Please don't attempt to convey what others are thinking, your own brain is scrambled enough as clearly evidenced by your most recent post.

The gravity at the surface is 27g and the escape velocity is 55 times that on Earth.


This appears factual, you must have read it and memorized it. Try reading the articles you comment on as well as the entire comment you are responding to under said articles. Or just keep being your usual oblivious self and saying really stupid things, again, as evidenced by your most recent post.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016

From the article: "We know that the answers lie in the fact that the sun is a giant magnetic star, made of material that moves in concert with the laws of electromagnetism."

You really want to keep doing this to yourself?

Everything moves "in concert with the laws of electromagnetism". They are laws.
The authors assumed, correctly, that everyone knows that is dominated by gravity.

Please don't attempt to convey what others are thinking, your own brain is scrambled enough as clearly evidenced by your most recent post.

Every article assumes a minimum of common sense.
The problem is that you do not have any, so you misunderstand.
The gravity at the surface is 27g and the escape velocity is 55 times that on Earth.

This appears factual, you must have read it and memorized it.
They don't "appear factual", they are facts. The stuff that you can't handle.
I just looked them up on the web. You know, the internet. www.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Why don't you give as a numerical estimate of the magnet forces involved?


A: It isn't my job. That you would just toss out that as a requirement for you to get it speaks volumes of how attuned you are to physical interactions.

B: That alone would be 24/7 project for 20 years and would require knowing the polar axial orientation of every star in the galaxy, the EM field associated with each type of star, along with at least a rudimentary map of the galactic magnetic field. Since the mainstream has been only mildly interested in this type of info. until recently and I already have a job, I'll leave it to the truly gifted math students and physicists who are also attuned to the nature of physical interactions. Like the ones behind the research that led to this article.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
Everything moves "in concert with the laws of electromagnetism". They are laws.


Thank you for finally getting it, and using the word "everything" in it's proper context.

they are facts. The stuff that you can't handle.


When you get them right, which, I believe this may be the first time ever, I can handle them just fine. See? all you had to do was actually make just one statement of fact for me to agree with you.

I just looked them up on the web. You know, the internet. www.


Jeez, if that was all it took you should have been doing that from the start and we could have been friends....Nah. But maybe I wouldn't have to keep punting you away like a yappy dog that doesn't know any better.

Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Where are your facts, bs ?
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
Where are your facts, bs ?


You just stated the main one. You said it was a law. I agreed.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
I have a question - why aren't the magnetic poles the same as the spin axis poles?
And - has anybody considered our angular position(s) relative to other magnetic entities?
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Where are your facts, bs ?


You just stated the main one. You said it was a law. I agreed.

Everything obeys the EM laws.
That's your theory ?
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
I have a question - why aren't the magnetic poles the same as the spin axis poles?


Once again the artist asks a great question. I can't post a theoretical answer to that here without having to deal with the usual crap from the usual suspects, and it can't be done briefly because at every step an explanation is required as to why the theory casts aside preconceived notions about where the fields originate and how they interact.

And - has anybody considered our angular position(s) relative to other magnetic entities?

Yes. But if by "anybody" you mean the mainstream, sort of. Do remember an article here some years ago about the alignments of PN's in the vicinity of the galactic core? They are all axially aligned towards the same point. It was the only thing I have seen where the mainstream has made reference to an alignment of this nature when speaking of stellar objects.

I can only assume it was too far outside predictions to pursue...for them.

bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Everything obeys the EM laws. That's your theory?


Yes. But that would be stating mainstream theory as: "everything is attracted to everything else".

Now I am going to put you on ignore, unlike you to me, I will leave you there. I really don't wan't to be as crass and insulting to people as our interactions have been bringing out lately...but being insulted by the likes of you will do it every time.

When someone like WG asks a question as above in earnest and there is no definitive published answer, a logical discussion around the topic should ensue.

