Sunspots on Alpha Cent AB.
Ken S. Tucker
Sunspots affect climate and therefore evolution.
I'll try to connect sunspots to the Sun passing through
spurious galatic arms composed of invisible debris.
I estimate the probability of a meteor striking a mass is
simplistcally proportional to it's Area*Mass.
Working the proportion of Solar meteors/Earth meteors,
in round figures gives using,
Sun dia=100*Earth diameter
Sun Area =10^4 Earth Area
Mass = 3*10^5 Earth mass
Sun Strikes = 3*10^9 Earth Strikes.
I conjecture a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a Sunspot,
and a metallic Sunmeteor due to high speed of strike
would react with the solar magnetic field, to create a
very large induction current, and localized magnetic
field, characteristic of Sunspots.
In perspective, a large meteor that strikes the Earth every
100 million years will strike the Sun 30 times per year.
The solar Sunspot cycle is a known average, with ~11 yr
averages betweens maximums, yet large rogue sunspots
may occur even at the minimums of that cycle, and I think
it's exceptionally difficult to explain that and the Maunder
Minimum, based on solar internal dynamics, so therefore
we look for exterior causes.
We're fairly certain the Milkway is a Barred Galaxy, and
we can only see those bars well condensed to form stars,
however many fingers of invisible bars may also exist,
much consisting of supernova debris.
While complex, these fingers appear to be organized in
Saturn's Rings for a micro example.
So as the Solar System revolves around the galaxy it will
periodically intersect these debris fingers.
We may be able to test the above conjecture.
Our instrumentation is evolving to measure starspot activity
on our nearest similiar stars, Alpha Cen AB, (Kentaurus).
Suppose that measurement found a starspot cyclicity the
same (or very similiar) to that we measure on the Sun,
then we would would have a significant interstellar coincidence,
especially if the spurious maximums and minimums of the
solar cycle correspond to Kentaurus (Kent).
Since Kent is subject to very close scrutiny for future centuries,
any commom cause should become apparent.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>I conjecture a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a Sunspot,
>and a metallic Sunmeteor due to high speed of strike
>would react with the solar magnetic field, to create a
>very large induction current, and localized magnetic
>field, characteristic of Sunspots.
There's not the slightest evidence of such a thing. The energy released
from even a huge asteroid striking the Sun is vanishingly small compared
with the energy stored in magnetic fields responsible for sunspots.
Unless you can find some way to quantify this conjecture with real
physics (consider the kinetic energy of the impactor, its effect on the
solar fluid, a mechanism for it to interact with the solar magnetic
field, and a mechanism for that interaction to produce a sunspot)
there's really nothing more that can be discussed.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Ken S. Tucker
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:14:50 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >I conjecture a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a Sunspot,
> >and a metallic Sunmeteor due to high speed of strike
> >would react with the solar magnetic field, to create a
> >very large induction current, and localized magnetic
> >field, characteristic of Sunspots.
>
> There's not the slightest evidence of such a thing.
Certainly none you are aware of bub.
> The energy released
> from even a huge asteroid striking the Sun is vanishingly small compared
> with the energy stored in magnetic fields responsible for sunspots.
Nope.
> Unless you can find some way to quantify this conjecture with real
> physics (consider the kinetic energy of the impactor, its effect on the
> solar fluid, a mechanism for it to interact with the solar magnetic
> field, and a mechanism for that interaction to produce a sunspot)
> there's really nothing more that can be discussed.
Perhaps nothing you'll ever need to know, some of us use science.
Anyway since you (Chris) are a newbie here I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt.
It's common for Earth to be slammed with ~30,000 tons of meteors
each year, the mass spectrum usually includes a few in the 100ton
region at a speed of Earth Ve (escape Velocity) + Vc (closure),
I'll give 11 + 20 , km/sec ~ 30, (30^2 = 900).
Now to the Sun, We find it attracks 3*10^9 more and has a
Ve + Vc ~ 640 , (640^2 ~4,000,000) ~ 4000* 900.
Brutal statistics follow, replace the 100 ton Earth meteor with
a 3*10^9 * 100 ton meteor for the Sun then multiply by 4000 to get the
comparative kinetic energy, and find 12*10^14 will strike the Sun
a few times a year.
That's a 3*10^11 ton Fe meteor moving at 640 km/s.
In MKS, lets do Kinetic energy,
Ke = (1/2) 3*10^14 (Kg) * (~4*10^6) in MKS.
= 6 * 10^20 Joules of Kinetic Energy.
((1 kg TNT => 4*10^6 Joules))
10^14 kg TNT == 10^11 tons TNT == 10^5 MT = 100 GT
So now we need to evaluate the EMP and blast of an Fe Meteor
with a 100 GT blast on the surface of the Sun, it may create a
Sunspot.
A question now is, what would a 100GT pin point blast on the
solar surface appear to us?
2nd question, how come they stopped happening recently?
3rd, is Kentaurus showing the same experience in it's
galactic travel?
This is the neighbor we need to watch,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
__________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Cheers and Seasons Gweetings
Ken S. Tucker
AM
> Anyway since you (Chris) are a newbie here I'll give you the benefit
> of the doubt.
Wow, I gotta stick around for this one ;-)
No good punish goes undeeded
(git em Chris)
--
AM
Sjouke Burry
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:14:50 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
> <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> I conjecture a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a Sunspot,
>> and a metallic Sunmeteor due to high speed of strike
>> would react with the solar magnetic field, to create a
>> very large induction current, and localized magnetic
>> field, characteristic of Sunspots.
>
> There's not the slightest evidence of such a thing. The energy released
> from even a huge asteroid striking the Sun is vanishingly small compared
> with the energy stored in magnetic fields responsible for sunspots.
> Unless you can find some way to quantify this conjecture with real
> physics (consider the kinetic energy of the impactor, its effect on the
> solar fluid, a mechanism for it to interact with the solar magnetic
> field, and a mechanism for that interaction to produce a sunspot)
> there's really nothing more that can be discussed.
Also OP might explain an 11 year sunspot cycle, it would be
very noticeable when meteors?? arrived in an 11 year cycle.....
mta
to you as a "newbie here" LOL...WOW !
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:02n8j5pfb02o23rvi...@4ax.com...
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Anyway since you (Chris) are a newbie here I'll give you the benefit
> > of the doubt.
>
> Wow, I gotta stick around for this one ;-)
> No good punish goes undeeded
> (git em Chris)
Our Chris climbed on Santa's knee Xmas eve and asked for a
gift of knowledge, I (Ken) is a mere Elf, giving our friend Mr.
Peterson what he asked for from Santa, and some questions,
under the tree.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> > Sunspots affect climate and therefore evolution.
> > I'll try to connect sunspots to the Sun passing through
> > spurious galatic arms composed of invisible debris.
>
No I didn't, and I thank you very much for kindly bringing that
to the attention of the group.
> that the solar system is passing through galactic clouds.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
>
> Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery 12.23.2009
No I didn't, and I thank you very much for kindly bringing that
to the attention of the group.
We've been discussing this for years, last time was, in SPF,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.foundations
From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:06:12 CST
Local: Sat, Feb 9 2008 12:06 pm
Subject: Sunspots.
> These clouds may even be affecting earth's climate!
