Slashdot Mirror


Tsunami Spotted on the Surface of the Sun

BigBadBus writes "The BBC is reporting that NASA's twin spacecraft designed to obtain stereo images of the Sun have recorded a Solar Tsunami. The feature includes a fascinating movie of the images captured."

164 comments

  1. But... by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Funny

    No sound? Lame...

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:But... by evanbd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What would it sound like, anyway? It's a pressure wave, aka a sound wave (mostly, there's apparently magnetic effects involved too), but really loud. Really, really loud. But, that sharp rise and fall in pressure has a definable sound to it. I'm sure someone will do a better job than I can, but I think it would sound a lot like a "pop" but with tonality to it -- it's not a sharp-edged delta function, but rather a bandpass-filtered version of one. It looks from the scale, though, like it's a very low frequency wave -- well into the subsonic regime. You wouldn't so much hear it or even feel it as get blown back and forth by it. Well, neglecting that detail about the energy levels involved. Suffice to say that overpowered stereo your neighbor has wouldn't come close...

    2. Re:But... by Gareshra · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah they should have put a microphone up in the vacuum of space to record the sound waves from the sun.

    3. Re:But... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The solar wind has a pressure, and you can measure it. And it changes. You could interpret that pressure as sound. It would be quiet by terrestrial standards, but an event like this would definitely make noise.

      Of course, your microphone wouldn't bear much resemblance to a terrestrial one; measuring pressures that low is a tricky thing.

    4. Re:But... by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, when you turn a seismogram into sound and speed it up, it sounds pretty much like rubbing two rocks against each other. That sort of event usually sounding the way you'd expect them to once you speed it up enough, I'd say this solar Tsunami must sound like the type of explosion you'd expect to hear.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:But... by evwah · · Score: 5, Funny

      too bad you can't hear the woosh sound of that joke going over your head in space either

    6. Re:But... by S.O.B. · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you play it backwards you hear, "Paul is dead, Paul is dead".

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    7. Re:But... by iammaxus · · Score: 1

      You know, when you turn a seismogram into sound and speed it up, it sounds pretty much like rubbing two rocks against each other.

      I'm very curious to hear this, do you have a link?

      Thanks.

    8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obviously, it would sound as if a hundred thousand people suddenly said "foop".

    9. Re:But... by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      Of course, your microphone wouldn't bear much resemblance to a terrestrial one; measuring pressures that low is a tricky thing.

      Not to mention the whole disintegrating part...

    10. Re:But... by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 0

      Or they could just do like the History Channel does and add their own sound. Like when you see two asteroids collide: you hear a deep rumble and the camera shakes. I always thought you couldn't hear in space but I guess I was wrong...

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    11. Re:But... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? We're talking about measuring the solar wind, ie interplanetary vacuum. As in, positioned at a distance comparable to Earth's orbit. The instrument in question would be more like a particle detector than a microphone or pressure gauge. (IANA astrophysicist.)

    12. Re:But... by Zode · · Score: 3, Funny

      actually you hear "Here comes the sun."

    13. Re:But... by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      "Fry, why must you analyze everything with your relentless logic?"

      (it was a joke about putting a microphone near the sun, though, obviously, it wasn't a very good one :-P)

    14. Re:But... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      No sound? Lame... Forgot the sound. Why wasn't it in 3D? From the article:
      "The event was captured by Nasa's twin Stereo spacecraft designed to make 3D images of our parent star."
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    15. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expect everything to sound like a Smurf?

    16. Re:But... by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Explosion? I'd expected to hear some surfing music, possibly "good vibrations"

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:But... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show that those asteroid collisions were faked somewhere in the ocean

      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:But... by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Eins Hier kommt die Sonne ... oh, right. nvm.

    19. Re:But... by laejoh · · Score: 0

      I think these guys can help you out.

    20. Re:But... by Front+Line+Assembly · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here are apperently some links:
      http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~george/noises/text.html

      Doesn't sound like rocks grinding to me...

    21. Re:But... by hools19 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll get another Pink Floyd reunion?

    22. Re:But... by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Since the sun does not have air (all substances are torn-apart and exist only as plasma), there would be no sound. If you tried to dip a microphone into the sun and record it, you'd just have a vaporized microphone.