Logic Phys1. Not appeals to authority. Not personal insults. Just a rational discussion in which each party presents their interpretation of observations based on how physics works. If the only proof you have of how your physics works is math, then you have no proof, because equations can be translated into words. If the words don't describe reality, neither does the equation. It really is that simple.

Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
@Phys1

You can't argue with logic like that.

Logic Phys1. Not appeals to authority. Not personal insults. Just a rational discussion in which each party presents their interpretation of observations based on how physics works. If the only proof you have of how your physics works is math, then you have no proof, because equations can be translated into words. If the words don't describe reality, neither does the equation. It really is that simple.

Wow!
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
Hi Phys1, bschott. :)

Your argument over which is dominant (gravity or E-M) is missing a crucial consideration; namely:

Any freefalling object under gravity influence is easy to influence by other forces OVER TIME; to produce trajectories/orbits/behaviours not dictated by gravity (since gravity effect on freefalling objects is only limited to tidal effects, not overall different accelerations on whole body).

Consider analogy:

Satellites in freefall can have ION DRIVES with miniscule levels of acceleration effect, but OVER TIME the e-m force/effect builds to produce a totally new trajectory for that satellite than purely freefall-due-to-gravity would have.

See? Once neutral/plasma bodies (eg, satellites/sun) are in freefalling state, other/E-M forces become dominant in MODIFYING that gravity-freefall state to some other configuration, especially if those other forces act over sufficiently long times (as in lifetime of solar/galaxy etc systems).

'Hybrid' phenomena. :)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
As I have stated many times (but i will happily knock down your strawman yet again) Gravity is not the prime driver of structure on a universal scale, it is a factor in the solar system. I have never said that doesn't play a role locally. If I were some of the other posters here I'd be objecting that you would lump them in with you as being nuts....but hey, nobody likes to be alone so I am sure they won't blame you.
Actually, not a strawman; a mistake in interpretation is not a logical fallacy, it is a mistake. It can be corrected by explaining yourself more concisely.

Your comment about magnetism earlier in the thread leaves the impression that you are saying magnetism is more important than gravity in forming large scale structure in the universe. Clearly, you didn't mean that, right?
Phys1
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016
@rc
And how big do you estimate EM effects on planetary orbits to be?
On the orbit of the Sun in the galaxy?
I estimate them to be extraordinarily small and utterly negligible.
Feel free to show otherwise.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Your comment about magnetism earlier in the thread leaves the impression that you are saying magnetism is more important than gravity in forming large scale structure in the universe. Clearly, you didn't mean that, right?


Of course I did, you know I have said that here almost as many times as Nocents made himself look like a moron.

Read the article were commenting under kids. Any direction forward in astrophysics will be as a result of understanding and studying the magnetic properties of objects.

Science isn't about protecting the status quo.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Satellites in freefall can have ION DRIVES with miniscule levels of acceleration effect, but OVER TIME the e-m force/effect builds to produce a totally new trajectory for that satellite than purely freefall-due-to-gravity would have
@rc
And how big do you estimate EM effects on planetary orbits to be?
Did you not understand the implications of my analogy/example? It's not about either/or; nor relative strengths etc. It's about what is dominant in a particular evolutionary context/stage, when one force is no longer a 'player'; whereas E-M is a 'player' OVER long TIMES after gravity balanced effect on freefall objects has established. Recent astronomical discoveries of overall galactic magnetic field 'toruses', and by implication, past/present electric charge 'currents' which formed/sustains them. Calculations will depend on knowing over what time the grav-Emag 'interplay' have led to present states/strength; also on knowing actual strengths E-M now. :)
baudrunner
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Unbelievable the lazy time-wasters on this site who have no desire to investigate or read the wealth of data pertaining to a link, then expend needless energy challenging and questioning rather than confirming on their own through READING, which would serve to satisfy them. It's apparent that this stuff is just to deep for you losers. Everybody wants to be a critic who blindly follows the "status quo" to boost their own credibility, but nobody wants to do the research!

