Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
Mike?
Click to expand...

Give me a bit of time on that one. I'm working on finding the links to a few images before I respond. The dark edges in and around the bottom of the penumbral filaments are critical in this conversation. Iknow there are at least two images that demonstrate my points really well, but I haven't found them yet. I'm still looking.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But it's not.
Click to expand...


What part of, "The photosphere is, by definition, opaque," are you having difficulty understanding? It's a word that describes, scientifically and somewhat universally, in English anyway, the region in the Sun's atmosphere where the transition occurs between being transparent and being opaque. You can't see anything below the photosphere because, well, that's what "photosphere" means.

Of course you do, otherwise all your oversimplified math formulas go flying out the window and none of your calculations work worth a damn.
Click to expand...


I have no reason to redefine a perfectly good word that already has a perfectly good meaning. I would venture to suggest it is one of those words that is understood by all English speaking people who can reasonably claim to be solar scientists. Sorry, Michael, on this point you are simply, totally, and unequivocally wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Give me a bit of time on that one. I'm working on finding the links to a few images before I respond. The dark edges in and around the bottom of the penumbral filaments are critical in this conversation. Iknow there are at least two images that demonstrate my points really well, but I haven't found them yet. I'm still looking.
Click to expand...


It has already been demonstrated that you do not possess the qualifications necessary to understand solar imagery. You do realize that no images you present as support are acceptable as evidence of anything except your unqualified opinion.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What part of "Nature doesn't conform to your grossly oversimplified math formulas." don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding your objection to this. Do you deny that at a certain depth the solar atmosphere becomes opaque? Why? If not, why do you object to the term "photosphere"? It's just a word. What word would you prefer to use?
 
Michael Mozina said:
What part of "Nature doesn't conform to your grossly oversimplified math formulas." don't you understand?
Click to expand...


For those following along, newbies, lurkers, etc., that is a perfectly excellent example of what we call a non sequitur. That means "it does not follow". A non sequitur is often thrown into a discussion when one has either chosen to ignore a relevant point, when one doesn't understand the discussion, or when one cannot reasonably respond to a relevant point and chooses to avoid addressing it by intentionally and dishonestly changing the subject.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The simple answer is gravity and the EM field around the sun, the same field(s) we use to separate ions here on Earth. The EM field is the primary separation mechanism IMO, but the coronal rain activity is mostly related to the effects of gravity rather than the EM field so both gravity and the EM field play a roll.
Click to expand...

Um what is too keep the columns that are interpreted as granlues on the surface of the sun frrom rising through and mixing up the layeds?

They are large scale convection currents, how deep is the surface layer of hydrogen?

ETA: The top of the photosphere.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It's in that high speed solar wind that Birkeland "predicted" based on his experiments with charge separation between the sphere and box.
Click to expand...
You mean the one that can't be from an electrical charge speration because of the mix of charges, you can have positive flow to negative and visa versa, but the solar wind is all three MM.
Between the surface and the heliosphere.
Click to expand...
What keeps the charge of the sun from becoming neutral overtime?
How long has the sun been lit up by this mechanism?
What voltages are we talking about, or what wattage to make the sun glow?
Is the charge difference in the heliosphere sufficient to provide this power?
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?
Click to expand...

I asked about your iron sun Michael.


Where are the measurements of the magnetic fields that would go along with this huge current flow through our solar system from the heliosphere to the sun?

You know the ones that would provide teh wattage to make it glow?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which comes back to the questions of :
How opaque is the photosphere and to what depth is it optically opaque and to what wavelengths?
 
Ok, let's talk "numbers". According to you, how "deep" is the "photosphere" that you claim is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun? How much "photosphere" does it take to block/absorb all light on every wavelength?

This is all going to come back to sunspot images and what causes them by the way and you guys really don't have a satellite image to stand on, let alone a ground based observation that works in your favor.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, let's talk "numbers". According to you, how "deep" is the "photosphere" that you claim is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun? How much "photosphere" does it take to block/absorb all light on every wavelength?
Click to expand...


It takes all of it, because the photosphere, by definition, is the region in the Sun's atmosphere where the density of the plasma goes from being transparent to being opaque. Quantitatively, 100%.

This is all going to come back to sunspot images and what causes them by the way and you guys really don't have a satellite image to stand on, let alone a ground based observation that works in your favor.
Click to expand...


No, it's not going to come back to or from anywhere. The definition of "photosphere" is pretty simple.
 
D'rok said:
I'm having trouble understanding your objection to this. Do you deny that at a certain depth the solar atmosphere becomes opaque? Why? If not, why do you object to the term "photosphere"? It's just a word. What word would you prefer to use?
Click to expand...

The term "layer" would be the most appropriate term IMO. I'm still working on wading through tech calls at work (it's actually a busy day for me today) and finding those images before I start our sunspot discussion.

We specifically need to look at and discuss the physical shape of the sunspot, and we need to get into the penumbral filaments and the dark areas right under them. There's a lot to consider in that discussion and I need some focused time to respond fully, and finding those two images I'm looking for is proving to be time consuming. I thought I had both links on my website but I can't remember which page(s) they are on. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
To what depth? Once we get to the solid surface crust, sure. Not the various plasma layers however. They aren't anywhere near dense enough to block all light on every wavelength.
Click to expand...


Of course you're prepared to meet your own standards as you described them here...

Michael Mozina said:
Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [claim] out of your ^ss.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
To what depth? Once we get to the solid surface crust, sure. Not the various plasma layers however. They aren't anywhere near dense enough to block all light on every wavelength.
Click to expand...

Ah. I think this answers my question. You object to the definition of photosphere because if plasma became opaque at some depth, it would be impossible to see beneath it. And you insist that you can see beneath the atmosphere to the "crust" below it. You need to be able to see beneath it.

Ugh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom