The mystery of sunspots

· They disappear after few days when they will not be seen [afterwards], because the sun has swallowed them. If, really, these spots were due to the putting out of the sun, then they must increase a day after another until all the surface of the sun will be put out, when its Doomsday will take place.

[I may add also:
· They are colder than the rest of the solar body.
· They are depressed below the surface of the sun (saucer-shaped).
· There is the umbra (darker and colder), and the penumbra (less darker and less colder; or the penumbra is brighter and more hot than the umbra.)
· They are accompanied by severe disturbances in the solar activity, accompanied by magnetic field changes, that even affect the communication on Earth.]
Most of the meteorites and celestial rocks are obtained when one of the terrestrial planets of this sun will come to a standstill; that is because meteorites, celestial rocks and moons are attracted to planets, and when the planet will be depleted of its central heat, it will stop its axial rotation; for the same reason, its gravity will diminish then will be lost.
At that time the meteorites, celestial rocks and moons attracted by that planet will move towards the sun by its gravitational force, and the sun will swallow them.

The large sunspot observed few years ago, and remained visible from Jan.28. to Feb.10 [ 1956: about 2 weeks) and was accompanied by the most severe electromagnetic storms; it must, undoubtedly, be a group of meteorites which were revolving around Venus. This Venus had its central heat finished, and it had lost its gravity, so that these meteorites escaped the gravity of Venus and were pulled by the gravitational force of the sun, which swallowed them in 2 weeks time.
--
--

--
--

This is confirmed by the most recent discovery of SOHO , which may be interpreted as such rocks, meteorites and [? moons] fall on the sun:
>> " A sunspot turns out to be a kind of whirlpool, where hot gas near the Sun's surface converges and dives into the interior at speeds of up to 4000 kilometres per hour."

>> " The converging flows of gas around a spot, found by SOHO, explain why the magnetic fields become concentrated, and how a sunspot can persist for days or weeks."

>> "the Sun is actually brighter when it is freckled with dark spots."

>> "sunshine is slightly more intense at sunspot maximum"

"What is interesting from the physical point of view is that, being cool, the descending flow is readily able to extract the heat that accumulates beneath the spot," Gough says. "It then spreads the heat away from the sunspot and eventually brings it to the surface of the Sun far from the spot, from where it is radiated into space."
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=2672

eanassir
--

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 1st, 2008 at 03:58 PM..Reason: correction

Ah, chapter 4, or is it chapter 5, of Eanassir's Follies. Have you any idea how big sunspots are? They're routinely tens of thousands of miles across, far bigger than the earth. If there were celestial bodies big enough to create disruptions that size in the solar surface, they'd be seriously disrupting planetary orbits, and we'd have seen them.

Quote:

The large sunspot observed few years ago... must, undoubtedly, be a group of meteorites which were revolving around Venus.

Undoubtedly not. If there was a swarm of meteorites around Venus big enough to punch a hole that big in the sun, Venus' orbit would have been seriously disturbed, and we'd have seen them.

Quote:

This Venus had its central heat finished, and it had lost its gravity, so that these meteorites escaped the gravity of Venus and were pulled by the gravitational force of the sun, which swallowed them in 2 weeks time.

More nonsense. Venus hasn't lost its gravity, nor has it ceased its axial rotation. Neither has the moon.

Quote:

This is confirmed by the most recent discovery of SOHO , which may be interpreted as such rocks, meteorites and [? moons] fall on the sun:

SOHO confirms no such thing, that interpretation is not remotely likely.

You're hopeless eanassir. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

When we throw a stone in a lake or mud, will the effect in the water or mud be exactly equal to the size of the small stone that we have thrown? Certainly there will be splash, depression, waves and disturbance in the surface and below the surface in addition to much water or mud that will scatter out of the water or the mud.
Another example: if a stone be violently thrown into a volcano [even if it is little bit active or inactive], what will result?

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Nonsense. A planet's internal heat has no relationship to its axial rotation or its gravitational field.

Then why both Mercury and Venus have not any moon? you may say: from the start they have no moon; it could be, but I think they (like the rest of the planets) may have had then lost them, may be!

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Undoubtedly not. If there was a swarm of meteorites around Venus big enough to punch a hole that big in the sun, Venus' orbit would have been seriously disturbed, and we'd have seen them.

They try, investigate and explore, but none can claim they have seen everything concerning the sun and the planets.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

More nonsense. Venus hasn't lost its gravity, nor has it ceased its axial rotation. Neither has the moon.

At least accept the observation that they have very long day and night.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

SOHO confirms no such thing, that interpretation is not remotely likely.

