Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Ziggurat]

I think I'm done for the day. This place is like the twilight zone today.

Indeed it is. I really didn't expect you to cite simulations which support the standard solar model as evidence of your own radically different and completely incompatible model. But then, you're a maverick. You threw physics out the window making your solid shell model, why not chuck logic too?

 

[GeeMack]

I think I'm done for the day. This place is like the twilight zone today.

Indeed. And as long as you continue to claim that you have magical powers, it may just remain like a twilight zone for you. Nobody is going to agree that you have x-ray vision as you claim to have. Nobody. We all know you can't see below the photosphere. It's opaque.

There are thousands of kilometers of opaque material between you and where you claim to see things. Seeing things that aren't there is having hallucinations. Seeing things through a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma is magic. Neither is science unless you want to broaden the discussion to the drugs, toxins, physical illnesses, or mental illnesses which are most often determined to be the cause of hallucinations.

If you don't want to discuss the possible scientific causes for your hallucinations and would rather take the position that you can indeed see through all those kilometers of opaque matter, take your claims about having supernatural abilities to the General Skepticism and The Paranormal forum.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Science by Pretty Picture Fails Again

Actually, supercomputer simulations show the same 3D effect.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/sunspots.jsp#mediaterms
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/bb.jpg
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/by_B2_fast.mpg
The only question is one of "depth" (how deep can we see).

None of these images or movie show any of the 3D structure that you claim to see in white light or G-band images. All 3 of these links demonstrate the 3D structure of a sunspot below the photosphere, whereas you falsely claim to be able to see 3D structure above the photosphere, in images that do not carry 3D information. Hence, your claim is an impossible claim to demonstrate with your given images.

Baloney. We can even observe the *FLOW* of plasma down the right side of those first couple of GBand images. We can observe the curved shape of the filaments too as they are deflected into the hole by the downdrafting plasma.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

Baloney yourself. You only observe flow away from the sunspot in the G-band images, but you have to arbitrarily assume that the flow is "downhill", in the absence of information not contained in the images. And like I said, the 3D reconstructions you posted all refer to sunspot structure under the photosphere. You can't even look at a picture and get it right.

We also know from the computer models what the filaments will do at any depth. They flow down into the plasma in a 3D pattern.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/bb.jpg

That image shows the convection currents around the sunspot that I already described, not anything "flowing downhill".

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news/070321Flare/SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg
Tim, this image blows out everything you just said in orange and white. The orange material from the penumbral filaments can be seen winding their way down the "goatse" right after the flare. The current flow peels material from the side of the penumbra and sucks it down into the depths of the umbra inside an ordinary current carrying filament.

Wrong again. There is no downward motion visible in this movie except that in your own imagination. It blows away nothing that I said and does not even appear relevant.

http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news/070321Flare/SOT_ca_061213flare_cl_lg.mpg
Does the filament coming off the umbra at the three oclock position after the flare flow up or down into the umbra? How can you tell?

Whether or not the filament in question goes up or down cannot be determined from this 2D image alone. Additional information is required, such as doppler velocities. The bright streamers are probably well above the sunspot, judging from other flare images seen against the limb. If you are so hot to show something falling into the umbra (and why would it matter any if it did?) then show a flare against the limb, where perspective becomes obvious, instead of trying to fake your way out with flat images like this.

Like I said before ...

Mozina always avoids the central issue of real physics & real science, always falling back on some childish "science by pretty picture" routine, always falling back to the wiggly stuff or the moving lights, but never touching on any truly meaningful topic, never any real science of any kind.

 

[tusenfem]

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

Solar moss occurs at the base of certain coronal loops, immense magnetic arches of hot gas that are anchored in the Sun's visible surface and could span several dozen Earths laid end to end. It appears only below high pressure coronal loops in active regions, typically persisting for tens of hours, but has been seen to form rapidly and spread in association with loops that arise after a solar explosion, called a flare.

