Has the Sun's color changed?

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:30:54 -0400 (EDT), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Hi Painius Well sound waves,and water waves go together. It is
possible Newton,and Einstien were both right.
They are both right!! That is the problem with quantum theory. Do you remember
the experiment we did in high school? the one where we take a source of light,
a piece of cardboard with two slits on it and a screen. Light goes through the
slits and produce an interference pattern on the screen.

Now for the shock: if we take only one photon and send it toward the slits, it
change itself into a wave and produce its own interference pattern! Don't
laugh, it has been done in laboratory. It is just like if we play a billiard
game, you strike the ball and it vanished into a "billiard wave", falling in the
6 holes at the same time!!! Crazy is'nt it? Of course it is; quantum theory
http://www.bartleby.com/65/qu/quantumt.html only gives us a mathematical
definition of the behaviour of particles. To theses formulae correspond two
pictures easy for our minds to understand: particles and waves. There is no way
for our simple minds to comprehend the true nature of light as there is no
experience in our macro-universe of something both solid, liquid and gaseous at
the same time for example. We have no pictures.

It takes a particle to go
through space without a medium,and every particle carries a wave with
it. The similarity(sameness) about waves and cords(strings) are the
longer the cord the lower the note. I would think people that play the
harp would like the string theory. Bert


Benoît Morrissette

"Babak Sehari" wrote in message
...
Hi

I recently noticed that the sun is whiter than I used to remember it
when I was a child. The sun I remember was yellow. A few weeks ago I was
driving with sun in my eyes and the Sun looked very very white. Change in
color could indicate many things, among those are change in the
temperature
of the sun, change in atmospheric condition on earth etc.. I wonder do
any
body have any data that measures sun's average radiation at any particular
frequency or wave length? Does these levels vary with 11 year sun's
cycle?
This gave me the idea that the sun might have longer cycles than 11 years.
These cycles could take say 100s or 1000s of years, and these cycles may
have caused the climatological change on earth.


Reagrds,
Babak



Another thing is the fact that you say you noticed this when you were
driving with the sun in your eyes. Actually, that's a more likely
explanation that atmospheric conditions -- sorry to have overlooked it
before. Someone can explain how there is some threshold beyond which your
eye and brain cannot decode brightness into meaningful data, and why staring
at the sun, in fact, can blind a person entirely.


--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Painius wrote,
...i worked on TACANs in the military.
It's a very different principle than
Doppler's effect, which does not require
wave reflections.

Yes, TACAN (acronym for TActical Air Navigation, circa 1955) was a
ground-based nav system using UHF radio signals to determine distance
and bearing of an aircraft from a transmitting station. No Doppler
effect involved.
Police radar is an entirely different animal from
TACAN, and is TOTALLY Doppler-based. A pulse of fixed-frequency RF is
sent out, reflected from the target, and received back; if the frequency
of the reflected pulse is unchanged, the target is not moving; if the
frequency is higher, the target is approaching, and if lower, the target
is receding. Software in the unit computes the actual speed of the
target based on the frequency shift. It's entirely Doppler based.

And it still does not explain how light
waves coming from light sources that are moving toward us are
scrunched
together, or how such waves from
sources that are moving away from us
are stretched apart.

How so? Think of a ripple propagating across the surface of a pond. A
water wave is really a transverse wave, albeit in the vertical plane.
It's analogous ro a vertically polarized light wave (such as you'd get
thru a polaroid filter).
Now think of a buzzing house fly or a bee such as Bert
might harness in one of his experimentsg; the buzzer is affixed to the
end of a BBQ skewer and touched to the water's surface so it sends out
concentric waves as it buzzes. Now move the poor buzzing critter across
the pond's surface. Note that the waves it radiates are no longer
concentric; the waves 'ahead' are compressed while the waves 'behind'
are stretched. Pure Doppler.
oc

To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting stuff, Bill, thanks! I wasn't aware that Police radar
uses the Doppler effect. But it stands to reason because the
radar mile produces precise *distance* measurements, while
*velocity* measurements appear to require the addition of the
Doppler effect for precision.

And thanks for the great transverse water wave analogy! Got
rid of some of the muddy, mucky water in my brain as regards
the Doppler-Fizeau effect.

Of course there is still the nebulous part about how the
compressing and stretching of radiation waves from moving
celestial objects can be represented by the movement of an
element's spectral lines to the right or left (toward the blue or
red end of the spectrum). This still sounds like a big leap to
me.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp without oil,
Love without prejudice
A world without soil,
Tool without toil.