The whirlpool that they noticed, the gases rushing around the spot may indicate the falling of some rocks and give an explanation of such changes that accompany the appearance of the sunspot.

eanassir

--

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 2nd, 2008 at 02:00 AM..

The sun is about 1,392,000 kilometres (864,940 miles) in diameter thats about three and a half tmes the distance from the earth to the moon, Earth is puny in comparison. I imagine you would need an earth sized object to collide with the Sun to account for a sun spot, and as Dexter says we would have detected it- presently we have 14 sunspots, according to your hypothesis 14 earth sized objects would have had to impact the sun this year alone. it doesn't work for me.

Currently there are 0 (zero) sun spots.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...e/mdi_igr/512/

The sun is more than million times bigger than the earth.

As have I said to Dexter:

If we throw a stone in a lake of water or in mud, will the effect be exactly equal to the size of the little stone that we have thrown?
Certainly, there will be splash, rushing of water (or mud) outside the lake or the pool, there will be waves, depression in the surface of the lake which will be exceedingly more than the size of our stone and there will be disturbance in the surface and below the surface of the lake or pool.

Another example: if we throw a stone violently in a volcano (even if it is inactive or a little bit active); what will happen?

The sun has a tremndous gravitational power, that will attract and hunt the stones scattered in the space; these rocks fall on the earth and the other planets, why not it also more vulnerable to fall on the sun.

In the Quran 2: 24 (eventhough some does not like that) there is:
The explanation: (then ward off the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for disbelievers...)
The explanation: (O believers, protect yourselves and your families from a Fire, the fuel of which is men and stones, ...)
The ‘stones’ means the rocks of meteorites.

--
--

eanassir

--

No, it'll create a spreading circular pattern of waves that dissipate fairly quickly, depending on the viscosity of the fluid. That's not what sunspots look like, they're irregular shapes and they last for weeks. The analogy is false.

Quote:

Then why both Mercury and Venus have not any moon?

You really think there's some connection between a planet's internal heat and whether or not it has any moons? That question's a complete non sequitur.

Quote:

They try, investigate and explore, but none can claim they have seen everything concerning the sun and the planets.

Agreed, but if sunspots were impact events, there would have to be a long train of very large objects in a 22-year elliptical orbit around the sun. We'd certainly have seen that by now. Big rocks don't float around the solar system while the sun's gravity hunts them down and captures them, nor can the sun suddenly tear objects out of an orbit around Venus, to use your example, and pull them into itself. Things move in predictable ways.

- Not only there will be rapidly spreading circular waves; if we take a photograph of the stone from above at the time of its impacting the water body, what will the view be:

- The sunken stone, in the middle, whether it be circular or irregular (usually irregular). And there will be other factors that will affect the resulting view: as have you said: the viscosity of the fluid medium, the force of the impact, the direction of the falling of the impacting object.
- We shall see also, in the resulting view, the depression that the stone has made; which will mostly be about saucer-shaped with the stone in the middle, and the sloping edges of the water around the stone.
- The splash of water that rush out, during the impact of the stone.
- In addition to the turbulence that will result in the water body: with currents of water coming above and below and to the sides of the falling object.

eanassir

--

--
Michael Asher
Daily Tech
Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:15 EST








Global Cooling comes back in a big way
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," --, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.
A typical sunspot compared to the size of the earth. Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years. During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.
But will it happen again?
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.
Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.
Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, --. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.
Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.
However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.
Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark -- the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.
Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- --. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

• The heat in the core of the earth is gradually decreasing by time; because of volcanoes and the continuous radiation of its heat.
• The general heat on the surface of the earth is increasing; may be because its distance from the sun became less, and it has become closer to the sun than it had been before. [Although this winter was cold.]

• The sun is in its age of elderly; it is going the ageing process; but even though its heat influence on the earth may be more than it was before; is this the Global Warming?

I had an old source but sunspots are constantly appearing and dissapearing and last anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, and the number of them can vary. one thing is certain they are not caused by collisions of planetary sized asteroids.

No, the earth's not approaching the sun, it's receding from the sun due to tidal friction and the sun's loss of mass as it converts part of itself to energy. The effect is tiny though, it might amount to a few hundred thousand kilometers over the expected lifetime of the solar system, about a tenth of a percent of the current mean distance.

Quote:

The sun is in its age of elderly; it is going the ageing process; but even though its heat influence on the earth may be more than it was before; is this the Global Warming?

