Slashdot Mirror


Massive Explosion On the Sun

Endoflow2010 sends word of an enormous eruption that occurred on the Sun this morning. Phil Plait describes it thus: "What you’re seeing here is a solar flare (an enormous explosion of pent-up magnetic energy) coupled with a prominence (a physical eruption of gas from the surface). This event blasted something like a billion tons of material away from the Sun. Note the size of it, too: while it started from a small region on the Sun’s surface, it quickly expanded into a plume easily as big as the Sun itself! I’d estimate its size at well over a million kilometers across." The attached video is well worth watching.

202 comments

  1. SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, it is a nuke !!

    1. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by MstrFool · · Score: 1

      I know. First thing I thought of when I saw the headline was 'Um, it's the sun, they are all freaking huge.' Even setting aside that the sun it self is a constant nuke fireball, just about any event we can notice at the scale of the vid is likely to be larger then the earth. Once the low end of a scale is 'An explosion the size of earth', I really find it hard to worry about the bigger ones. I'm kinda peeked out by the low end of the scale already, Honestly, my O-Shit-O-Meter would have been more then maxed out with most volcanoes erupting in any proximity to me that I could notice it. So something this much larger.. Well, needle on the meter is broke now, not sure what that reads as.

      --
      Question reality.
    2. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      But "warming" is caused by "CO2".

      Of course it is, Jeremiah Cornelius! Ya fuckin' faggot!

    3. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has that got to do with warming-nothing. Is there anything that deniers wont try and use to discredit reality?

    4. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by digitig · · Score: 5, Funny

      A billion tons of material blown away.

      But "warming" is caused by "CO2".

      Well... if the sun were not there, global warming would not be an issue. I'll grant you that.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by mrsquid0 · · Score: 0

      Another useful idiot.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    6. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Another useful idiot.

      While we all appreciate you signing your message, you may want to also add content next time.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we all appreciate you signing your message, you may want to also add content next time.

      Another useful idiot.

      Signed that for you.(STFY)

    8. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Idiotic irrelevant rambling" is caused by "you fucking idiot".

    9. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      Yes. But I was useful here, while you were in knee-pants.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by zootbar · · Score: 1

      Yes. But I was useful here, while you were in knee-pants.

      Defining one's own usefulness is a tremendous endeavour.

    11. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by yomammamia · · Score: 1

      In other words, the sun farted.

      And it was a whopper.

    12. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by 2names · · Score: 1

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

      I hate videos without sound.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    13. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About as useful as that comma, you cuntard.

    14. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can here the kaboom?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:SEEMS PAR FOR THE COURSE !! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Rhythm.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Uh-Oh! by pro151 · · Score: 0

    Here comes October 21st! Run for the hills! It is a sign, I tell you, a sign! MOMMY!!!

    1. Re:Uh-Oh! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      There are still radio broadcasts from the dayside, so we're OK this time.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  3. It farted by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    That's what it looks like in the video...

    1. Re:It farted by mangu · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Only problem is it thought it was gas and it turned out to be diarrhea...

    2. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Only problem is it thought it was gas and it turned out to be diarrhea...

      Here I sit, broken-hearted:
      came to poop, but only farted.
      Then one day I took a chance:
      went to fart and pooped my pants
          --actual graffiti I saw on a bathroom wall

    3. Re:It farted by dimeglio · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, gravity made most of it fall back on it's face.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    4. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they would say it Sharted

    5. Re:It farted by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      I learned it more like:

      Here I sit, broken hearted
      came to shit, only farted.
      The next time, I took a chance
      saved a dime, shit my pants.

      Note the extra rhymes = sit/shit, time/dime, although I can't recall seeing a pay toilet in quite a while.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British version:

      Here I am, broken-hearted.

      Paid a penny* but only farted.

      *Something to do with needing to pay to defecate in a church, I'm told.

    7. Re:It farted by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was more likely powerful lines of electromagnetic force that drew the charged plasma in the explosion back down to the surface. The sun's electromagnetic field is extremely intense.

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    8. Re:It farted by v1 · · Score: 1

      What youâ(TM)re seeing here is a solar flare (an enormous explosion of pent-up magnetic energy)

      What I don't yet understand is how you can have "pent-up magnetic energy"? So many of the quacks trying to push their perpetual motion machines claim they are harnessing the "power of magnetism", at which point the experts swoop in and point out you can't extract energy from a magnet. So how's the sun doing it?

      I suppose it's going to wind up something like a spring, where you wind it up by inputing energy, and then can extract that "pent-up" energy, but I'd like to hear more about the actual mechanism at work here.

      One other thing I find annoying about the video, and most others like it showing prominences, is they are always so quick. Usually a flair lasts ten frames or so (~1/2 to 1 second) when played back. Why can't they record it slower so we can see more detail, or does it really happen that fast?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    9. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what it looks like in the video...

      One wonders how YOU seem to know what a fart looks like....

    10. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "saved a dime, shat my pants."

      Goodness, what do they teach kids these days.

    11. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can extract energy from a magnet. It just causes it to demagnetize and never releases nearly as much energy as it took to magnetize it.

      The kooks just claim it doesn't count as energy input and are confused when the permanent magnet lose field strength because "it has permanent in the name, it can't just stop, it is permanent!11!".

    12. Re:It farted by Belial6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I am sure you are correct that many kooks claim that. I have seen the unfortunate other side of that coin far too often. That is people claiming something can NOT work because they don't understand that a system isn't closed. They like to cry "The law of thermodynamics" and "perpetual motion" not understanding that if you stick a magnet inside of something, you have added energy. It seems that there are plenty of kooks both on the 'free energy" side as well as the pseudo-"law of thermodynamics" side that can't understand the difference between a closed system and an open one.