Paine Ellsworth

Hi oc and Painius The illusion that the original wave made by the rock
thrown in a pond travels from when the water is pushed down by the
rock,and this same wave goes to the shore of the pond. To be washed up
against the sandy shore. When I was a kid I liked watching this
illusion. Bert

Painius wrote:

Of course there is still the nebulous part about how the
compressing and stretching of radiation waves from moving
celestial objects can be represented by the movement of an
element's spectral lines to the right or left (toward the blue or
red end of the spectrum). This still sounds like a big leap to
me.

Given that blue light has shorter wavelengths than red, why do you
find this idea "a big leap"? With regard to your description of the
phenomenon as "nebulous", note that the shifts can be measured very precisely.

--
Odysseus

Bonnie Granat wrote:
"Babak Sehari" wrote in message
...

Hi

I recently noticed that the sun is whiter than I used to remember it
when I was a child. The sun I remember was yellow. A few weeks ago I was
driving with sun in my eyes and the Sun looked very very white. Change in
color could indicate many things, among those are change in the

temperature

of the sun, change in atmospheric condition on earth etc.. I wonder do

any

body have any data that measures sun's average radiation at any particular
frequency or wave length? Does these levels vary with 11 year sun's cycle?

This gave me the idea that the sun might have longer cycles than 11 years.
These cycles could take say 100s or 1000s of years, and these cycles may
have caused the climatological change on earth.


Reagrds,
Babak



It is likely your local atmospheric conditions causing you to think the sun
has changed color. It was as beautiful a yellow light today as have seen in
all my 56 years. It's yellow. You may be viewing it, however, through thin
clouds and not realize it. On a day with bad smog here, at midday, it can be
red. But on a normal, sunny day, it is yellow, not white.






Dear Babak

If you go to http://www.spaceweather.com

and the follow the link to the soho sattalite site, you will find ample
evidence that the Sun's "color" has, in fact, changed. The 11 year "Solar
Max", which was in the year 2000, has completed an unprecedented 4th year,
and is now going into a 5th year, with a huge number of "Sun Spots", and
"Coronal Holes". If you check out the spaceweather archives, you will find
that the Earth has been having "Aurora Events" on an almost daily basis,
for the last year and one half. Also, about a year and a half ago, the
Sun's Magnetic Poles reversed; the South Pole is at the "top", aligned with
the Earth's Magnetosphere's North Pole. The meaning of all of the above, is
that the Sun is putting out lots more energy in the high-frequency
Ultra-Violet, and X-Ray bands, and less in the visable and infra-red; also
much stronger Interplanetary Magnetic Field and more Protons which ride
that field to the Earth and the other Planets. It's those Protons which
cause those beautiful Auroras. Yes people, something strange and
unprecidented is going on with the Sun; Jupiter too!! Unfortunaly, the
current bunch of "scientists" at NASA, who should be paying attention to
this kind of thing, seem to be the same kind of "political scientists" that
ignored the Space Shuttle safety issues. My own opinion, with which the
NASA scientists disagree, is that the increased energy output from the Sun
is the root cause of all that very, very strange weather we've been having
for over a year now.

Yes, Babak, there are many, many, Solar cycles, within cycles,
within.......that's why the ancient Astronomers were so obsessed with
Astronomy and spent lots of time and money on such. It didn't have a thing
to do with worshiping their "Gods", as the Western, Christian,
Archiologists would have us believe; just because said Ethno-Centric
Westerners have that obsession themselves. It had to do with the fact, of
which the Ancients were well aware, that when certain Celestial alignments
occur, the weather changes; crops fail, kingdoms fall, lean hungry
barbarians come out of the East! The NASA "Scientists" rely on a data-base,
collected since Galeleo first discovered Sun Spots, to correlate Earth's
Weather with Solar Events. This "Statistical" approach does not allow for
anything not-seen since the collecting of the statistics began; like The
Little Ice Age, for instance; or the fact that the Sahara has a wet/dry
cycle of about ten thousand years; and a wet period is long overdue!

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

Of course there is still the nebulous part about how the
compressing and stretching of radiation waves from moving
celestial objects can be represented by the movement of an
element's spectral lines to the right or left (toward the blue or
red end of the spectrum). This still sounds like a big leap to
me.

Given that blue light has shorter wavelengths than red, why do you
find this idea "a big leap"? With regard to your description of the
phenomenon as "nebulous", note that the shifts can be measured
very precisely.

--
Odysseus

Thanks, Odysseus... i'm not sure i can put it into words...

