Spotless Sun

[webolife]

I mentioned earlier, but want to restate here, that sun"spots" are merely less bright than the general surface of the sun, and that a simple look at the vectors of motion involved demonstrate why this is so. Notwithstanding the influence of electrical and magnetic fields, materials moving away from the suns center, decreasing pressure as is the case in sunspots, are necessarily cooling with respect to the surroundings; likewise in-falling material as is seen around the periphery of sunspots is necessarily gaining heat as it increases pressure moving back toward the center of the sun. From our vantage point, the decrease of vector density in the center line of the sunspot vector appears as darker than the adjacent increasing vector density. Additional note about the vectors: vectors directed away from the eye appear more "light" than vectors directed toward the eye. Starlight in general is an apparition of vectors directed toward the stars, not light "stuff" banging into our retina from across space.

[webolife]

The above comment courtesy of Robert Archer Smith's "Punctual Theory" of the universe, replaces/reverses the perception of light as an "emission" phenomenon with the paradigm shattering view that light is a centropic force [directed toward the central source, as a sink], analogizing it, for example, with gravitation and voltage, also countermanding the c-rate concept with "instantaneous" light. See the RA Smith thread for more discussion of this.

[squatterman]

The sun is still spotless.

Well, times are tough and everyone's cutting back, including, apparently, the sun.

[Lloyd]

Webolife:

See the RA Smith thread for more discussion of this.

* How about providing a link?

[earls]

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... &sk=t&sd=a

[seasmith]

Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots

... As sunspots became
less common over the last few years, large coronal holes lingered in the
surface of the Sun near its equator.

Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as
the solar cycle approached minimum. But when the study team compared
measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008,
with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996, they found that
Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the
streams. Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any
minimum in 75 years, the Sun’s effect on Earth’s outer radiation belt,
as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last
year than in 1996.

In contrast, Earth encountered
weaker and more sporadic streams in 1996. As a result, the planet was
more affected by the Sun in 2008 than in 1996, as measured by such
variables as the strength of electron fluxes in the outer radiation
belt, the velocity of the solar wind in the vicinity of Earth, and the
periodic behavior of auroras (the Northern and Southern Lights) as they
responded to repeated high-speed streams.

Might one reasonably expect these 'revelations' to to influence their thinking on such things as
Global Climate Change', also ?

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/
~

[MGmirkin]

Another wrinkle added to the fold, and a little more exposition that might shed light on the subject...

(Quiet Sun Bombards Earth With Winds)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quiet ... s_999.html

Some rather interesting statements thereabouts...

Gibson and her colleagues focused instead on another process by which the Sun discharges energy. The team analyzed high-speed streams within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system.

(Plasma is NOT magnetized. It contains regions of differing charges, electric fields and those lead to the currents which produce the observed magnetic fields.)

Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as the solar cycle reached minimum. But when the study team compared measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008, with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996, they found that the Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the streams.

Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum in 75 years, the Sun's effect on Earth's outer radiation belt, as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last year than in 1996.

The team found that strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams of charged particles buffeted Earth in 2008. In contrast, Earth encountered weaker and more sporadic streams in 1996.

The prevalence of high-speed streams during this solar minimum appears to be related to the current structure of the Sun. As sunspots became less common over the last few years, large coronal holes lingered in the surface of the Sun near its equator. The high-speed streams that blow out of those holes engulfed Earth during 55 percent of the study period in 2008, compared to 31 percent of the study period in 1996.

(This is an interesting wrinkle, in my opinion, as it seems to remind me of some statements Wal had made about currents and coronal holes.)

The authors speculate that the high number of low-latitude coronal holes during this solar minimum may be related to a weakness in the Sun's overall magnetic field. The Sun in 2008 had smaller polar coronal holes than in 1996, but high-speed streams that escape from the Sun's poles do not travel in the direction of Earth.

(Again, this is interesting... In 1996, the sun had larger polar coronal holes but it sounds like less in equatorial regions that would have been spewing streams of "fast solar wind" directed toward Earth? Whereas in 2008, it sounds like the polar coronal holes were smaller but there were more streams of "fast solar wind" spewing from equatorial coronal holes. Are the two phenomena related?)

Now, the quote I was thinking of, on re-reading it isn't quite as straightforward toward the solar wind issue as I'd thought, but I think it gets pretty close by proxy.

(THE SUN — Our Variable Star)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

Louis Lanzerotti, of the New Jersey Institute of Technology/Bell Labs, released the following startling report on November 14, 2003. It is a result of observations from the Ulysses spacecraft, which is orbiting over the poles of the Sun,

Data from Ulysses show that the solar wind originates in holes in the sun's corona, and the speed of the solar wind varies inversely with coronal temperature. "This was completely unexpected," said Lanzerotti. "Theorists had predicted the opposite. Now all models of the sun and the solar wind will have to explain this observation."