    13. Re:It farted by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Apparently they didn't teach you Rhyme Scheme.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:It farted by multisync · · Score: 0

      The "shit" in "shit my pants" doesn't rhyme with anything in "I took a chance." So shit fits no better than shat, and that's that.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    15. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here i sit broken hearted
      paid a nickle to shit and only farted.

    16. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno... Perhaps if you move it... What can one do with electromagnetic force? Hmmm...

      Perhaps someday, someone will figure out how to generate an electrical current from it. Then we can start working on whether or not it can be made useful!

    17. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shit" is the past tense of "shit".

      "Shat" just sounds fucking stupid.

    18. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as stupid as "shitten," yet ...

      Before God, master fool, if you do not let me alone, or that you will presume to vex me any more, you shall receive from the best hand I have a mask wherewith to cover your rascally scroundrel face, you paltry shitten varlet. -- Francois Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel (translated from French)

    19. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nibbler has gone somewhere I one day hope to go... to the toilet." - Professor Farnsworth

    20. Re:It farted by rhook · · Score: 1

      How do you think generators work?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FehUCQKKRwo

    21. Re:It farted by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Shit" is the past tense of "shit".

      The simple past of 'to shit; is, in fact 'shat,' as in "the man shat his pants." 'To shit' is an example of a germanic strong verb which forms the past by use of an ablaut, such as: sing/sang; spit/spat; sit/sat; shit/shat ... etc. Were it weak verb it would form it's simple past with the addition of a suffix, ie. shitted.

      "Shat" just sounds fucking stupid.

      It sounds stupid to you. That is not only because of your poor grasp of the rules of grammar, but because those who use the word in everyday conversation are not necessarily any better educated than you are. Thus you will likely not have heard the word used grammatically.

      To people who have had normative grammar rammed into their skulls, sentences such as, "The man sit on the bench." or "The man shit his pants." or "I remember when he sing a very sad song" or, to use a weak verb, "that guy fuck me over bad" sound, not merely "fucking stupid," but just plain wrong.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    22. Re:It farted by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Oh god...

    23. Re:It farted by bstender · · Score: 2

      it would form it's simple past

      ohhh, so close.

      --
      look sig is kool
    24. Re:It farted by orange47 · · Score: 1

      unfortunately? you wouldn't want that stuff to reach Earth..

    25. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sound, not merely "fucking stupid," but just plain wrong.

      By the way, the "not merely fucking stupid" is part of the original clause, so the "sound, not" shouldn't take a comma.

      You know, since we're on the subject.

    26. Re:It farted by lobsterGun · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used 'shat' in a scrabble tournament. It passed challenge. I assure you, it is a word.

    27. Re:It farted by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Correct UK version:

      Here I sit, broken hearted
      Paid a penny, only farted.

      There are no further lines.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:It farted by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      British version:

      Here I am, broken-hearted.

      Paid a penny* but only farted.

      *Something to do with needing to pay to defecate in a church, I'm told.

      No, it's something to do with needing (in the past) to pay a penny to use a public convenience. Since when do people shit in church?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:It farted by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Apparently they didn't teach you Rhyme Scheme.

      Apparently you didn't read the graffiti on the stall walls of pay toilets when they were common. As posted, that's the exact version I saw written on countless toilets back when it cost a dime to get into the stall.

      Nobody ever said the people who write graffiti on bathroom walls studied iambic pentameter and rhyming couplets. :-P

      And, as anybody who found themselves without a dime in their pocket when these things were common ... I say good riddance to pay toilets.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    30. Re:It farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never had a bath, you dirty nig-nog?

    31. Re:It farted by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Confucius say: You should never piss into the wind, nor away from a gravity well.

      *hits gong*

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    32. Re:It farted by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      By the way, the "not merely fucking stupid" is part of the original clause, so the "sound, not" shouldn't take a comma.

      On the contrary. The original clause is "it sounds plain wrong." The "not merely fucking stupid" is an insertion, hence the commas and the conjunction.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  4. Don't worry.... by adrianhensler · · Score: 1

    ... it's just passing gas.

    Those are all amazing videos though.

  5. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, the sun IS a massive explosion.

    1. Re:Um... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Implosion.

    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implosion.

      In shorter timescales, gravity balances with pressure and the Sun stays roughly the same size.

      Long-term, I think red giant is the next stage.

      So no implosion; explosion later... probably.

    3. Re:Um... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Elaine: "Only implosion, no explosion?"

  6. Source of planets by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Could events like this be where the matter came from for building the planets?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Source of planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not in the slightest.

    2. Re:Source of planets by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      I don't believe so. (Disclaimer: First Google result, quality not guaranteed.)

    3. Re:Source of planets by chebucto · · Score: 1

      For the most part, you're right, but give them credit: explosions like this do add a very very very very small amount of mass to planets without magnetic fields (at the cost of destroying all life by irradiating the surface and stripping away the atmosphere, IIRC)

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    4. Re:Source of planets by Ruke · · Score: 1

      This event ejected about a billions tons of material; contrast that with the mass of the earth, at approximately 9.5 x 10^21 tons.

      So, no, this is nowhere near large enough to form planets. This wasn't even a particularly large solar ejection. Planets tend to come from the violent deaths of stars, not a little burp like this one.