So if we look at the light from a star, and if we analyze the
spectrum to get, say, a hydrogen signature, then we can
expect that if the star has a radial velocity in our general
direction the compressed light waves will be expressed
by a spectral shift of the hydrogen signature away from
the red end and toward the blue end.

And if the star has a radial velocity going away from us,
then the stretched out light waves will be expressed by a
spectral shift of the hydrogen signature away from the
blue end and toward the red end.

While these basics appear to hold water, the leaps come
when we delve a little deeper...

Some questions i have are...

can an *acceleration* of a celestial object either toward
us or away from us be detected using the spectral shift?

can the spectral shift be used some way to determine
the precise *direction* of the celestial object (to include
its radial *and* transverse vectors)?

is the spectral shift just confined to velocity with no
acceleration and to just the radial velocity without being
able to account for transverse velocity?

how do we know that, say, an increased red shift means
that the object is farther away going at an increased
radial velocity? Couldn't an object that has a small red
shift actually be farther from us than one with a large red
shift if the nearer object is going more directly away from
us? What if the farther object has much more of a
transverse motion than the near object? Wouldn't the
farther object's radial velocity be much less, thereby
giving us a smaller red shift? And yet it is still farther
away?

Carpenters!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote:

While these basics appear to hold water, the leaps come
when we delve a little deeper...

Some questions i have are...

can an *acceleration* of a celestial object either toward
us or away from us be detected using the spectral shift?

can the spectral shift be used some way to determine
the precise *direction* of the celestial object (to include
its radial *and* transverse vectors)?

is the spectral shift just confined to velocity with no
acceleration and to just the radial velocity without being
able to account for transverse velocity?

Good questions. As far as I know, the answers are no, no, and yes ...
but then again, I have only the barest grasp of relativity between
"inertial frames of reference", so where accelerations are involved I
get out of my depth. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's no way to
'read' tangential velocity from a spectrum.

how do we know that, say, an increased red shift means
that the object is farther away going at an increased
radial velocity? Couldn't an object that has a small red
shift actually be farther from us than one with a large red
shift if the nearer object is going more directly away from
us? What if the farther object has much more of a
transverse motion than the near object? Wouldn't the
farther object's radial velocity be much less, thereby
giving us a smaller red shift? And yet it is still farther
away?

Certainly. Stars in our own galaxy have all manner of red and blue
shifts as viewed from our particular moving platform, and they're
more or less independent of distance. But we only know the true
velocities of the comparatively few nearby stars that have exhibited
measurable "proper motion" over the course of the paltry few
centuries we've been observing them, providing a tangential component
to go with the radial one seen in their spectra.

When it comes to "cosmological" red-shifts of distant galaxies,
though, it's thought -- or assumed -- that the 'true space motions'
are comparatively small, because to the extent we're able to
cross-check the red-shifts against other means of estimating distance
(i.e. the "standard candles" of cepheids and supernovae) they
increase fairly uniformly with distance, the trend overwhelming
individual motions once one looks far enough away. The explanation
for this trend is, of course, space expansion.

But in a sense it's only Occam's razor -- or as Einstein put it, the
idea that "God is subtle but not malicious" (read "nature" for "God"
if you prefer) -- that inclines us to rule out individual space
motions as the cause of galactic red-shifts, until someone can come
up with either a reliable independent means of measuring the
distances or the motions, or OTOH a different explanation for the
"Hubble constant" that's consistent with observations. It's hard to
imagine another reason for everything back to the cosmic microwave
background to seem to be running away from us, and it only makes
matters worse if we picture the vectors randomly filling the 'far'
hemisphere but never pointing into the 'near' one! Note that a large
tangential velocity combined with a large red-shift would imply a
still larger 'net' velocity (Pythagoras' theorem), so one would have
to explain why all these objects should be moving so rapidly
*through* space if they're not moving *with* it, so to speak.

However, there are a few 'anomalous' cases of galaxies with
red-shifts very different from those of what appear to be other
members of their cluster, so we still have a lot to learn about
galactic motions. See

http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/arppec/arphalt.html

for an account of Halton Arp's criticism of the space-expansion
explanation of cosmological redshifts; other researchers point to
correlations between galactic types and their redshifts (independent
of distance) that they claim to indicate that the 'conventional
wisdom' is wrong or seriously incomplete.

It's depressing to consider that it will take many thousands or
millions of years of observations to detect any tangential motion at
all in extragalactic objects, which might settle some of these
questions -- someone needs to find a way to look further into the
past than astronomical distances take us or, alternatively, the
universal 'fast forward' button!

--
Odysseus