Yes, usually the sunspots are considered to be a strictly
internally causal, however we should consider the possible
cause to be external, if so, then we might verify by carefully
observing Kentaurus, then, if Kentaurus follows a similiar
cycle, the debris field you cited would, in turn, heat the Sun,
and warm the Earth.
I wonder what a large meteor impact on the Sun would look
like? Any ideas?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
Good question,
What we do know is orbiting debris organizes in patterns, due to
gravitational interaction, and perhaps magnetics such as,
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/saturn/images/saturn_rings_false.jpg
whereby apparently millions of rings form spiralets.
Looking at that more closely we find,
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/satrings.gif
which are large particles. It is very complicated theoretically but we
have the evidence of a systematic formation of a debris field, hence
we can expect the same from super nova debris fields.
Our 11 / 22 year sunspot cycle is observed only the last few hundred
years, we passed through a Maundler Minimum, which coresponded
to a gap and global cooling, and prior to that ~1000AD we had a
significant global warming.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>It's common for Earth to be slammed with ~30,000 tons of meteors
>each year, the mass spectrum usually includes a few in the 100ton
>region at a speed of Earth Ve (escape Velocity) + Vc (closure)...
These are all objects from our own solar system. Of the tens of
thousands of meteorites recovered, not a single one is interstellar. The
largest interstellar material we've found consists of microscopic
grains, and not much of that. I don't follow any of your logic for
extrapolating from the size and rate of solar system objects that strike
the Earth to the size and rate of hypothetical interstellar objects
striking the Sun.
>A question now is, what would a 100GT pin point blast on the
>solar surface appear to us?
Probably not like very much. This is approximately the amount of energy
that a sunspot-sized area of the Sun outputs in one second.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:07:31 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >It's common for Earth to be slammed with ~30,000 tons of meteors
> >each year, the mass spectrum usually includes a few in the 100ton
> >region at a speed of Earth Ve (escape Velocity) + Vc (closure)...
>
> These are all objects from our own solar system. Of the tens of
> thousands of meteorites recovered, not a single one is interstellar.
Come on Chris, or solar system is a condensation of interstellar
dust, please do NOT tease the group back to astrophysics 101.
> The
> largest interstellar material we've found consists of microscopic
> grains, and not much of that.
Perhaps you'll inform the group as to your ideas of where the solar
system originated.
> I don't follow any of your logic for
> extrapolating from the size and rate of solar system objects that strike
> the Earth to the size and rate of hypothetical interstellar objects
> striking the Sun.
It's a crude statistical extrapolation, already explained, what part
do you not understand?
> >A question now is, what would a 100GT pin point blast on the
> >solar surface appear to us?
>
> Probably not like very much. This is approximately the amount of energy
> that a sunspot-sized area of the Sun outputs in one second.
Can you support that with figures?
I'll accept BoE (Back of Envelope),
I also note Mr. Peterson is quite unable to tell us what a 100 GT
blast penetrating the Solarsphere, would appear as, or the effect
when striking H gas.
_________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
(aka Super Elf, someday).
Ken S. Tucker
What would be nifty is if we sighted an inbound meteor headed
directly for the Sun, measured it's size and speed and then
observe the impact result, (I'm getting horny).
Part of why I accessed this groups knowledge is to find out if
that might be possible, or if observing Kentaurus spots might
be in the sub-near future.
We know the result of meteor strikes on hard surfaces such
as the Moon, but have a look at meteor (comet) strikes on a
gaseous body,
Please note the 'dark spots' that formed. That's evidence of
how a meteor strike on a gaseous body appears, in effect
the appearance of a *crater* on Jupiter.
Betcha that Jupiter's Big Red Spot is a sinking blob of metal that
smacked it hundreds of years ago, slowly sinking into the core,
but creating enough asymmetry down deep to vortex upward.
Pretty cool eh? Same thing that makes Sunspots I figure, but
in Jupiter it lasts longer because it's colder. Hitting the Sun and
it melts in a month or so, and the iron disperses and no longer
concentrates the magnetic field like a serious Fe density would.
It fits.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Come on Chris, or solar system is a condensation of interstellar
>dust, please do NOT tease the group back to astrophysics 101.
And that condensation process substantially altered the interstellar
material. Meteorites are just the age of our solar system, as determined
by radioisotopic dating. That is considerably younger than the age of
the dust that constituted the original material.
If you're suggesting that the Sun is being bombarded by interstellar
material, the Earth must be as well. However, that is something that we
can rule out based on meteorite analysis.
>It's a crude statistical extrapolation, already explained, what part
>do you not understand?
I don't understand how you can extrapolate the rate that interstellar
objects hit the Sun with the rate that asteroidal objects hit the Earth.
>> Probably not like very much. This is approximately the amount of energy
>> that a sunspot-sized area of the Sun outputs in one second.
>
>Can you support that with figures?
>I'll accept BoE (Back of Envelope),
The Sun's output is 1e26 J/s. A typical sunspot has an area of about 1e7
m^2, which represents about 1e-5 of the area of the Sun. So a sunspot
sized area produces about 1e21 J/s.
>I also note Mr. Peterson is quite unable to tell us what a 100 GT
>blast penetrating the Solarsphere, would appear as, or the effect
>when striking H gas.
Because I don't know. But I can reasonably speculate that since this
energy is tiny compared with the solar output, that we would not see
much, and any effects would be very short lived. Comets of much greater
mass than a few hundred tons have been observed impacting the Sun, and
nothing is seen at all. The comet is there, then the comet isn't there,
and nothing is visible on the photosphere at all.
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 25, 2:26 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:58:13 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >Come on Chris, or solar system is a condensation of interstellar
> >dust, please do NOT tease the group back to astrophysics 101.
>
> And that condensation process substantially altered the interstellar
> material. Meteorites are just the age of our solar system, as determined
> by radioisotopic dating. That is considerably younger than the age of
> the dust that constituted the original material.
Where did you learn those ideas?
> If you're suggesting that the Sun is being bombarded by interstellar
> material, the Earth must be as well. However, that is something that we
> can rule out based on meteorite analysis.
"we" who is that?
> >It's a crude statistical extrapolation, already explained, what part
> >do you not understand?
>
> I don't understand how you can extrapolate the rate that interstellar
> objects hit the Sun with the rate that asteroidal objects hit the Earth.
Why do you presume "asteroidal" only, is it possible extra-solar
objects impact Earth?
> >> Probably not like very much. This is approximately the amount of energy
> >> that a sunspot-sized area of the Sun outputs in one second.
>
> >Can you support that with figures?
> >I'll accept BoE (Back of Envelope),
>
> The Sun's output is 1e26 J/s. A typical sunspot has an area of about 1e7
> m^2, which represents about 1e-5 of the area of the Sun. So a sunspot
> sized area produces about 1e21 J/s.
You still didn't support your point. You're looking at a large
penumbra,
as I predicted, you really need to explain your objection better, as
all
you have done is supported my point, (thanks for that).
> >I also note Mr. Peterson is quite unable to tell us what a 100 GT
> >blast penetrating the Solarsphere, would appear as, or the effect
> >when striking H gas.
>
> Because I don't know. But I can reasonably speculate that since this
> energy is tiny compared with the solar output, that we would not see
> much, and any effects would be very short lived. Comets of much greater
> mass than a few hundred tons have been observed impacting the Sun, and
> nothing is seen at all. The comet is there, then the comet isn't there,
> and nothing is visible on the photosphere at all.