    5. Re:Source of planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The planets and even our sun came from incredibly massive stars the wentviolently exploded in super nova, creating incredibly massive debris fields which eventually coalesced, the heavier elements forged in the supernova explosion collided into the rocky bodies you see and the lighter elements formed into the gas planets and our star. Check out some nebula pictures to see this in action. As impressive as those videos are the difference in energy of a burp on a sun compared to a supernova is staggering and thats the energy required to form the elements we find on planets. So no you, the planets, everything you see came from long dead exploded stars.

    6. Re:Source of planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really.

    7. Re:Source of planets by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      hehe, ejaculation...

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Source of planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Current thinking is that the matter that goes to making planets comes mainly from the explosive death of a star, coupled with whatever random mass it may encounter and collect on its journey.

      Think of stars as furnaces taking in ingredients (hydrogen being the main) and through burning and gravitational pressure converting those ingredients into other elements.

      I'm sure that some material is spewed out during flares and erruptions, but working on the timescale and dive of universal happenings it would take an extremely long time to make even a small planet from such amounts is matter.

      However, our own solar system is believed to have formed due to a spinning effect in the gas and dust that surrounded our star when it burst into life, much like Saturn rings, lots of little pieces going round and round slowly clumping together.

      Best answer is this I think

      The matter and ingredients of matter that make up planets has always been about, originally the whole universe was little more than dust. Then along came stars bringing with them the two vital ingredients

      Heat/pressure to convert matter

      Gravity to give us movement which over time causes clumps, and eventually planets.

      Sorry for the long winded somewhat higgledy piggledy post, just my limited knowledge flaring up.

    9. Re:Source of planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concise and correct: the best kind of informative.

      Have a nice day.

    10. Re:Source of planets by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Long story short, no. This is an explosion of almost pure hydrogen, with some traces of helium and assorted impurities. The explosion that makes the matter for planets involves destroying an entire star in one go, and the interesting stuff like carbon, silicon, oxygen and the likes are all in the core of a star. If I take you apart, atom by atom, I have all the stuff I need to build a human. If you burp....well....it makes a bit of noise at least. The Sun just burped. That's all. Bear in mind that a really big burp, aimed at us, will cause a very big problem indeed.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    11. Re:Source of planets by lexsird · · Score: 1

      If you burp, you make a noise.
      I wonder what kind of noise that made? I am wondering if we will see any electromagnetic radiation come from that? Some RF? Did you notice how it quickly splashed back into the sun? Some serious gravity going on that close to it. When are we ever going to put a reliable probe over by that to study whats going on with it? Just imagine if the world turned its entire military budgets towards space development. Isn't it about time we evolved up from some reptilian baser instincts to some higher cause? lol

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    12. Re:Source of planets by cfc-12 · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear you burp.

    13. Re:Source of planets by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      ... yeh, but it'll be our LAST problem. :)

      --
      Stone
  7. Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by treeves · · Score: 1

    ...but it's a little hard to tell since the whole thing doesn't fit in the video frame.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    1. Re:Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want a more complete coverage of the event (not to mention a few more tasty videos) then there is a much better write up at The Sun Today .org which you should take a peek at.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Astronomers work in powers of ten - if it's more than a tenth and less than ten times it's "the same size". You're the same size as your car on the scale of 500 miles. Slightly more formally, the scale of the visible ejecta in the video is of the same magnitude as the Sun. (Personally I'd say it covers a volume about 1/3 that of the Sun from the looks of it)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It all looks really rather odd. I assume the video is nowhere near real time as the matter appeared to move huge distance in a very short amount of time. As it takes light approximately 4.5 seconds to cross the sun and you would expect any explosion with subsequent ejection and return of matter to be considerably slower than that. It really does look altogether odd and abnormal. Some further clarification of the amount of time the event took would be really informative.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by Yeknomaguh · · Score: 1

      Your answer lies in the name of the event: "AIA 171 (2011-06-07 05:30:00 - 2011-06-07 08:29:48 UTC)" According to that, we're looking at about 3 hours of footage. Given that the explosion doesn't happen until about a third of the way through, you can guestimate that the whole thing took about 2 hours to happen and settle back down.

    5. Re:Doesn't look as big as the sun itself to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.solarham.com/

  8. The impact on BitCoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Obviously an event of this magnitude had significant impact of the valuation of BitCoin. The powers that be have decided to make the whole financial model open source and inundated the markets with billions of BitCoins. Unprepared vendors have now fallen back to the Russian ruble until the solar explosions subside.

  9. What video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please post a link to a video that doesn't require a fucking plug-in like it's 1995?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:What video by Jibekn · · Score: 0

      Google.com

    2. Re:What video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youtube.com/html5

    3. Re:What video by SeNtM · · Score: 1
      --
      "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
    4. Re:What video by Bandwidth_ · · Score: 2

      The best videos, processed and raw, are available in javascript, flash, and mpg from the lockheedmartin/solarsoft group that handles SDO AIA: http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/ssw/ssw_client/data/ssw_service_110606_235609_98013/www/

      If you look at the proton monitors in L1 http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/SIS_24h.html and earth geosynchronous http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Proton.gif orbit there is a very suggestive correlation between this flare and a flux of high energy protons! The timing is about right and the flare itself is positioned such that the parker spiral http://spaceweather.uma.es/solarstorms_files/figura1bc.JPG of the interplanetary magnetic field http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2434rAbImf0 would put earth in sun spot 1226's path http://i.imgur.com/ZIffl.gif. This tight coupling of timing between the flare time (~06:30:00) and proton arrival (07:00:00) suggests not a coronal mass ejection (that takes days) but instead of weakly relativistic particle beam traveling down the magnetic field lines to earth in only tens of minutes. This interpetation is confirmed by the UMA automatic solar energetic particle forcaster http://spaceweather.uma.es/forecastpanel.htm and later in the day mentioned by a press release http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-unusual-solar-storm-disrupt-earth.html.