No, it's not global warming. The sun's about halfway through its expected lifetime, and it's not going to burst. That link says "We said that the life of the Sun will come to an end, and its surface will cool in two thousand years time – just as how had the Earth surface cooled when it had been a sun. At that time, it will become an earth like our Earth; and because its core will be still fiery, then the gases will be continuously emerging, but they will be prevented by the crust from escaping to the outside. For this reason, the Sun will burst and break up into nineteen pieces." The earth was never a sun, and the sun's end is not going to happen that way. Try -- link.

I beleive the heat in the earths core is caused by pressure- I don't think it can diminish as long as the pressure is still there (Dexter: PLEASE correct me if this is not quite accurate)

About an hour ago I took one of my small refractors out and projected the sun's image onto a high tech white surface....A piece of cardboard with a sheet of white paper glued to it.........Anyway....There is currently no sign of any sunspot activity.

There are two main sources: residual heat from the planet's formation, and radioactive decay, mostly of potassium, uranium, and thorium. That's what keeps the mantle churning, drives continental drift, creates volcanoes, etc. Pressure won't maintain it indefinitely, the earth will eventually cool and those processes will stop. Increasing pressure is one way to generate heat, and decreasing pressure is one way to get rid of heat (that's essentially how refrigeration works; ever notice how cold a spray can gets?), but a stable pressure won't keep things hot, the heat will radiate away eventually.

Eventually means one or two billion years correct?, Iwas cleaning my computer the other day with one of those spray bombs and was surprised at how cold the can got. Makes perfect sense now. Thx

No, a little longer than that, I think, rocks conduct heat pretty slowly. The earth's been geologically active for its entire 4.5 billion year history, and if my memory is correct (it was a *long* time ago that I studied this stuff) it'll probably remain geologically active for about that long again. But by then the sun will have swelled into its red giant phase and the planet will be fried to a crisp anyway.

And we think we have it tough now.

Hey, cool picture Walter, where'd you get it? It's the only image of the sun I've ever seen with zero spots on it. Is there some site where you can get daily images of the sun?

Wow, is it red or is it orange? And look how round it is.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...e/mdi_igr/512/

Ah, quotes taken out of context by reporters. By, "The origin and stability of sunspots has been one of the long-standing mysteries in solar physics. I am delighted to see that with SOHO we are beginning to crack this problem," Fleck is merely drumming up support for his project. What we don't understand about the `origin' of the sun spots is the exact magnetic structure interior to our beloved star. We understand perfectly what is going on: a magnetic flux tube is breaching the surface of the sun and pulling hot plasma with it. Did you know that sun spots always occur in pairs?

Sun spot intensity is periodic and that they migrate from the poles down to the equator and vanish? This is shown by the typical butterfly diagram. Even this phenomenon is well understood and explained by the magnetic flux tube model.

A rather famous picture of a typical solar mass ejection makes this phenomenon quite apparent. You can easily see the structure of the flux tube and the fact that the hot plasma is bound to the magnetic field lines.

The real universe is far more amazing then the whitewashing of smoke and mirrors. It need not be whizz bang boom: magic.

"The standstill of Venus from its axial rotation is a clear indication of the approach of the Doomsday; because the putting out of the Sun will start out at the time of the standstill of Venus from its axial rotation; that is because of what it obtains of the meteorites and celestial rocks belonging to Venus.
Following Venus, the turn will be for Earth to stop its axial rotation; due to the coldness of its core, then the meteorites and Moon will escape the gravitation of Earth, so that Sun will pull them by its gravitational force and swallow them.
After [Earth,] the turn will be for Mars to stop its axial rotation, so the Sun will pull its meteorites and moons, by its gravitational force, and swallow them.
The meteorites and celestial rocks belonging to these, just mentioned, three planets will be sufficient for putting out of the Sun and cooling of its surface, so that the Sun will become an earth with a cold crust. This process will be accomplished after elapsing of two thousand years, as we have explained; i.e. the Sun will burst after elapsing of two thousand years, and then its Doomsday will take place; this can be calculated from the time of the standstill of Venus from its axial rotation … to the day of the break up and disruption of the solar system."

See this subject, just before:
--


eanassir
--

Completely wrong about everything, again.

eanassir

Do you have any friends with at least a high school education? I ask because a high school education is all one would need to pull apart the nonsense you are posting. This leads me to believe that you are having us all on here and you know very well the stuff you are writing is garbage. Dexter probably has the best education in the sciences of any of us here and I admire his patience dealing with the junk you are throwing at us. I won't bother anymore.

When I went to some links that some members have cited and searched this link also:

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 AM..

repeated reply.

- The resulting depression will be more than the size of the small stone that we have thrown.