Is our sun still normal?

[juvenissun]

Hi, I do feel the solar activity starts to show some unusual trend (compared to cycle 23).
Do you think the record is a little strange in 2011? It seems rises too fast.
I am not sure. That is why I like you to look at it.
SolarHam.com - Monthly Solar Flux and Sunspot Averages + Trend Charts

 

[RickG]

Hi, I do feel the solar activity starts to show some unusual trend (compared to cycle 23).
Do you think the record is a little strange in 2011? It seems rises too fast.
I am not sure. That is why I like you to look at it.
SolarHam.com - Monthly Solar Flux and Sunspot Averages + Trend Charts

I think I would compare it with a number of other cycles looking at long term trends and the full spectrum of data before making such a claim. I'm not saying you are wrong, it's just a suggestion. Have you sourced the PMOD/World Radiation Center?

welcome to pmodwrc

 

[Michael]

Hi, I do feel the solar activity starts to show some unusual trend (compared to cycle 23).
Do you think the record is a little strange in 2011? It seems rises too fast.
I am not sure. That is why I like you to look at it.
SolarHam.com - Monthly Solar Flux and Sunspot Averages + Trend Charts

In order to tell if it's changing any faster than other cycles, you'd have to compare the changes in this cycle to OTHER cycles, not just various months in THIS cycle.

I've been studying solar activity in satellite imagery for more than 20 years now. IMO this cycle was actually VERY slow to begin, and slow to build as well. The sun is "finally" entering a "more active" phase, but I would say that it was still more active in the last cycle than compared to this cycle. It's still not producing a lot of X and M class flares yet. At the peak of the cycle, you'll see not only sunspot numbers pick up, but also the number of M and X class flares pick up.

 

[juvenissun]

In order to tell if it's changing any faster than other cycles, you'd have to compare the changes in this cycle to OTHER cycles, not just various months in THIS cycle.

I've been studying solar activity in satellite imagery for more than 20 years now. IMO this cycle was actually VERY slow to begin, and slow to build as well. The sun is "finally" entering a "more active" phase, but I would say that it was still more active in the last cycle than compared to this cycle. It's still not producing a lot of X and M class flares yet. At the peak of the cycle, you'll see not only sunspot numbers pick up, but also the number of M and X class flares pick up.

Of course I can study it myself. But with people like you here, who needs to study?

I sort of know this cycle has a slow start. But I am afraid it might also have an unusually sharp rise. I think we would probably see the situation more clear in the coming three months.

Regards to the number of strong flares, would it be correct that we will be in trouble even with just ONE X-class flare shoots straight toward us?

 

[gattaca]

Is our sun still normal?

yes the sun is normal.

 

[Michael]

Of course I can study it myself. But with people like you here, who needs to study?

I sort of know this cycle has a slow start. But I am afraid it might also have an unusually sharp rise. I think we would probably see the situation more clear in the coming three months.

Regards to the number of strong flares, would it be correct that we will be in trouble even with just ONE X-class flare shoots straight toward us?

It would really only take one really LARGE flare to create problems with our communication satellites in space. Even still, were I to characterize this solar cycle compared to the last solar cycle, I'd say it's been pretty quiet overall. It's definitely operating within "normal" parameters at this point.

 

[juvenissun]

It would really only take one really LARGE flare to create problems with our communication satellites in space. Even still, were I to characterize this solar cycle compared to the last solar cycle, I'd say it's been pretty quiet overall. It's definitely operating within "normal" parameters at this point.

OK, thank you. For the moment, I take your word.

(such a short thread, )

 

[neutralino7]

The sun is more or less normal - despite the number of C, M, and X-class flares this year. If anything, the earth's magnetosphere is breaking down, and so the perceived affects of the sun are more elaborate. Luckily for this solar system, the sun is more or less constant (unless another body influences it such as a large comet, planetary perturbations, or jovian masses.)


Now, the moon on the other hand...

 

[juvenissun]

The sun is more or less normal - despite the number of C, M, and X-class flares this year. If anything, the earth's magnetosphere is breaking down, and so the perceived affects of the sun are more elaborate. Luckily for this solar system, the sun is more or less constant (unless another body influences it such as a large comet, planetary perturbations, or jovian masses.)