    5. Re:What video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking tool.

  10. In orbit.. by intellitech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait to see what effect this has on those electronic things in orbit..

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:In orbit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article says the explosion did not happen in our direction. So probably nothing.

    2. Re:In orbit.. by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      Me too! Other than having to apply extra SPF50 sun lotion today, does anyone know if those blasts are harmful to us?

    3. Re:In orbit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't exactly specify earth orbit, though..

  11. Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the actual speed or is this video in fast playback (or whatever it's called)

    1. Re:Speed by adrianhensler · · Score: 1

      10-12 hours from comments in TFA

    2. Re:Speed by tzot · · Score: 1

      I assume it's in fast forward; given the size of the Sun itself, the gas seems to move/expand at relativistic speeds or faster (light needs ~4.64 seconds to run along a Sun diameter).

      --
      I speak England very best
    3. Re:Speed by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      It shows the time in the bottom left. It looks like the majority of the activity took place over 3 hours.

  12. Better video by chebucto · · Score: 5, Informative

    You need to see both to get a fuller appreciation of the scale, but the 2nd video in the article is more impressive, IMHO:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpkXhlPIINQ

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Better video by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Pretty incredible in high def. One thing I noticed was the flash as some of the material crashed back into the sun.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Better video by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      And some of the flashes are as big as the earth...

      This 2nd movie truely is the most impressive one I have ever seen of the sun.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Better video by Humpparitari · · Score: 1

      I've seen videos of solar flares before, but not this close up. I love how matter from the explosion falls back in the sun. It looks it's falling into water... or hydrogen and helium at 5500C.

    4. Re:Better video by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Indeed, any sun animations I've seen in the past tend to be juddery low resolution messes at 2-5 crappy frames per second.

      This latest one is MUCH more impressive. They've upped their game I think :)
      Must eat up a ton of video to have to record so frequently.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    5. Re:Better video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really - remember, these vids are NOT being shot at 30FPS in realtime! Maybe 1 frame per minute? What is the frame rate at which these are filmed? Not sure why

    6. Re:Better video by blair1q · · Score: 1

      One thing I noticed was the flash as some of the material crashed back into the sun.

      Yup. Never seen anything like that before.

      By far the most impressive part of this most impressive video.

      Have to wonder what sort of process that involved. Massive billion-ton smear of plasma the size of a planet, yet still essentially gaseous, slapping into the surface of similar plasma but at higher pressure, at ridiculous speed (even accounting for the speed multiple of the video). Was the flash all electrical disturbance, or was there some nuclear-collision activity?

  13. Comment from the space.com article by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "It's nothing we really have to worry about," Young said in his video. "It's just really, really beautiful."

    Translation: You can begin panicking now!

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
    1. Re:Comment from the space.com article by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Hell no, no panicking here! I know were my towel is. I'm happy actually now that Disaster Area apears to be touring again :) Loud is beautiful!

    2. Re:Comment from the space.com article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. We have 559 days left.

  14. Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before you watch the video PLEASE find a way to do so without looking at it directly. A pinhole viewer (http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/pinhole3.html) will allow you to view your AVI files without suffering damage to your eyesight.

    1. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2012

  15. Timespan and other details by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

    This video is speed up- the video contains about 12 hours of footage. Note also that given where the sun is in the solar cycle we can likely expect more similar events soon. If any of them end up heading more directly in the direction of Earth it could interfere badly with electronics, especially in satellites. But we haven't gotten a really bad flare since the 19th century, but then there were events that even interfered with telegraph lines. And our current electronics are a lot more sensitive than stuff they had back then.

    1. Re:Timespan and other details by Ruke · · Score: 2

      Back in 1989, we had a solar flare that knocked out Quebec's transmission system, spread auroras down to Texas, and made people panic, thinking that the Soviet Union had launched a first strike.

      Our electronics are more sensitive in a few senses; however, this does not mean they're more prone to failure. In the past 6 years or so, reliability standards have been put into place for the transmission and distribution systems in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We're actually much better prepared for such an event now then we were 20 years ago.

    2. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If any of them end up heading more directly in the direction of Earth it could interfere badly with electronics, especially in satellites.

      Question to anyone who knows -

      Is it impossible to defend against this in any way other than pre-emptively? I would assume that usually, by the time we're aware of a massive flare, its effects would have already passed us by? It's not as if our monitoring equipment transmits faster than light, unless the detrimental effects of the blast moves slower than light.

      What I"m trying to say is, if I have a roll of foil, can I put it on my computer AFTER the flare or should I make a project of turning my computer room into a foil faraday cage now?

    3. Re:Timespan and other details by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've worked in the NOC for 2 major telcos. Neither has any plan for solar flare events. When I brought it up I was literally laughed at. When I pulled down NASA's space weather data that rates solar flares effects on earth, correlated it with our network alarms and was able to show that given a certain size flare we were almost guaranteed to have a 10% increase in network alarms... a Huge spike only eclipsed by major Thunderstorms and hurricanes, I was laughed at even harder.

      It's not profitable to plan for rare events. It's profitable to plan for common events and let the insurance cover the catastrophes. The public interest be damned.