      Tsunami?

      Is that American for "tornado"? ;-)

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    23. Re:But... by zehaeva · · Score: 1
      its actually japanese for a massive wave of water, usually caused by some sort of geological activity.

      sorry sarcasm must be met with sarcasm! ^_^

    24. Re:But... by martinQblank · · Score: 1

      Nahhh - probably you'd hear 'wipeout'.

    25. Re:But... by lordshipmayhem · · Score: 0

      It's actually Japanese for "Harbor Wave"

    26. Re:But... by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      I was trying to give a definition, not a translation. though it feels appropriate given my sarcasm to get sarcasm back for the sarcasm i gave to the sarcasm that i was responding to.

    27. Re:But... by raddan · · Score: 1

      It seems a lot weirder to me that if you play "Paul is dead, Paul is dead" backward, you hear a solar tsunami.

    28. Re:But... by lordshipmayhem · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of sarcasm!!! ^_^

    29. Re:But... by Hasmanean · · Score: 1

      Actually you could get sound. The solar wind carries a slightly-dense plasma outwards from the sun, and this gets affected by all solar disturbances on the surface. So the disturbances in this medium, basically a series of compressions/rarefactions will get transmitted to the earth.

      So, a few days after the solar event, the "sound" should reach us, and register as disuptions of the earth's magnetosphere. We will be able to perceive this through increased auroral activity, larger numbers of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, higher DNA mutation rates, cell-phone and satellite signal strength reduction and DRAM errors.

      Coincidentally, the guy who works beside me just came back from Churchill, Manitoba where he was monitoring ionospheric conditions for his PhD. He noticed there were aurorae every single day he was there.

      Remember, what is called "sound" is only the vibrations between 20 and 20000Hz. Anything below 20Hz is called infrasound, and anything far below about 0.01 Hz is called "weather." The sunspot will surely affect space weather, but whether there is a high frequency sound it emits as well, is something only a space probe far above the magnetosphere could tell us.

      --
      Hasan
    30. Re:But... by Fumus · · Score: 1

      I'd never guess the Sun likes Rammstein.

    31. Re:But... by Mozk · · Score: 1

      Heh, I actually found that funny.

      --
      No existe.
    32. Re:But... by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Where can I donate money for the aid effort of all those poor people who were caught in the disaster?

      `Jarik

  2. Global warming? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Probably caused by global warming. Everything else seems to be.

    (tongue in cheek)

    1. Re:Global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only we were that lucky. This was the clearly work of Galactus. He probably got tired of his herald making jokes about that big jug head of his and tossed his silver ass into the sun at about half the speed of light. Surf this, jerk.

    2. Re:Global warming? by jimmux · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is nothing. Wait until the sun's ice caps melt, then we'll be in trouble.

    3. Re:Global warming? by Krusso88 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Al Gore will have a Live Sun concert to raise enough funds to prevent future tSUNnami's

    4. Re:Global warming? by kylehase · · Score: 2, Funny

      The source was a solar glacier breaking off.

      --
      You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
    5. Re:Global warming? by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, it was Xenu, the Galactic Overlord, testing his new hydrogen bomb.
      (Please don't sue me)

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    6. Re:Global warming? by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      It's the cosmic rays I tell you, the cosmic rays!!!!

  3. And yet... by KGIII · · Score: 1

    ...we can't find one on Earth in time to warn people about it.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    1. Re:And yet... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative

      I assume you are referring to the Asian tsunami. The problem wasn't that we couldn't find it in time, but that the warning systems were not in place to alert people once this information was known. This is not a breakdown of science, but of government.

    2. Re:And yet... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh I'd not blame the scientists but rather the government that controls the purse strings. I hope my post didn't seem as though I'd blame the scientists.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:And yet... by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      Well, at the time we saw it on Earth, it actually happened 8 minutes earlier

      --
      mod me funny
  4. Gosh... by kclittle · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope no one was hurt.

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:Gosh... by gazelam · · Score: 1

      I realized there was a problem when my solar beach house got flooded. -Apollo

  5. What?!?! by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 2, Funny

    I missed an opportunity to surf the greatest wave ever?