In place of throwing a snowball at the Sun, try only 1 cubic km of Fe,
at >600 km/s, to get a serious magnetic anomally and trigger hyper
fusion with the 100 GT blast initiator on the H2 solar surface, to
render a serious solar flare... bingo. (see H-bomb).
Ken S. Tucker
>
> Please note the 'dark spots' that formed. That's evidence of
> how a meteor strike on a gaseous body appears, in effect
> the appearance of a *crater* on Jupiter.
> Betcha that Jupiter's Big Red Spot is a sinking blob of metal that
> smacked it hundreds of years ago, slowly sinking into the core,
> but creating enough asymmetry down deep to vortex upward.
> Pretty cool eh? Same thing that makes Sunspots I figure, but
> in Jupiter it lasts longer because it's colder. Hitting the Sun and
> it melts in a month or so, and the iron disperses and no longer
> concentrates the magnetic field like a serious Fe density would.
> It fits.
Let's use comet Shoemaker Levy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/81/75381-004-84A41EE0.jpg
This shows similiar spots,
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/blankyear/midi512_blank_2001.gif
Note the tremendous size of the 'spot' cratered by a fairly small
comet
comet on Jupiter.
OTOH here's something similiar as it stained Ganymede,
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-outer-planets/ganymede_chain_gal.jpg
That, I think, provides reasonable justification to the hypothesis.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Where did you learn those ideas?
You appear to be practicing what can only be described as poor science.
You argue for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (the nature of
sunspots and the solar cycle). You ignore completely contradictory
evidence (the lack of interstellar meteorites) and apparently don't
understand anything about how meteorites are dated and their origins
determined. You ignore the evidence against the existence of significant
amounts of condensed matter in our region of interstellar space. You
can't explain how objects with tiny energies compared with the solar
output could influence the Sun, or how a tiny moving piece of metal
would affect the Sun's magnetic field.
Before proposing a new theory, you need to explain why it is even
needed. The solar magnetic and sunspot cycle is broadly understood on a
variety of levels. What do you think is wrong with it that you need a
radically different explanation?
Davoud
> > //nonsense//
Chris L Peterson
> ....
> Before proposing a new theory, you need to explain why it is even
> needed. The solar magnetic and sunspot cycle is broadly understood on a
> variety of levels. What do you think is wrong with it that you need a
> radically different explanation?
Mr. Tucker's need, IMO, is the same as that of the other crackpots who
post here. It has nothing to do with explaining anything external to
himself. It's a cry for recognition and legitimacy. He doesn't see your
replies as a repudiation of his crackpot ideas; he sees validation and
legitimacy for himself.
I would note that, while I once thought that such people should simply
be ignored, it occurs to me that once in a while when a person whose
grip on reality is tenuous fails to get what he needs, he may become a
threat to public safety. So perhaps replying and validating is not such
a bad idea, after all.
With snow to be cleared from the zerbat'ry and holiday guests to
entertain, I think it best if I leave the care and feeding of Mr.
Tucker and his ilk to professionals, however.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Chris L Peterson
>Mr. Tucker's need, IMO, is the same as that of the other crackpots who
>post here. It has nothing to do with explaining anything external to
>himself. It's a cry for recognition and legitimacy. He doesn't see your
>replies as a repudiation of his crackpot ideas; he sees validation and
>legitimacy for himself.
I expect you're right.
>I would note that, while I once thought that such people should simply
>be ignored, it occurs to me that once in a while when a person whose
>grip on reality is tenuous fails to get what he needs, he may become a
>threat to public safety. So perhaps replying and validating is not such
>a bad idea, after all.
I also think a certain amount of discussion about these ideas is
valuable on a scientific forum simply because it demonstrates how
scientific ideas are developed and validated. Non-scientific and
pseudoscientific ideas provide good examples of this as well. It can
also be instructive for people to observe the pseudoscientific mind at
work. Of course, this type of discussion isn't really aimed at
persuading the holder of the pseudoscientific ideas, but rather is
directed to others simply interested in science and in the underlying
concepts. In this case, even though the basic premise proposed makes
little sense, and isn't framed scientifically, there are many
interesting related issues: the nature of material in the local
interstellar environment, orbital dynamics and gravitational focusing of
meteoroids, stellar astrophysics, meteoritics, etc.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Where did you learn those ideas?
>
> You appear to be practicing what can only be described as poor science.
Appearance can be deceptive, to the non-scientist, the statement
you wrote is oxymoronic (no insult intended), as it contains a
logic bomb, by using "only".
> You argue for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (the nature of
> sunspots and the solar cycle).
No Chris you completely misunderstand the nature of astrophysical
theoretical science, by presuming we know everything. We tell that
to the 'unwashed' masses and you likely source your so-called
knowledge from pop-sci rags. That's even pablumed to astrophysics
students, who mainly just need a good easy passing grade, that's
the system.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[...]
Ken S. Tucker
What's your name, I don't know you.
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>No Chris you completely misunderstand the nature of astrophysical
>theoretical science, by presuming we know everything.
I presume no such thing. I only point out that we have good, solid
theories that effectively explain the key points of the solar magnetic
cycle. Those theories are far from complete, and may prove to have
serious problems, but are nevertheless very useful in understanding and
predicting solar behavior. Any new theories must clearly explain how
they do a better job of describing our observations- a burden that your
proposal has not yet met.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:37:35 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >No Chris you completely misunderstand the nature of astrophysical
> >theoretical science, by presuming we know everything.
>
> I presume no such thing. I only point out that we have good, solid
> theories that effectively explain the key points of the solar magnetic
> cycle. Those theories are far from complete, and may prove to have
> serious problems, but are nevertheless very useful in understanding and
> predicting solar behavior. Any new theories must clearly explain how
> they do a better job of describing our observations- a burden that your
> proposal has not yet met.
I'll give ya an IQ point for that post, but please read the name of
the thread I started. We have examined a hypothesis, found good
credibility for it, and then inquired about a means to further test
the
hypothesis via examing Starspot activity in the KenTaurus star
system.
New Very Large Telescopes are becoming available that may be
able to gauge said Starspot activity in KenTaurus.
Additionally, new sensors are being developed to detect small
(1 km) dark objects that may be observed to hit the Sun.
Chris your statement, "nevertheless very useful" is subjective,
that's why you really must learn what science is.
Seasons Greetings
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>I'll give ya an IQ point for that post, but please read the name of
>the thread I started. We have examined a hypothesis, found good
>credibility for it, and then inquired about a means to further test
>the
>hypothesis via examing Starspot activity in the KenTaurus star
>system.
I disagree about the credibility of the hypothesis. There is not enough
material inside the Solar System colliding with the Sun to explain the
volume of impacting material you suggest, and there is strong evidence
against the existence of interstellar condensed material passing through
the Solar System.
Furthermore, your suggested test of looking a starspot activity in
nearby stars is weak. That has already been done, for dozens of stars,
and 11 years is close to the mean value (with about a 5 year SD). Many
of these measurements also show a latitudinal variation in starspots
over each cycle, just as we see on the Sun. They also show a
relationship between star rotation period and the starspot cycle time-
something that strongly argues against your interstellar debris
hypothesis. Finally, starspots are seen on both nearby and distant
stars; your theory would require all of these stars to be passing
through interstellar debris fields, which is very unlikely.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:22:30 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >I'll give ya an IQ point for that post, but please read the name of
> >the thread I started. We have examined a hypothesis, found good
> >credibility for it, and then inquired about a means to further test
> >the
> >hypothesis via examing Starspot activity in the KenTaurus star
> >system.
>
> I disagree about the credibility of the hypothesis. There is not enough
> material inside the Solar System colliding with the Sun to explain the
> volume of impacting material you suggest, and there is strong evidence
> against the existence of interstellar condensed material passing through
> the Solar System.
Non sequitor AGAIN!
> Furthermore, your suggested test of looking a starspot activity in
> nearby stars is weak. That has already been done, for dozens of stars,
> and 11 years is close to the mean value (with about a 5 year SD).
Ok, do you have a ref, what you claim is a confirmation of the
hypothesis, we remain skeptical, but the evidence is growing.
>Many
> of these measurements also show a latitudinal variation in starspots
> over each cycle, just as we see on the Sun. They also show a
> relationship between star rotation period and the starspot cycle time-
> something that strongly argues against your interstellar debris
> hypothesis.
I'm quite aware of 'Sporers Law' but that's countered by Newtonian
ballistics.
> Finally, starspots are seen on both nearby and distant
> stars;
Using whose telescope? I think you do not understand optics.
> your theory would require all of these stars to be passing
> through interstellar debris fields, which is very unlikely.
No, since you what you've posted is garbage, then based a
conclusion on false garbage, please read a book on telescopes,
you know nothing about astronomical observation.
I'm deducting 2 IQ points.
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Ok, do you have a ref, what you claim is a confirmation of the
>hypothesis, we remain skeptical, but the evidence is growing.
It is clear that you haven't even investigated the existing literature
before proposing your idea. If you had, you would have found valuable
information about starspot cycles, correlations between starspot cycles
and stellar parameters, the density of interstellar material in the
region of the Solar System, and the dating, origin, and (pre-impact)
orbital characteristics of meteorites.
>Using whose telescope? I think you do not understand optics.
If you had reviewed the literature, you would understand that measuring
starspot cycles (and determining latitudinal position) does not require
resolving a star. In fact, this is something that amateurs can do with
very modest equipment. I've recorded starspot cycles for quite a few
stars myself.
AM
You must be new round here......
It's cool, we cut newbies like you slack
Sometimes.......
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 9:19 am, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
>
> > What's your name, I don't know you.
> > Ken
>
> You must be new round here......
> It's cool, we cut newbies like you slack
> Sometimes.......
Who the fuck are you, the internent reproduces you people.
> AM
>
> http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
So I click there and see a mangy rodent,
PLONK
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:47:02 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Ok, do you have a ref, what you claim is a confirmation of the
> >hypothesis, we remain skeptical, but the evidence is growing.
>
> It is clear that you haven't even investigated the existing literature
> before proposing your idea.
Untrue.
>If you had, you would have found valuable
> information about starspot cycles, correlations between starspot cycles
> and stellar parameters, the density of interstellar material in the
> region of the Solar System, and the dating, origin, and (pre-impact)
> orbital characteristics of meteorites.
Again you have no refs or creditentials, (-3 IQ points).
> >Using whose telescope? I think you do not understand optics.
>
> If you had reviewed the literature, you would understand that measuring
> starspot cycles (and determining latitudinal position) does not require
> resolving a star. In fact, this is something that amateurs can do with
> very modest equipment. I've recorded starspot cycles for quite a few
> stars myself.
Chris you're confusing variable stars with starspots, you can prove
us wrong by explaining your method, you are getting very boring.
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Again you have no refs or creditentials, (-3 IQ points).
It's not my job to support commonly accepted science with references.
It's your job to understand the mainstream thinking before proposing
ideas that attempt to overturn that thinking. I'm just trying to point
you in the right direction, not teach you everything you are lacking.
>Chris you're confusing variable stars with starspots, you can prove
>us wrong by explaining your method, you are getting very boring.
I'm not talking about variable stars, at least in the usual sense of the
term. Many stars have starspots, and these are observed photometrically.
It is pretty easy to measure the stellar rotation by noting the
periodicity of starspots rotating in and out of view (hours to weeks).
What is a little harder, but has been done for quite a few stars, is to
further observe the long term starspot cycle. This is seen as a much
longer periodicity (years) in the light curve. Latitudinal variation is
seen because of the nature of stellar rotation. Since stars show
differential rotation, starspots near the equator have a slightly
different rotation period than those near the poles. When you observe a
star photometrically over many years, you can see this shift in
rotational period of starspots as a function of position in the starspot
cycle.
Here's an example describing how this is done, and the results for a
half dozen stars:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2003/39/aah4535.pdf
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:20:33 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Again you have no refs or creditentials, (-3 IQ points).
>
> It's not my job to support commonly accepted science with references.
Well I think the group would be interested in how to resolve
sunspots in KenTaurus with your puny scope as you claim.
> It's your job to understand the mainstream thinking before proposing
> ideas that attempt to overturn that thinking.
You must read what I wrote.
Ken
[snip irrelevent data]
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Well I think the group would be interested in how to resolve
>sunspots in KenTaurus with your puny scope as you claim.
As noted, it is not necessary to resolve a stellar disc to study its
starspots and starspot cycles.
Pierre Vandevenne
> You must read what I wrote.
What about a google search on the terms "amateur photometry starspots"?
palsing
OK, so I Google "amateur photometry starspots", and the 4th entry
there is YOUR above post ;>)
\Paul
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 2:05�am, Pierre Vandevenne <pie...@datarescue.com> wrote:
>
>> What about a google search on the terms "amateur photometry starspots"?
>
>OK, so I Goggle "amateur photometry starspots"... and the 4th entry is
>YOUR above post ;>)
Yeah, on Google Groups. Big surprise that Google elevates that
particular source! <g>
There are, of course, a lot of very useful links given as well.
Ken S. Tucker
Well any reasonable link to observed starspot activity would be of
interest
to us all, (I'm looking :-).
We chose 'Alpha Cen AB' as it's close and has two similiar components,
that are also similiar to the Sun, and they are very close making an
easier
target. The proximity of KenTaurus is required if it and the Sun are
passing
threw the same interstellar ribbon(s). That proximity improves that
possibility.
1) It may be possible to observe a synched cyclicity in radiation
output
of A and B that would suggest a common cause, that would likely be
of external origin, since A and B are quite isolated.
2) We then can co-relate the observed KenTaurus cyclicity with Sunspot
activity then when the lag times are accounted for we have a fit.
Those suggested observations should be given TOP PRIORITY since
the effect of Sunspot activity definitely feeds back into Climate
Change.
Question: What size of appature is required to resolve large Sunspots
in the KenTaurus system?
Our Very Long Baseline technology at optical wavelengths is close
to using two (or three) scopes orbiting on opposite sides of Earth,
to give improved resolution.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Question: What size of appature is required to resolve large Sunspots
>in the KenTaurus system?
You'd need an aperture of about 1500 meters. That's feasible with an
interferometric setup.
However, as noted, there is no need to resolve the stellar disc to
detect starspots. If you have a small telescope and decent CCD camera,
you could begin your own program of observing this star in an attempt to
identify short and long term starspot cycles. This sort of research does
not require professional instrumentation.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:55:34 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Question: What size of appature is required to resolve large Sunspots
> >in the KenTaurus system?
