Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[GeeMack]

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.

Do remember that your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the matter of solar imagery has been challenged, and you have been unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Anything you might say on the issue of solar imagery cannot be accepted as evidence of anything except your unqualified opinion.

Just sayin'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Gee, I guess that comment really got under your skin because you never found the paper and you pulled that number out of thin air, is that it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do remember that your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the matter of solar imagery has been challenged,

By whom? You? Mr. "What flying stuff"?

If you want to "challenge" me, I suggest you stop cowering away like a snake in the grass from all the details of that RD image starting with that "Flying stuff" you keep claiming isn't there.

As long as you're in pure denial and have your head in the sand, you aren't a "challenge", you're a joke.

 

[GeeMack]

Gee, I guess that comment really got under your skin because you never found the paper and you pulled that number out of thin air, is that it?

I provided a reference that supported the number I used. It's pretty standard knowledge among legitimate solar scientists. If you want to know it, look it up. Here's a helpful start: I used one of your very own sources.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I provided a reference that supported the number I used. It's pretty standard knowledge among legitimate solar scientists. If you want to know it, look it up. Here's a helpful start: I used one of your very own sources.

That's just another lie because none of the sources I've ever cited make that claim. You're the only person I've *ever heard* make that claim to my recollection. But of course you would never lie about anything would you? Where's the paper?

 

[GeeMack]

That's just another lie because none of the sources I've ever cited make that claim. You're the only person I've *ever heard* make that claim to my recollection. But of course you would never lie about anything would you? Where's the paper?

I also linked to an article that supported the number I used. Oh, and I acknowledged that my recollection was incorrect according to the article. The plasma that is moving up, down, and sideways right through your supposedly solid surface is moving at an estimated 1300 meters per second, not the 1200 meters per second that I had originally mentioned. At least one other person in this discussion read the article and understands the numbers. It's a quantitative thing, Michael. Numbers. Sorry.

And again, you are trying to support a claim that there is a solid surface on the Sun. It's certainly not up to anyone else to do your homework for you. You can look it up for yourself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Whereas your side seems to have a need to *not* see through it. I fail to see how your position is not also based on "need".

 

[Ziggurat]

To what depth?

Any depth.

Once we get to the solid surface crust, sure. Not the various plasma layers however.

Whatever depth you need to go to in order to become opaque, that defines the photosphere. When you claim that the photosphere is not transparent, you are wrong by definition. If you want to claim that the solid surface is part of the photosphere, then you could at least be consistent with the definition. You would not be consistent with known physics (we're back to the thermal impossibility of a solid surface at 5700+ K), but at least you wouldn't be axiomatically wrong. Which you are right now by claiming the photosphere is not opaque. It's really a quite simple idea, but it keeps slipping through your fingers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I also linked to an article that supported the number I used.

The article you cited did not make the claim you made in any way. In fact it went out of the way to state that it was a "shallow" process and has nothing at all to do with the region in question.

And again, you are trying to support a claim that there is a solid surface on the Sun. It's certainly not up to anyone else to do your homework for you. You can look it up for yourself.

You lied when you said you got that from me. You won't and can't produce any paper to demonstrate your statement and yet you continue to repeat that same lie over and over and over again like a parrot.

 

[D'rok]

Whereas your side seems to have a need to *not* see through it. I fail to see how your position is not also based on "need".

Because you, and you alone, (and maybe brantc?) claim to be able to see beneath the photosphere. Are you really sure that the entire, worldwide community of astrophysicists and astronomers are all confabulating a collective delusion?

Doesn't seem likely to me. Seems more likely that they have carefully observed, measured, and calculated to a reasonable degree of certainty the depth at which plasma becomes opaque.

 

[GeeMack]

Whereas your side seems to have a need to *not* see through it. I fail to see how your position is not also based on "need".

The only need involved is a need to have a unified, understandable set of terms to use when trying to communicate. The photosphere becomes opaque at 100% of its depth, not out of a need to support a position, but because that's how the word "photosphere" is defined.

