Asteriods deflected to Sun by Jupiter and Saturn.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
Hi guys.
Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Well, the the periods of sunspot activity are not exactly the same, and if
there was a causal relationship they would remain in sync. As it is the
sunspot cycle goes through about 10 semi-cycles in the same time as Jupiter
orbits 9 times.

The sunspot cycle is tied to the cycle of the reversal of the Sun's magnetic
field, which we can independently measure. That is a function of the Sun as
a whole.

I believe that it would be possibly for a comet to hit the "surface" of the
Sun if it was very well aimed. That could cause local effects.

Nobody really know what triggers sunspots to appear in one place and not
another. Clearly some of it is local weather conditions; they appear in
clusters. There is no reason that the elements dumped into the upper levels
of the Sun by a comet impact couldn't help seed sunspot creation, but
equally no reason to believe it to be true. No impact has ever been
observed.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2011 10:44, Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2011 09:32, Peter Webb wrote:

"Per Erik Jorde" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" writes:

We shall see whether this statement is true when you post the
observations of the Sun being constantly pelted by comets and
asteroids.

SOHO has detected more than 2000 comets, most of which burn up
in the sun's atmosphere.
http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/index.php?p=FAQs#hit


Perhaps if you posted some actual observations of comets crashing in to
the Sun?

This thread is, after all, about what happens when this occurs, and
whilst lots of people tell me that it is observed "constantly", I have
yet to see a single image of a comet crashing in the Sun ...

You generally do not get the image of the actual crash because it
takes place behind the occulting disk of the SOHO coronal observatory.
They go in and burn up but are never observed to leave afterwards.


Ohh, so when it was claimed that it was "frequently observed", that
should be interpreted as meaning "never observed".

You are taking the typical nit picking science denier approach to
pretending that it doesn't happen because it suits you. We see them
regularly go towards the sun on trajectories that would hit if the
impacting object was big enough to make it. The orbital dynamics are clear
enough. You don't seem to believe in orbital dynamics either. They go in
but do not come out again.


But this has never been observed to happen, so you have no way of knowing if
it causes sunspots at the location of the impact.

If you had literally observed comets crashing into the Sun on many
occassions and observed no sunspots appearing, then your argument is valid.

I actually don't know if this has ever been tested experimentally, whether
location of impact can be determined sufficiently accurately for this to be
even tracked. I expect there would be other constraints on working this out.
I don't have any idea how many comets leave how big an impact footprint on
the Sun each year, and don't believe anybody else has.

You are using pure sophistry to try and pretend that there is no evidence
of this in exactly the same way as you try to deny AGW.


If you consider the scientific method to be "pure sophistry" ...


However, you are in luck because this year for the very first time a
comet bright enough to show up on the SDO AIA imager did a beautiful
realtime crash with an animation online he

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43729531...science-space/
and
http://www.space.com/12250-comet-dea...pacecraft.html

There is an extreme UV line animated image showing the comets final
demise somewhere a link was posted here a while back but most sites
seem only to have the wider view from SOHO (and very annoying adverts).

UKs Daily Mail has both the animation and the still frame.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...r-dmailscitech

Funny, the caption states that it "evaporated away" before hitting the
Sun, and in fact the video does not show it hitting the Sun.

It did it's best but burned up in the attempt and that was a fairly chunky
one with a long tail. There is no solid surface of the sun for it to hit.
Smaller ones burn up even further out.

Well, there is a well defined layer where it density changes abruptly over a
small change in distance.


The sun takes a fair amount of space junk out of the solar system in
impacts but it doesn't leave any visible scars. The evidence is clear but
you do not want to see it.

That may be correct but nobody has pointed to any evidence it is true. If
the evidence is clear you should just show it.

I would place the proposition "The Sun is hit by large planetary debris and
such impacts help seed sunspot formation" in the possible but unlikely
category. Unless you know of a study which has looked for any correlation?


You are confirming your status as an anti-science netkook!


For me, it is an evidence thing.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:44:42 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
Funny, the caption states that it "evaporated away" before hitting
the Sun,
and in fact the video does not show it hitting the Sun.

You'll never see a comet, or anything else, "hit the Sun" simply
becase the Sun has no solid surface so there's nothing to hit there.
Anything much smaller than the Sun which gets sufficiently close to
the Sun will evaporate away.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:53:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
And still, no actual observation of a comet crashing in the Sun.

There's nothing to "crash" into since the Sun has no solid surface.
It's just a huge hot ball of gases.

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:53:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
And still, no actual observation of a comet crashing in the Sun.

There's nothing to "crash" into since the Sun has no solid surface. It's
just a huge hot ball of gases.

I didn't say anything about a "solid" surface. (You frequently misquote. I
am wondering if this is conscious and deliberate).

The Sun certainly appears to have a very well defined boundary to me. Black
and white, so to say.