Here is a link to the site again: http://www.thesur...sun.com/ this time, read through all the tabs before you open your big mouths and embarrassingly reveal your ignorance. This contains real science done by all those probes that you yourselves are referencing!
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
Satellites in freefall can have ION DRIVES with miniscule levels of acceleration effect...
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply? Humm! Find some ingredients that sound esoteric; an ion drive for example.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.

Like relativity...
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.

Like relativity...
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."_Albert Einstein

I will add: If you can't understand it, you did not try hard enough.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.

And still no estimates of the magnitude of the effect.
A man's life is too short to wait for these.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
@buadrunner

Thanks for the laughs!

Clicked on the "Evidence" tab, read the the ridiculous claims and followed the links, at least the
ones that worked. As typical of crackpottery, the links do not support the claims. Well maybe
if you're the sort of person who sees towers and rocket ships on Mars (as you do) it makes
perfect sense. I knew you were into Ancient Aliens but didn't realize you buy into the EU crap.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Your comment about magnetism earlier in the thread leaves the impression that you are saying magnetism is more important than gravity in forming large scale structure in the universe. Clearly, you didn't mean that, right?


Of course I did, you know I have said that here almost as many times as Nocents made himself look like a moron.

Read the article were commenting under kids. Any direction forward in astrophysics will be as a result of understanding and studying the magnetic properties of objects.

Science isn't about protecting the status quo.


Interesting! How does magnetism go about doing this? Is it acting in concert with gravity, or does it somehow overwhelm gravity? How does it extend out that far? Do you have a coherent theory you are referencing, or should this just be something obvious?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2016
Unbelievable the lazy time-wasters on this site who have no desire to investigate or read the wealth of data pertaining to a link, then expend needless energy challenging and questioning rather than confirming on their own through READING, which would serve to satisfy them. It's apparent that this stuff is just to deep for you losers. Everybody wants to be a critic who blindly follows the "status quo" to boost their own credibility, but nobody wants to do the research!

Here is a link to the site again: http://www.thesur...sun.com/ this time, read through all the tabs before you open your big mouths and embarrassingly reveal your ignorance. This contains real science done by all those probes that you yourselves are referencing!

Quack alert!

There is no science in that pile of steaming pseudo-science.

The idiocy of that laughable crap is self evident.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2016
Science isn't about protecting the status quo.

At least - it SHOULDN'T be...
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
Hi TechnoCreed. :)

What's the matter with you? Limited text here doesn't make for long expositions. Anyway, my reminder was to BOTH 'sides' that they were missing an important factor which made their exchanges cross-purpose, missing the point by BOTH 'sides'.

And why take cheap shots like that?...when you should ACKNOWLEDGE the KNOWN PHYSICS point I made re the dominant player over time after gravity was balanced out and the system was in gravitational freefall state/configuration which CAN be destabilized/modified by other forces NOT balanced (even small E-M forces, but active over LONG times...such as in the ION DRIVE analogy which is valid for the purpose of illustrating that point).

Can it be you don't understand that simple straightforward point even when illustrated by that analogy/example? No, I can't believe you are as stupid as to not understand what I was getting at; for BOTH 'sides' to consider in their discussion going forward. So don't be 'that guy', mate. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. Please read my response to TechnoCreed before proceeding.

Now: the usual principles/equations of force applied over extended periods will apply in calculations of the effects you want quantified. The problem is there is no known measurement of what force DOES apply in the case of E-M effect on sun/other charged/plasma bodies/flows in space. If there were, the quantifications you are looking for would be calculable using those equations. The further problem is the E-M forces are in flux over time/trajectories, such that their overall net effects will be difficult to calculate. However, knowing the gravity effect is balanced if the bodies are in freefall, then the E-M effects must be what is producing other observed 'anomalies'. These 'anomalies' may be explained by LONG TIME CUMULATIVE SMALL accelerations by E-M forces in space.

