This is a cool video of some sun spots. You can also see the solar convection cells. It is the work of Bruno Sánchez-Andrade Nuño. I came across it on the Astronomy Picture Of The Day site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a cool video of some sun spots. You can also see the solar convection cells. It is the work of Bruno Sánchez-Andrade Nuño. I came across it on the Astronomy Picture Of The Day site.
11 comments:
Hi Billy
The sun is just cool...
Lee
PS
So sun-spots... does this means God created something that isn't perfect? Even on a science thread we can give a kick in the teeth for the traditional perfect God idea. But of course, no one thinks God is perfect do they… nothing perfect would make something imperfect – what would be the point?
PPS
And yes, I know I am kicking my own strawman here if any theist wishes to complain – all I ask for is a definition of God everyone can agree on – then I will kick that one.
Silly lee, dont you know that man corrupted creation? :-)
Seriosly though, do you know if sun spots are an inevitability?
Billy-
I think I read somewhere that they are, at least on suns of this type. But I might be wrong about this.
I think I read somewhere that they are
Since there is an association with flares, that would then suggest bad design.
all I ask for is a definition of God everyone can agree on
So little time, so many versions of the same god to kick.
That reminds me, beause of this problem, Sam Harris is looking for christians (and others) to complete a survey to help him design an experiment to look at brain activity on belief
http://www.samharris.org/
A little research tells me that sunspots are the visual effects of magnetic flux tubes wound beyond a certain point by differential rotation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
That means all stars are likely to have them (except neutron stars, pulsars etc)
Hi Billy,
Silly lee,
There is a joke there somewhere...
dont you know that man corrupted creation? :-)
So that is why stars go supernova? Well, I always blame the parents myself, so really it is all Eve’s fault.
Seriosly though, do you know if sun spots are an inevitability?
From the top of my head... I’m not sure if there is a real final answer to that since the details are not fully understood yet I think. I’m sure there are still a few mysteries behind them still – the 11 year (or 22 year) cycle for one. That said, if you have a great big hot plasma with charge particles going all over the place getting mixed with by convection from charge particles below and getting mixed up further as the sun rotates at different speeds at different latitudes – hell, something strange is going to happen with all that stuff – the magnetic fields are going to go crazy somewhere– so yeah, why not have sun spots?
So Jonathan is right of course about the magnetic flux of these suckers – this is what you get when charge particles move around – magnetic fields – Oh, and of course, they are not really black, they are just a “little bit” cooler than the rest of the sun, so appear darker – around 2,000 degree cooler. Oh, and solar prominences and flares are the result of sun spots magnetic fields... their cool.
Jonathan wrote:-
That means all stars are likely to have them (except neutron stars, pulsars etc)
I would certainly be happy to bet all main-sequence stars (like our sun) have sun spots because of the hot rotating ball of plasma stuff I mention above. Once they move off the main-sequence though other weird things happen and since we have not been up close and personal with any such star – I would not like to bet on the physics of the magnetic fields of the giants in their outer layer. Maybe some physicist has some computer model that will help use out – but I know nothing.
Neutron/pulsars would be a safer bet – by definition they are not made up of charged particulars so the physics is very different to that of a normal star. Though the “pulse” of a neutron star is showing something cool is happening with magnetic fields, in a big way. Neutron stars are also cool – the physics is just crazy to think about.
Lee
Billy wrote:
Since there is an association with flares, that would then suggest bad design.
Not if you actually wanted to knock out the electrical supply of Canada or a few communication satellites just for a laugh - bloody good design then.
Hell, if God didn’t like the tower of Babel, he isn’t going to like communication satellites (or Canada) now is he?
(I cannot remember, did you mention the tower of Babel in your God is a barstool thread? I mean, just as mankind got together and thought, ‘Hey, if we work together we could achieve something’ God comes along and BANG, no one can talk to one another anymore – the barstool. Another one to add to the list?)
Lee
Hell, if God didn’t like the tower of Babel, he isn’t going to like communication satellites (or Canada) now is he?
The Southpark song "Kill Canada" has just sprung to mind.
Hi Billy,
The Southpark song "Kill Canada" has just sprung to mind.
So let it be written, so let it be done…
Canada most be destroy…
Lee
PS
I tried to get onto the facebook debate, but I cannot see a reply or post button anyway…
click reply to (whoever) at the top right of the post you want to reply to
Given up…
I just wanted to comment on one thing you said on facebook
If you believe in the fall and all that stuff too, then the universal constants - MUST have been different, so by your own paradigm,
I always like to point out that if they believe Noah and the flood – then either the physics was different back then or the sky wasn’t blue or God didn’t give a rainbow as a gift.
The logic being that the bible clearly sets the God give Noah the rainbow only AFTER the flood, this implies that light was not being defracted the same way as it does now.
Having said this, if you can believe in a Global flood – you can believe in anything.
Lee
Post a Comment