Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

It's been explained. There is no rigidity.

Denial isn't an "explanation".

 

[D'rok]

That is a possibility of course, but then there still has to be a logical 'cause' for the rigid patterns observed in the image.

I'm at work and I actually lol'ed.

"It's possible that there is no rigidity. But then there would have to be a reason for why there is rigidity!"

See? You are stuck in a cognitive loop. You are quite correct that no one has ever explained why there are rigid features on the sun. After explaining that there are none, it would be absurd to explain why there are some, don't you think?

 

[Ziggurat]

To what depth?

For the purpose of proving the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid surface, it doesn't matter. It gets hotter as deep as we can see in the optical range. That's enough to prove that anything underneath must be at least as hot.

*ONLY* if the photosphere is in fact actually OPAQUE!

Which it is, both by definition and by observation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm at work and I actually lol'ed.

"It's possible that there is no rigidity. But then there would have to be a reason for why there is rigidity!"

No, I said it may not be solid, but there still must be a physical cause that explains the rigid geometric shapes in that image and explains why those shapes have a lifespan far in excess of photosphere structures. Denying the geometry is relatively rigid in comparison the the surface of the photosphere isn't an "explanation", it's pure denial.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the purpose of proving the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid surface, it doesn't matter. It gets hotter as deep as we can see in the optical range. That's enough to prove that anything underneath must be at least as hot.

Then sunspots cannot be cooler than the rest of the photosphere either. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Which it is, both by definition and by observation.

Which specific observation?

 

[D'rok]

No, I said it may not be solid, but there still must be a physical cause that explains the rigid geometric shapes in that image and the explain they those shapes have a lifespan far in excess of photosphere structures. Denying the geometry is relatively rigid in comparison the the surface of the photosphere isn't an "explanation", it's pure denial.

Explaining why there is no face on Mars is pure denial of the picture of the face on Mars!

BTW: What is the "surface of the photosphere"?

 

[GeeMack]

What do you know about it Mr. "What flying stuff"?

The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

 

[GeeMack]

*ONLY* if the photosphere is in fact actually OPAQUE!

The photosphere is, by definition, opaque. It would be a lie, or just plain stupid, to suggest that it's not.

 

[D'rok]

Hey Michael, do you agree with this simple proposition:

At a certain depth, there is a region of the sun which is no longer transparent to visible light.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Explaining why there is no face on Mars is pure denial of the picture of the face on Mars!

Claiming that the there is no rigid geometric shape on Mars would be pure denial.

BTW: What is the "surface of the photosphere"?

It's the surface of that looks like the boiling porridge that Skwinty mentioned. Those "structures" tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals even *WITHOUT* a CME.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The photosphere is, by definition, opaque.

A discharge occurs by "definition" too! Duh. I showed you evidence. Where's your evidence to support your claim?

It would be a lie, or just plain stupid, to suggest that it's not.

Ya, ya, ya. More personal attack nonsense. Every one of your post contains such an emotional crutch now doesn't it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey Michael, do you agree with this simple proposition:

At a certain depth, there is a region of the sun which is no longer transparent to visible light.

Yes. That occurs at a depth of about 4800KM IMO at a RIGID surface we can see in that RD image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

Considering that every single one of your posts includes the term "dishonest", "liar", "stupid", "crackpot", "crank", etc, or some combination of such terms, the hypocrisy is obvious and laughable. You sure know how to dish it out.

 

[D'rok]

Claiming that the there is no rigid geometric shape on Mars would be pure denial.

That's a distortion. Get it through your head, Michael. There is a feature on Mars. It looks like a face in a certain image. There is a feature on the sun. It looks rigid in a certain image. The feature on Mars that looks like a face in a certain image is not really a face. The feature on the sun that looks rigid in a certain image is not really rigid. Explaining why the feature on Mars is not a face is not a denial that there is a feature on Mars that looks like a face in a certain image. Explaining why the feature on the sun is not rigid is not a denial that there is a feature on the sun that looks rigid in a certain image.

After it has been explained why the feature on Mars is not a face, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on Mars is a face.

After it has been explained why the feature on the sun is not rigid, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on the sun is rigid.

It's the surface of that looks like the boiling porridge that Skwinty mentioned. Those "structures" tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals even *WITHOUT* a CME.

How does a surface have a surface?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a distortion. Get it through your head, Michael. There is a feature on Mars.

Sure and there are several "features" in that RD and in that Doppler image as well, aren't there? Are the lifespan of those features longer than 8 minutes?

 

[D'rok]

Yes. That occurs at a depth of about 4800KM IMO at a RIGID surface we can see in that RD image.

And presto. We have the reason for why you deny that there is such a thing as a photosphere, properly understood. If there was a photosphere, it would block any images of your mythical surface; therefore, no photosphere.

Easy peasy, but definitely not science.

 

[D'rok]

Sure and there are several "features" in that RD and in that Doppler image as well, are there? Are the lifespan of those features longer than 8 minutes?

Read my post Michael. You are obstinately avoiding the clear analogy.

There is no face on Mars. There is no rigid feature on the sun. No matter what those particular images look like to you. Stop demanding that we explain why there is a face on Mars.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Read my post Michael. You are obstinately avoiding the clear analogy.

There is no face on Mars.

There is a rigid feature on Mars. We can argue about whether that rigid feature *LOOKS LIKE A FACE* but we first have to both agree that something is rigid enough to form a geometric shape that (at least to you) looks like a face. If I were to deny that anything rigid exists at all on Mars to hold *any* geometric shape, how is that not denial on my part?

There is no rigid feature on the sun.

The lifespan of those geometric shapes in the RD and Doppler images are *MUCH* longer (many times greater) than the 8 minute interval that structures come and go on the surface of the photosphere.

No matter what those particular images look like to you. Stop demanding that we explain why there is a face on Mars.

There are persistent geometric shapes in both the RD and Doppler images that have lifespans far in excess of 8 minutes. Do you deny that?

 

[D'rok]

There is a rigid feature on Mars. We can argue about whether that rigid feature *LOOKS LIKE A FACE* but we first have to both agree that something is rigid enough to form a geometric shape that (at least to you) looks like a face. If I were to deny that anything rigid exists at all on Mars to hold *any* geometric shape, how is that not denial on my part?



The lifespan of those geometric shapes in the RD and Doppler images are *MUCH* longer (many times greater) than the 8 minute interval that structures come and go on the surface of the photosphere.



There are persistent geometric shapes in both the RD and Doppler images that have lifespans far in excess of 8 minutes. Do you deny that?

Your image has been explained. You are doing the denying.

After it has been explained why the feature on Mars is not actually a face, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on Mars is a face.

After it has been explained why the feature on the sun is not actually rigid, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on the sun is rigid.

 

[GeeMack]

Your image has been explained. You are doing the denying.

After it has been explained why the feature on Mars is not actually a face, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on Mars is a face.

After it has been explained why the feature on the sun is not actually rigid, it is absurd, childish and obstinate to insist on an explanation for why the feature on the sun is rigid.

Derail.

This thread is about the crackpot claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.