See? A system's central/extended Gravity is known, but local/cumulative E-M force modifications not known. So hard to calculate. :)
TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
And before I read the rest of the comments,
TC
" Photons have no physical dimension. I know, you are not the one responsible for this abomination.

WG
"I understand that. It's just that so many discuss photons as a tiny particle, not as a quantum entity."

And I am guilty of this as well (just as well I only discussed it with myself :)

Thanks, I understand some stuff better now :)
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Hi Vietvet. :)

Mate, I thought we got past game playing in the ratings pages? Why downvote a perfectly valid known physics explanation and point made using a valid illustrative analogy involving small accelerations over long periods changing freefalling objects' trajectories/behaviours once the gravity is in balance on that object? Can it be you didn't understand it? Or that you kneejerked because you lumped me in (incorrectly) with some EU 'camp' or other? I am independent researcher/commenter. I observe and speak objectively regardless of what 'sides' are arguing. I especially provide a circuit-breaker to the discussions when they seem stuck on personal 'sides' rather than objective realities involved in the phenomena under discussion. Mate, please don't let this be yet another year of you (and certain others, on all 'sides') being your old selves in the mold of 'that guy' of previous year(s). Star afresh, everyone. This is a new year of discovery. Don't fail science. :)
TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2016
So I read the rest...
Ten minutes I'll never get back...
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
@bschott,
Sad, source of your confusion is propaganda only & gets to impress some & 'stake a claim' due to missed high school Physics & although that was sad back then, its No excuse to entrench that lack with huge resources available to learn core Physics, Eg lectures/lab experiments ie L. Susskind @ Stanford & many others

Your claim re Core Physics is completely wrong re ElectroMagnetism(EM)
..galaxy is held together by interacting magnetic fields..
2 *simple* reasons re Gravity(G)

1 Unlike G, EM sums dipole locally ie polarised short range, gravity doesn't !
2 Unlike G, EM force falls earlier inverse cube, gravity falls off later inverse square !

Not disputing galactic currents but, so far All evidence especially re 2. indicate they're feeble

Observe local *Proof* re 1/2 for Sol & its EM vs G re Earth:-

Moon/Sun's G influence tides, Sol's EM *completely* unmeasurable *Anywhere* on Earth & same for galactic EM ever measured *Anywhere* ie Negligible !
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016

Quack alert!

There is no science in that pile of steaming pseudo-science.

The idiocy of that laughable crap is self evident.

He's not just a quack, he is a paria.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.

I took all the "/" as sarcasm...:-)
Was that wrong?

And Phys - it's "pariah"...
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
How to cook a pseudo scientific reply part 2. Find a way to write/compose so that others could improbably/unlikely/impossibly understand/discern/figure out/fathom what you are talking about.

I took all the "/" as sarcasm...:-)
Was that wrong?

And Phys - it's "pariah"...

(How to cook a pseudo scientific reply.) Was a parody of RC's style; sarcasm indeed. Just wanted to make fun of RC's ununderstandable discourse, to amuse the gallery.

Phys1 comment is aimed at baudrunner and I have a feeling that it means that he do not hold him in high regards.

Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
My Pariah (thanks WG) qualification is directed at bs, who posts stuff like this:
You know better than the CEOs of Samsung, TSMC, Intel, Global Foundries combined.


Are their eyes connected to their brains?

I strongly advise anyone here to put you on ignore or crush you as the scientific and technological insect that you are.


I strongly advise you to change tampon brands, move out of moms house and find yourself a sexual companion that isn't already part of your physiology.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2016
Hey there Stumpy
@benji
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true: it isn't me, and it never was

you simply put everyone who you dislike into a poster and call them all me, mostly because the scientifically minded real educated people ask for evidence without just accepting your BS rants about how smart you are

(cue differential equations, GR/SR, read Einstein etc argument as your rebuttal)

at least benji is consistent (and consistently wrong)

.

this time, read through all the tabs
@baud
worst comedian ever...
or was that supposed to be legit?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.