The mystery of sunspots

March 1st, 2008, 03:40 PM





· 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.

March 2nd, 2008, 12:13 AM

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.

March 2nd, 2008, 01:47 AM

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?

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!

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


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

March 2nd, 2008, 02:54 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.

March 2nd, 2008, 06:45 AM

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

March 2nd, 2008, 06:46 AM

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

March 2nd, 2008, 10:30 AM

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.
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.
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.

March 2nd, 2008, 12:31 PM

- 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

http://universeandquran.741.com

March 2nd, 2008, 01:00 PM


Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
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," Tapping says, 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, shares the concern. 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 was able to experimentally verify 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 -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

March 2nd, 2008, 01:45 PM

• 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?

March 2nd, 2008, 02:56 PM

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.

March 2nd, 2008, 03:18 PM

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 this link.

March 2nd, 2008, 03:25 PM

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)

March 2nd, 2008, 03:27 PM

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.

March 2nd, 2008, 04:41 PM

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.

March 2nd, 2008, 05:35 PM

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

March 2nd, 2008, 05:56 PM

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.

March 2nd, 2008, 06:30 PM

And we think we have it tough now.