Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Of course sunspots are 3D structures, who ever said they were not?

You did. See my previous post.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sunspot Cooling

Are there any other magical heating and refrigeration processes I should be aware of? You have some kind of magic refrigeration process cooling the plasmas deep in the sun to thousands of degrees cooler than the surface. You have magic heating process located at 1200 KM *above* the photosphere too. Are there any other thermodynamically impossible feats related to standard theory that I should be aware of?

This is all so incredibly stupid as to boggle the mind. Try acting like an adult once in a while and lay off the childish rants. I already told you what the "magic" refrigeration process was, and you ignore it every time. Why? Because you know you can't deal with it?

Again, Mozina rants & talks trash, but has nothing intelligent to say. The ability of magnetic fields to inhibit convective heat transport is well known & well established, and indeed fairly obvious: Plasma does not cross magnetic field lines. The physics is well described in any number of sources, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004 2nd revised edition), section 8.2.2 "Why Spots Are Cool" ...

The most promising explanation of the spots coolness, and the fate of the missing energy, seems to lie in the blocking of convection by intense vertical magnetic fields. This explanation was first put forward by Biermann in 1941, and some recent evidence tends to strengthen the argument. The basic idea is that the horizontal motions of overturning convection are inhibited by the magnetic volume force jxB in the presence of a strong vertical magnetic field. ... In this explanation of the spot coolness, an equilibrium would be reached in which the convective heat flux blocked below the spot would simply flow around it ...
Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, 2nd ed. 2004, page 250. See the book for complete details.
​

It's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between "magic" and "physics".

 

[Tim Thompson]

3-D Sunspots II

Of course sunspots are 3D structures, who ever said they were not?

You did. See my previous post.

Wow. you even make yourself look stupid. No, as a matter of strict fact, I never said any such thing.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]
Limb images for starters. They all show a clear, persistent angular "depression" in the surface of the photosphere like the foreground sunspot.

No they don't. There is no "depression" of any kind visible in this image.

Did you say this Tim? Care to retract it now?

I don't care to retract anything, and I suggest you go back to your bone-head English class and try again. Look at what I actually said ...
There is no "depression" of any kind visible in this image. Which part of visible in this image has too many syllables for you to process? I did not say that sunspots were not 3D structures. In fact, I am the one who posted detailed reference to the 3D structure of sunspots. What I did say was that the image you posted does not show any 3D structure. Know what? I was right, it did not and still does not.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you say this Tim? Care to retract it now?

Excuse, please, I have yet to see where you have shown that there is a depression.

I missed that. Please show again where you demonstrate that there actually is a depression not an optical illusion that looks like a depression?

2. Where is the spectroscopy to indicate that the sunspot is of a different malterial than the erst of teh photosphere? (You knwo that whole neon and silicon thing.)

3. So how opaque is the photosphere and how deep is the 'solid iron surface'?

You have avoided answering from what I can tell, did you answer them and I missed it?

 

[Dancing David]

You did. See my previous post.

Excuse me, but saying that a suspot is not a depression in the photosphere is not saying that it does not have a 3D structure.

This is really silly, if that is what you are trying to say.

"There is no "depression" of any kind visible in this image." is not equal to 'There is no three dimensional structure."


So please try to explain how you demonstrated that there is a depression, not an optical illusion of a depression?

 

[Dancing David]

Are there any other magical heating and refrigeration processes I should be aware of? You have some kind of magic refrigeration process cooling the plasmas deep in the sun to thousands of degrees cooler than the surface. You have magic heating process located at 1200 KM *above* the photosphere too. Are there any other thermodynamically impossible feats related to standard theory that I should be aware of?

This is very disingenuos, TT posted exactly what possible mechanisms are at play at what may generate the heat of the corona.

Unlike you and your magic hand wave, you are seeming more desperate MM, and I notice that there are certain questions you refuse to answer.

1. What is the opacity of the photosphere, how far down can light penetrate the photosphere? (I have asked this many times, what is the answer?)
2. If the study of plasma here on earth support the opacity of the plasma on the sun being ~450 km, then what opacity do YOU suggest the plasma has?

 

[GeeMack]

Ya didn't read the paper I cited or the supercomputer simulation eh?

We seem to be having some difficulty communicating here. I asked a simple question. I was looking for a simple yes or no answer. Maybe you could give it another try. And if any particular words in my question are giving you a problem, please let me know which words they are and I'll be glad to help you through it.