Now, the moon on the other hand...

What do you know?

 

[neutralino7]

What do you know?

Is this a genuine question, or are you sarcastically asking (excuse my cynicism if it is the former)?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Do you think the record is a little strange in 2011? It seems rises too fast.
I am not sure. That is why I like you to look at it.

The rise you're talking about in 2011 doesn't really seem to be any faster than the rise in late 2001. And from the graphs its clear that the number of sunspots is anything but constant but rather jumps around quite sporadically. Long term trends can only truly be spotted if you zoom out to the decadal scale.

 

[Nabobalis]

The sun is more or less normal - despite the number of C, M, and X-class flares this year. If anything, the earth's magnetosphere is breaking down, and so the perceived affects of the sun are more elaborate. Luckily for this solar system, the sun is more or less constant (unless another body influences it such as a large comet, planetary perturbations, or jovian masses.)


Now, the moon on the other hand...

The Earth's magnetosphere is breaking down? Do you have a source for that claim?

 

[neutralino7]

The Earth's magnetosphere is breaking down? Do you have a source for that claim?

I cant link things if I wanted to. But, I dont need a source (I am assuming you want something from JPL, NASA, .gov, APS, etc.) I can verify the data on my own. You wont find much of anything explicitly stating "the magnetosphere of the earth is breaking down," but if you have been observing the ionospheric pressure and the ionospheric anomaly, you will notice the two are directly proportional. Moreover, the magnetic field at the time of these anomaly events are in violent flux, even pertubative reversal (i.e. the field is phased between pi/3 and pi.) This suggest solar output is NOT as "normal" as people think (it just means the respective shields of the earth are doing their jobs,) because both the ionosphere and magnetosphere are perturbed by plasma (proton/electron) mass uniquely. Or, there is some other warm jovian mass causing plasma disturbances if we are to sware the sun is perfectly normal. There is too much to explain on here, especially when in most cases the scientific status quo is defended tooth and nail, in most cases out of blind faith to the scientific community and/or ignorance. Dont even believe me, really. You are a physicist research and extrapolate the data yourself.

 

[Nabobalis]

I cant link things if I wanted to. But, I dont need a source (I am assuming you want something from JPL, NASA, .gov, APS, etc.) I can verify the data on my own. You wont find much of anything explicitly stating "the magnetosphere of the earth is breaking down," but if you have been observing the ionospheric pressure and the ionospheric anomaly, you will notice the two are directly proportional. Moreover, the magnetic field at the time of these anomaly events are in violent flux, even pertubative reversal (i.e. the field is phased between pi/3 and pi.) This suggest solar output is NOT as "normal" as people think (it just means the respective shields of the earth are doing their jobs,) because both the ionosphere and magnetosphere are perturbed by plasma (proton/electron) mass uniquely. Or, there is some other warm jovian mass causing plasma disturbances if we are to sware the sun is perfectly normal. There is too much to explain on here, especially when in most cases the scientific status quo is defended tooth and nail, in most cases out of blind faith to the scientific community and/or ignorance. Dont even believe me, really. You are a physicist research and extrapolate the data yourself.

You can PM me the links and I can post them on here.

What do you mean by the ionospheric pressure and the ionospheric anomaly?

What do you mean by violent flux and perturbative reversal?

Another Jovian mass? Another Jupiter is hiding somewhere in our solar system?

 

[juvenissun]

Is this a genuine question, or are you sarcastically asking (excuse my cynicism if it is the former)?

Sorry for the wording. I like to know.