The moss consists of hot gas at about two million degrees Fahrenheit which emits extreme ultraviolet light observed by the TRACE instrument. It occurs in large patches, about 6,000 - 12,000 miles in extent, and appears between 1,000 - 1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface, sometimes reaching more than 3,000 miles high.

Emphasis mine.

Let's look at how things get heated up according to LMSAL too, shall we?

my extra emphasis and reddening

Oh bonkers! How on Earth does that answer my objection to your claim that mainstream solar physics

that the "base of the loops" originate in the chromosphere/corona

it says clearly that are anchored in the Sun's visible surface and that is not the chromosphere and definitely not the corona.

If you would read the link a bit better, instead of just cherry picking stuff you would have seen that this moss occurs where:

It also helps us understand how the large magnetic loops in the Sun's outer atmosphere, the corona, form out of the highly intermittent magnetic fields on the Sun's surface.

And once more per definition NO RADIATION can be observed below the photosphere. That is the definition of the photosphere, it is the layer of last scattering of photons that escape the Sun and can be seen on Earth. Naturally, this varies a bit with wavelength because absorption/scattering is a function of wavelength, thus

far *UNDER* the photosphere

is so laughable and ridiculous. If you really want to pursue this you have to at least call it the MM-neon-sphere or something but not photosphere which has a very well defined mainstream meaning.

 

[tusenfem]

Try this one. Notice the 'curvature' of the bright stuff on the right. Are the ends of the filaments pointing up or down?
http://dancekorean.net/images/sunspot-wow.jpg

Mmmmmm looks like lava flow, picture of overexposed ccd in centre (therefore black) and hot flows down the hill (probably the iron mountain)

 

[Skwinty]

Michael, are there any solar physicists who agree with you on this issue?
Or for that matter, anyone at all? (apart from Superman or those blessed with x-ray vision)
It seems to me that you are the only one who believes this nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

That image shows the convection currents around the sunspot that I already described, not anything "flowing downhill".

Hi Tim Thompson, you may have been fooled by MM's ignorance of what the image contains.
Sunspots Revealed in Striking Detail by Supercomputers has the following caption for the image:

First view of what goes on below the surface of sunspots. Lighter/brighter colors indicate stronger magnetic field strength in this subsurface cross section of two sunspots. For the first time, NCAR scientists and colleagues have modeled this complex structure in a comprehensive 3D computer simulation, giving scientists their first glimpse below the visible surface to understand the underlying physical processes. This image has been cropped horizontally for display.

and from the animation page:

Scale: Horizontal is 98,000 kilometers (61,000 miles); Vertical is 6,100 kilometers (3,800 miles); this height was doubled relative to the width to show detail.
Technical data: Vertical scale enlarged by a factor of 2. Color saturated at 8 kG.

The image is of magnetic field strength, not convection.

It looks like MM has just looked at the image and said "looks like convection so must be convection" without bothering to even read the caption. What a surprise !

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, are there any solar physicists who agree with you on this issue?

Which specific part? In terms of sunspots and the direction of the filaments they sure do. In fact, outside of this forum I think you'd be very hard pressed to get anyone to claim that the sunspot is not a 3D feature. In fact here is a paper that just came out on Arxiv that also notes the downward direction of the filaments based strictly on the Gband and Ca filters:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3489

Notice the "cartoon" a the end and the direction of the arrows 1 & 7.

The penumbral flux tubes are highly inclined which contribute to the G-band brightness with limb-disk side asymmetry. As the matter in the flux tube gets heated it expands leading to downward drop in pressure resulting directional flow indicated by arrows in flux tube 1 and 7 (Degenhardt & Lites 1993).

Emphasis mine. The directional flow is into the umbra and *DOWN*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed it is. I really didn't expect you to cite simulations which support the standard solar model as evidence of your own radically different and completely incompatible model.

It is utterly irrelevant which model we use in the case of the sunspot, the angular shape is the same in both models, *ESPECIALLY YOURS*. You guys don't have a single leg to stand on here and you know it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

it says clearly that are anchored in the Sun's visible surface and that is not the chromosphere and definitely not the corona.