    1. Re:What?!?! by trooper9 · · Score: 1

      Chill. No shore, no break. But damn, what a ride down the backside!

      --
      blah
    2. Re:What?!?! by commieneko · · Score: 1

      Cowabunga!!!

    3. Re:What?!?! by vought · · Score: 1

      Chill. No shore, no break. But damn, what a ride down the backside! Sounds like my last girlfriend.
    4. Re:What?!?! by trooper9 · · Score: 1

      I knew that was coming as soon as I hit submit.

      --
      blah
    5. Re:What?!?! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The greatest wave ever is the one I'm on at the time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That movie is pretty cool, but only if you use a lot of imagination, which defeats the point of the movie (except for scientists).

    I always like movies of the Sun a lot better when they accurately show how gauzy the Sun actually is, because it's really a ball of gas, not as solid as pictures like that show. Some color, and some of the stars beyond shining through, all make these movies of the Sun hanging in space look a lot cooler, and a lot less like peering through a microscope.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Special Effects by yorugua · · Score: 4, Funny

      That movie is pretty cool
      I can't agree. I'd say it's very hot.
    2. Re:Special Effects by orangepeel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm the same way. One of the things that gives me pause is when a publication states that something is "hotter than the surface of the sun."

      I always ask myself a question whenever I read or hear that line: what surface? Where the heck do you define the "surface" in the case of a star?

      I assume that somewhere at the sun's core you've got some type of phenomenally wacky material, and from there on out you're just looking at an energized soupy plasma that just gets progressively less and less dense. Even if you get to some point where somebody decides the pressure suddenly becomes worthy of "surface" status, it's still not going to be anything like a surface in the minds of most normal humans. The "surface" is roiling, boiling, and exploding with astronomical energies non-stop. That seems to me like trying to describe an exploding can of aerosol cheese as a cohesive solid, and I dare say we all know from experience how ridiculous that would be.

      To me, referring to the surface of the sun seems akin to invoking the question, "what's the length of the coastline of England?" My answer would be, "on what scale?" But I seem to be the only one who feels that way, so perhaps I'm just in the dark over something. Has someone figured out some cool relationship between the gravitational ability of the sun to hold on to its own matter compared with the average energy of a certain layer of plasma or something? I don't know. I never hear it talked about. All I ever hear is that simple phrase, "the surface of the sun," used in article after article ... like it's so damn obvious and how much of a moron I must be to stumble over it every time.

      Sometimes I suspect that someone, somewhere, with god-like precision simply declared one day, "no, this distance outward from the core represents the surface, and fuck you if you doubt me".

      *shrug*

      --
      Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
    3. Re:Special Effects by palndrumm · · Score: 4, Informative

      I always ask myself a question whenever I read or hear that line: what surface? Where the heck do you define the "surface" in the case of a star? Obligatory Wikipedia Reference:

      "The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light."

      So there you go. Not something I'd ever really thought about either to be honest, but I guess someone at some point has.
    4. Re:Special Effects by Alamais · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm...while, yes, the sun is (mostly) made up of gasses, it is still very dense, so I don't know that 'gauzy' is the right word. It's dense enough for fusion to take place in the core, and for the photons that are the energy thus released to take thousands of years to reach the surface. Not solid, but certainly no morning fog, either.

      The little bit you might be able to see through is just the very upper atmosphere (probably gaps under prominences and CMEs), and the best views of that kind of stuff aren't in visible light anyway, since the sun is brightest in visible light, and tends to overwhelm instruments and eyes. For an image in other wavelengths, I don't know that it's stars you're seeing (could just be image artifacts), and the color is false anyway.

      I've been studying this stuff for class, and this really is a cool movie & event in its own right. I mean, judging from the article, this wave was moving at close to .2% of light speed, which is quite fast. A tsunami on Earth moving that fast would sweep across the surface in a little over a minute. Boom.

    5. Re:Special Effects by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Where the heck do you define the "surface" in the case of a star?

      Its photosphere seems a reasonable definition.

    6. Re:Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While you're right about the Sun's surface being a largely statistical boundary, and not at some specific radius like on a solid planet (which is also an approximately fractal distance, as your coastline example suggests), and not at all like the oversimplifications often pictured and vaguely described, there is such a thing. It's a chaotic surface, like a stormy sea, but there is a boundary where the Sun's plasma meets the vacuum of space, into which the Sun blasts solar wind (including protons, electron/beta and helium/alpha particles), and launches jets that collapse back into the Sun at its "surface". It's a blurry boundary, unlike the simple image most often implied, but it's real.