    4. Re:Timespan and other details by Ruke · · Score: 2

      When was this? I'm talking about the NERC standards that went from being opt-in to mandatory in, uh, June 2008, maybe? I'm not familiar with all of the CIP, EOP, and PRC standards; maybe there's nothing in there specifically to deal with a solar event. However, any time your transmission is down for an extended amount of time, potential fines do start piling up. It's gotten damned expensive to not be prepared for an emergency.

    5. Re:Timespan and other details by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      We often see them coming thanks to satellites like the one that made these movies. It takes hours-days for the flare to get from the sun to Earth, so there is time to prepare. I think it's hard to be sure exactly how hard any given flare will hit the Earth, though.

      I'm not sure if your foil-on-computer question is an analogy or not. On the personal scale I expect that your regular surge protector is sufficient. The disaster planning needs to be centered on the large-scale power grid, because it's the long power lines that build up the overvoltage, not your living room. We're not worried as much about your computer as we are half the power substations on earth exploding within an hour of each other.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    6. Re:Timespan and other details by jasnw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is sad but true. I've been in the space weather business for 40 years, and was involved with the aftermath of the large geomagnetic storm that took out the power generator in Quebec mentioned in another post. There was quite a flurry of meetings with various energy agencies about what was to be done. Bottom line was that the space weather groups were asking that the power industry pay a lot of money for predictions and warnings that were not of the highest reliability (another sad-but-true fact). After the risk-management boys got done crunching the numbers, the power industry decided that it was cheaper to ignore the problem and live with the fact that they might lose a generator every 11 years or so. The insurance folks will pick up the monetary tab, and the Great Unwashed Public (also known as "the customers") will shiver in their dark unheated homes until things get fixed and like it. As long as these events can be legally treated as unpredictable "acts of God" there is no impetus for the power companies to do anything about them, free market be damned.

    7. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should put it into context for them by first describing the dangers of neutrino interference and how difficult it is to shield the facility from that. Then you tell them how many billion times more likely it is for a solar flare to interfere, and how simple (and cheap) it is to protect the systems from that.

    8. Re:Timespan and other details by reidconti · · Score: 1

      It's not profitable to plan for rare events. It's profitable to plan for common events and let the insurance cover the catastrophes. The public interest be damned.

      As part of the public, I agree with this plan to not overspend to cover extremely rare contingencies.

      This is why I don't have hotspare houses on 3 different continents.

    9. Re:Timespan and other details by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      free market be damned

      Well, as an electric customer, I'd rather save a few bucks a year than have you guys spend it building redundancy for once-a-century events. Really. Now if this stuff was happening often and I was cold and shivering for too long, I might change my mind, but so far, so good.

      I deal with this shit all the time in I.T., do we want to spend $500,000 on a storage system that 'never' goes down and can handle fifteen times the load we could possibly generate, or $50,000 on a system that has a few hours of downtime a year and saturates the pipe it's connected to?

      Say that this kind of upgrade you're talking about adds $1 to my $100 monthly bill and these events happen every three decades... That's $360 for a night without electricity every three decades. I'll take it. If it happened every year, I'd gladly pay $12 to keep the lights on.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    10. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If any of them end up heading more directly in the direction of Earth it could interfere badly with electronics, especially in satellites.

      Question to anyone who knows -

      Is it impossible to defend against this in any way other than pre-emptively? I would assume that usually, by the time we're aware of a massive flare, its effects would have already passed us by? It's not as if our monitoring equipment transmits faster than light, unless the detrimental effects of the blast moves slower than light.

      Yes, the solar wind is slower than light. Much slower, even. [Insert old-fart grumblage about deterioration of high-school science curriculum. Also non-conservative gravitational fields.]

      A. Your computer is already EMI-shielded to keep the UHF noise in, which keeps everything UHF and below out, so no point with the tin foil. (I think the maximum allowable gaps in typical design specs won't let anything less than 10-100GHz through, but I don't really know.)

      B. Your computer is hooked to a thousand-mile antenna (the power grid) -- so you should use a surge suppressor. You're probably doing that already, too.

      C, If your ~0.5m computer takes enough of a jolt to die... we're screwed. The whole power grid is falling down in pieces and on fire (literally -- or at least setting fire to whatever it lands on.) A nation-wide power outage would/will be unbelievably devastating, especially to those in big cities.

    11. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's $360 for a night without electricity every three decades.

      The problem isn't a 1989-scale event where the power takes a day to restore. The problem is an 1859-scale event which takes out half the internet and telephone network and 20% of the power grid, and you're still recovering a year later.

      It's not as if you can get next-day delivery on a 50 MW transformer. An 1859-scale event could see electricity grids being systematically cannibalised, e.g. aluminium plants being shut down so that their transformers can be requisitioned to restore power to cities.

    12. Re:Timespan and other details by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Bottom line was that the space weather groups were asking that the power industry pay a lot of money for predictions and warnings that were not of the highest reliability (another sad-but-true fact).

      Hello! McFly! It's not the power industry that pays - it's ME. The little guy at the end of the wire. And if you can't deliver reliable warnings, I can't see paying you.
       

      After the risk-management boys got done crunching the numbers, the power industry decided that it was cheaper to ignore the problem and live with the fact that they might lose a generator every 11 years or so. The insurance folks will pick up the monetary tab

      Duh. That's what insurance is for in the first place.
       

      the Great Unwashed Public (also known as "the customers") will shiver in their dark unheated homes until things get fixed and like it.

      The Great Unwashed can do without your high and mighty attitude. When the space weather folks can do their job (E.G. providing useful and timely warnings), then you can talk other than out of your nether regions.
       