 

[juvenissun]

I cant link things if I wanted to. But, I dont need a source (I am assuming you want something from JPL, NASA, .gov, APS, etc.) I can verify the data on my own. You wont find much of anything explicitly stating "the magnetosphere of the earth is breaking down," but if you have been observing the ionospheric pressure and the ionospheric anomaly, you will notice the two are directly proportional. Moreover, the magnetic field at the time of these anomaly events are in violent flux, even pertubative reversal (i.e. the field is phased between pi/3 and pi.) This suggest solar output is NOT as "normal" as people think (it just means the respective shields of the earth are doing their jobs,) because both the ionosphere and magnetosphere are perturbed by plasma (proton/electron) mass uniquely. Or, there is some other warm jovian mass causing plasma disturbances if we are to sware the sun is perfectly normal. There is too much to explain on here, especially when in most cases the scientific status quo is defended tooth and nail, in most cases out of blind faith to the scientific community and/or ignorance. Dont even believe me, really. You are a physicist research and extrapolate the data yourself.

Goodness, you seems to know a lot about the atmosphere. Glad to have you visit the CF. Please stay.

Are you suggesting the magnetic pole is in the process of reversal, and one of the evidence is the disturbed ionosphere?

 

[Nabobalis]

Are you suggesting the magnetic pole is in the process of reversal, and one of the evidence is the disturbed ionosphere?

There has been good reasons to speculate that the magnetic field of Earth under goes reversals every tens/hundreds of thousands of years and that if that is the case we are overdue for one. People have modeled it and depending on the model you do get some interesting results such as a quadrupole magnetic field and higher.

 

[RickG]

There has been good reasons to speculate that the magnetic field of Earth under goes reversals every tens/hundreds of thousands of years and that if that is the case we are overdue for one. People have modeled it and depending on the model you do get some interesting results such as a quadrupole magnetic field and higher.

Magnetic reversals occur on average about every 700,000 years and take from 1000 to 10,000 years to complete. It is true Earth's magnetic field has been weakening but there is simply not enough data to really determine if the current trend is normal or not.

Paleomagnetic record of the Earth's magnetic field polarity by micrometeorites
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo203.html
Fall in Earth's Magnetic Field Is Erratic
http://geomag.org/info/Smaus/Doc/MF5.pdf

 

[Michael]

FYI, the sun's magnetic field rotates over about a 22 year period, producing 11 year solar cycles in the process.

 

[neutralino7]

Sorry for the wording. I like to know.

Yes, forgive my attitude, but it is very hard to detect sarcasm on these forums. Likewise, I usually do not like to discuss science on these forums (or life, for that matter) because everyone is usually right in their own light, and there is no room for philosophy of science.

Anyway, the moon's eccentricity, e - that is, the measure of the moon's tendency to move in an elliptical orbit - has been drastically altered.

en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

I have personally noticed the moon rising in the west, and setting in the east since June of this year, which is a change of -π (180°.) The moon is supposed to "Chase the sun," rising in the east and setting in the west. In most instances since August 2011, it rises in the NNE or NNW, signifying (to me in my own knowledge) that the moon changes directions by at least -π/6 to as much as -5π/6.

Now, let's consider some math:
_____________________________________________________________________
The earth (although not perfectly circular) can be approximated as a sphere. Thus, the horizon can be approximated as half of a circular turn around the earth (especially on the equinox.) Therefore, starting in the north, and rotating clockwise:

EAST is designated as π/2, or 90°,
SOUTH is designated as π, or 180°
WEST is designated as 3π/2, or 270°
NORTH is the origin, as 2π/0, or 360°/0°

Now, knowing there are 360° in a circle, and there are around 69 miles per observed degree corresponding to earth (this is my calculation which we will show is right/a good approximation... the math is too involved for on here,) then the earth's circumference should be

360°(69 miles/1°) = 24,840 miles for Earth's circumference.

Now, let's check this with the real formula for circumference:

Circumference = 2*π*r

The radius of the earth, r, is averaged (by me) at 3957.5 miles (the earth changes its radius due to tidal forces.) The element π is unitless and is approximately equal to 3.14159, so we have

Circumference = 2*(3.14159)*(3957.5 mi) = 24,866 miles

The difference between my approximation (69 miles/1°) and earth's real circumference is 0.1%, which is beautiful.

__________________________________________________________________

Now, we did all of this so that we can get into the interesting stuff.