      It would make a great movie :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm thinking of, for example, this NASA image of the Sun (blasting a jet right through the Earth back in 2003).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Special Effects by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Photons which are generated at the core of the sun, where fusion is occurring, can take tens or hundreds of millions of years to reach the surface (and by that time, they have been thermally absorbed and re-emitted so many times it's hard to even call them the same photons). It might be a big ball of gas, but star matter is also one of the most opaque substances commonly occurring in the universe, due to the enormous density.

    9. Re:Special Effects by AJWM · · Score: 1

      I always like movies of the Sun a lot better when they accurately show how gauzy the Sun actually is, because it's really a ball of gas, not as solid as pictures like that show.

      I guess I have to congratulate you on finding several moderators stupid enough to mod that up insightful.

      Yeah, the sun is a ball of gas -- a million miles in diameter and with enough pressure in the middle to not only cause fusion but to hold it in by gravitational pressure alone.

      "Gauzy" my butt.

      --
      -- Alastair
    10. Re:Special Effects by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      That seems to me like trying to describe an exploding can of aerosol cheese as a cohesive solid, and I dare say we all know from experience how ridiculous that would be. I regret to say that I don't have any experience of exploding cans of aerosol cheese. Do I have to hand in my geek card now?
    11. Re:Special Effects by martinQblank · · Score: 1

      No, this distance outward from the core represents the surface, and fuck you if you doubt me.

    12. Re:Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I guess I have to dis you in return for being stupid enough to thing the entire Sun is solid. Congratulations - you can't handle fuzziness.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Special Effects by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    14. Re:Special Effects by Kentari · · Score: 1

      and some of the stars beyond shining through Have you ever looked at the Sun?? It's millions of times brigther than the brightest star. Except for the corona the sun isn't translucent. And when you are imaging the surface the corona will be very very dark and stars near the Sun too dim to detect... That's why they have coronagraphs. I agree that they could have cleaned it up a bit for the public. But making it totally unrealistic is doing no service at all to science or the public.
    15. Re:Special Effects by HarvardAce · · Score: 1

      Those "stars" you see are not stars -- they are one of two things:

      1) Image artifacts
      2) particles of solar wind/high-energy waves hitting the recording instrument.

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    16. Re:Special Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there just saying its very hot. ;)

    17. Re:Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, I have indeed looked at the Sun, and I'm not even blind because I've been careful to look away in time.

      But if you've looked at the Sun, you know that it doesn't look like the "tsunami" video we're discussing, either. And though the Sun is lots brighter than the other stars it hangs in front of, the instruments we're using don't have to constrain their images to the "windowing" effect our eyes give us. We can take pictures of other stars in a daylight sky with our instruments without the Sun blotting them out. And our sensitive instruments can detect stars through the gas of the Sun when it's not too dense to actually block (or gravitationally bend away) the distant stars' light.

      That's the nice thing about actual physical instruments: they're not limited to the illusions our natural senses confine us to. That's why we use them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Special Effects by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How can you be sure?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    19. Re:Special Effects by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps. I'm not going to flip through it right now to give a page number.

    20. Re:Special Effects by Kentari · · Score: 1

      This is an image/video of the solar chromosphere, and as far I can judge not a full disc image. There is no sign of the typical distortion you get at the edge of the visible half.

      In addition to that it is a magnetogram, not a visible light photograph. Shades of white to black visualize the magnetic fields present on the surface of the sun. Depicting stars in a magnetogram is just silly...

      There is no instrument on this planet that can detect light (maybe neutrinos) that comes through that part of the Sun. As I said, you can detect stars through the corona. Doing so in one exposure and getting surface details is very impractical due to the ridiculous brightness difference. You don't get even close with a 16-bit sensor and blooming, diffraction, scatter will probably still ruin you day. Even SOHO's coronographs don't image closer than 1.3 solar radii because of such problems.

      Your complaint is like getting evidence for alien life and complaining there's no flying saucer in the image, for eductional purposes...

