FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


In 2013 the sun will release big wind?





Cliffer
i heard of this news from tv,is it true? if so, it will destroy the earth power and communication,including internet?
yagnyavalkya
Could you quote some web reference for the news?
eday2010
Do you mean a solar flare? Those can definitely damage communications. They can do wuite a bit of damage.

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

Solar winds can also wreak havoc.
Bikerman
Solar flares cannot be predicted years ahead (or weeks ahead). This sounds to me like a misunderstanding of a genuine story, or a correct understanding of a woo-woo story.
Cliffer
oh yes,maybe it is solor flare.
Bikerman
Well, as I said above, Solar Flares cannot be predicted that far in advance so ....
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Well, as I said above, Solar Flares cannot be predicted that far in advance so ....

A general increase in activity might be more predictable though, without being able to put exact dates on specific flares.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, as I said above, Solar Flares cannot be predicted that far in advance so ....

A general increase in activity might be more predictable though, without being able to put exact dates on specific flares.
Yes, it is - we even have Department of Space Weather at NASA. There are certainly cycles - one of about 10.7 years period. The trouble is there is a lot of variability around that mean. The other thing is - the current cycle started 2009, so there is nothing particularly special about 2013...
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, as I said above, Solar Flares cannot be predicted that far in advance so ....

A general increase in activity might be more predictable though, without being able to put exact dates on specific flares.
Yes, it is - we even have Department of Space Weather at NASA. There are certainly cycles - one of about 10.7 years period. The trouble is there is a lot of variability around that mean. The other thing is - the current cycle started 2009, so there is nothing particularly special about 2013...

Just thinking that the first post might be an overreaction to a news story like 'increase in solar flare activity expected in 2013'... Particularly understandable if the article then delved into all the possible effects of solar flares.
Bikerman
I can't think why there would be anything unusual that could be predicted this far out, and I haven't seen anything from NASA on it.
metalfreek
Solar flares are of frequent occurrence but such a prediction is a bit impossible i guess. Solar flares definitely capable of paralyzing out communication system especially the ones that depends on satellite.
HalfBloodPrince
Or maybe since we're getting awfully close to 2012 let's push the bullshit theories a year further...
BigGeek
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Or maybe since we're getting awfully close to 2012 let's push the bullshit theories a year further...


I used to have a Halloween crow that had a motion sensor on it and when activated it would scream:

FEAR FEAR THE END IS NEAR Very Happy Laughing Cool

I love these things, and you know at exactly 09:23;02 PST on July 5th 2012 the big one is gonna hit Los Angels RIGHT!! and my numbers are gonna come up on the lottery so I'm gonna quit my job.

Where do these things come from? Bikerman is right the solar cycles come every 10.7 years, but how can you predict the year or date?

As far as I know, we can't predict earthquakes, solar flares, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornados or any other natural disaster, scientifically. But if you are a psychic you can tell the exact time and date, RIGHT?

I had a friend of mine on my last job that had all sorts of financial problems that took her 3 years to clear up, because she was so convinced the the world was going to end on Jan 1 2000 that she stopped paying her bills........ Shocked Very Happy Laughing
Bikerman
Millennial kooks are quite numerous, but rarely numerate. They often have some newly discovered 'mathematical' or 'logical' thesis which links various events together, to ends up with 'repent the lord is at hand and the smashing of celestial hosts into each other, accompanied by the saved 'floating off the ground' as we get the rapture...and us heathen atheists are brought back from a peaceful eternity to be duly punished ad-eternum.

You get a lot of numerology, like the Mayan calender 'prediction'. You get some half-assed astronomy where misquoted events are held to signify x where x is a really really bad sign...normally involving crossing the galactic centre as part of the problem at least. Another one in this category is the planet-x type theory which has an earth-type planet on a wide eliptical orbit appearing in 2012...and so on...
Then you get the code merchants who can demonstrate a code. Drosnin was the one who brought it to public attention with that book 'The Bible Codes' - and people want to believe it so much that they turn off the sense filters and pull up a stool at the counter.
inuyasha
Some references should be quoted...
I wonder why the prediction was made. Actually in China someone who cares about those future disasters would probably think we can't survive the disaster in 2012.
jwellsy
The keywords here are 'solar maximum'. I have been forwarding articles on it to a contact in DC that distributes them to other contacts in several agencies.