If the moon is rising in the west, and setting in the east, then that means, according to our math above, the moon has moved -180° opposite of where it is supposed to traverse. According to our approximation, -180°(69 mi/1°) = -12,420 mi, or a reverse course of 12,420 toward the west the moon has made. The earth and moon have been binary systems for millenia, and likewise the moon, earth and sun have been tertiary systems (and we can go on about the other planets, comets, stars, etc.) So, why is this change now? As a Christian, you should read the six trumpets, but start at the sixth seal. This will probably be clear later in the analysis.

Now, let's assume (depending on location and altitude) the moon rises in the NNW, and sets in the SSE (as it had been doing.) Notice that NNE/SSW combo will yield similar results, but there will be a different direction (noted by a negative.) If the moon rises in the NNW, it implies about a -135° offset. This translates to -135°(69 mi/1°) = -9315 mi. (At this point, I hope you see the negative sign is just convention for direction.)

So, this means that the moon is WIDELY out of place in the terrestrial sky, translates some 10,000 mi. Unless the sun is going super-massive, or the earth is getting larger, there must be something large enough to make the moon's eccentricity (orbit) perturb in such a way.

Well, just recently Harvard University has very apprehensively admitted that there is something wrong with the moon (published August 2011,) and that it is anomalous. Here is a snip of the abstract:

n particular, the general relativistic gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth’s angular momentum has the right order of magnitude, but the resulting Lense-Thirring secular effect for the eccentricity vanishes. A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually, would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation. On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain at least the right order of magnitude for ? are completely unrealistic: suffices it to say that an Earth-sized planet would be at 30 au, while a jovian mass would be at 200 au.

AU = Astronomical unit = distance between earth and sun = 93,000,000 miles

adsabs(DOT)harvard(DOT)edu/abs/2011MNRAS(DOT)415(DOT)1266I

Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche is a hypothetical brown/red/black dwarf star - a star the size of Jupiter (Jovian sized) whose surface is much hotter, but its core is unable to undergo nuclear fusion like a regular sun. Harvard is saying 1) "we have noticed the moon is not right, and has undergone several anomalies, and 2) we believe there is at least an earth sized body in our solar system causing the gravitational perturbations of the moon."

In other words, this is a sneak peek into the 7 Trumps, specifically the STAR known as WORMWOOD, which falls upon earth (not into, as opposed to the 2nd trump - a millstone cast INTO the sea.) Harvard has already admitted that it could be a [brown, red, or black] dwarf star. Since you are Christian, let's put some of these things together: when you take into account all of this information, and the whole of the trumps from Revelation 8, it sounds like this:

Trump 1: debris preceding this earth-size/jovian-sized body hitting earth as this dwarf star approaches
Trump 2: a large piece of debris caught in earth's gravitational field, hitting the sea
Trump 3: the actual close-approach of this earth-sized/jovian-sized body. (I know this is perceived to be a nuclear detonation by some, but the wording in revelation is specific. Given the circumstances, a "star" is actually probable.)
Trump 4: Moon, sun, and stars are eclipsed (this would be perceivable the case on earth if a large Jovian-sized dwarf star came upon us to cover our sky.)

Notice that there are four trumps, then an angel says "woe unto [us] because of the other three trumps to be blown!" Four is a spiritual number, usually associated with heaven and heavenly bodies - whether it be the sun/moon (created on the fourth day,) Christ, angels, etc. Just putting pieces together how I see them. This Wormwood is most likely a celestial object, the same that is causing our moon to act up.


I will tell you, friend, when the Ivy Leagues, and other privately owned and privately funded organizations begin to "admit" anything, it does not mean good news for us lowly layman folk. In addition, you can bet they have known about this for longer than the article has been published (since scientific "tests" must be made.) This is why I stress if you trust someone, or if you have the intellectual capability, rely on your OWN research. Don't wait for a "scientist" to tell you.

So to sum up my point, the earth and sun are just dandy (for now.) Although, these extra flares, minimums and maximums, etc. that people perceive as regular cycles are likely due to this object in our solar system (brown/red/black dwarf stars have immense magnetic fields that span many AUs, in addition to an immense gravitational and plasma field.)