Let's have a field day - post your pictures here!

[folaht]

I saw [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... black+hole]this thread[/url2] and thought
it might be nice to see how many pictures we can find that keeps amazing scientists.
Don't forget the credits .
(If my assumptions are right, once the cat is completely out of the bag, they might pull all information connecting to them instead of admit that they were wrong)

Unaltered Mainstream science pictures are highly preferred!



A picture similair to this one got me here, plus a hubble space picture similair one below.

I began wondering why I didn't see the galaxies closer to each other in the background than in the foreground.
And redder was further away right? Why are the red (stars? galaxies? quasars?) things look like they're not even in the background at all?




Hey look! We found dark matter!

Credits: Holland C. Ford, professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Myungkook J. Jee; G. D. Illingworth, ; R. L. White, ; T. J. Broadhurst, ; D. A. Coe, ; G. R. Meurer, ; A. van der Wel

Superkick: Black hole expelled from its parent galaxy
Gravitational rocket propelled the monster at a speed of thousands of kilometres per second

By an enormous burst of gravitational waves that accompanies the merger of two black holes the newly formed black hole was ejected from its galaxy. This extreme ejection event, which had been predicted by theorists, has now been observed in nature for the first time. The team led by Stefanie Komossa from the Max Planck Institute for extraterrestrial Physics (MPE) thereby opened a new window into observational astrophysics. The discovery will have far-reaching consequences for our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution in the early Universe, and also provides observational confirmation of a key prediction from the General Theory of Relativity (Astrophysical Journal Letters, May 10, 2008).

Thank you Dr. Mona Clerico and Dr. Stefanie Komossa from Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics.



This image illustrates a thermonuclear explosion as it ignites, and beings to spread. It will engulf an entire neutron star.

Using observations from NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), an international team of astronomers has discovered a timing mechanism that allows them to predict exactly when a superdense star will unleash incredibly powerful explosions.

Thank you Diego Altamirano of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Tod Strohmayer of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
A supermassive black hole is a black hole with a mass of an order of magnitude between 105 and 1010 (hundreds of thousands and tens of billions) of solar masses. It is currently thought that most, if not all galaxies, including the Milky Way, contain supermassive black holes at their galactic centers. There is also evidence that two supermassive black holes can co-exist in the same galaxy for a certain amount of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape its pull after having fallen past its event horizon. The term "Black Hole" comes from the fact that, at a certain point, even electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light) is unable to break away from the attraction of these massive objects. This renders the hole's interior invisible or, rather, black like the appearance of space itself.

And thank you wikipedia!

[folaht]

One more

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html
A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe.

Credit: WMAP Science Team.

[StevenO]

This graphic represents NASA (ACE and Wind) and ESA (Cluster) spacecraft encountering solar particle jets spanning 2.5 million kilometers (about 1.5 million miles) in the solar wind. The particle jets (indicated by red arrows) are sandwiched between sheets of opposite magnetic fields (blue). Earth's magnetic environment is to the right in the background: The blue area represents a cross-section of the bow shock formed as the solar wind hits Earth's magnetic field, the red area is a cross-section of the magnetic field produced by the Earth, and the blue sphere in the center is the Earth. Credit: Matt Davis, Univ. of California, Berkeley

[StevenO]

Sorry, previous picture was a bit dull....was looking for the ultimate "magnetic reconnection" picture.

So, how about this one ?

Figure 9 illustrates how these rope-like structures might be made by magnetic reconnection in the solar corona. Stretched-out loops create oppositely directed regions of magnetic field that join up and change partners, altering the topology of the field. Multiple reconnections lead to detached structures. As they pass the Earth these structures can be 50 million km across. To find magnetic structures with sizes at the other end of the scale we next visit Venus.

C. T. RUSSELL

Department of Earth and Space Sciences
Institute of Geophysics and Space Physics
University of California Los Angeles

Originally published in Aust. J. Phys., 52, p. 733-751, 1999.

[StevenO]

Or this one....? (NASA PARAMESH sotware)

[StevenO]

And this one explains it all....

Figure 4. Solar magnetic-field lines, anchored in the turbulent convective zone beneath the surface, become tangled and braided. The associated buildup of magnetic stress triggers reconnection, in which the field reverts to a topologically simpler state via release of the stored energy. (Tom Moore)

[StevenO]

Ah! to be only topped by our own good earth itself......

ESA's spacecraft constellation Cluster has hit the magnetic bull's-eye. The four spacecraft surrounded a region within which the Earth's magnetic field was spontaneously reconfiguring itself.

This artist's impression shows the four Cluster spacecraft encompassing a 'magnetic null' region. A magnetic null region is a three dimensional zone where the magnetic fields break and reconnect. Before ESA's Cluster started exploring the Earth's magnetosphere it was not possible to identify any of such regions, as the detection required at least four simultaneous points of measurements. Cluster measurements made on 15 September 2001 showed that the null point exists in an unexpected vortex structure about 500 kilometres across, a characteristic size never been reported before in observations, theory or simulations. Credits: Dr. Xiao/Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing)

[MGmirkin]

Ah! to be only topped by our own good earth itself...

You forgot their schematic! Naughty naughty!

("reconnection," no less! )


Now that I think of it, why does that remind me of this:



And even a bit of this by way of that last one:



Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Here's a kicker... Did NASA get it REALLY wrong?? Should Alfvén be used instead?? I think they've been caught red-handed and in the wrong!

Okay, so, I was reading this article on Universe Today...

(Where are the Sunspots? Are we in for a Quiet Solar Cycle?)
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/12 ... lar-cycle/

And then I looked up several other pages:

(The Sun Bursts to Life: Sunspots, Flares and CMEs)
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/26 ... -and-cmes/

(Next Solar Max Will Be a Big One; [comment: Mmm, yeah, not so much?!])
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/03/14 ... a-big-one/

(No Sunspots at All; [Comment: herald of things to come all the way back in 2004?])
http://www.universetoday.com/2004/10/18 ... ts-at-all/

Anyway, the issue that I noticed had to do with this image used in one of the releases.

(Several diagrams purporting to show the solar circuits, though they don't explicitly call it that. Preferring the terms "flux transport," "plasma flows," or "solar conveyor belt" over explicit electrical identification.)


Ye olde "solar conveyor belt." As usual more or less ignoring electric currents in favor of some kind of mechanical "river of magnetism" rubbish. But I couldn't quite place my finger on the issue. I decided to probe further and googled "solar conveyor belt NASA" as one or two of the articles had referred to ye olde space agency as the progenitor of the image.

I discovered several more articles from NASA predicated on the "conveyor belt" image.

(Solar Storm Warning)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... arning.htm

(Long Range Solar Forecast - Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... grange.htm

(Scientists Gaze Inside Sun, Predict Strength of the Next Solar Cycle)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... cycle.html

It all seems to trace back to this image (Credit: Mausumi Dikpati, High Altitude Observatory Division, NCAR, Boulder, Colo.):

(Diagram of the Major Plasma Flows Inside the Sun)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... _flow.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... ow_prt.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ima ... medweb.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ima ... _lgweb.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ima ... gramLG.jpg

But the image still left a sour taste in my mouth. After all I'd seen Alfvén's circuit diagram, which made conceptual sense after it was explained to me. This image appeared to be wrong. But why?

Well, let's put them up next to each other:

(NASA's Solar Circuit)


(Alfvén's Solar Circuit)


They appear quite similar, on the surface, but there *is* a subtle difference.

It should have been utterly obvious to me right from the start. NASA's image is internally inconsistent! My brain picked up on it immediately. Didn't quite filter into consciousness until I'd stared at it for a while. The error is so glaring as to slap any right-minded person of science in the face. The key is the lower right quadrant of the diagram. See it yet? No?

Let me spell it out. Look at the arrows on the diagram. Correction, look at *both* sets of arrows in the lower right quadrant. What's wrong with this picture? Ohh right. They're pointing in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS!

(NASA's Solar Circuit Inconsistency)


It seems NASA has overlaid their erroneous physical interpretation over the ACTUAL observed behavior, and it FAILS to match. Is this an utter and glaring oversight? How has nobody but me noticed this in the roughly 2 years and 3 months this photos has been in circulation?

Am I wrong here? 'Cause to me it looks like they got the upper right quadrant CORRECT, but the lower right quadrant has the arrows pointing back-assward (pardon the French) from the ACTUAL direction! Their black lines are internally consistent, but not consistent with the underlying yellow lines!

OOPS

NASA should probably be

Unless I'm completely off base here, in which case I'll be.

But, I find the latter proposition less likely than they simply pooched the screw...
Experimentum crucis, so to speak.

It appears they more-or-less hijacked Alfven's diagram, but did so poorly. Either that or their engineering of the diagram was sorely lacking...

Perhaps someone needs to e-mail Mausumi Dikpati a copy of Alfven's circuit diagram with an explanation...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[moses]

Let me spell it out. Look at the arrows on the diagram. Correction, look at *both* sets of arrows in the lower right quadrant. What's wrong with this picture? Ohh right. They're pointing in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS! MGM

In the Alfven diagram the primary current is in the opposite direction
to the secondary current.
Mo

[MGmirkin]

Or, rather, the secondary current is generated based upon what the primary currents are doing.