Actually NASA has been predicting a solar maximum in 2012 for a long time.
From 2006:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

Here's a bunch of cool links on it.
http://www.spacetoday.org/Teachers/SunEarthRelationship.html

In fact, this is actually become a Department of Homeland Security issue due to the threat of wide spread electrical distribution grid disruptions.
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/protecting-grid-solar-storm-induced-blackouts?page=0,1

gnoeld
I have been reading and hearing about 2012, 2013, the solar storms, natural disasters, Planet X and Niburu, and being a skeptic, I started searching for evidence.

There are those who use stories from the Mayans, the Bible, the Hopi Indians, etc. to prove this 2012 theory and then there are the debunkers of all these theories. What I have noticed, is that most of the debunkers (people who deny the existence of a planet behind the sun, etc.) are always from some organization linked to the government e.g. NASA.

I have also experienced that some information such as the Solar Storm theory is released, but I get the impression that it is done to basically put doubt in the public's mind of any such cataclysm happening.

Well, I believe that evidence speaks volumes, so I decided to seek some evidence of there being a planet behind the Sun. I searched and searched .... and searched the internet for some evidence of this planet, and again there were those who claimed it is there and those who claimed that it is not there.

I then read an article where one of the debunkers of this theory of there being a planet behind the Sun, mentioned that if the planet was there, we should be able to see it by now.

This article got me thinking. I then realized that we cannot look into the sun, as the sun is too bright. I then took a small digital camera, zoomed into the sun and snapped. The images on the camera shocked the living daylights out of me.

THERE IS DEFINITELY A PLANET BEHIND THE SUN!!!

I have images of a planet as well as of a satellite planet.

I have posted some of the images on a blog which I invite you to view by clicking on the following link:

http://planetbehindthesun.blogspot.com/

I would like to hear your comments about these images.
Bikerman
gnoeld wrote:
There are those who use stories from the Mayans, the Bible, the Hopi Indians, etc. to prove this 2012 theory and then there are the debunkers of all these theories. What I have noticed, is that most of the debunkers (people who deny the existence of a planet behind the sun, etc.) are always from some organization linked to the government e.g. NASA.
Not true, but even if it was it would not be surprising for NASA to have input into a question which is in their area of expertise.
Quote:
I have also experienced that some information such as the Solar Storm theory is released, but I get the impression that it is done to basically put doubt in the public's mind of any such cataclysm happening.
What Solar system theory would that be?
Quote:
Well, I believe that evidence speaks volumes, so I decided to seek some evidence of there being a planet behind the Sun. I searched and searched .... and searched the internet for some evidence of this planet, and again there were those who claimed it is there and those who claimed that it is not there.
You have no evidence and obviously no real understanding of the physics you are mangling.
Quote:
This article got me thinking. I then realized that we cannot look into the sun, as the sun is too bright. I then took a small digital camera, zoomed into the sun and snapped. The images on the camera shocked the living daylights out of me.

THERE IS DEFINITELY A PLANET BEHIND THE SUN!!!
Nope.
Quote:
I have images of a planet as well as of a satellite planet.
No you don't, in the same way that you don't apparently have a basic grasp of how a camera works, let alone an understanding of basic astrophysics.

Here's a little exercise for you - calculate what the resolution of your camera is at a focal length of 100,000,000 miles. You can give your answer to the nearest thousand miles...
Then go and read some very basic science books.
gnoeld
I would definitely like to know which government organization Bikerman is connected to.

He definitely does a good job of denying the existence of a planet behind the Sun.

He is, however, correct by saying that I do not understand the physics behind this, or how a camera works or have any understanding of basic astrophysics. I am just a normal person who knows how to take a picture with a small digital camera.

If it is possible for someone like me to take images of this planet, then those who know how a camera works or have an understanding of basic astrophysics should definitely know about it as well.

As far as denying the existence of the images, well, Bikerman seems to be one of those that tell people that they are NOT seeing what they are seeing!!!. I would also like to know whether Bikerman has even viewed the images on the link I provided. Here is the link again in case you missed it. I have included more images. Please check the dates on these images. Remember, most of these images were taken from my backyard.

http://planetbehindthesun.blogspot.com/

By telling me that I don't have the images, makes me realize that something is definitely cooking, because I have a whole collection of these images taken over a period of three (3) years. I have managed to take pictures of this planet any time of the day as long as there is no cloud cover.

If someone could tell me how to insert an image into this post, I will gladly do it.

If you are looking for evidence for yourself, take a small digital camera, zoom into the sun on a clear day, and take a picture of it yourself.

I would like to hear from someone who manages to take a picture of this PLANET BEHIND THE SUN. Please don't try to tell me it's NOT there. I have taken pictures of this planet in front of friends who also doubted the images.