      As long as these events can be legally treated as unpredictable "acts of God"

      Until you can provide timely and reliable predictions (which you admit you can't) then they are unpredictable acts of God and should be treated as such.

    13. Re:Timespan and other details by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      When the Internet, phones, TV and power all go out at once... and don't back up for a month or more because all the equipment is fried and there's not enough spare equipment to replace everything on the sun-side of the planet at once... you may think differently as you stare at the empty shelves of your local grocery store while your stomach gurgles.

    14. Re:Timespan and other details by bye · · Score: 1

      As long as these events can be legally treated as unpredictable "acts of God"

      Until you can provide timely and reliable predictions (which you admit you can't) then they are unpredictable acts of God and should be treated as such.

      He mentioned the prediction in his post: a Quebec type event every 10 years (a week of blackout coupled with a few hundred deaths) and a 1859 type event every 100 years (a month long blackout coupled with tens of thousands of deaths and after-effects for years (in addition to a big recession)).

      Do you need a specific date and precise position for landfall to convince you that it's worth protecting your house in a hurricane affected area, or are past precedents enough for you to protect yourself pro-actively?

    15. Re:Timespan and other details by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      ...there is time to prepare.

      We can launch a probe that connects to passing future aliens so they live a virtual human life (sort of an "inner light") on our doomed planet and our story will be told. After the experience, the alien will have learned to play a banjo.

    16. Re:Timespan and other details by dj245 · · Score: 1

      NERC standards are pretty ambiguous in many cases. I only deal with the NERC standards for power generation units (not transmission lines) but for power generation, NERC standards only apply to "Critical" assets. "Critical" assets are currently defined (as far as I am aware) by the utilities themselves. In the future this will be defined by FERC/NERC.

      As I said, power generation and power transmission NERC standards may be different, but the standards that I see are oftentimes ambiguous and in many cases the utilities' implementation varies widely depending on their interpretation of the standard.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    17. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      treated as unpredictable "acts of God" ...

      I am originally from country that used to have regular power outages. People somehow dealt with it. It wasn't even thought of as a big deal. Whenever Westerners jump up and down about power outage, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

      That said, I now live in a Western country and the cold would definitely be an issue, but not life-or-death .....

    18. Re:Timespan and other details by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Plus a largish number of flares will miss earth completely. I mean there's about 359 degrees of "miss" out there. And most of the "hit" area is a glancing blow at best.

    19. Re:Timespan and other details by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      359 degrees in two directions at that (up down, left right) an incredibly small area.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:Timespan and other details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a lot of people living in the north part of America (that includes Canada), a power outage in the middle of winter IS a matter of life or death. I'd say that at least 50% of houses and 75% of apartments only have electric heating.

  16. Rather fast? by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    IDNRTA (I did not read the article), is this video in actual time or some kind of sped up? If it's actual speed then those flames were moving insanely fast. Regardless of that aspect, they travel a very far distance.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Rather fast? by discord5 · · Score: 1

      is this video in actual time or some kind of sped up

      Sped up, if you click the link you'll find out everything.

    2. Re:Rather fast? by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no reference to the time frame in the text, but using the time in the lower left of the video it looks like the "event" lasted about 5 hours.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  17. This is a reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of how insignificant we are compared to the universe. The sun could kill us all with a single fart.

    1. Re:This is a reminder... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Informative

      You think that's bad, wait until you read about Gamma-Ray Bursts. A big pulse of gamma radiation which - if one occurred near enough to us (say, in the same galaxy and pointing in our direction) would wipe out all life on Earth. Gamma rays travel at the speed of light. We wouldn't see it coming. There might be one hitting the edge of the atmosphere right now.

      Too late to use those mod points...

    2. Re:This is a reminder... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Gamma rays travel at the speed of light.

      You mean the way all electromagnetic radiation does? Wow, crazy!

      We wouldn't see it coming. There might be one hitting the edge of the atmosphere right now.

      Too late to use those mod points...

      Hrm ....

      3 ... 2 ... 1 ....

      Nope, still here! Guess Australia took one for the team.

    3. Re:This is a reminder... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      There might be one hitting the edge of the atmosphere right now.

      Mr. Camping, is that you?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    4. Re:This is a reminder... by whoisisis · · Score: 1

      I've heard that actually, you can detect gamma ray bursts from other galaxies before the electromagnetic radiation reaches earth.
      Because the refractive index of space is not exactly unity (because of gas), the neutrino shower typically
      reaches us before the EM burst.

      This mechanism supposedly gives us enough time to point our sattelites/telescopes at the event to see it.

    5. Re:This is a reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they said "all", they meant "all". Some gamma rays will go straight through the planet and toast us on the other side. Gamma ray bursts are very thorough, they will wipe the galaxy clean of life. Fortunately it's rare for them to occur nearby.

    6. Re:This is a reminder... by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      Would the thickness of the Earth serve as a shield for life on the 'lucky' half of the earth?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    7. Re:This is a reminder... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Not really, because a certain amount of energy would just pass through the Earth - but the real damage would be that all that energy would (long story involving splitting atmospheric gases cut short) blow the ozone layer on the affected side away, leaving the rest to spread out in a layer half as thick. We'd get lots more UVs and have lovely tans, briefly.

  18. Gotta be more than a billion tons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A billion tons is nothing when you're looking at things on this type of scale.

  19. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Taliban have blown up the Sun.