I missed an opportunity. This finding could have been predicted from the electrical model of the Sun.

The standard model of the solar wind has it "boiling off" the Sun so that you would expect a direct correlation between coronal temperature and solar wind speed. That is precisely the opposite of what the Ulysses spacecraft saw.

In the electric model of the Sun, where the solar electric field is strong in the coronal holes, protons of the solar wind are being strongly accelerated away from the Sun. Their random motion becomes less significant in a process called de-thermalization. Outside the coronal holes, where the coronal electric field is weaker, the protons move more aimlessly. As a result they suffer more collisions and move more randomly. The degree of random movement of particles directly equates to temperature. So the solar wind is fastest where the corona appears coolest and the solar wind is slowest where the corona appears hottest — as Ulysses found.

Wal Thornhill

The long and short of it seems to be that "coronal holes" are regions with enhanced electric fields and tend to accelerate charged particles more strongly than regions with lower electric fields and little or not coronal holes. Seems like "sunspots" are perhaps just a stronger / more localized version of coronal holes (but in the photosphere) or vice versa, coronal holes are like sunspots spread out over a much larger area (in the corona), but still performing a similar function (higher electric fields and thus higher acceleration of charged particles [the "solar wind"]).

So, getting back to the ScienceDaily article, it seems like they're saying that in 2008, the equatorial coronal holes were more prevalent than in 1996, thus more "solar wind" was being pushed out equatorially in 2008 than in 1996. In similar fashion, coronal holes were larger over the poles in 1996 and smaller over the poles in 2008 (Just guessing that if there were sensors taking measurements that would mean that more "solar wind" would have been ejected poleward, rather than equatorially, in 1996 than in 2008).

So, it seems to make sense to me that, even if sunspot counts have been down, if equatorial coronal holes are more prevalent then they'd make up for the lack of sunspots in ejecting "solar wind." Since they appear (under the "electric sun" model) to arise from common cause just in slightly different forms. IE, would it be a similar TOTAL current, just with a differing current DENSITY between sunspot (localized) and coronal holes (smeared out over a larger area)?

Just my 2c... Which isn't to say I know WHY the sunspots have disappeared (other than the ambiguous note from earlier this year that the "jet streams inside the sun" are taking their time migrating to where they need to be for the sunspot cycle to start showing up again). Just saying that the wrinkle about more prevalent equatorial rather than polar coronal holes seems to make sense of why we're still getting buffeted by solar winds (if we assume that sunspots and coronal holes have similar causes and effects and involve non-trivial electric fields accelerating charged "solar wind" particles as part of a current)...

(Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... stream.htm

They seem to have figured out THAT it's happening, but not WHY it's taking so long...

Hope I'm not too far into left field, here.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

This disappearing act is possible because sunspots are made of magnetism.

This has to win the "Most Useless Mainstream Phrase of the Year" award.

I never knew "magnetism" was a physical entity! What exactly is a "magnetism"? *Tongue planted firmly in cheek.* How does one construct things out of this mythical beast?

Methinks their terminology and metaphysics are all screwed up. *Sigh.*

I hope they're not claiming that the solar plasma is a bar magnet and retains a magnetic field without an input of electric current. 'Cause it just ain't so. Plasma can't and doesn't "freeze" magnetic fields. That's just astronomer-speak for not wanting to deal with voltage drops, charge separation and currents in space. It's getting tiresome and cumbersome having to repeatedly rebut that "frozen-in" magnetic fields nonsense. Are electric currents then also "frozen-in" to the same plasma?

~Michael Gmirkin

[Lloyd]

Gmirkin:

... "coronal holes" are regions with enhanced electric fields and tend to accelerate charged particles more strongly than regions with lower electric fields and little or no coronal holes. Seems like "sunspots" are perhaps just a stronger / more localized version of coronal holes or vice versa, coronal holes are like sunspots spread out over a much larger area, but still performing a similar function (higher electric fields and thus higher acceleration of charged particles [the "solar wind"]).

Wikipedia: A corona is a type of plasma "atmosphere" of the Sun or other celestial body, extending millions of kilometers into space, most easily seen during a total solar eclipse
* I just wanted to clarify that sunspots are in the photosphere, which is the surface of the sun that we see normally, whereas coronal holes are in the corona, which is like an atmosphere above the photosphere millions of miles high. So the corona is much thicker than the diameter of the entire sun, i.e. much thicker [and much "hotter"] than the photosphere.
Gmirkin:

... coronal holes were larger over the poles in 1996 and smaller over the poles in 2008 (Just guessing that if there were sensors taking measurements that would mean that more "solar wind" would have been ejected poleward, rather than equatorially, in 1996 than in 2008).