I would like to know what planet this is and to know why "people" [we won't mention names] are going to great lengths to deny its existence.

Yes, I have images of a planet behind the Sun where a satellite planet is also visible!!!
Bikerman
gnoeld wrote:
I would definitely like to know which government organization Bikerman is connected to.
I'm connected to the Education department - I'm a teacher.
Quote:
He definitely does a good job of denying the existence of a planet behind the Sun.
No, read again.
Quote:
If it is possible for someone like me to take images of this planet,
It isn't.
Quote:
then those who know how a camera works or have an understanding of basic astrophysics should definitely know about it as well.
They don't, which means it is either not present or is not possible to image.
Quote:
As far as denying the existence of the images, well, Bikerman seems to be one of those that tell people that they are NOT seeing what they are seeing!!!. I would also like to know whether Bikerman has even viewed the images on the link I provided. Here is the link again in case you missed it. I have included more images. Please check the dates on these images. Remember, most of these images were taken from my backyard.
You can see what you wish. What you WON'T see is a planet more than 90 million miles distant - because it IS NOT POSSIBLE for a camera to image something at such distances.
Yes, I looked at your link. You have a collection of artefacts which any competent photographer can explain to you (basically a combination of lense-flare, chromatic abberation and other effects and artefacts which one WOULD EXPECT to see when pointing a cheap lense at the sun). What you DON'T have is an image of a planet.
Quote:
By telling me that I don't have the images, makes me realize that something is definitely cooking, because I have a whole collection of these images taken over a period of three (3) years. I have managed to take pictures of this planet any time of the day as long as there is no cloud cover.
And thus another ignoramus generates another conspiracy theory.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about and you clearly don't have the self-knowledge or humility to realise that you should listen to people who DO know what they are talking about, and not simply assume that they are lying or covering-up something...

You are probably quite young, so I'll explain something important. When it comes to science, your opinion is only as good as your evidence and knowledge. It isn't a democracy - opinions based on ignorance don't count at all.
You have started with the assumption that it is possible to photograph a planet 'behind' the sun. That is an invalid assumption, and the rest falls immediately.

Do you seriously think that the atronomers around the world are all hiding something? That is paranoid nonsense, as well as deeply offensive to the professional competence and personal integrity of such people.
gnoeld
I suppose that the Sun is also not in these pictures, as the Sun is over 90,000,000 km away from earth. You almost have me believing that there is nothing in the pictures.

Unfortunately, I know that there is nothing man-made about these pictures.

Anyway, I am not trying to generate any conspiracy theory, just hoping to raise some awareness about the planet behind the Sun.

Instead of trying to prove that theoretically it can't be there, take a camera, zoom into the sun and take your own pictures.

I would love to see your pictures. I have friends who have taken photos with more expensive equipment, and they confirm that it is definitely there.

I suppose that for those who refuse to believe that the planet is there, various arguments can be tabled as to why theoretically it can't be there, but to me, the photographic evidence is overwhelming.

As they say, sometimes you just need to open your eyes.
Bikerman
I suspect you might be trolling. If not then I can only suggest you post this stuff in either jokes or perhaps the faith forum.
In case you are really this confused: the sun is visible because it is a nuclear reactor about 1.4 million kilometres in diameter. (ie it is BIG and it is BRIGHT). Your proposed planet would be neither and, to make it worse, it would be behind the vertical plane of the sun (with respect to an observer here).

Not only could your camera not resolve it (and by that I actually mean that it can't even get near enough to be called miles-off) because of the size. There are some very simply sums you could do to prove this, but I'm somehow betting you don't do sums....Neither would your camera actually detect any photons from said planet, because of the lack of reflected light reaching us. Finally, the camera would be looking past the brightest light available, and trying to make-out a dim object against a black background.

Do you begin to see yet?
Anyway, enough of this nonsense. Whatever else it might be, it has bugger all to do with science.

In fact, just to get SOME sense into this thread, let's do the maths.
The angular resolution of your camera can probably be estimated by assuming it to be a telescope of a diameter equal to that of the aperture.
Using

(where R is angular resolution, Lambda is light wavelength and D is diameter of the objective.

Visible light is around 400-800 TerraHertz - so let's call the wavelength 800 nanometres to be really generous = 0.000001 m
Let's also give your camera a generous objective lens - say 1 cm = 0.01m

So your angular resolution is 0.000001 / 0.01 which is 0.0001 rads which is about 20 arc-seconds.