Any questions?

 

[Tricky]

There's a great deal of incivility and bickering on this thread so I strongly advise you to cut out the sniping and sneering. Address the topic or this thread will be put on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's a great deal of incivility and bickering on this thread so I strongly advise you to cut out the sniping and sneering. Address the topic or this thread will be put on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

I hear you. My apologies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because you, and you alone, (and maybe brantc?) claim to be able to see beneath the photosphere. Are you really sure that the entire, worldwide community of astrophysicists and astronomers are all confabulating a collective delusion?

Doesn't seem likely to me. Seems more likely that they have carefully observed, measured, and calculated to a reasonable degree of certainty the depth at which plasma becomes opaque.

It's finally starting to quiet down now at work.

I suppose we need to talk about sunspots and how they relate then to "optical depth" of at least the visible spectrum before we can discuss the full spectrum of energy from the sun.

The sunspots IMO are key to this case, and I'll start rounding up images, starting with these images:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg

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

The white light in these images ends a define "layer". The plasma in the umbra is upwelling from below and coming up and through that region. We can observe the bases of the penumbral filaments end at a specific depth that is measured in kilometers. The penumbral filaments are the key here and I'll comment more in a moment, but I need to find some other images first.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI....

Bonus points for anyone that can explain the little white thingy coming up from umbra at about the 3:00 position right at the very end of that first video.

 

[D'rok]

It's finally starting to quiet down now at work.

I suppose we need to talk about sunspots and how they relate then to "optical depth" of at least the visible spectrum before we can discuss the full spectrum of energy from the sun.

The sunspots IMO are key to this case, and I'll start rounding up images, starting with these images:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg

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

The white light in these images ends a define "layer". The plasma in the umbra is upwelling from below and coming up and through that region. We can observe the bases of the penumbral filaments end at a specific depth that is measured in kilometers. The penumbral filaments are the key here and I'll comment more in a moment, but I need to find some other images first.

Can you define "umbra" and "penumbral filaments" for me. I really have no idea what those terms mean.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you define "umbra" and "penumbral filaments" for me. I really have no idea what those terms mean.

Sure. The "umbra" is the dark region in the center. The penumbral filaments are the areas around the side of the sunspot that isn't dark, but not as light as the rest of the surface of the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

It's finally starting to quiet down now at work.

I suppose we need to talk about sunspots and how they relate then to "optical depth" of at least the visible spectrum before we can discuss the full spectrum of energy from the sun.

The sunspots IMO are key to this case, and I'll start rounding up images, starting with these images:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg

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

The white light in these images ends a define "layer". The plasma in the umbra is upwelling from below and coming up and through that region. We can observe the bases of the penumbral filaments end at a specific depth that is measured in kilometers. The penumbral filaments are the key here and I'll comment more in a moment, but I need to find some other images first.

Just so we know we're all on the same plane here, your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged. So far you haven't been able to demonstrate that you are qualified to understand or reasonably analyze those images. Additionally, you have been asked several times to provide an objective, quantitative method for analyzing those images and videos you offer as evidence, a method that other people can independently apply and come to the same conclusion you've reached. You have never provided such a method. Therefore your opinion about solar images or videos is just that, an unsupported subjective opinion, and cannot be accepted as support or evidence for your claim about the Sun having a solid surface. I'm sure you agree.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The first thing you have to ask yourself is related to the shape of the umbra and what's physically happening to "cause" both the angular sides and the fact the white light ends at a very specific point in the image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just so we know we're all on the same plane here, your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged.

You will not provide any challenge to me whatsoever until and unless you address that "flying stuff" in the RD image that you claim isn't there.

Anyone and everyone can see that your expertize goes "boom" at the moment the CME occurs. You're not a "challenge". Get over yourself and get busy explaining the "flying stuff" and we'll talk. Until then you're just "challenged" to explain anything in solar RD images because if you can't explain that, you can't explain *ANYTHING* in a solar RD image.