>
> You'd need an aperture of about 1500 meters.
Well that's something to aim for.
>That's feasible with an interferometric setup.
Yeah, here's a brief,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
There are geological vibration and atmospheric issues with Earth
based.
I'm dreaming of a triple telesystem, spoked at 120 degrees with some
phase lock in orbit. Maybe orbiting 3 scopes instead of one and try
it.
> However, as noted, there is no need to resolve the stellar disc to
> detect starspots. If you have a small telescope and decent CCD camera,
> you could begin your own program of observing this star in an attempt to
> identify short and long term starspot cycles. This sort of research does
> not require professional instrumentation.
That's tough, there are a lot of calibration issues. I'll add a
starspot
often creates a starflare, (like a solar flarer), so what would be the
calculated radiation as we view a pinpoint? (rhetorical).
Chris, you may have a good idea if the data collected could be used
to draw conclusions within reasonable error bars.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>That's tough, there are a lot of calibration issues. I'll add a
>starspot
>often creates a starflare, (like a solar flarer), so what would be the
>calculated radiation as we view a pinpoint? (rhetorical).
The key is to use good technique to boost your S/N enough to reach
millimag precision (quite a few amateurs manage this). Then, you need to
collect data over a long time, giving lots of data to perform frequency
analysis on. That is a powerful approach to picking even extremely low
S/N cyclical data from the noise.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:47:09 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >That's tough, there are a lot of calibration issues. I'll add a
> >starspot
> >often creates a starflare, (like a solar flarer), so what would be the
> >calculated radiation as we view a pinpoint? (rhetorical).
>
> The key is to use good technique to boost your S/N enough to reach
> millimag precision (quite a few amateurs manage this). Then, you need to
> collect data over a long time, giving lots of data to perform frequency
> analysis on. That is a powerful approach to picking even extremely low
> S/N cyclical data from the noise.
Magnitude resolution is tough, this site claims 1/100,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)#The_modern_world
then it may require spectral sensitivity, and a calibration that
is steady for 12 months, (indefinitely).
Even measuring our Sun's absolute magnitude is tough.
If you can direct us to a ref on how to do that we'd all be
interested.
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Magnitude resolution is tough, this site claims 1/100,
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)#The_modern_world
That isn't accurate. Magnitude measurements accurate to about a millimag
are quite possible these days from ground based telescopes; space based
instruments do much better than that. My residuals are typically about
0.005 mag when I'm very careful.
>then it may require spectral sensitivity, and a calibration that
>is steady for 12 months, (indefinitely).
When you are doing millimag absolute photometry, you typically calibrate
every session, sometimes more than once, using multiple reference stars
and compensating for extinction effects. You don't depend on any long
term calibration at all.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:34:15 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Magnitude resolution is tough, this site claims 1/100,
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)#The_modern_world
>
> That isn't accurate. Magnitude measurements accurate to about a millimag
> are quite possible these days from ground based telescopes; space based
> instruments do much better than that. My residuals are typically about
> 0.005 mag when I'm very careful.
Tell that to the experts,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001phot.work....1H
Good Luck
Ken
Thomas Womack
That's rather an old paper; something like an acre of CCDs were sold
in the US in 2008 alone, and that's made peopl considerably better at
making and at calibrating them.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/pickles/AJP/otccd.pdf has some
results from as early as 2002; they move the charge around the CCD in
a well-defined manner to produce a uniform square point-spread
function, correcting for seeing and avoiding saturation, and with a
2.2-metre telescope manage 660 micromagnitudes for 15th-magnitude
stars.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0029 uses that equipment and telescope on a
transiting planet to get a light-curve with RMS error of 470
micromagnitudes, on a magnitude 12.7 star.
In theory the accuracy will be ten times better on a star five
magnitudes brighter, though I'm not sure all the systematic effects
have been entirely calibrated out for stars that bright, and I'm sure
going to something as bright as alpha centauri would get another whole
bucket of systematic effects.
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..35/PDF/RMxAC..35_asilva.pdf
has some interesting sunspot-hunting results using extra-solar planets
as occulting discs.
Tom
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 29, 1:50 pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <744e5781-2da5-4eb0-b6de-cfc1e6d39...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 8:44 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:34:15 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >> <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >> >Magnitude resolution is tough, this site claims 1/100,
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)#The_modern_world
>
> >> That isn't accurate. Magnitude measurements accurate to about a millimag
> >> are quite possible these days from ground based telescopes; space based
> >> instruments do much better than that. My residuals are typically about
> >> 0.005 mag when I'm very careful.
>
> >Tell that to the experts,
> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001phot.work....1H
>
> That's rather an old paper; something like an acre of CCDs were sold
> in the US in 2008 alone, and that's made peopl considerably better at
> making and at calibrating them.
>
> http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/pickles/AJP/otccd.pdfhas some
> results from as early as 2002; they move the charge around the CCD in
> a well-defined manner to produce a uniform square point-spread
> function, correcting for seeing and avoiding saturation, and with a
> 2.2-metre telescope manage 660 micromagnitudes for 15th-magnitude
> stars.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0029uses that equipment and telescope on a
> transiting planet to get a light-curve with RMS error of 470
> micromagnitudes, on a magnitude 12.7 star.
>
> In theory the accuracy will be ten times better on a star five
> magnitudes brighter, though I'm not sure all the systematic effects
> have been entirely calibrated out for stars that bright, and I'm sure
> going to something as bright as alpha centauri would get another whole
> bucket of systematic effects.
>
> http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..35/PDF/RMxAC..35_asilva.pdf
> has some interesting sunspot-hunting results using extra-solar planets
> as occulting discs.
> Tom
Maybe this unit will provide a calibration star,
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/
but earth based observations will always have ambient haze,
also CCD temperature and voltage must be highly controlled,
that's not easy (I was in that business for gamma ray imagers).
Dr. Mathews from MOST is an acquaintance, if we could get
something together we could make a proposal, but I'm not sure
how to separate a variable star from starspot activity yet.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Maybe this unit will provide a calibration star,
>http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/
>but earth based observations will always have ambient haze,
>also CCD temperature and voltage must be highly controlled,
>that's not easy (I was in that business for gamma ray imagers).
For high precision photometry, extremely accurate temperature control is
not critical. Neither the temperature nor operating voltages of a CCD
have much effect on the signal accuracy. Variations in temperature do
affect the noise, making the signal analysis a little trickier, but with
modern cameras the effect is a small one, and not generally a problem.
The effects of the atmosphere are compensated for by the judicious use
of photometric reference stars, which are well cataloged and are
generally available in or very near the photometric field. The use of
two or more photometric filters allows the atmospheric extinction to be
calculated very accurately.
I should point out that absolute photometric methods are not necessarily
required for starspot studies. Depending on the speed of rotation, and
on the length of the study, the slow drift caused by atmospheric
extinction effects may not affect the data. With starspot studies, you
aren't generally interested in the absolute change in magnitude, but
with the frequency properties, which pop right out of the random
variation created by the atmosphere.
mta
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:hqqmj5pv321h0ciru...@4ax.com...
Ken S. Tucker
What's mta stand for?
> Why do you bother arguing with complete idiots like Ken S. Tucker ?
I have a genius IQ, in 6 exams, one 99+% supervised by MENSA,
which is ~50% greater than yours evidentially :-).
Keep on topic missy.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:54:26 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Maybe this unit will provide a calibration star,
> >http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/
> >but earth based observations will always have ambient haze,
> >also CCD temperature and voltage must be highly controlled,
> >that's not easy (I was in that business for gamma ray imagers).
>
> For high precision photometry, extremely accurate temperature control is
> not critical. Neither the temperature nor operating voltages of a CCD
> have much effect on the signal accuracy. Variations in temperature do
> affect the noise, making the signal analysis a little trickier, but with
> modern cameras the effect is a small one, and not generally a problem.
I've read, a calibration light can be permanently installed in the
scope,
for magnitude measurement. Might use that to tweak the CCD into spec.
(We used a similiar system for Gamma Ray Imagers).
> The effects of the atmosphere are compensated for by the judicious use
> of photometric reference stars, which are well cataloged and are
> generally available in or very near the photometric field. The use of
> two or more photometric filters allows the atmospheric extinction to be
> calculated very accurately.
Ok, but tiny variations of haze are random and/or periodic, I'd be
cogniscent about that.
> I should point out that absolute photometric methods are not necessarily
> required for starspot studies. Depending on the speed of rotation, and
> on the length of the study, the slow drift caused by atmospheric
> extinction effects may not affect the data. With starspot studies, you
> aren't generally interested in the absolute change in magnitude, but
> with the frequency properties, which pop right out of the random
> variation created by the atmosphere.
Alright, that assumes an asymmetry of spots per rotation, however
many spots, ruins that measurement, so one has a long term
variablity, which if it can be measured is darn interesting, if the
starspots are cyclical such as sunspots.
All in all Chris, your experiments are encouraging.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>I've read, a calibration light can be permanently installed in the
>scope,
>for magnitude measurement. Might use that to tweak the CCD into spec.
Normally, that would be the last thing you want. CCDs are extremely good
photon counters, and their own gain is typically very well controlled-
at least as well as the brightness of a reference can be controlled. A
local reference works against you in photometry; the only useful
references are stars that are in or near the field of your target.
Otherwise, you don't compensate at all for atmospheric extinction.
>Ok, but tiny variations of haze are random and/or periodic, I'd be
>cogniscent about that.
If you're doing millimag photometry, you need to be working in a dry
site under good conditions. There is an assumption that you don't have
atmospheric variability faster than your recalibration rate. If the
conditions are producing significant short term variability, you're not
going to get as much precision as you would otherwise be capable of. Not
surprisingly, the better the conditions the better the data.
Pierre Vandevenne
> I've read, a calibration light can be permanently installed in the
> scope,
There's a good, fairly recent, book that covers a lot of this.
Electronic Imaging in Astronomy: Detectors and Instrumentation
> Alright, that assumes an asymmetry of spots per rotation, however
> many spots, ruins that measurement, so one has a long term
> variablity, which if it can be measured is darn interesting, if the
> starspots are cyclical such as sunspots.
Apparently, they are.
This being said, this isn't rock solid. I spent some time the last
couple of years to try to read and understand every single line in
papers about exoplanets published in Nature. That was *tough* and I
will never be sure I have understood anyway. But then, those papers
are peer reviewed and the methods and evidence, while complex, seem to
be generally accepted and, more importantly, correlate well with
additional information collected as we go forward. Well, usually,
there is that current debate right now
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/462705a.html
(sorry, don't have the free link at hand)
but astrometry has different constraints than photometry
Quite funny btw that we have so many evolution denialists, when the
evidence of the general principle is everywhere to be found, but no
exoplanets denialists while the evidence is not as straightforward.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:36:13 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >I've read, a calibration light can be permanently installed in the
> >scope,
> >for magnitude measurement. Might use that to tweak the CCD into spec.
>
> Normally, that would be the last thing you want. CCDs are extremely good
> photon counters, and their own gain is typically very well controlled-
> at least as well as the brightness of a reference can be controlled. A
> local reference works against you in photometry; the only useful
> references are stars that are in or near the field of your target.
> Otherwise, you don't compensate at all for atmospheric extinction.
The calibrator can't 'work against you' as you imply, it surprises me
that you were unaware that the calibrator light is adjusted to provide
the same brightness as the stars magnitude of the star you are
measuring,
as closely as the observers eye can make them equal,
then one simply reads the magnitude of the calibrator on the dial, and
then records that magnitude.
Somewhat straying but have a glance at this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer
it's for general interest.
That article is incomplete, another means of pyrometry is to place a
wire in front of the hot surface, then adjust current until it
disappears,
meaning the radiance of the wire and the glowing background are the
same.
> >Ok, but tiny variations of haze are random and/or periodic, I'd be
> >cogniscent about that.
>
> If you're doing millimag photometry, you need to be working in a dry
> site under good conditions. There is an assumption that you don't have
> atmospheric variability faster than your recalibration rate. If the
> conditions are producing significant short term variability, you're not
> going to get as much precision as you would otherwise be capable of. Not
> surprisingly, the better the conditions the better the data.
Yes, that's the challenge, for ground based photometry, perhaps a
laser's
light reflection could be used to compensate for haze, not sure.
Chris you test your system using the Sun.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 31, 5:43 am, Pierre Vandevenne <pie...@datarescue.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:36 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > I've read, a calibration light can be permanently installed in the
> > scope,
>
> There's a good, fairly recent, book that covers a lot of this.
> Electronic Imaging in Astronomy: Detectors and Instrumentation
> > Alright, that assumes an asymmetry of spots per rotation, however
> > many spots, ruins that measurement, so one has a long term
> > variablity, which if it can be measured is darn interesting, if the
> > starspots are cyclical such as sunspots.
>
> Apparently, they are.
>
> This being said, this isn't rock solid. I spent some time the last
> couple of years to try to read and understand every single line in
> papers about exoplanets published in Nature. That was *tough* and I
> will never be sure I have understood anyway. But then, those papers
> are peer reviewed and the methods and evidence, while complex, seem to
> be generally accepted and, more importantly, correlate well with
> additional information collected as we go forward. Well, usually,
> there is that current debate right now
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/462705a.html
>
> (sorry, don't have the free link at hand)
>
> but astrometry has different constraints than photometry
What we need to do is count starspots on Alpha Cen A & B,
and we are fortunate those stars are of a similiar class to Sun,
likely formed at the same time from the galatic gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri#Nature_of_the_system
What a beautiful laboratory we have, order more brains to use it :-).
> Quite funny btw that we have so many evolution denialists, when the
> evidence of the general principle is everywhere to be found, but no
> exoplanets denialists while the evidence is not as straightforward.
The Earth is FLAT, ya just can't see it over that pesky horizon hill .
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>The calibrator can't 'work against you' as you imply, it surprises me
>that you were unaware that the calibrator light is adjusted to provide
>the same brightness as the stars magnitude of the star you are
>measuring,
>as closely as the observers eye can make them equal,
>then one simply reads the magnitude of the calibrator on the dial, and
>then records that magnitude.
I'm quite aware of that system. But it's for visual work. How does a
reference source help you with a highly stable, linear electronic
detector like a CCD?