      And finally, our eyes are actually pretty damn good at seeing faint things next to bright objects. If you ever handled a camera you would realise that the shadows are always to dark and the highlights burned out. Taking this to the extreme and expecting an instrument to capture details on the chromosphere and stars in the space around it is just ridiculous (if you got a counterexample, please show me). The biggest issue to see stars next to the sun is our atmosphere, not the eyes.

    21. Re:Special Effects by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      It occurs to me that what you're describing is very much like the concept of "sea level." There's no such thing, of course -- at any point on any coast, the water level is constantly changing as waves come in; on a smaller level, the air above the water is always filled with spray while the water near the surface is filled with bubbles. And yet we have no problem averaging all this out and coming up with a measurement for sea level that's precisely defined down to (at least) the level of a foot. So if you think of the Sun's "surface" like an ocean, it all makes sense.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    22. Re:Special Effects by AJWM · · Score: 1

      You need to improve your reading skills; nowhere in my post did I use the word "solid", or any synonym thereof. (That meant "or any word that means the same thing as solid", in case you were confused.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    23. Re:Special Effects by sbeckstead · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen under that kind of pressure is quite probably metallic, I don't actually think that "accurately show how gauzy" really describes the Sun. Now the photosphere may indeed be transparent but how would you tell.

    24. Re:Special Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some of the stars beyond shining through

      Hurry! She's fading fast!

    25. Re:Special Effects by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      According to my old astrohysics textbooks, you are off by an a few orders of magnitude.

      In the sun, its about 1 million years.
      You can calculate it as a simple random walk in a medium with an absorption gradient

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    26. Re:Special Effects by Chris+Shannon · · Score: 1

      "Hotter than the surface of the sun" describes an inequality of temperatures. The surface does not require a precise description for the inequality to hold. Temperature as a function of distance from the sun's centre is what's important, and even that does not need to be all that precise.

      "Morocco is south of the southern coast of Spain" does not break down under the difficulty of defining a coastline.

      --
      "Follow me" the wise man said, but he walked behind.
    27. Re:Special Effects by HarvardAce · · Score: 1

      How can you be sure? Because there's no way stars can shine through the Sun. Direct from Wikipedia:

      The solar interior is not directly observable, and the Sun itself is opaque to electromagnetic radiation. Still don't believe me? Take a look at this video. It clearly shows that there are no "stars" initially, but after the flare reaches the satellite, the "stars" suddenly appear. (SOHO is the satellite, the instrument is the EIT, or Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope)
      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
  7. Run for the hills! by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh shit, how long until the wave reaches us?!?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Run for the hills! by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      ~6 days given the 1 million km/h speed given to us by the article.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    2. Re:Run for the hills! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late! You just experienced what we call the brown note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note!

    3. Re:Run for the hills! by ColombianKid · · Score: 1

      No less than 8 light minutes.

    4. Re:Run for the hills! by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just wait until Mercury and Venus jump up and throw their hands in the air, then we're next. Don't mis-time it and spoil things for everybody else!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    5. Re:Run for the hills! by Krupuk · · Score: 1

      That's 2 million km/h. I'm astonished by this speed. I'd have thought that this much matter would take a much longer time to travel over the sun. I just calculated it: it's 0.0019 of the speed of light. Still fast.

    6. Re:Run for the hills! by naam00 · · Score: 1

      The matter is only the medium. What is traveling is the wave.
      Right?

    7. Re:Run for the hills! by doti · · Score: 1

      Right.

      For example, the electrons move slowly on the wire, yet the light turns on "instantly" after you press the switch.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
  8. The first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't mean to be picky, but this is from the front page:

    BigBadBus writes "The BBC is reporting that NASA's twin spacecraft designed to obtain stereo images of the Sun have recorded the first Solar Tsunami."

    Did you mean "the first footage of a solar tsunami", perhaps?

    1. Re:The first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean:

      "Did you mean "the first stereo images of a solar tsunami", perhaps?"

      perhaps? Stereo images != footage.

  9. First ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first solar tsunami ever? Good thing we had the space craft in place to capture it then!

  10. Totally Gnarly, Dood! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna wax up my board and be ready for the next one.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Totally Gnarly, Dood! by kylehase · · Score: 3, Funny

      Make sure to use all-temperature wax.