From my understanding, the secondary currents are predicated upon whether the primary current is increasing, decreasing or stable. IE, there's a solar cycle that's somewhat sinusoidal (with perhaps a bit of variation). As the primary currents are increasing in strength, the secondary currents are induced in one direction. When they're decreasing, the secondary currents will be induced in the opposite direction. When stable, I think the secondary currents go away (please correct me if I've misremembered).

That, of course has implications for the solar cycle. The sunspot "polarities" flip between cycles.

(Astronomy / The Sun - Solar Cycles)
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Astronomy/The_Sun

Sunspot pairs in a given hemisphere will tend to all appear with the same polarities during a solar cycle. However, at the end of the cycle, the polarities will "flip": new sunspots in that hemisphere will have opposite polarites from the previous cycle.

This makes sense if one considers the electric interpretation. IE, if you draw a cosine curve,



you can see that it starts at a high, proceeds to a low, and then moves back up to a high.

From 0 -> Pi its slope is negative.
Prom Pi -> 2Pi it slope is positive.
At 0, Pi and 2Pi, its slope is 0.

So it goes, with an oscillating input to the sun.
Consider the local minima and maxima of the graph to equate to solar minimums.
Consider the slope of the graph to be the behavior of the input current (either negative slope equating to decreasing intensity or positive slope equating to increasing intensity).

If the secondary currents are induced by the behavior of the input current (increasing, decreasing, or stable), then the above analogy seems apropos.

Going even one step further, it would seem like one could say that rather than the usual "11-year" solar cycle, a true solar cycle is actually closer to double that or about 22 years.

Why, you ask? Because not only is there an oscillation from no spots / flares / CMEs to lots of the same and back to none, there's also the aforementioned "polarity flip" which occurs at each solar minimum (local maxima / minima on the cosine graph). So, one 11-year cycle is really only half the graph!

IE, one must complete not only the descending leg of the trip, but the ascending leg as well. There are essentially two points at which the slope of the graph is zero, as mentioned above, per "complete cycle."

Now, it also seems like there are two processes going on.

(The Sun Does a Flip)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm

(Backward Sunspot)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... kwards.htm

So, at solar minimum, the sunspots flip. At solar maximum, the entire magnetic field flips.

Why is this so? Anybody?

NASA appears to, once again, not get it...

(Key Found to Why Sun's Magnetic Poles Flip )
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 31120.html

They talk about the sun "shedding magnetic fields" like a snake shedding its skin.

Do they not understand electricity or magnetism AT ALL? "Frozen-in field lines" in plasma are a faulty concept, according to Alfvén, likewise "magnetic reconnection." Plasma is not a permanent magnet. It doesn't "drag away" magnetism, leaving behind "less magnetism." That's just junk science... (My opinion.)

Decreasing magnetic fields are due to decreasing electric current input.
Increasing magnetic fields are due to increasing electric current input.

(What are electromagnetic fields?)
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).

(Some emphases added)

Good times!
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Anyway, I'm trying to wrap my head around the issue of the twin processes going on at solar minimum and solar maximum.

I'm thinking that the issue has to do partially with the maths involved, insofar as they help to elucidate the processes involved. Though I still prefer the conceptual explanation eventually afforded over the maths.

What I'm thinking here is that the main current input is cyclical, rising and falling. But it rises and falls over the course of the 22-year cycle, as noted above. However, there is also an apparent 11-year periodicity as well. And two apparent polarity flips (sunspot polarity flips every ~11 years at solar minimum, solar magnetic field polarity flips every ~11 years at solar maximum).

Two "apparent cycles" total up to one "full cycle," when one factors in not only the periodicity of the solar minima / maxima but also the periodicity of the various field reversals.

So, the main current is a 22-year periodicity with current input falling for the first half, then rising for the second half (or vice versa, I simply phrase it that way because a cosine graph starts at a high, falls to a low and rises to a high again, so it makes sense to consider the solar cycle from that vantage point so as to make the maths simpler). Each half of the cos(x) graph is one 11-year "cycle."

The sunspots' polarity flips at solar minima and are dependent on the secondary currents induced by the increase / decrease / stability of the primary current. When the input current reaches a local maxima or minima, the slope of the cos(x) curve is 0. At that point, no secondary current flows. That's probably what leads to the lack of sunspots during that period and the subsequent polarity flip as the new "cycle" (half-cycle) begins.

Whereas the sun's overall field flips at solar maximum.