OK. now, suppose a planet which is earth-sized. Angular diameter -
Where dact - Actual Diameter, D is distance

so = D is 300,000,000(ish) km and dact = 12750 +/-10 km

I get a rough figure of about 4 arcsecs...
(anyone capable is asked to check my result please)


Anyhoo - that means that even if viewing conditions were ideal, we had no atmosphere, the mystery planet was lit-up brightly, and the real sun was not in the way, you STILL WOULDN'T SEE IT.
kelseymh
gnoeld wrote:
I suppose that the Sun is also not in these pictures, as the Sun is over 90,000,000 km away from earth.


Definitely trolling. Can't get simple facts right, so we all spend our time correcting you, while you continue to flog your nonsense.

The Earth is (on average) 93,000,000 miles from the Sun, or 150,000,000 km.

Quote:
You almost have me believing that there is nothing in the pictures.


Definitely trolling. The sun has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees on the sky, which is trivially large enough to image. Your mythical planet Troll, assuming it is, perhaps, as large as Jupiter, would have an angular diameter 0.8 arc minutes (assuming 70,000 km diameter, 300,000,000 km distance). That is barely (see Bikerman's posting) resolvable with an extremely high-quality camera. Cut that down by a factor of ten and it is simply not resolvable. Anyone familiar with photography of any kind would know that.

Quote:
Unfortunately, I know that there is nothing man-made about these pictures.


How do you "know"? Did God reveal this information to you during a mystical trance? Or did you do the optical calculations? If so, did you get different results?

Quote:
I suppose that for those who refuse to believe that the planet is there, various arguments can be tabled as to why theoretically it can't be there, but to me, the photographic evidence is overwhelming.


That's only because you clearly have no knowledge of how photographic equipment functions.

Quote:
As they say, sometimes you just need to open your eyes.


Yep. And it's a pity you can't do so.
Tuvitor
Holy lens flare, Batman! (Yeah, I think this guy's trolling... pictures of lens flare, calling it a planet, and cooking up Nibiru conspiracy theories based on that crackpot Sitchin's failed attempts to translate ancient Sumerian)
ocalhoun
pokal wrote:
dude it might be possible...........

No, that's just the point.
It ISN'T possible to photograph an Earth-sized planet on the far side of the sun with an off-the-shelf digital camera... Even if it was there to photograph.
Bikerman
It's also probably worth reiterating that the back-of-the-envelope calculations I did were WILDLY generous to the camera hypothesis. I assumed that the camera behaves as an ideal telescope;I completely ignored the effect of the atmosphere; I ignored the fact that the object being viewed would, presumably, have an albedo similar to earth (and therefore would not be radiating much in the visible spectrum; and kindest of all, I ignored the 'swamping' effect that the sun would have on any photons that DID manage to head our way.
What this proves is simply that it is NOT POSSBLE for a small camera to register any such planet, even under idealised conditions.
But lets be completely off-the-wall and imagine a camera that COULD register such a planet. My figures show that a 5cm aperture would just about have sufficient resolving power (as long as we leave all the rest of the idealised picture in place).
So, we now have a camera which CAN, in an indeal world, resolve the planet. What would we see? You would get 1 pixel on the camera representing the planet. Let's put that into perspective. A typical camera might be 4 megapixels or so. For simplicity lets call that 2000x2000 pixels. On a typical photo (150mm x 100mm) that means the visible area corresponding to the planet would be 0.075x0.05mm.
The human eye resolves at about 50 CPD (CPD - cycles per degree, usual unit of visual resolution). That works-out at around 0.35mm at 1 metre.
In other words - even if you COULD take a picture of this supposed planet, the resulting image would be many times too small to actually see on a typical print, and you would need to blow it up to A2* size before you could see it, and even then it would be a dot/point on the sheet.

* For those not familiar with European paper sizing, the standard page from your printer is A4 (or slightly different for US paper, but close enough). A3 is twice the area and A2 is twice again. So imagine holding a sheet of paper, 4 times the area of a standard sheet from the printer, at a comfortable distance of 1 metre from your eyes. Now, the planet would be a tiny dot, right at the limits of your ability to perceive.
Josso
I'm not getting involved in this debate particually just thought I'd stop by to reassure people about solar flares.


I always check articles when I see things about solar flares and it's always something about some m-classed pathetic one. The ones you have to watch out for is the X rated ones which *can* cause some trouble but only if past a certain intensity. Also it would take a bigger one than we have ever measured to cause any significant damage to an infrastructure for example.


Quebec in 89 got some damage to their power grid from what I hear but the last really big one was about 1859 I think - some morse operators got some shocks from that. If that sort of intensity happened now I'm not quite sure what would happen, there wasn't the instruments around at the time to measure the intensity.