      --
      You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
  11. Fun on the Sun by Revenger75 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's go mega-surfin' Dude! It will be rad(iation)! I'll bring the 3.0x10^8 SPF sunblock, you bring the Unobtainium surfboards, and Cowboy Neil will bring the beer.

    1. Re:Fun on the Sun by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

      My surf board will be made of dolomite, the tough black mineral that won't cop out when there's heat all about!

    2. Re:Fun on the Sun by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Funny

      and Cowboy Neil will bring the beer.

      You must be... no, scratch that, you ARE new here.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    3. Re:Fun on the Sun by Revenger75 · · Score: 1

      Be nice... I got a bad sunburn.

    4. Re:Fun on the Sun by OldFish · · Score: 1

      Oh Yeah! But it ain't complete without the Mermen playing Varykino Snow at full volume, followed by a heart melting The Goodbye on the glide into the beach...

    5. Re:Fun on the Sun by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think he offered me Heineken Steam or Heineken Plasma, but both are too much for me.

    6. Re:Fun on the Sun by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Go at night, so it's not so hot.

    7. Re:Fun on the Sun by Nibbler999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try a corona.

    8. Re:Fun on the Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you suffered a sun stroke?

  12. Surf's Up by zakeria · · Score: 1, Redundant

    just make sure you bring the sun block!

  13. SNAP by cpricejones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your momma is so fat when she steps into the ocean her ripples cause a tsunami ... ON THE SUN

  14. Well... by nothingtosay · · Score: 1

    If it isn't the HOTTEST thing ever, I don't know what is.

  15. No tourists this time of year by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Funny

    The sun is very hot except at night.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  16. Holy cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ok, did anyone else see these dark grey "Reply to This" and "Parent" buttons start appearing in Slashdot [v.D1] sometime in the last few minutes, or am I just tripping again???

    1. Re:Holy cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously hope this is a late "April Fools" joke. This makes Digg's comment system seem decent...

    2. Re:Holy cow by armanox · · Score: 1

      Nope, I got them too. And it's not Apr 1 anymore either...

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:Holy cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, holy crap does this redesign suck... I was hoping it was a joke :(

    4. Re:Holy cow by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, they've changed the whole discussion system again. And yes, the new system sucks even more than the old one. Which sucked considerably, compared to the even older one. You get the idea.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    5. Re:Holy cow by emjay88 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why, IMO this looks better than the old system, and it's easier to see threads of comments...

      --
      1178161 is prime...
    6. Re:Holy cow by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it makes more sense to me. hey, this drop down edit box is snazzy.

    7. Re:Holy cow by greenguy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Gonna have to disagree with you. I like it a lot, though I would have used a single-pixel border and square buttons, just to save on vertical space. But a visual manifestation of the way comments relate to each other is a welcome change!

      And, it also appears to be AJAX-driven, which makes it fully buzzword-compliant.

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    8. Re:Holy cow by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I got them too. At first I thought that the boxes were cool because it would help find the parent threads, but that just isn't the case. If the old discussion system was akin to block separation by indentation (python), then the new system is akin to XML's close-tag requirement. In other words, visually messy and confusing. Maybe if the blocks were colour coded for depth it would be easier, but I find myself doubting that as I type it.

      And I do like the "you must preview before you post" requirement, as /. does not allow for the editing of threads.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:Holy cow by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      It's cool, if a bit jarring... I just wish individual comments had a bottom border so you can distinguish them from their reply tree.

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    10. Re:Holy cow by tenco · · Score: 1

      I like it. It's convenient, IMHO.

    11. Re:Holy cow by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I found it easier to see threads of comments with the old version. The indentation used on this page appears to be about 10 pixels, which when the parent is collapsed and not wrapping the child in its border isn't enough for me to easily distinguish. It's better than the first AJAX-enabled version, but I would prefer to have the older, green, style's indentation.