* My understanding is that the solar wind, which is largely positive charge, leaves the sun largely equatorially, while negative charge enters the sun mostly via the poles. I'd like to hear if anyone knows if I'm right or not. I haven't heard of any relationship between coronal holes and the sunspot cycle. Has anyone?
Gmirkin:

Which isn't to say I know WHY the sunspots have disappeared

* Doesn't Don Scott say the number of sunspots is dependent on the current density reaching the sun? If the current density is too low, isn't that when sunspots increase in number and size?

[Lloyd]

* Here are 2 sources that suggest that the solar wind moves equatorially through the solar system ecliptic.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg: (... The spiral arms of the galaxy and the spiral structure of the solar 'wind' then have an obvious connection).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral
* Here's more info on CORONAL HOLES, SOLAR WIND, SOLAR MINIMUM:
http://www.sunearthplan.net/3/933/The-q ... rosive-Sun: The Earth is constantly bombarded by a stream of charged particles, or solar wind, emitted by the Sun. These particles can cause geomagnetic storms and aurorae on Earth if they arrive at fast enough speeds. Streams of high-speed particles are emitted from holes in the Sun’s corona where the magnetic field is open — that is, where the field lines do not loop back into the corona but extend virtually indefinitely into space [nonsense - LK]. Coronal holes can persist for several months, and if they are at the Sun’s equator, which is most likely during solar minimum, they can cause repeated bouts of geomagnetic storms on Earth. This is because the Sun rotates every 27 days, so the stream of fast-moving particles barrages the Earth every time the hole points towards the Earth, like a lighthouse beam sweeping past an observer. - The geomagnetic storms initiated by fast solar wind streams tend to be less intense than those caused by coronal mass ejections, but they last for a week or so and are often recurrent. This means they can deposit more energy into the Earth’s magnetosphere and accumulate more charge in spacecraft structure and electronics. On the ground they induce currents in pipelines, railways and power grids, which can corrode metals, especially in wetter climates.

[MGmirkin]

* I just wanted to clarify that sunspots are in the photosphere, which is the surface of the sun that we see normally, whereas coronal holes are in the corona, which is like an atmosphere above the photosphere millions of miles high.

Agreed. Was just looking over my post and decided I needed to clarify that, too. Good catch, in any event.

* My understanding is that the solar wind, which is largely positive charge, leaves the sun largely equatorially, while negative charge enters the sun mostly via the poles. I'd like to hear if anyone knows if I'm right or not.

Well, as far as my understanding goes (which is not perfect, by any means), there are both the "fast" and "slow" components of the solar wind. I've seen several papers and such indicating that the "fast" solar wind originates largely in the polar coronal holes / coronal "funnels." (But it seems that when coronal holes occur in other latitudes there are still "fast streams" being produced.)

(On the source regions of the fast solar wind in polar coronal holes)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A%26A...353..749W

(Coronal holes and high-speed wind streams)
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=7304702

(Origin of the solar wind from composition data)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m20166192023h247/

(On the origin of the fast solar wind in polar coronal funnels)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A%26A...360.1139H

I haven't heard of any relationship between coronal holes and the sunspot cycle. Has anyone?

(Polar coronal holes and solar cycles; old paper, but does seem to make a connection between solar cycles and coronal hole sizes, also notes polar origin for the solar wind during some parts of the cycle.)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0325352w630wr92/

* Doesn't Don Scott say the number of sunspots is dependent on the current density reaching the sun? If the current density is too low, isn't that when sunspots increase in number and size?

Well, I'm still trying to riddle out some of the nuanced differences between Don's and Wal's approaches to sunspots.

(The Electric Sun Hypothesis)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

I do agree that Don seems to say that sunspots are regions where the anode tufting disappears. He also says that in this region the normal voltage rise that limits ions from escaping the sun does not exist, thus large currents of escaping ions do flow there. The cause of breakdown of the anode tufting in the region of a sunspot, I'm not sure his site goes into. I'll have to look back through his book at some point and see if he goes into more detail.

(THE SUN — Our Variable Star)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

Wal's approach is slightly different insofar as he approaches the problem via Birkeland and reference to the solar equatorial plasmoid / ring current as the driving force behind the sunspots. IE, in his model it seems to be this ring current that modulates and drives the sunspots via discharges to the sun that "punch through" the photosphere. But, again, he agrees with Don it seems that large currents do in fact flow over sunspot. Also his diagrams of the photosphere / chromosphere / corona seem to match Don's, insofar as the photosphere is anode tufting, chromosphere contains the DL and the corona is where ions accelerated and dethermalized by the chromosphere crash into the more thermal / randomized particles of interplanetary space and become rethermalized with the additional energy added by being accelerated through the chromospheric double layer.

