Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

How do you not understand this yet. The photosphere is DEFINED to end at the depth where it's completely opaque.

That definition doesn't jive with sunspot images where the photosphere "layer" has a distinct "depth" that we can observe based on the length and depth of the penumbral filaments. The areas all around the umbra are dark all along the edges of the layer that clearly ends at a specific depth where that material ends and some other material (silicon IMO) begins.

You can argue about how deep that goes, but arguing that it's not opaque makes no sense.

Look at the edges of a sunspot and notice how they are all dark around the edges of the images at a specific point, right where the penumbral filaments end. Why does it look like that in your opinion? Why is it dark under the penumbral filaments?

 

[Skwinty]

Check out this amazing picture. I don't really know it's provenance, but holy cow.

http://www.spaceweather.com/submiss...1770.jpg?PHPSESSID=ho7f808jc2b3mjtpdnoj0ko613

Awesome, instant background on my screen

 

[Skwinty]

I don't expect to see anything rigid on the surface of the photosphere there.

I said in not on.

I think there may well be lots of random and perhaps not so random magnetic field induced patterns in the plasma which possibly manifest themselves as artefacts of the image processing. But mountains and persistent rigid structures beneath the photosphere, not in my vision. Sorry.

 

[Skwinty]

Why is it dark under the penumbral filaments?

Because it's cooler ??

 

[phunk]

That definition doesn't jive with sunspot images where the photosphere "layer" has a distinct "depth" that we can observe based on the length and depth of the penumbral filaments. The areas all around the umbra are dark all along the edges of the layer that clearly ends at a specific depth where that material ends and some other material (silicon IMO) begins.

Look at the edges of a sunspot and notice how they are all dark around the edges of the images at a specific point, right where the penumbral filaments end. Why does it look like that in your opinion? Why is it dark under the penumbral filaments?

Sunspots are not holes that you can look down in to. They are relatively cool spots that just aren't as bright. They are about 25% as bright as the rest of the surface of the sun. They only appear dark because they are underexposed in most images so that the solar surface around them won't be overexposed.

 

[tusenfem]

Funny thing that, where is this charge sepration occuring for the 'electricity'?

What methods are used to detect it?

And why is the solar wind mixed and neutral?

I guess the argument for the separation goes like:

Okay, it can happen in magnetic flux tubes on the Sun via "Marklund Convection" (one of the EU peeps favourites, Peratt, Verschuur) and as the Sun is electrically driven, it can be considered a humongous flux tube and thus there will be chemical separation in the Sun as in MMs picture.

I don't know how you could miss that kind of obvious thingy.

ETA: Oops, that was not charge separation, which of course does not happen at all. But it is a great explanation, if I say so myself. And the only current in the solar wind is there to obey Maxwell's equations maintained by the oppositely directed magnetic field in either hemisphere of the heliosphere.

 

[tusenfem]

You mean except for all those "magnetically reconnecting" ones that supposedly power the aurora, the same aurora that Birkeland also predicted with his "electric sun" theories?

Birkeland never predicted the aurora, the aurora was already known to exist for ages and ages. He may have predicted that electric currents are related to the creation of aurora, which later in the end of the 60 were indeed proven to exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.

How much current is involved, Michael? What's the voltage difference along these loops? What creates those voltage differences? What's the resistance of the loops?

You can only explain this with electricity if you can put numbers to it. And you can't. So what you have is not an explanation, it's the beginning of a guess, Michael.

True, and every plasma layer can do that because of the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere, and because each layer is covered by lighter layers.

Nope. The photosphere is (by definition) opaque, so nothing under it can radiatively couple to anything outside it. Basic thermodynamics fail, Michael.

Oh, and once again, you can't get discharges in a plasma, because plasmas (yes, even your "dusty" plasmas) do not experience dielectric breakdown. Because they are already conducting.

That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate.

Oh, but I have. First off, the photosphere is by definition the outer opaque layer of the sun. So saying it's opaque is really a tautology. The only way it wouldn't be is if it's not really a photosphere at all.

But it doesn't matter, because there is observably a mostly opaque layer. Blackbody radiation, Michael. Thermodynamics REQUIRES that a source of blackbody radiation MUST be opaque. And we can see a 5700 K source of blackbody radiation around the sun. You can make whatever claims you want to about the composition of this blackbody source, but it just doesn't matter: it's hot, and it's opaque. You don't need to know ANYTHING about the sun to conclude that. Any conclusion other than that is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. Do you believe in perpetual motion machines, Michael?

All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot.

Yeah... not so much.

All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring.