>Yes, that's the challenge, for ground based photometry, perhaps a
>laser's
>light reflection could be used to compensate for haze, not sure.
No, it can't. There are some setups where lasers are used for making
atmospheric measurements, sometimes to assess the quality of the
observing conditions, but not to adjust photometry. Again, why would you
want to use anything but reference stars? They provide an absolute,
highly accurate indicator of just what the atmosphere is doing to your
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:41:04 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >The calibrator can't 'work against you' as you imply, it surprises me
> >that you were unaware that the calibrator light is adjusted to provide
> >the same brightness as the stars magnitude of the star you are
> >measuring,
> >as closely as the observers eye can make them equal,
> >then one simply reads the magnitude of the calibrator on the dial, and
> >then records that magnitude.
>
> I'm quite aware of that system. But it's for visual work. How does a
> reference source help you with a highly stable, linear electronic
> detector like a CCD?
Well if you have a calibration star the internal calibrator will
give you haze, the problem is, the experts claim all stars are
variable, but there's a way around that.
I would expect a globular cluster or Andromeda Galaxy to be
extremely constant, cuz the diffs should all cancel right?
> >Yes, that's the challenge, for ground based photometry, perhaps a
> >laser's
> >light reflection could be used to compensate for haze, not sure.
>
> No, it can't. There are some setups where lasers are used for making
> atmospheric measurements, sometimes to assess the quality of the
> observing conditions, but not to adjust photometry. Again, why would you
> want to use anything but reference stars? They provide an absolute,
> highly accurate indicator of just what the atmosphere is doing to your
> data.
Well, if I went to a refereed journal, using the discussed techniques
and claimed observed starspots in KenTaurus, I think my article would
be
rejected.
If you Chris think you're observing starspots, write an article and
submit
it to refereed journal and see what they say.
Regards
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Well if you have a calibration star the internal calibrator will
>give you haze, the problem is, the experts claim all stars are
>variable, but there's a way around that.
For practical purposes, all stars are NOT variable. There is a large
catalog of stars known to be very stable photometric references and for
which very accurate photometric data have been collected.
The problem with an internal calibration light source is there's no
reason to think it's any more stable than the CCD itself. In fact, it
would be very difficult to make a controlled light source that was more
stable than the response of a decent CCD. So it doesn't really buy you
anything.
>I would expect a globular cluster or Andromeda Galaxy to be
>extremely constant, cuz the diffs should all cancel right?
Probably, but I've never heard of an extended source being used as a
photometric reference, because it would require a completely different
sort of analysis, and again, you'd introduce problems.
>Well, if I went to a refereed journal, using the discussed techniques
>and claimed observed starspots in KenTaurus, I think my article would
>be rejected.
Why? There are lots of papers that report starspot activity, and these
don't necessarily use particularly sophisticated equipment or technique.
There are amateurs who monitor starspots, and collaborate with
professionals (through AAVSO, for instance).
>If you Chris think you're observing starspots, write an article and
>submit it to refereed journal and see what they say.
That's not really my focus. I do work with a group of professionals, and
monitor rapidly rotating dwarfs. The method of studying the rotation
takes advantage of starspots, but the starspots themselves aren't the
focus.
After this discussion, I'm getting kind of interested in trying to
detect long term starspot patterns, and seeing if I can watch the
latitudinal shift. Looking at the papers out there, I should be able to
collect precise enough photometric data to do just that. But I'd be
looking at a 5-10 year or longer project.
oriel36
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
You think like children, planets like Venus and Earth may be seen as
rocky or terrestrial planets but in actuality the vast bulk of these
planets comprise of a rotating viscous composition beneath a thin
crust (a rigid Venusian crust,a fractured Earth crust) and come under
the investigative principles of fluid dynamics,while acknowledging the
observations of the exposed plasma of the Sun and differential
rotation or those of the gas giants,the blindspot for you all are the
rotating viscous compositions of the interior planets even when the
Earth's ocean floor and the magnificent fracture zones basically
shouts out the signatures of differential rotation as a mechanism for
crustal motion/evolution -
http://www.earthbyte.org/Resources/full_image.PNG
Maybe you are just too dull or impressed with yourselves to pick up on
the neat mechanism which links crustal evolution/motion and planetary
shape,Venus has no real discernible spherical deviation of crustal
evolution while the Earth has both an energetic fractured crust and a
40km spherical deviation,properties which hint as to the viscosity of
the fluid interior in direct contact with the crust.
Making the Earth exempt from differential rotation in order to satisfy
compositions and viscosity organised around 'convection cells' which
are supposed to be the engine for plate evolution can only come from
people who have no regard for work already in progress on matters of
fluid dynamics -
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/
Of course,you are required to know the most basic planetary fact of
all - the Earth's equatorial circumference turns at a rate of 15
degrees and 1669.8 km per hour,something you pair can't handle.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> I'm quite aware of that system. But it's for visual work. How does a
> reference source help you with a highly stable, linear electronic
> detector like a CCD?
Huh? I thought that with a CCD, you had to practically calibrate every
pixel individually. Of course, modern CCDs in cameras try to do this
themselves, with the result that the images they output are not really
valid sources of photometric data.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> You think like children, planets like Venus and Earth may be seen as
> rocky or terrestrial planets but in actuality the vast bulk of these
> planets comprise of a rotating viscous composition beneath a thin
> crust (a rigid Venusian crust,a fractured Earth crust) and come under
> the investigative principles of fluid dynamics,while acknowledging the
> observations of the exposed plasma of the Sun and differential
> rotation or those of the gas giants,the blindspot for you all are the
> rotating viscous compositions of the interior planets even when the
> Earth's ocean floor and the magnificent fracture zones basically
> shouts out the signatures of differential rotation as a mechanism for
> crustal motion/evolution -
That's just it: a *viscous* composition. So viscous that "differential
rotation" is out of the question.
> Making the Earth exempt from differential rotation in order to satisfy
> compositions and viscosity organised around 'convection cells' which
> are supposed to be the engine for plate evolution can only come from
> people who have no regard for work already in progress on matters of
> fluid dynamics -
You are the one ignoring fluid dynamics, because it's "empirical"
physics.
> Of course,you are required to know the most basic planetary fact of
> all - the Earth's equatorial circumference turns at a rate of 15
> degrees and 1669.8 km per hour,something you pair can't handle.
Yes, they don't believe the whole Universe rotates around them once a
year. You can't seem to handle that this is what the stuff you're
saying would mean.
While it might seem more natural to consider synodic rotation as
fundamental, even without claiming the distant stars revolve around
you - which is what I think you _really_ mean - that doesn't actually
work very well, it just makes things more complicated. The reasons
why, though, belong to that "empirical" physics you denounce and
ignore, so I can't manage to explain it to you.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Huh? I thought that with a CCD, you had to practically calibrate every
>pixel individually.
You do. But it's a trivial operation because the behavior of those
pixels is so stable and predictable. You don't calibrate them using a
known source, but by using reference images made with the same sensor.
>Of course, modern CCDs in cameras try to do this
>themselves, with the result that the images they output are not really
>valid sources of photometric data.
If you're talking about DSLRs and other consumer cameras, I'd agree. But
CCD cameras intended for astronomical imaging are extremely good
photometric sensors- they are used for the vast majority of photometric
studies.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Well if you have a calibration star the internal calibrator will
> >give you haze, the problem is, the experts claim all stars are
> >variable, but there's a way around that.