As Wal recently noted privately, it would be nice to get some funding for vacuum chamber experiments to nail down once and for all the causes of the particular behaviors peculiar to the solar cycle, sunspots, plages, granules, faculae, etc. All things in due course, one hopes...? (Not a direct quote, and I added a bit to it. But, close enough.)

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Solsearcher]

Sunspots most definitely are NOT simply cooler areas of the photosphere. They appear, quite to the contrary, to be apertures in the photosphere where excessive gas pressure is escaping! Put your own eyes to the test and please ignore the mainstream asstrophysical rhetoric that drones the "cooler" mantra in explanation of sunspot genesis.
http://www.solarphysics.kva.se//solar.html (Click on images of sunspots)

The photopshere is a virtual plasma balloon containing predominately hydrogen gas within. The gas pressure fluctuates and as solar maximum progresses, this gas over-pressurizes the plasma and finds its way out through sunspots and as well as by way of leakage in the form of prominences.

I speculate that the collapsing heliosphere is inducing an increased current within the photopshere and thus tension throughout, which is dampening the escape of hydrogen gas through the safety valve we know as sunspots.

The increase in prominences may be indicative of this over-pressurization which is hydrogen gas leaching out through the closely compacted filamental structure of the photosphere.

[webolife]

But Solsearcher, even your explanation supports the understanding of a depressurization-linked cooling for sunspots.
Do you think depressurization and cooling are somehow not linked?

[junglelord]

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
09.29.2009

September 29, 2009: Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... 9.6Lin.jpg
Above: Energetic iron nuclei counted by the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer on NASA's ACE spacecraft reveal that cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high. [larger image]

The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."

"We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, "so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age."

Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are subatomic particles--mainly protons but also some heavy nuclei--accelerated to almost light speed by distant supernova explosions. Cosmic rays cause "air showers" of secondary particles when they hit Earth's atmosphere; they pose a health hazard to astronauts; and a single cosmic ray can disable a satellite if it hits an unlucky integrated circuit.

The sun's magnetic field is our first line of defense against these highly-charged, energetic particles. The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of magnetism called "the heliosphere." It springs from the sun's inner magnetic dynamo and is inflated to gargantuan proportions by the solar wind. When a cosmic ray tries to enter the solar system, it must fight through the heliosphere's outer layers; and if it makes it inside, there is a thicket of magnetic fields waiting to scatter and deflect the intruder.

Right: An artist's concept of the heliosphere, a magnetic bubble that partially protects the solar system from cosmic rays.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... re2009.jpg
[larger image]

"At times of low solar activity, this natural shielding is weakened, and more cosmic rays are able to reach the inner solar system," explains Pesnell.

Mewaldt lists three aspects of the current solar minimum that are combining to create the perfect storm:

1. The sun's magnetic field is weak. "There has been a sharp decline in the sun's interplanetary magnetic field down to 4 nT (nanoTesla) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT," he says. "This record-low interplanetary magnetic field undoubtedly contributes to the record-high cosmic ray fluxes." [data]

2. The solar wind is flagging. "Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low," he continues, "so the magnetic bubble that protects the solar system is not being inflated as much as usual." A smaller bubble gives cosmic rays a shorter-shot into the solar system. Once a cosmic ray enters the solar system, it must "swim upstream" against the solar wind. Solar wind speeds have dropped to very low levels in 2008 and 2009, making it easier than usual for a cosmic ray to proceed. [data]

3. The current sheet is flattening. Imagine the sun wearing a ballerina's skirt as wide as the entire solar system with an electrical current flowing along its wavy folds. It's real, and it's called the "heliospheric current sheet," a vast transition zone where the polarity of the sun's magnetic field changes from plus to minus. The current sheet is important because cosmic rays are guided by its folds. Lately, the current sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system.

The heliospheric current sheet is shaped like a ballerina's skirt. Image credit: J. R. Jokipii and B. Thomas, Astrophysical Journal 243, 1115, 1981.

"If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs," predicts Mewaldt. [data]

Earth is in no great peril. Our planet's atmosphere and magnetic field provide some defense against the extra cosmic rays. Indeed, we've experienced much worse in the past. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium. [data]

"The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Mewaldt. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

NASA spacecraft will continue to monitor the situation as solar minimum unfolds. Stay tuned for updates.



Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... icrays.htm

[mharratsc]

Does anyone remember seeing an article about a star that was half-lit, half-dark? Like it had a sunspot over half of it's entire surface?

Basically it seemed to be halfway between a yellow star and a brown dwarf.

I think the existence of a star that has a sunspot over more than 50% of it's surface refutes the possibility that sunspots are 'pressure leaks', wouldn't it?

However, if it's like Prof. Scott says, and that half of this star is under stress and in glow mode, and the other half half is in dark current mode- that seems to jive with the observation better, if you ask me.

Mike H.