Nope. And it doesn't matter anyways. Since the layer underneath the photosphere is colder in your model, transparency to x-rays or even far UV is irrelevant. Your solid layer cannot lose heat through x-ray radiation because it's too cold to radiate enough x-rays and far UV. Again, simple thermodynamics, and you fail to grasp it.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light

No, Michael. It hinges on the belief (confirmed by measurements of the blackbody spectra) that the photosphere is mostly opaque to IR, visible, and UV radiation. That's all it needs, because those are the only wavelengths that anything at or below the temperature of the photosphere can radiate any appreciable amount of energy at. You'd know this if you understood thermodynamics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My advice: Leave this place. The time you spend here is preventing you from doing the science that you need to do if you care about your ideas. Come back when you have results.

That's probably excellent advice that I should listen to. Must not come here........

The whole point of downloading the Solarsoft libs last week was to be able to process STEREO and most importantly Hinode images. I still have a ton of downloading of SSWDB files to do, and other work to do, but that's probably where I should be spending my time rather than this place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland never predicted the aurora, the aurora was already known to exist for ages and ages.

Likewise all the so called mainstream "predictions" were simply "known observations" that you folks incorporated into your creation theories in a purely ad hoc manner.

Guth never actually "predicted" a homogenous layout of matter with inflation, that homogeneous layout of matter was already *KNOWN* and he "postdicted a fit". Dark energy doesn't "predict" anything. You postdicted that one too in purely ad hoc manner.

The difference is that Birkeland didn't know the empirical cause at first, he had a empirical idea which he played with and which actually worked in a lab. He also actually "predicted" a number of things in terms of actual physics, all sorts of things that he "learned" from "experimentation". You folks don't even do experiments with real control mechanisms.

He may have predicted that electric currents are related to the creation of aurora, which later in the end of the 60 were indeed proven to exist.

He also explained how those currents get there, where they come from, why they form the patterns they do, etc. You folks just play round with software and "pretend/hope like hell" it actually works in a real lab, or nobody notices it doesn't.

Dark energy doesn't "work in the lab", just on paper.

 

[GeeMack]

The heating mechanism is not a "mystery", it's called "electricity" and "coronal loops". It's only a mystery to you guys because you *refuse* to consider the one logical method to explain it due to your extreme and irrational prejudice against anything and everything related to EU theory.

And of course, according to your own standards...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [idea] out of your ^ss.

See how it works?

That seems to be the magic SPF infinity claim you have never bothered to demonstrate. All the satellite images show all kinds of stuff below the photosphere in images of a sunspot. All the iron ion wavelengths penetrate the photosphere and even x-rays seem to be visible below the photosphere in that Hinode image you folks keep ignoring. That image will be the first one on my "RC list" of all the things you guys avoid like the plague.

Your qualifications to understand satellite imagery were challenged and you were unable to demonstrate any expertise in that area. Your statements in regards to the imagery are unacceptable as evidence or support.

Oh, and that burden of proof thing? The responsibility for making a compelling argument is yours. And so far, your argument has failed to be compelling. It has failed to be factual. It has failed to be informed. It has failed to be properly referenced. It has failed at every level. Nobody here is avoiding anything or ignoring anything. We're all trying to help you understand the deficiencies in your claim so that you can remedy those deficiencies, or, as a real scientist would do if the claim cannot be properly supported, abandon it.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on your false belief that the photosphere is "opaque" to every single wavelength of light, regardless of energy state, regardless of wavelength and regardless of the images that blow that theory away.

The photosphere is opaque. It is the definition of photosphere. You continue to infer that it is not, but you haven't backed that claim with anything but bold assertions. So really, again, to apply your own standard...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [idea] out of your ^ss.

 

[GeeMack]

Notice how everyone avoided the images again in their responses? That unwillingness to deal with the details of the images is directly related to the weakness of your arguments and the strength of mine. All of you have some "busy work" for me, but not one of you wants to deal with that "Flying stuff" in the RD image. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?". Honestly, if you really expect to "convince me" of anything, you'll have to start dealing openly and honestly with the satellite imagery. It seems like only the "new folks" to the conversation have even attempted any sort of "explanation". The primary detractors of this theory *NEVER* attempt to explain the "details" of the images in question or how they relates to solar physical processes.

Instead, the self professed skeptical guru on RD images looks at the images and goes "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You guys aren't going to convince me of anything by living in pure denial and avoiding the data that kills your theories.

Your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the issue of satellite imagery have been challenged. You have failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications of expertise or the ability to properly understand them. Unless you are able to do that, nothing you say on the issue of satellite imagery in general, and running difference images in particular, can be accepted as evidence or support for your claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the issue of satellite imagery have been challenged.

You aren't remotely qualified to to question my authority. "What flying stuff?" Please.