Crap that wasn't actually very reassuring.
Bikerman
Solar flares are a real threat, so reassurance is not really warranted - though I suppose it depends on what state of anxiety you think people are currently in. Solar flares are unlikely to kill you, or even injure you, but they can do a LOT of damage to our infrastructure - satellite comms, power-grids etc.
xikaouj
I wish the "2012" is true .
kelseymh
xikaouj wrote:
I wish the "2012" is true .


Well, 2012 is real for the next 264 days. After that, 2013 will be real.
ocalhoun
kelseymh wrote:
xikaouj wrote:
I wish the "2012" is true .


Well, 2012 is real for the next 264 days. After that, 2013 will be real.


I think 2012 will still be real when it's in the past...

Does something that existed only in the past, but no longer exists count as real?
To the philosophy forum!
IceCreamTruck
Wow... lots of info in this thread, and possible trolls, but we seemed to have missed a fact about the sun that NASA made me aware of.

The sun goes through a period of heightened activity every 11 or so years, and we're entering that period now. It was marked with a large solar flare event just recently which produced aurora in the sky much lower than they normally appear. The Aurora was visible as far south as Tennessee, but we had cloud cover in Kentucky and were not able to view it. I went picture hunting online though, and found some good ones during that time, but don't have links to them now.

The fact of the matter is that you've probably already lived through one cycle of the sun, especially if you are here discussing the universe with us, so media companies hyping this is just that, hype. They want you to think they have information that may save you, but everyone forgets that you don't need information on solar wind blowing the earth away, as no amount of watching TV is going to prepare any of us for that. Expect to see sun stories in the news every time the amount of speculation concerning the sun begins to rise. Recent sun activity has sparked a lot of speculation, and so the media companies insert hype stories to continue doing business, not to inform the public.

Why not trip over to NASA.gov and do some reading. Do searches on solar flares, and there is a lot of good info out there. Just go for trusted sources who actually care that their information is accurate and not full of holes and hype. If you felt that you don't have all the facts, but that there is something out there you need more info on, then go research it. Don't just flip channels until you find a similar story.

The sun will eventually blow the earth away when it goes nova, if the earth is still orbiting, but until then it's just going to continue shooting us, occasionally, with solar flares. This does cause damage, and the result could be a loss of human life, but I highly doubt any deaths in our life times and many to come can be attributed to direct exposure to a sun flare, as the magnetized earth, and our atmosphere prevent that.
kelseymh
ocalhoun wrote:
kelseymh wrote:
xikaouj wrote:
I wish the "2012" is true .


Well, 2012 is real for the next 264 days. After that, 2013 will be real.


I think 2012 will still be real when it's in the past...


What you mean is, "It was real," (and it was fun, but it wasn't real fun Smile ).
boinsterman
There's a lot of doomsday hype in this thread about nothing. While huge flares can have some of the effects described, I believe Cliffer was asking about a solar storm that encompassed the Earth for about 48 hours a couple of weeks ago. According to Scott Pelley on the CBS Evening News, some satellite, power, and communications disruption was expected, but not much on the ground. I never noticed a difference.

Here is a link to CBS News' coverage of the story (somewhat sensationalized in my opinion, but accurate).
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7396333n

Some websites apparently did predict catastrophe, and Cliffer may have been right to ask. But come on, people. Do your homework. Confirm everything six ways from Sunday, or as much as you can, before you put your name out there or scare the blazes out of people. Such scares can help desensitize people to true emergencies, or make them feel hopeless and just give up on life.

[/url]
andro_king
i cannot accept this.. what will the whole world do without communication devices working..?
whole world will be messed up..!!
ocalhoun
softonaseo15 wrote:
I am also heard that because of this our transmitter system fails all mobile internet t.v stop working.

A big enough flare could cause this, yes... Especially anything satellite-based.

An even bigger flare could take out just about any unprotected electronics.

And yes, andro, if a large portion of our communications suddenly stopped working, it would indeed cause big problems. One strong enough to damage most electronics would cause even worse problems.
Related topics
My list of musics
Favorite metal bands
Northern Lights [Aurora Borealis]
climate change - hot topic (excuse the punn)
Download audio books?
Mod Projects lots of info
Me, myself and machine
This day in Scottish History.
Crossing Pacific
Rockman ZX Walkthrough
"drawing" with JavaScript
You're feeling ___ because...
Wind & Solor Electricity Record in Germany
Big wind is "Just about to hit". Is it going to be
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.