  20. The Onion by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

    I know...solar prominence...etc....but damned if that headline doesn't sound like something out of The Onion.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:The Onion by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Editor standards must be going up, then.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  21. It's dead, Jim by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    Noone can survive such explosion, not even the Sun. Maybe won't be apparent by now, but we will see the consequences of this next year.

    1. Re:It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would have to be one of the hardest comments ive yet seen to figure out if the OP is trolling or disturbingly ignorant.

      No.

      Just.....no.

    2. Re:It's dead, Jim by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      No, as massive as this explosion is, it will have absolutely no significant effect on the sun itself, these explosions happen all the time. This one may be bigger than most, but it is still way too small to "damage" the sun itself, or have any long lasting effects.

      Its like thinking that a 10 Megaton nuke explosion on earth would cause long lasting effects on the entire planet itself. The nuke may be an enormous explosion, but it pales in comparison to the size and mass of Earth.

    3. Re:It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No, as massive as this explosion is, it will have absolutely no significant effect on the sun itself, these explosions happen all the time. This one may be bigger than most, but it is still way too small to "damage" the sun itself, or have any long lasting effects.

      Its like thinking that a 10 Megaton nuke explosion on earth would cause long lasting effects on the entire planet itself. The nuke may be an enormous explosion, but it pales in comparison to the size and mass of Earth.

      Hmm, that massive "whoosh" I heard may not have been those gasses falling back to the Sun like I thought....

    4. Re:It's dead, Jim by black3d · · Score: 1

      Not sure if serious. :\

      While this is a large flare (from our perspective), it's fairly small historically. It just looks great because now we have hi-def video of such events that we didn't have 10 years ago. There have been far larger events on the sun. As the article says - "A good flare can release up to 10% of the Sun’s total energy" and this wasn't one of those.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    5. Re:It's dead, Jim by lennier · · Score: 1

      Noone can survive such explosion

      He certainly can - he survived the sixties, after all.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    6. Re:It's dead, Jim by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      That joke is rapidly losing all relevance, unfortunately. I used to bring it out pretty regularly, too, but there are too few people who remember Peter Noone.

    7. Re:It's dead, Jim by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      The Sun can take much more than this, it is pretty massive to say the least and something like this will have no effect on it. Even the bomb in the movie Sunshine would be like a small hand grenade compared to the size of the Sun.

      I would love to see a solar flare like this on a hyper-giant star like VY Canis Majoris, that would be unbelievably awesome. That star is 3,000,000,000 KM in diameter, truly dwarfing the Sun which is 1,470,000 KM. It is truly amazing how small we really are on a stellar scale.

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  22. Network disruptions? by zill · · Score: 1

    I hope the EM waves don't disrupt any US networks, because then DoD would consider that a cyber attack and retaliate with thermonuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Network disruptions? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Result? Fewer nuclear bombs on earth and no noticeable effect to the sun! Unless we intend to send 10 billion of them, which I understand is more than the world's stockpile ATM.

    2. Re:Network disruptions? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      The Solarians will rue the day they decided to eff with the US. Nuke em!

    3. Re:Network disruptions? by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      You plan on nuking a giant multi billion year old nuclear explosion because it had a fluctuation its its explosivity? Good luck with that.

    4. Re:Network disruptions? by lennier · · Score: 1

      I hope the EM waves don't disrupt any US networks, because then DoD would consider that a cyber attack and retaliate with thermonuclear weapons.

      Against a fire boss? Everyone knows you should use ice magic for that.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:Network disruptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the real question: is there a meltdown?

    6. Re:Network disruptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, yes i do.

    7. Re:Network disruptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moments before the explosion, if you listen carefully you'll hear a faint "allah hu akbar!" That was no cyber attack.

    8. Re:Network disruptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear explosions are due to nuclear fission. Sun uses nuclear FUSION. Fission splits atoms to generate energy, fusion joins them.

  23. The gas mines of Uranus by theCat · · Score: 0

    come to mind for some reason.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  24. Bad Photography by PPH · · Score: 1

    The way they cropped the video of the sun makes it impossible to see a good part of the flare. Well, it is the bad astronomy blog. So what did I expect?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Bad Photography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was obviously outside the field of view of the instrument that recorded the image, you moron.

  25. Harold Camping by perry64 · · Score: 0

    was closer on this than Palin was on Paul Revere.

  26. I know what to do by DragonHawk · · Score: 0

    Quick! Someone call John Crichton!

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:I know what to do by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

      He's dead , Jim...

      --
      "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  27. Disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought the IRA had finally vaporized that annoying Brit tabloid.

  28. IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all part of testing IPv6. 'cos it'll actually be widely adopted around the time the sun dies.

    1. Re:IPv6 by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      And when the Sun dies, we can all blame the Oracle.

  29. morning? by Imnimo · · Score: 2

    Events taking place on the surface of the sun should not be described as "morning." It's always noon on the sun. Duh.

    1. Re:morning? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Events taking place on the surface of the sun should not be described as "morning." It's always noon on the sun. Duh.

      Since the sun is below the visible horizon at every location on the sun's surface, it's always midnight on the sun. Double-duh!

      (it's counter-intuitive, but if you look up the definition of "horizon", it's true)

      USA: We will land on Mars
      Russia: We will land on Venus
      Newfies: We be landin' on the SUN, boys!
      Everyone: Isn't it too hot?
      Newfies: Nah, what d'ye think we be, stupid? Be be doin' it at night, when it's cooler!

  30. I, for one, welcome our by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new star-eater, black-monolith-shaped, time-travelling overlords...