Are you still sticking by this as your standard of acceptable evidence?...

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is very disingenuos, TT posted exactly what possible mechanisms are at play at what may generate the heat of the corona.

Those "possible methods" relate directly back to "circuit reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" is equally disingenuous. The only empirical tests of concept involve two "flowing filament circuits" of energy which they move together until they "short circuit". It's then called "magnetic reconnection"! Don't talk to me about being "disingenuous" and "desperate" when you're peddling what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience".

1. What is the opacity of the photosphere,

It could not be opaque and also "trap heat" at some magic point in the 10,000 degree plasma you claim is under the photosphere at some depth. How does 10,000 "opaque" plasma suddenly lose all that heat and never pick any of it back up from the surrounding "opaque" plasma? None of your beliefs make the slightest bit of sense, and not a single one of them jives with the satellite images, including those mass flows *POURING* out of the photosphere!

The photosphere isn't *opaque* at all IMO, in fact it's only even marginally 'opaque" to white light, and not even that if the source is bright enough. I'm sure you'd love me to pull some number out of my hat, but I'm not going to do that. Whatever number we come up with has to come directly from the satellite data and/or ground based images and none of them suggest that the bright photosphere *layer* is "opaque" to anything. The umbra portion cannot be "opaque" at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Excuse me, but saying that a suspot is not a depression in the photosphere is not saying that it does not have a 3D structure.

But the whole photosphere has "depressions" and ridges!

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3307756.html?page=1&c=y

Those filaments are certainly being 'depressed' in the right side of that Gband image. We can watch the filaments flow "down" into the umbra. Well, evidently RC can't, but others clearly do as that Arxiv paper I cited earlier demonstrates.

 

[GeeMack]

The photosphere isn't *opaque* at all IMO, in fact it's only even marginally 'opaque" to white light, and not even that if the source is bright enough. I'm sure you'd love me to pull some number out of my hat, but I'm not going to do that. Whatever number we come up with has to come directly from the satellite data and/or ground based images and none of them suggest that the bright photosphere *layer* is "opaque" to anything. The umbra portion cannot be "opaque" at all.

Let me help you with your obvious problem understanding the question. The photosphere, by definition, is the region in the solar atmosphere where the density of the plasma goes from being transparent to being opaque. So at some depth, the photosphere necessarily becomes opaque. Dancing David is asking you what depth that is. The reply is going to be a number, Michael.

Much as you hate numbers and making any quantitative statements, the photosphere becomes opaque, at some depth, and you are being asked to tell us what depth you believe that happens.

Do you understand the question? If you're having trouble with any particular words, let me know and I'll try to walk you through it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Excuse, please, I have yet to see where you have shown that there is a depression.

Just did in the last post.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3307756.html?page=1&c=y

The whole thing has hills and valleys and "depressions" galore.

2. Where is the spectroscopy to indicate that the sunspot is of a different malterial than the erst of teh photosphere? (You knwo that whole neon and silicon thing.)

The Gband and CA images all show a clear pattern of termination at a specific 'depth" related to the "layer" that emits visible light and/or CA/H light. Both show the same exact patterns of the penumbral filaments extending "deep" into the umbra.

I'm specifically ignoring the other "depth" questions until we resolve the "depth" of that "depression" and the material that makes up the photosphere vs. the material that makes up the umbra, and the mass flows related coronal loop activity. I've noticed too that if I don't keep things focused on *ONE* topic, you guys go all over the board and go nuts on the homework assignments with the express intent of changing the subject.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me help you with your obvious problem understanding the question.

Great. Explain to me *WHERE* your mystery refrigeration system "cools' the plasma, how it does that trick, and more importantly how the "opaque" plasma all around your mystery refrigerator manages to *NOT* transfer heat back into the refrigerated plasma? That's some neat trick you have going. First of all "opaque" plasma should radiate all it's heat back into your "opaque but cooler plasma", from the sides, from above, from below, etc. Instead, somehow your magically cooled plasma somehow manages to not pick up any heat from any other plasma in the atmosphere and instead it remains "cool"? How does that work?

Start with some real numbers here for us. Where (how deep) in the atmosphere does this magic refrigeration process occur?