On 30/09/2011 13:00, Peter Webb wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:53:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
And still, no actual observation of a comet crashing in the Sun.

There's nothing to "crash" into since the Sun has no solid surface.
It's just a huge hot ball of gases.

I didn't say anything about a "solid" surface. (You frequently misquote.
I am wondering if this is conscious and deliberate).

The Sun certainly appears to have a very well defined boundary to me.
Black and white, so to say.

So do clouds on Earth but have you ever tried crashing into one?

I have seen a police horse jump over a steaming manhole cover because it
clearly thought the opaque white stuff was a physical barrier. It seems
that you are dumb or obstinate enough to make the same mistake.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2011 13:00, Peter Webb wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:53:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
And still, no actual observation of a comet crashing in the Sun.

There's nothing to "crash" into since the Sun has no solid surface.
It's just a huge hot ball of gases.

I didn't say anything about a "solid" surface. (You frequently misquote.
I am wondering if this is conscious and deliberate).

The Sun certainly appears to have a very well defined boundary to me.
Black and white, so to say.

So do clouds on Earth but have you ever tried crashing into one?


I have seen objects go into them.


I have seen a police horse jump over a steaming manhole cover because it
clearly thought the opaque white stuff was a physical barrier. It seems
that you are dumb or obstinate enough to make the same mistake.

Regards,
Martin Brown

So you are saying that what we perceive to be the sharp edge of the Sun is
not somewhere its density changes quickly? Can you tell me what the boundary
(edge) that we see represents, the equivalent of steam in your analogy?

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:49:47 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

But this has never been observed to happen, so you have no way of knowing if
it causes sunspots at the location of the impact.

It is regularly observed. Where do you think a comet goes when it is
observed to be in an orbit that intersects the Sun, is observed to
disappear behind the limb, and is observed to not come back out? Do
you not think it significant that when this happens, no sunspots are
observed in the area of the Sun where the collision occurred?

If you consider the scientific method to be "pure sophistry" ...

Sophistry is pulling a "theory" out of your butt, without any
observational support and without any theoretical support- indeed, in
contradiction to existing well supported observation and theory. That
is most certainly NOT the way modern science works. We've observed
that you operate this way with respect to AGW; it is now clear that
your pseudoscience approach to nature extends to other areas as well-
most likely to all areas.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:49:47 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

But this has never been observed to happen, so you have no way of knowing
if
it causes sunspots at the location of the impact.

It is regularly observed. Where do you think a comet goes when it is
observed to be in an orbit that intersects the Sun, is observed to
disappear behind the limb, and is observed to not come back out? Do
you not think it significant that when this happens, no sunspots are
observed in the area of the Sun where the collision occurred?


I wasn't aware that observation had been made. As I said earlier, if people
have plotted the impact locations of comets, and then plotted the predicted
positions to see if more sunspots were subsequently found at those
locations, then the issue would have been decided experimentally.

I wasn't aware that it has had been done. (And am still not ware, for that
matter).


If you consider the scientific method to be "pure sophistry" ...

Sophistry is pulling a "theory" out of your butt, without any
observational support and without any theoretical support- indeed, in
contradiction to existing well supported observation and theory.

Well, no, that is rather different to the "normal" meaning of sophistry,
which really isn't about pulling scientific theories out of your butt.

I am not sure what theory I am supposed to have "pulled out of my butt".
This "theory" about comets causing sunspots is definitely not mine, and I
doubt very much it is true. All that I have added is some rigour in trying
to separate what is known on the basis of observation from that which is
personal opinion.

That
is most certainly NOT the way modern science works. We've observed
that you operate this way with respect to AGW; it is now clear that
your pseudoscience approach to nature extends to other areas as well-
most likely to all areas.

Its evidence based science.

Maybe comets crashing in to the Sun do act as seeds for sunspot formation.
If somebody has tracked where comets hit the Sun, adjusted for rotational
speed, and checked to see if more sunspots subsequently appear at that
location, and determined the truth in that manner, then we would know. As
far as I know, this has never been done. So for the time being, I will place
this in the possible but highly unlikely category.

Maybe additional CO2 does warm the earth. If somebody has used CO2 levels to
accurately predict future temperature levels, and hence shown their model to
be correct, then we would know. As far as I know, this has never been done.
So for the time being, I will also place this in the possible but highly
unlikely category.

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 00:24:03 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

I wasn't aware that observation had been made...

I wasn't aware that it has had been done. (And am still not ware, for that
matter)...

If somebody has tracked where comets hit the Sun, adjusted for rotational
speed, and checked to see if more sunspots subsequently appear at that
location, and determined the truth in that manner, then we would know. As
far as I know, this has never been done...

If somebody has used CO2 levels to
accurately predict future temperature levels, and hence shown their model to
be correct, then we would know...

It is clear that a big part of your confusion lies in ignorance of
well established observations and analyses.

Someone as unaware of things as you should avoid commenting on these
matters.