    12. Re:Holy cow by PPH · · Score: 1

      The /. server must have been damaged by cosmic rays from s large solar event.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re:Holy cow by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Discussion2 from 3 days ago was AJAX driven too, and unlike this new crap didn't constantly throw errors like "This resource is no longer valid. Please start from the beginning" when doing stuff like moderating (and yes, refreshing the page is the only way to get the ability to moderate or post when this happens)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  17. Kinda lame by shird · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This might be an event on some otherwise quiet planet. But given the Sun itself is a gigantic ball of freakin' fire, with solar flares and enough UV to cause cancer in people on other planets, a bit of a wave doesn't seem quite as impressive.

    --
    I.O.U One Sig.
    1. Re:Kinda lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really so what have YOU discovered recently that tops this?

      thats right, nothing, your the lame one.

      I discovered my asshole in the mirror yesterday. It blew my fucking mind! (bonus points to anyone who catches the reference)
    2. Re:Kinda lame by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      I prefer not to catch anything involving yout asshole.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    3. Re:Kinda lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people on other planets

      As opposed to people on the sun? Or perhaps on this one?

      Ah...what do you know that we don't?

  18. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What would it sound like, anyway? Hmm, what would a wave of gas sound like?

    First, did it come out of Uranus?
    1. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, urectum.

  19. Correction by relikx · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe Solar Tsunami is a bit of a misnomer. As tsunami literally translates to 'harbor wave' a more accurate name would be Taiyounami or perhaps Ra-tasm.

    1. Re:Correction by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1, Insightful
      How about Massive Magnetically Propelled Solar Pressure Wave? This way we can sound really smart to other people without making any sense whatsoever.

      Or we could just stick to terms that everyone can understand that also sufficiently describe the phenomenon.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    2. Re:Correction by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      I believe Solar Tsunami is a bit of a misnomer. As tsunami literally translates to 'harbor wave' a more accurate name would be Taiyounami or perhaps Ra-tasm. Or maybe even a Ra-gasm
      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    3. Re:Correction by Fatalis · · Score: 1

      then you're committing the etymological fallacy, because the literal or historical meaning of a word is basically irrelevant to what it means today

      --
      Deus est fatalis
    4. Re:Correction by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's much too late to correct this. Since like 2006. It even has a scientific definition now.

      We're just not going to start describing giant waves Taiyounamis or Ra-tasms, the word Tsunami is here to say.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  20. A Tsunami on the SUN! by enoz · · Score: 1
    Dang it, someone is going to have to update the Wiki for Tsunami and change the definition.

    A tsunami is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as an ocean, or a giant ball of burning hydrogen, is rapidly displaced.
    1. Re:A Tsunami on the SUN! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heck, let's make a new word for that. Let's call it "Sunami" :D

    2. Re:A Tsunami on the SUN! by ThinkOfaNumber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FTA: "However, it was not exactly the same, Dr Gallagher added, because on the Sun, magnetic fields also helped the waves along. The phenomenon is therefore known as a magneto-acoustic wave.
      so your name should be something to do with magneto-acoustic waves... Magnecoustami sounds a bit lame, maybe someone else can come up with one better...

  21. It's Bush's fault by drsmack1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's the corporations that control the puppet president Bush! War for oil and we are destroying the sun with our greed and selfishness. I'm pretty sure that ANY act of nature that is deemed bad by the *consensus* is somehow Bush's fault, right? I know he personally caused Katrina and continental drift.

    I better buy another hybrid before the sun is destroyed!

    Now I'm guessing that someone who stridently rails against all forms of censorship will mod this -1 overrated or -1 troll.

    1. Re:It's Bush's fault by svunt · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul would NEVER have allowed this sort of travesty...oh wait, he would've let the market sort it out.

    2. Re:It's Bush's fault by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      Bush destroying Sun? If you spend any time at all on Slashdot, you know that's Microsoft's job.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  22. Network gear meltdown! by Byzandula · · Score: 1

    If you call Cisco for support on a faulty device they may claim cosmic radiation caused the problem. (I only mention this as it has happened to me before).
     
    No more stories about solar flares and tsunamis please! You are just giving tech support more excuses!

    - I'll take my sig with a glass of single malt.

    1. Re:Network gear meltdown! by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to put this in your configs.

      Router#config t
      Router(config)#no sunspot degradation


      If you had put this in you wouldn't have these issues. Sunspot interference is turned on by default. But after you disable it, the case acts like a Faraday Cage so you won't have to worry about pesky radiation interfering with your lan/wan operations.

