Observations of solar flares do not match the standard model used to explain their origin
The uncertainty of science: When scientists carefully compared new and much more precise observations of the Sun’s solar flares with the standard model they have used for decades to explain their origin, they found unexpected differences, suggesting the model is wrong or imcomplete.
In sum, none of the processes simulated in accordance with the model proved capable of explaining the observational data. The conclusion drawn by the researchers was obvious to some extent: the standard model of solar flares needs to be reformulated, as required by the scientific method.
The scientists found that the two sources of each flare brightened at slightly different times. The model said these sources should brighten almost simulatanously, and no version of the model could explain the contradiction.
All this means is that the researchers simply don’t have enough data or understanding of the Sun to formulate a model that can fully explain the process. This study simply demonstrates this, but also provides a guide for soliving the problem.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The uncertainty of science: When scientists carefully compared new and much more precise observations of the Sun’s solar flares with the standard model they have used for decades to explain their origin, they found unexpected differences, suggesting the model is wrong or imcomplete.
In sum, none of the processes simulated in accordance with the model proved capable of explaining the observational data. The conclusion drawn by the researchers was obvious to some extent: the standard model of solar flares needs to be reformulated, as required by the scientific method.
The scientists found that the two sources of each flare brightened at slightly different times. The model said these sources should brighten almost simulatanously, and no version of the model could explain the contradiction.
All this means is that the researchers simply don’t have enough data or understanding of the Sun to formulate a model that can fully explain the process. This study simply demonstrates this, but also provides a guide for soliving the problem.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Dirty secret of all astronomy is it’s all guesses and academic politics decide which guesses get anointed as “science.”
Astronomy is just about the only science that I can think of that is completely observational. Hard to set up an experiment in your lab with a planet or a star cluster.
And in keeping with the norms of scientific progress, the more you look, the more you see.
Need better theories? Send more money.
Yes, money got us some great science at Wuhan. Funny how Einstein, Dirac and Seaborg didn’t get all that rich of some of the best theoretical science of the last two centuries.
Astronomy isn’t – as currently practiced – about observation, it’s about interpretation of the observations.
The means by which observations from Europa Clipper will measure the characteristics of the postulated Europan subsurface ocean should be a tour de force of observational astronomy. I hope it’s worth the wait!
Ps. Falcon Heavy for the win!!
A card sharp, asked if prettier cards would make his job easier just smiled and shuffled….
M. Murcek: Those who are long time readers of my work know that I am a strong advocate in skepticism when it comes to scientific claims. You, however, appear to be taking that skepticism a bit too far, applying it wholesale to everything. By doing so it appears to blind you to real results, when they come in.
M. Murcek wrote: “Dirty secret of all astronomy is it’s all guesses and academic politics decide which guesses get anointed as ‘science.’”
I wouldn’t go quite that far. Although it is true that we have barely probed the sun’s processes, we have made many observations. A guess, or an educated guess based upon observations, is known in science as a hypothesis. This is a valid scientific concept against which additional observations or measurements can be compared. If this further investigation remains consistent with the hypothesis, then it can be upgraded to a theory. We rarely upgrade theories to laws, because laws are immutable, and we have learned from experience that even our theories can eventually be found to be incorrect. There have been multiple Nobel prizes in science for findings that later proved to be incorrect.
The same goes for solar observations and the resulting hypotheses and theories. In this case, science has worked. We discovered that what we had concluded from previous observations fails to explain more recent observations. This happens often in science and is how each field matures. Solar astrophysics is relatively new (and yet relatively old) and has proved difficult to investigate.
What few people understand is how little we really understand about the world around us. We have the law of gravity, but Einstein and others have shown that an even better model of gravity can help explain more recent observations. We also consider the speed of light to be a law, but what if we discover something that violates that law?
Science has learned to be skeptical of everything that we know to be true and right. We may not find a better explanation in our lifetimes, but it is always possible that we are wrong. When do we know that we are right? We never know. That is the real dirty secret of all of science, including astronomy. All we can ever know for sure is that we have yet to find out that our theory is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw (10 minutes: Feynman on Scientific Method)
Its like trying to predict the splash pattern of a pot of cheese. And we are guessing on its specific density at every layer.
I have this fear now that Niven’s INCONSTANT MOON might just come to pass.
Do we know WHAT to observe yet?
One thing for sure – SCIENCE is NOT SETTLED! Now the DEMOcrats may demand that a certain “theory” needs TRILLION$ to counter, the TRUTH is the SUN is going to do what the SUN DOES!! The insane attempts to “block the sun” by Gates and his fellow billionaire idiots will probably result in MORE damage to Our Earth.
As far as telling the SUN that it’s flares SHOULD have two points simultaneously?? What if it doesn’t? Will the flares stop or start if “scientists” can’t agree on one or two points?? No! Now what they SHOULD be working on is HOW the sunspots AFFECT OUR EARTH! MORE sun flares result in HIGHER temps on earth? How long does it take for that flare to impact earth? Those are questions I’ve always been more interested in and the effects on temps/”climate”! I guess the TRUTHFUL answers are a tad too INCONVENIENT for those being FUNDED due to “climate”!