No, I mean by the definition of the word "photosphere".
By your definition that would be the solid surface. The shiney part we'll call "plasma cloud cover", ok?
That argument is sheer nonsense. The limit of optical depth does not depend on a solid surface. An example is trivial. No camera of any sort, no piece of optical sensing equipment using any frequency of filter can see past a certain depth into the ocean.
And "plasma cloud cover" is a really silly thing to call the photosphere. It already has a perfectly good name that every English speaking solar scientist on Earth would use when referring to it. The word is "photosphere".
I am not applying any sort of belief. Use of definitive terminology when discussing scientific concerns is a reasonable scientific practice.
Only if everyone in the debate agrees with your use of terms! When you talk about a surface of the photosphere I know what you mean. I simply do not believe anything become "opaque" (GM style) until 4800KM BELOW the surface of what you're calling a photosphere.
What I call the photosphere is the same thing anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of solar science calls the photosphere. And where belief is probably great fun for playing pseudoscience, it has nothing to do with real science. We are able to measure the optical depth of the photosphere. It is supported by empirical science, objectively. No objective evidence has been presented to support the claim that it is deeper than approximately 500 kilometers.
The word "photosphere" is defined, at a simple level, as the region where the solar atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque.
That's the problem too. It's a gross oversimplification, and a gross misunderstanding of the behaviors of plasma in a current carrying environment.
It's just the definition of the word "photosphere".
I didn't make up the word.
So what? I certainly didn't make it up either. I'm just trying to figure out a way to communicate about surface features of what you're calling a photosphere and surface feature related to that stratification subsurface at 4800KM.
The optical depth of the photosphere is around 500 kilometers. Whatever may exist below that, even if it's an iron shell held together with rivets or a ball of milk chocolate, it can't be seen. That's what photosphere means. That's what opaque means. And no amount of unsupported assertions that we can see beyond the point of opacity will change that. No amount of imagining mountains and valleys thousands of kilometers deeper than anyone or anything can see will ever make them real.
And we know the boundaries of that region because we can measure it, empirically.
You know where top of it is. I'll give you that much.
We know where the bottom of it is, too. It can be observed and measured. Limb darkening explains it. It's fairly straightforward. It's empirical and objective. Oh, and it's kind of mathematical.
Running difference graphs are a way to visually display the difference in values between corresponding pixels in a series of images.
Yes, we all understand the mechanics of it very well? Since you refuse to post them yourself, I can only assume you don't like what you saw.
Actually it's reasonable to say anyone who believes running difference graphs could possibly show a solid surface thousands of kilometers beyond the point where the Sun's atmosphere becomes opaque
does not understand the mechanics of it. Not the least little bit.
And yes, I am the sole possessor of some satellite imagery which I processed which, if I were made public, would completely shatter everything that every astrophysicist on Earth believes about the Sun.
Not only are there no terrain features in any running difference series under discussion here, no terrain features could possibly show.
So why are you so afraid to post a full resolution RD image of the same timeline?
To suggest that running difference graphs created from data acquired several thousand kilometers above the photosphere could show anything several thousand kilometers below the photosphere demonstrates, at the very least, a complete lack of proper understanding of solar physics, optical science, and computer image processing. Believing that running difference images can support the claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface or that solar flares and CMEs are the result of some huge lightning-like electrical sparks is an argument from ignorance. There is nothing objective or even rational in such a suggestion.
The data used to create the graphs and videos was obtained thousands of kilometers above the alleged rigid surface.
No, they are collected 4800KM UNDER the surface of what you call a photosphere.
No objective evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that it is deeper than approximately 500 kilometers, so that is an unsupported assertion and an argument from ignorance.
And no objective explanation has ever been offered as to how a difference graph made from data acquired several thousand kilometers above the photosphere may support a claim that something exists several thousands kilometers below the photosphere.
That is because nobody every made such a claim in the first place.
No objective support has ever been provided for the position that 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filters are acquiring data from anywhere other than the corona.
As far as objective science is concerned, it's impossible.
If what you said were true (about the location of the footprints of the loop) your argument might have merit. Since it's wrong, your argument is moot and irrelevant to this debate. Nobody ever made such a claim other than you.
That demonstrates a complete lack of proper understanding of solar physics, optical science, and computer image processing, and is consequently an argument from ignorance.
There is no solid or rigid ridge line in any of the images, graphs, or videos discussed so far.
Oh yes there is. That shock wave does not travel past 3, and has virtually no effect compared to what we observe near 5.
Closer observation of the data shows that to be an incorrect assessment.
If something in any of the material appears to be a ridge, mountain, or valley, it is the result of an optical illusion, wishful thinking, or pareidolia.
So post the RD images already and let's see what they show us?
If they show any of us something that is taken to be a ridge, mountain, or valley, that would be the result of an optical illusion, wishful thinking, a hallucination, or pareidolia.
The trajectory of the shockwave is easily explained by the relative location on the Sun where we view the event. If we take a photo of a globe of the Earth, we get a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional object. The longitude lines as we look towards the limb are more and more curved. Obviously something can appear to be a straight line when viewed from one direction and delineate a curve from another.
Um, we aren't talking about "small angles" here, we're talking about a 90 degree turn! It cannot be an optical illusion either because the shock wave can be observed traversing up the valley at 2 and flowing past the loops at 5. There's a shock wave BLOCKAGE all along 3 too.
Closer and more objective observation of the data shows that to be an incorrect assessment.
Add some pretty extreme turbulence,
Magic turbulence over thin plasma surface?
No real scientists are considering magic as an explanation. Generally the turbulence is attributed to the interaction of some very powerful and unstable magnetic fields.
the effect of strong magnetic fields on the plasma, and some up/down vertical axis movement which obviously doesn't translate well from three dimensions to two. The action of the shockwave was exactly as we'd expect.
What baloney. You didn't address any of the key features about the behaviors of the loops beyond point 3, the behaviors of the shock wave up the valley marked 2, or any of the key aspects of the video. As usual you flippantly handwave a bit and chalk it up to 'magic turbulence'. That's just pitiful.
Actually, although put in quite simple terms to try to make it easy to understand even for those who know nothing about solar physics, I addressed every single feature. As for the incorrect assessment described above, closer and more objective observation of the data shows that to be wrong. And of course no real scientist ever said anything about magic turbulence.
Do you really think others haven't noticed how unwilling you are to post a couple of high resolution RD images? Hell, you've already created them to even be able to create the stupid video you posted the first time. I think everyone knows why you're actually hiding them.
Yes, I am hiding some evidence that would show the world that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Everyone at NASA would be amazed. They'd all look at them and say, "Aha! Look at that! A solid surface under all that opaque plasma!" It's a million dollar Nobel prize for me, because I'm holding out on everyone else who thinks the Sun has a solid surface. All the other people in this thread know it, too. Maybe I'll post some when Reality Check, Tim, sol, and Tubbythin start taunting me and badgering me. Or maybe I'll just PM them the easy 1-2-3 instructions on how to make the videos for themselves. Or maybe I'll just link to some more satire, a little friendly mockery of the unsupportable, unevidenced, apparently impossible notions that some people seem to have about the workings of the Sun.
But in the meantime, how about some objective quantitative evidence to support the claim that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical phenomena like lightning here on Earth? And how about some objective connection between the electric Sun conjecture and the solid/rigid surface conjecture? And how about some objective support for the claim that the photosphere is actually several thousand kilometers thicker than the currently understood optical depth?
!
!
.