      In reality though, I suppose Cisco equipment does have some stuff enabled yet not configured by default that I would rather it not.

      --
      The game.
  23. The Martian Asks: by Somegeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!"

    --
    And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    1. Re:The Martian Asks: by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Dear God that was funny! I can't believe nobody has modded you up yet... Delays, Delays

    2. Re:The Martian Asks: by Krupuk · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...followed by an Earth-shattering silence?

    3. Re:The Martian Asks: by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Boom tomorrow.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  24. And what did this administration do? by macslut · · Score: 0

    And what did this administration do? George Bush hates Sun people.

  25. No sound reason : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No sound? Lame...

    The sound was supressed because it sounds like a gigantic Fart.

  26. NOM NOM NOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video seems to be /.ed already.

    Nice work you bandwidth hogs.

  27. greatest wave ever? by joeyspqr · · Score: 1

    dude, you shoulda been here yesterday ;-)

    --
    +1 fashionably cynical
  28. Concentric circles spotted on sun by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Do they see any concentric circles emanating from a glowing red dot?

    Typically concentric circles are followed by at least a row of little human figures.

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  29. I Hope You All Saw The Film by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    Because that was your only chance. NASA is pulling the original film in order to re-master it digitally and enhance the effects and will be re-releasing it to theaters just before Christmas.

    A spokesperson for NASA said "We have much better CGI now than we did in March and we feel that the original film, while a classic, does not fully express the breadth and extent of the whole solar experience for our audience."

    Initial plans call for multiple DVD releases to coincide with the theatrical release of the film, with pricing expected to be $19.99 for the DVD, $49.99 for the Collector's Edition Boxed Director's Set and $299.99 for BluRay.

  30. Summer Movie by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    Freaking tsunami of fire!? That is the most awesome thing I've ever heard of. If I don't see a movie in the next two years with a kick-ass tsunami of fire clobbering people... I'm going to be really sad. Steven Spielberg - this is right up your alley. I'm counting on you.

    P.S. Don't try and give me some fireball or some weak wave crap either. I want to see a tsunami of fire roll over a city. That is win.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  31. Effect on the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we know that solar flares can cause massive disruptions to satellites and other things here on Earth. Does anyone know what a tsunami that propagates over the entire surface of the Sun will do to the planet and things in orbit?

  32. And now for the Main Feature by MoeDumb · · Score: 1
    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
  33. Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or is the idea of a tsunami on the surface of the sun the most awesome thing ever?

  34. Sunshine (2006) by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

    The scientific facts in this movie are... simply not facts. But the visuals, man what beautiful sun images this movie has.

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  35. Ali G Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ali G: Do you ever think man will walk on the sun?
    Buzz Aldrin: No. The sun is too hot. It is not a good place to go to.
    Ali G: What happens if they went in winter when the sun is cold?

  36. McLuhan by zazenation · · Score: 1

    But if matter is the medium and the "medium is the message", then then isn't matter the message? Does the message really matter?

    Also, if the solar tsunami happened and no one heard it, did it make a sound?

    Enquiring minds want to know! ;^)

  37. I got yer reference right here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I discovered my asshole in the mirror yesterday. It blew my fucking mind!
    I discovered your mom's asshole yesterday. And then she blew my mind.
  38. How did they get that much water up there? by clichescreenname · · Score: 1

    And wouldn't a tsunami put out the sun?

  39. Headline by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    I would have worded it "Tsunami Tspotted on the Tsurface of the Tsun".

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  40. My favorite planet is the Sun by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    You know, if you stare at it head-on, it'll burn your eyes out...

  41. 3D Fractal boundary by crovira · · Score: 1

    Your comment about coastlines is actually more relevant than not.

    Just like the coastline depends on the measuring stick you use, the concept of a surface depends on some measuring stick in Cartesian space.

    Just look at "The Fractal Geometry of Nature" by Benoit B. Mandelbrot to see more info.

    The surface of the sun is more of a 3D+ construct since it cannot be precisely defined.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  42. So use binoculars. by crovira · · Score: 1

    So you can get a real close look, like Galileo did with the early telescope.

    Just tell somebody to knock them out of your hands what the hair on the back of your head starts to smoke.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.