>
> For practical purposes, all stars are NOT variable. There is a large
> catalog of stars known to be very stable photometric references and for
> which very accurate photometric data have been collected.
>
> The problem with an internal calibration light source is there's no
> reason to think it's any more stable than the CCD itself. In fact, it
> would be very difficult to make a controlled light source that was more
> stable than the response of a decent CCD. So it doesn't really buy you
> anything.
Understood, it's an issue of calibrating the calibrator.
(I / we study that a lot using Modern SpaceTime (MST)
as you can see here, http://physics.trak4.com/).
A scope like Canucks satellite MOST looks for long time variability,
but what if those stars are subject to periodic starspot activity.
> >I would expect a globular cluster or Andromeda Galaxy to be
> >extremely constant, cuz the diffs should all cancel right?
>
> Probably, but I've never heard of an extended source being used as a
> photometric reference, because it would require a completely different
> sort of analysis, and again, you'd introduce problems.
Not sure, as you (Chris) wrote, we're counting photons, well
then count them from a cluster.
> >Well, if I went to a refereed journal, using the discussed techniques
> >and claimed observed starspots in KenTaurus, I think my article would
> >be rejected.
>
> Why? There are lots of papers that report starspot activity, and these
> don't necessarily use particularly sophisticated equipment or technique.
> There are amateurs who monitor starspots, and collaborate with
> professionals (through AAVSO, for instance).
Ok, back to KenTaurus, what is the cyclicities?
> >If you Chris think you're observing starspots, write an article and
> >submit it to refereed journal and see what they say.
>
> That's not really my focus. I do work with a group of professionals, and
> monitor rapidly rotating dwarfs. The method of studying the rotation
> takes advantage of starspots, but the starspots themselves aren't the
> focus.
>
> After this discussion, I'm getting kind of interested in trying to
> detect long term starspot patterns, and seeing if I can watch the
> latitudinal shift. Looking at the papers out there, I should be able to
> collect precise enough photometric data to do just that. But I'd be
> looking at a 5-10 year or longer project.
What star(s) would you consider targeting for study?
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>A scope like Canucks satellite MOST looks for long time variability,
>but what if those stars are subject to periodic starspot activity.
Photometric reference stars are also compared against each other. So
variability over spans of years will become apparent. Obviously, all
these stars will change brightness over the course of their evolution,
but stability over a few decades is sufficient for any current research
program. That sort of stability is shown by photometric references.
For very precise work, we like to have several reference stars in the
field, which virtually eliminates the possibility of a variable
reference corrupting the data. All photometricists have seen corrupted
results from a single reference that turned out not to be stable enough.
>Not sure, as you (Chris) wrote, we're counting photons, well
>then count them from a cluster.
The difference is in how the background is handled with a star versus
with an extended source. Photometry depends on well controlled apertures
(in the measurement, not the telescope aperture); an extended source
would require a completely different sort of measurement aperture, which
means there will be systematic differences between stellar and extended
photometry.
>Ok, back to KenTaurus, what is the cyclicities?
I don't know. Are there observed cycles with this star? I'm not aware of
any data.
>What star(s) would you consider targeting for study?
Not a clue. That would require some serious research. I'd look for stars
that have already been identified as having starspots, and I'd look
among those for ones that were similar to the Sun. I'd also gather data
on several stars, since that's only a little more work and definitely
improves the chance of getting useful results- very important for a
project that lasts for years!
Ken S. Tucker
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:55:15 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >A scope like Canucks satellite MOST looks for long time variability,
> >but what if those stars are subject to periodic starspot activity.
>
> Photometric reference stars are also compared against each other. So
> variability over spans of years will become apparent. Obviously, all
> these stars will change brightness over the course of their evolution,
> but stability over a few decades is sufficient for any current research
> program. That sort of stability is shown by photometric references.
>
> For very precise work, we like to have several reference stars in the
> field, which virtually eliminates the possibility of a variable
> reference corrupting the data. All photometricists have seen corrupted
> results from a single reference that turned out not to be stable enough.
>
> >Not sure, as you (Chris) wrote, we're counting photons, well
> >then count them from a cluster.
>
> The difference is in how the background is handled with a star versus
> with an extended source. Photometry depends on well controlled apertures
> (in the measurement, not the telescope aperture); an extended source
> would require a completely different sort of measurement aperture, which
> means there will be systematic differences between stellar and extended
> photometry.
>
> >Ok, back to KenTaurus, what is the cyclicities?
>
> I don't know. Are there observed cycles with this star? I'm not aware of
> any data.
That's the point of this thread.
> >What star(s) would you consider targeting for study?
>
> Not a clue. That would require some serious research. I'd look for stars
> that have already been identified as having starspots, and I'd look
> among those for ones that were similar to the Sun. I'd also gather data
> on several stars, since that's only a little more work and definitely
> improves the chance of getting useful results- very important for a
> project that lasts for years!
So you have never actually done astrophotometry.
You see, that explains why you tend to simplify the problems.
Well, I'll help where I can.
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> I don't know. Are there observed cycles with this star? I'm not aware of
>> any data.
>
>That's the point of this thread.
You proposed looking at this star in some detail. My question is whether
any starspot activity has been noted previously. It isn't apparent to me
that alpha Cen has detectable starspots; it has been studied in great
detail, but I don't find reference to starspots. I believe its rotation
rate was determined from stellar seismology techniques, not photometry.
It is probably much older than the Sun, rotates slower, and is less
magnetically active, so the absence of starspots is not that surprising.
>So you have never actually done astrophotometry.
What makes you think this? I've already explained that I do starspot
photometry to gather data about rapidly rotating M dwarf stars. What I
haven't done is to follow the starspot activity of any stars for enough
years to attempt detecting long term stellar activity cycles. If I were
to attempt such a thing, I would probably not do so with M dwarfs, but
with solar analogs. Identifying suitable candidates would be a minor
research project in itself.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:05:28 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >> I don't know. Are there observed cycles with this star? I'm not aware of
> >> any data.
>
> >That's the point of this thread.
>
> You proposed looking at this star in some detail. My question is whether
> any starspot activity has been noted previously. It isn't apparent to me
> that alpha Cen has detectable starspots; it has been studied in great
> detail, but I don't find reference to starspots. I believe its rotation
> rate was determined from stellar seismology techniques, not photometry.
> It is probably much older than the Sun, rotates slower, and is less
> magnetically active, so the absence of starspots is not that surprising.
>
> >So you have never actually done astrophotometry.
>
> What makes you think this? I've already explained that I do starspot
> photometry to gather data about rapidly rotating M dwarf stars. What I
> haven't done is to follow the starspot activity of any stars for enough
> years to attempt detecting long term stellar activity cycles. If I were
> to attempt such a thing, I would probably not do so with M dwarfs, but
> with solar analogs. Identifying suitable candidates would be a minor
> research project in itself.
We have a CCD on a microscope, fortunately, I, unlike you, have
slept with good women and a brief brush of my pubes onto a
slide makes crabs look like dinosaurs, you should get out more.
Seriously, when seeing is crap, project your CCD via microscope
onto your TV screen. Start with Salt, go to ash, human hair then
crabs, or any other microbes.
We're fogged in just now, optics is optics.
Ken