Jump to content

Space.


Njugle
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just get the feeling, that if It was said such things could be found, before they had the data, that "impossible" would be top of the board in a cosmologist survey response; no doubt due to the multiple glaringly obvious problems that would be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Shocked scientists discover that the Sun is not a flying-saucer

 

The sun is the most perfectly round natural object known in the universe, say scientists

As a spinning ball of gas, astronomers had always expected our nearest star to bulge slightly at its equator, making it very slightly flying-saucer shaped. The planet Jupiter demonstrates this effect well. Its high rate of spin - once every 10 hours - means that it is almost 7% wider across its equator than the distance from pole to pole.

The team also searched for changes in the sun's width over the two years of the observations that would correlate with its 11-year activity cycle, but found that if those variations are there, they are too tiny to detect.

 

Kuhn accepts that more surprises may be in store, noting that the sun often confounds those who try to predict its behaviour. "It's fooled us every time we've looked."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/16/sun-perfect-sphere-nature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grauniad an attempt at a late Silly Season entry, bigging up a bona fide report? It's a bit of a leap of faith to go from a slightly oblate body to "flying-saucer shaped"!

Anyway, I thought that neutron stars were likely to be more perfectly spherical? The article is a bit vague, giving "observed" as well as "known" as the criteria for natural perfect spheres, so maybe they only mean what can be seen by Joe Public? No doubt the original version would read better.

Journalists... sheesh :roll:

 

Interesting that there is no discernable change over the length of the solar cycle. I'm sure I remember being told at school that the sun expanded & contracted slightly. :ponders: or maybe it did way back then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a leap of faith to go from a slightly oblate body to "flying-saucer shaped"

 

"astronomers had always expected our nearest star to bulge slightly at its equator, making it very slightly flying-saucer shaped."

 

Well it's the astronomers expectations, not mine!

 

The article is a bit vague, giving "observed" as well as "known" as the criteria for natural perfect spheres, so maybe they only mean what can be seen by Joe Public?

 

I think not!

Although saying that the sun was this round in the past, would cause multiple glaringly obvious problems that would be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory.

Nevertheless; data is data!

 

The sun rotates every 28 days, and because it doesn't have a solid surface, it should be slightly flattened.

Now Jeff Kuhn and Isabelle Scholl (Stanford University) have used the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite to obtain what they believe is the definitive -- and baffling -- answer.

Because there is no atmosphere in space to distort the solar image, they were able to use HMI's exquisite image sensitivity to measure the solar shape with unprecedented accuracy.

They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.

 

Kuhn, the team leader and first author of an article published Aug. 16 in Science Express, said, "For years we've believed our fluctuating measurements were telling us that the sun varies, but these new results say something different. While just about everything else in the sun changes along with its 11-year sunspot cycle, the shape doesn't."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm

 

Anyway, I thought that neutron stars were likely to be more perfectly spherical?

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2r58g2a.jpg

 

Yes! your problem here is that you are trying to group together; the Sun, that has been observed and measured, with neutron stars that have never been seen and are only inferred by mathematics.

A common mistake.

In truth; neutron stars can not exist, as they violate the island of stability.

For some the new Sun finding is not that surprising.

Others will just have to stay in school scratching heads; until teacher decides to admit to the children, that the old solar model was badly botched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While just about everything else in the sun changes along with its 11-year sunspot cycle, the shape doesn't.

 

“For some the new Sun finding is not that surprising.“

 

Sorry, were you talking about the shape of the sun there? I thought you were talking about the "visible surface" features because that's exactly what you wrote. And even then based on 1 example limited to a timescale of 2 and a half minutes as proof of indefinite stability.

 

Is that a strawman that's had the old switcheroo pulled on it? You've 'proved' something that wasn't said by you as opposed to disproving something that wasn't said by someone else.

 

What an intricate web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i've already said I think the Sun has a crust and a surface, then I presumed it would be taken as read, that this was not the gas ball of lore that I was describing.

If it's not a gas ball then it's not going to flatten to the rules that their imaginary gas ball should and would flatten.

 

It doesn't.

So it isn't.

 

Weave it any way you want but it still wont do what you want it to do, just because you want it to be what it just can't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should take a bit longer to articulate your reply when upset on finding your posts crushed.

 

That one just had the hurt of the butt, written all over it.

 

Is that your aim with everyone who doesn't toe the line with your beliefs - "crushing" them? methinks someone spends too much time on their xbox :roll:

 

Anyway, most of what we think is right now, will only be shown to be either plain wrong or wide of the mark in years to come. The universe is just weird. people more so... :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i've already said I think the Sun has a crust and a surface, then I presumed it would be taken as read, that this was not the gas ball of lore that I was describing. If it's not a gas ball then it's not going to flatten to the rules that their imaginary gas ball should and would flatten.

 

“For some the new Sun finding is not that surprising.“

 

You certainly told; presumed it would be taken as read, us so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I just get the feeling, that if It was said such things could be found, before they had the data, that "impossible" would be top of the board in a cosmologist survey response; no doubt due to the multiple glaringly obvious problems that would be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory.

 

Why don't you tell us what the glaringly obvious problems are?

Why must red dwarf binary orbital period be constrained to the currently observed min value for SUN-LIKE hotter stars?

 

I think not!

Although saying that the sun was this round in the past, would cause multiple glaringly obvious problems that would be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory.

Nevertheless; data is data!

 

Seems to be your phrase of the moment. See other thread

 

Yes! your problem here is that you are trying to group together; the Sun, that has been observed and measured, with neutron stars that have never been seen and are only inferred by mathematics.

 

Of course it depends what you mean by observe... If you mean, see in visible light then no, if you mean objects have been observed that are consistent with neutron stars then yeah they've been obsered.

In either case neutron star theory seems to be doing better than EU theory which have yet to observe, measure or even mathematically show their galactic currents, drift electrons, etc...

 

A common mistake.

In truth; neutron stars can not exist, as they violate the island of stability.

 

Except that the neutrons in the star are held together by gravity and not the strong force.

 

If i've already said I think the Sun has a crust and a surface, then I presumed it would be taken as read, that this was not the gas ball of lore that I was describing.

If it's not a gas ball then it's not going to flatten to the rules that their imaginary gas ball should and would flatten.

 

It doesn't.

So it isn't.

 

Weave it any way you want but it still wont do what you want it to do, just because you want it to be what it just can't be.

 

So how should it flatten? Why not present a value of what the oblateness should be..?

 

About this crust, specifically what theory are you supporting exactly or are just in the 'mainstream is bad' camp? There's a ton of theories out there that have the sun having a solid surface of some sort, which one are you latching onto? I imagine iron..? Further points in other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...