 

[Ziggurat]

The photosphere isn't *opaque* at all IMO

Do you realize how stupid this makes you sound? The photosphere is defined by opacity. If it's not opaque, it's not a photosphere! If you wanted to claim that the sun has no photosphere above your solid surface, or that what's commonly identified as the photosphere is not the actual photosphere, you could at least be consistent with the definition (though you'd still be wrong). But when you claim that the photosphere is not opaque, well, that's like saying circles aren't round. You're wrong by definition. That's about as wrong as you can possibly get.

, in fact it's only even marginally 'opaque" to white light

Michael, do you think white is a particular color? Because you speak as if you did.

, and not even that if the source is bright enough.

Another epic fail. The amount of light passing through something depends on source brightness. The fraction of light passing through does not. Opacity is a measure of the fraction, not the total. It does not depend on source brightness. This is really basic stuff, Michael, and you keep failing it.

I'm sure you'd love me to pull some number out of my hat, but I'm not going to do that.

Of course not, Michael. You've been allergic to numbers for years now, nobody seriously expects you to become numerate now. You probably couldn't do math if your life depended on it. Lucky for you, it doesn't. Only your credibility does. And you've been doing fine without any so far, no need to worry about its future absence.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm specifically ignoring [...]

Yes.

[...] with the express intent of changing the subject.

The subject is the crackpot claim that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Until you start offering any legitimate, quantitative evidence to support that claim, you're avoiding the subject.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I missed that. Please show again where you demonstrate that there actually is a depression not an optical illusion that looks like a depression?

In the sense that there is in fact "plasma" filling the umbra, and coming up from the umbra, there isn't a "hole" in the plasma, just different plasmas. There is however a "depression' in the penumbral filaments of the neon photosphere caused by the flow of material into and out of the umbra.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

The right side of this image shows a pattern of "curvature" on both sides of an upper 'ridge'. Plasma flows down from both sides of that point, and the downward curvature is clear to everyone but RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you realize how stupid this makes you sound?

Do you realize how desperate you folks sound when you rely on all these personal put downs? I guess since you can't call me "evil" for my heresy, "stupidity" is the next best thing eh?

We both agree there is a "surface" of what you're calling a "photosphere" which evidently has some arbitrary "math bunny" definition that evidently doesn't jive with any visual evidence. We have to start somewhere and the 'surface' of the layer you're calling a "photosphere" is the only place we can start. You can't demonstrate any "opaque" quality in a Gband image, a CA/H image or any satellite image for that matter. It's purely a handware and a claim that you *NEED* to be correct, otherwise all your math bunnies become dust bunnies.

Please demonstrate anything in a Gband image is "opaque" to even that wavelength to the depth of the penumbral filaments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, do you think white is a particular color? Because you speak as if you did.

We already did that one in this thread. Why do you need to go there again? Oh ya, it's a round about "put down", and you guys need a healthy dose of that in every single post......

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you realize how desperate you folks sound when you rely on all these personal put downs?

Oh, I have long since despaired of getting you to understand even basic logic. You have been given the definition of "photosphere". The definition is the outer opaque layer of the sun. You claim it's not opaque, but it MUST be opaque, by definition. If it's not opaque, it isn't the photosphere, by definition. Seriously, why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's hear you quantify the refrigeration process for us. How far under the surface of the photosphere does this plasma cool to say 4000K? How long does it take for that cooled plasma to reach the surface, and why doesn't it pick up heat from the plasma above, below, and all around the cooler plasma? Your 'opacity' seems to work in your favor when you want it to, but you ignore it when it's convenient too. You folks bitched at me about the flow of heat from the photosphere surface flowing back into the sun, but now you're utterly ignoring the transfer of heat problem you've created. What's up with that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, I have long since despaired of getting you to understand even basic logic.

Desperate personal put downs from the start? Hoy.

Logically we have to start somewhere. We all seem to agree that a Gband image sees the surface of something you refer to as a "photosphere'. The umbra of the gband image isn't opaque because we can observe the bottom part of filament and the area under that point is also clearly visible, it simply isn't emitting white light at the same rate.

You're essentially handwaving that claim of opacity around in spite of the visual evidence that destroys it. You could maybe claim that the hot plasma surface is "opaque" in that gBand image, but the umbra part cannot be, or we would not see the bottom area of the filament and they certainly do curve into and down into the umbra, they aren't just a surface feature.