  31. Spectroscopic analysis on ejected matter? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1, Interesting
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Spectroscopic analysis on ejected matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Crazy as hell

  32. NASA source footage by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go here and you can view animations of the sun using all the different telescopes on SDO...

    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/aiahmi/rangeform.php

    Instructions to view the subject solar flare: select browse by date range, enter 2011-06-07 00:00:00 as the beginning and 2011-06-07 12:00:00 as the end dates, select movie as the display, select resolution 1024x1024, and set nth = 1, submit and enjoy. Also, you can play with the different telescopes.

    --
    Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    1. Re:NASA source footage by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Absolutely fabulous link.

      Full marks.

      --
      .
    2. Re:NASA source footage by aleckais · · Score: 1

      Sometimes an interesting comment surfaces. Thank you.

    3. Re:NASA source footage by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Instructions to view the subject solar flare: select browse by date range, enter 2011-06-07 00:00:00 as the beginning and 2011-06-07 12:00:00 as the end dates, select movie as the display, select resolution 1024x1024, and set nth = 1, submit and enjoy. Also, you can play with the different telescopes.

      You forgot to mention recompiling the kernel with the INCLUDE_SOLAR_FLARE_FROM_JUNE_07_2011 option set to 1.

  33. Question by nukeade · · Score: 1

    What would the impact have been on Earth if this had been pointing directly towards us? Would it have been on the scale of the Carrington event?

  34. Magnetic energy by fnj · · Score: 1

    So many of the quacks trying to push their perpetual motion machines claim they are harnessing the "power of magnetism", at which point the experts swoop in and point out you can't extract energy from a magnet.

    Magnetic energy is real.

    This may seem like a minor quibble, but in fact you can definitely extract energy from a magnet. Just let it attract a magnetically attractable object (iron ball), and harness the force it exerts on that object over a distance while it "falls" into the magnet. Work is just the integral of the dot product of force times distance, integrated over distance, and energy is the ability of a physical system (the magnet) to do work on another physical system (a magnetically attractable object).

    It's not perpetual motion, because you have to exert a like amount of work externally to pry the object away again before you can repeat the process, but it is energy being released.

    1. Re:Magnetic energy by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      Well then, there's an issue there, as you pointed out in your last sentence. You need to make the ball fall again...and for that you need to take it up, which means that you won't be getting any energy, as the energy needed to bring it up will be the same as that needed to bring it down. Unless, of course, you take the magnet away (so you don't need to overcome the magnetic force), but in that case you will have a) Moved the magnet and wasted energy there b) Had to make the ball stay still (the magnet would still try to pull it), possibly wasting energy (not needed if you have a wall between the magnet and the ball.
      Then you'd have to move it back! Do you see what a waste this is? Now, tell me you'll have a circuit that will make the ball go up again, but that'd a) manage to do it with the ball's energy in a frictionless environment (which means you didn't harness any energy from it) b) Again, you need to suply energy into it.
      You need a way to make these processes be more spontaneous, by which I mean that you need to use energy that already exists -- like we do while burning coal and shooting neutrons at Uranium. The energy is there and it gets freed -- which doesn't mean you gave the same amount of energy to whatever freed it, as the energy of the global system is still preserved.
      Of course, "magnetic energy" is real, just look at...well...pretty much any generator.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  35. Re:And yet... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And others, who actually have a clue, will understand that you are just a troll.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  36. My preparations ... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

    My preparations include making sure I remember to go look outside at night over the next few days. I live on the MA/CT line, and I've only ever seen the aurora once or twice in my life this far South... both times due to massive CMEs.

    I'll be on the lookout and have my camera and tripod standing by this time.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:My preparations ... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That's only if it comes this way...and TA says it doesn't.

      --
      No sig today...
  37. The grammar fairy got me. by Capsaicin · · Score: 0

    ohhh, so close

    Don't hate that. And it's [sic.] a pet hate of mine too. %)

    It is almost a law of grammatical discussions on slashdot that any post, most especially one in which faulty grammar is being corrected will itself contain an egregious error. Now you might put this down to the fact that simple typos unavoidably creep into typewritten text. I however am convinced that some demonic force is at work.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:The grammar fairy got me. by Capsaicin · · Score: 0

      err ... Don't you hate that.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    2. Re:The grammar fairy got me. by bstender · · Score: 1

      and it's's normative.

      --
      look sig is kool
    3. Re:The grammar fairy got me. by Capsaicin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      and it's's normative.
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
      ParseError: Failed to detect semantic content.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  38. Damn the terrorists! by microbee · · Score: 2

    I knew the assassination of Osama bin Laden wouldn't be the end of it.

    1. Re:Damn the terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ya. That's because he's in hell blowing shit up.

  39. Missing Plug-In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for NOT USING the web standard.

  40. Page 12, Satan Destruct 0, 0, 0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Trek, still as good as ever => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqe-mr_zBdg

  41. Re:The grammar fairy is sic. by bstender · · Score: 1

    it's (is not) "[sic.]" [sic].

    --
    look sig is kool
  42. I just want to know by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    What would happen if that explosion was pointed directly at the Earth?

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  43. Hotblack Desiato by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    Hotblack Desiato rocks :-))

  44. Terrorists? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    I left the coffee pot on again, didn't I?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  45. Whoosh! by CSMoran · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  46. Probably running tests for World IPv6 Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess the Sun must not be IPv6 compatible...

  47. transtesticle tom the unwanted cyclops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2238368&cid=36469894 that you don't even have kids or a man, and that you have only 1 eye? What's with the man's name and saying you are a woman too, are you also a transtesticle or something as well??