Put another way, there are approximately 9 data points of interest on the overall graph. I'll try to put together a graphic at some point.

I figure the points of interest are, well, wait, first let's define our units. I'll go with radians, and equate the start / end of of the full 22 years as 2Pi. Half of the full cycle is 11 years (or Pi, i this exercise). The start is obviously zero. I'm talking in terms of the idealized unit circle type stuff.

So, the points of interest are 0, Pi/4, Pi/2, 3Pi/4, Pi, 5Pi/4, 3Pi/2, 7Pi/4, 2Pi.
To simplify, I'll convert everything into Pi/4 notation.

0Pi/4:
Time index: 0
Input current: Local maximum, highest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": Beginning of "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": Beginning of the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: For the sake of argument, we'll say this is the inflection point whereat sunspot polarities are "transitional." There may be a few of both. It's a confused time for the sun.
Overall magnetic field: For the sake of argument, we'll consider T=0 as the baseline with the north magnetic pole (N) at the north geographic pole (n), with the greatest intensity. Likewise the S-s association is at its greatest intensity.

1Pi/4:
Time index: 2.75 years
Input current: Decreasing slowly, but starting to drop off more quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 1/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 1/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is increasing.

2Pi/4:
Time index: 5.5 years
Input current: Decreasing at a good clip.
Point in "Solar cycle": Half way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 1/4 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a maximum. So are solar flares and CMEs.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field is undergoing a flip, switching from N-n to N-s and from S-s to S-n (South magnetic pole at north geographic and vice versa).

3Pi/4:
Time index: 8.25 years
Input current: Decreasing, but less quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 3/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 3/8 of the way though the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is decreasing.

4Pi/4:
Time index: 11 years
Input current: Local minimum, lowest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": The end of "apparent cycle" 1 and the beginning of "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": Half-way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: Sunspot polarities are transitional, in the process of flipping. There may be a mix of both in both hemispheres.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field has fully flipped. North is south and South is north.

5Pi/4:
Time index: 13.75 years
Input current: Increasing slowly, but accelerating.
Point in "Solar cycle": 1/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": 5/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is increasing.

6Pi/4:
Time index: 16.5 years
Input current: Increasing at a good clip.
Point in "Solar cycle": Half way through "apparent cycle" 2
Point in "Full cycle": 3/4 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a maximum. So are solar flares and CMEs.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field is undergoing a flip, switching from N-s back to N-n and from S-n back to S-s (returning from the "flipped poles" state to the "normal" North-north and South-south configuration).

7Pi/4:
Time index: 19.25 years
Input current: Still increasing, but not as quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 3/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": 7/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is decreasing.

8Pi/4:
Time index: 22 years
Input current: Local maximum, highest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": End of "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": End of the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: Sunspot polarities are transitional, in the process of flipping. There may be a mix of both in both hemispheres.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field has fully flipped. North is north and South is south.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

Hi Mike...

Try imaging that the roles and strenghts of electricity and magnetism are exactly reversed between matter and space.
Maybe that helps. Then also imagine the interior of the sun to be comparable to a liquid. Confused? Me too, but one day I'll figure it out...

[MGmirkin]

Confused?

Yup!

Actually my only confusion at this point (over the small domain of issues I'm looking at) is where the flip in the over-all solar magnetic field comes from.

I get that the sunspot polarity reversals at "solar minimum" come from the reversal of the secondary currents in both hemispheres induced by the increasing or decreasing current strength of the primary currents.

I'm just trying to recall the explanation for the flip in the overall magnetic field at solar maximum. We'll get this figured out yet!

Cheers,
~Michael

[MGmirkin]

Read the explanation of the "conveyor belt model" a little more closely this time to try to figure out exactly what they're saying. Seems it has something to do with "dragging field lines" around, and thus changing the magnetic field polarity at the poles. I still think their explanation is bunkum, if for not quite the same reason as I'd originally thought. IE, they still seem to be thinking in terms of "frozen in" field lines dragged with the plasma, as opposed to electric currents in the plasma CAUSING the magnetic fields we see, two wholly separate ideas. "Frozen-in field lines" and "reconnection" were both debunked by Alfvén some time ago. Unfortunately, both are still in use and holding back astronomers / solar physicists.

So, anyway, yeah... I think the image / model used by nasa is still wrong, just maybe not for the reason I'd initially thought. The "conveyor belt" image they use in a number of their images is ambiguous and generally offered without sufficient context, hence the confusion. Even the original larger image from which context it's taken is a bit abstract and vague on exactly what they're talking about.

Anywho...
~Michael