How about explaining that flying stuff for us now?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, and that seems to be the primary difference between us and our positions. I "observe" the "Flying stuff" in the RD images. GM doesn't because evidently he's blind because it's damn obvious in the image. I asked Tim (another primary detractor) to download and look at that white light image, and instead of finding it, he comes back and says "What white light images?". Honestly, the lack of observational skills seems to the the biggest problem around here with the skeptics. Nobody "observes" any of the details of the images. Nobody comments on the details of the images. Nobody wants to look at the images because they don't jive with your preconceived ideas and your "looks like a math bunny" ad hoc claims about the opacity of the photosphere.

Well for one thing, your comments above are a lie. It has been proven a lie by the simple fact that in this very thread, in several locations, every last pixel of those running difference images was not only observed, but thoroughly explained. You, Michael, have not explained them other than to make unsupported, unqualified statements of opinion. But you have failed to actually explain them in any scientific detail.

For another thing, and probably much more important to the discussion, your qualifications to speak with any expertise on the issue of satellite imagery have been challenged, and ultimately you have been unable to demonstrate that you do indeed posses the qualifications necessary to speak with any authority or understanding on the issue. Nothing you say about satellite images can be accepted as evidence of anything except your unqualified opinion.

Sorry this isn't panning out for you. If you want some help understanding or explaining those images, I'd be happy to assist you. I happen to have a reasonably thorough grasp of the subject myself.

 

[GeeMack]

I don't expect to see anything rigid on the surface of the photosphere Skwinty. It boils and moves like an ordinary plasma. The "solid surface" is located far below the convecting "plasma" surface of the photosphere. The analogy here that comes to mind is you asking me to look at a cloud layer and asking to find the "solid surface" in that layer. It's not found in that layer, so I would not expect to find it there.

The photosphere is, by definition, opaque. The only way you can "see" anything under the photosphere is by use of helioseismology. Interestingly that particular method of analysis has shown that there is mass moving at thousands of kilometers per hour directly through the area where you claim a solid surface exists. That directly contradicts the possibility of a solid surface. Your argument has failed.

And if you're claiming that there is some method of seeing anything optically below the photosphere, well, let's apply your own standards of support...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [conjecture] out of your ^ss.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well for one thing, your comments above are a lie.

Virtually everything you've ever said was a lie, including the next line of your statements:

It has been proven a lie by the simple fact that in this very thread, in several locations, every last pixel of those running difference images was not only observed, but thoroughly explained.

You never even attempted to explain the "flying stuff" in the image. "What flying stuff?" Not only haven't you explained "every single last pixel", you haven't explained *ANYTHING* (other than perhaps the light source) in any of those images in terms of solar physics. You' keep parroting the same things about the RD process and nothing in terms of solar physics. You're delusional if you think you explained *ANYTHING*, let alone "every last pixel."

 

[Michael Mozina]

The photosphere is, by definition, opaque.

In real life it's not. Only in your grossly oversimplified formulas does it *NEED* to be "opaque" for your math to work and that's the only reason you assume that to be true in the first place. Your grossly oversimplified "looks like a math bunny" formulas don't work correctly if the sun mass separates or the photosphere isn't "opaque", and that's what you simply "assume" it's opaque.

 

[GeeMack]

In real life it's not. Only in your grossly oversimplified formulas does it *NEED* to be "opaque" for your math to work and that's the only reason you assume that to be true in the first place. Your grossly oversimplified "looks like a math bunny" formulas don't work correctly if the sun mass separates or the photosphere isn't "opaque", and that's what you simply "assume" it's opaque.

The photosphere is, by definition, opaque. I have no need for it to be so. I don't depend on it to be true to support some preconceived notion I have about the Sun. It is simply a definition of a term that allows people to understand each other when discussing solar physics.

If you have another word for "as far into the solar atmosphere as we can possibly see before the plasma becomes too dense to allow the passage of any light", perhaps you should suggest that your term be used rather than the perfectly good term "photosphere" which all the rest of us seem to easily understand. I can't imagine why anyone would want to change the definition of such simple terms, though. It seems it would only add confusion to the conversation, especially for those who have already demonstrated that they have a difficult time understanding solar physics.

 

[Ziggurat]

In real life it's not.

You don't get it, Michael. If it's not opaque, it's not a photosphere. You are basically claiming that the sun doesn't have an actual photosphere.

Which is observably wrong. There is a layer of the sun which is a 5700K blackbody emitter. That layer, whatever you want to call it, must be opaque. The requirement for opacity doesn't come from any model of the sun, it comes from basic thermodynamics. I don't care what it's made out of, I don't care how thick it is, it's hot and opaque. And anything underneath it must be at least as hot. There is no way around that, Michael.

Correction: the only way around it is if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. Do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong, Michael?

 

[D'rok]

Sunspots are not holes that you can look down in to. They are relatively cool spots that just aren't as bright. They are about 25% as bright as the rest of the surface of the sun. They only appear dark because they are underexposed in most images so that the solar surface around them won't be overexposed.

Mike?