Ya, but it's claiming they are magically heated at some point *FAR ABOVE* the surface of the photosphere when in fact the mass flows are clearly visible on the surface of the photosphere. What magical heating process heats the plasma to millions of degrees? You guys give me grief about the thermal aspects of my model, but for crying out loud, your model is FULL of these magical heating and refrigeration processes. The mass flows clearly begin UNDER the photosphere and the loops clearly are superheated to very high temperatures long before they reach the photosphere as the effects on the surface of the photosphere demonstrate.

The "transition region" where the "solar moss" is located is not way up in the chromosphere, it's far under the photosphere as the mass flows all demonstrate and the heating process on the surface of the photosphere clearly demonstrates.

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, but it's claiming they are magically heated at some point *FAR ABOVE* the surface when in fact the mass flows are clearly visible on the surface of the photosphere. What magical heating process heats the plasma to millions of degrees? You guys give me grief about the thermal aspects of my model, but for crying out loud, your model is FULL of these magical heating and refrigeration processes. The mass flows clearly begin UNDER the photosphere and the loops clearly are superheated to very high temperatures long before they reach the photosphere as the effects on the surface of the photosphere demonstrate.

The "transition region" where the "solar moss" is located is not way up in the chromosphere, it's far under the photosphere as the mass flows all demonstrate and the heating process on the surface of the photosphere clearly demonstrates.

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 [whatever claim] out of your ^ss.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

This point about the 3D nature of a sunspot demonstrates very clearly that this "group of experts" aren't experts at all. They ignore the visual evidence. They ignore the math and simulations of that mathematical model. They ignore the papers. It really doesn't matter what information I cite or use, they simply ignore it, handwave a little at it, and pretend they're quite the "experts" on solar physics. Meanwhile not a single one of them can see or identify a *DOWNWARD* "curvature" in a "penumbral filament" in Gband, even though everyone else in the world evidently can.

 

[GeeMack]

This point about the 3D nature of a sunspot demonstrates very clearly that this "group of experts" aren't experts at all. They ignore the visual evidence. They ignore the math and simulations of that mathematical model. They ignore the papers. It really doesn't matter what information I cite or use, they simply ignore it, handwave a little at it, and pretend they're quite the "experts" on solar physics. Meanwhile not a single one of them can see or identify a *DOWNWARD* "curvature" in a "penumbral filament" in Gband, even though everyone else in the world evidently can.

But you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you aren't qualified to properly understand solar imagery of any sort. So that leaves you, with no qualifications, alone in the world claiming they, the professionals responsible for acquiring, processing, and analyzing this material, don't know what they're talking about. Honestly, how do you think that situation should be interpreted by objective observers?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you aren't qualified to properly understand solar imagery of any sort.

Thus spoke the guy that couldn't identify coronal rain in that RD image in *FIVE YEARS*.

 

[Skwinty]

Michael, The first paragraph leaps off the page and I quote.​

Clearly, observations must point the way, because it is evident now that the sunspot is too complicated a structure to be the product of a single overwhelming theoretical effect. The sunspot results from the conjunction of several effects, and we can spend a lot of time guessing what those effects might be without getting anywhere”. Eugene Parker (Personal communication 2010)​

The paper also mentions optical depth twice and that the optical depth varies due to the sunspot but nowhere do they say that the optical depth runs into 1000's of kilometres.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

 

[Tim Thompson]

3-D Sunspots

In fact, outside of this forum I think you'd be very hard pressed to get anyone to claim that the sunspot is not a 3D feature.

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

Furthermore, we can reconstruct the 3D structure of sunspots from optical data (e.g., Westendorp, et al., 1997; Westendorp, et al., 1998; Westendorp, et al., 2001a; Westendorp, et al., 2001b; Mathew, et al., 2003; Beck, 2008) and from helioseismology (Zhao, et al., 2001; Kosovichev, Duvall & Zhao, 2002; Zhao, 2006; Cameron, Gizon & Duvall, 2008; Gizon, et al., 2009). In all cases, the 3D structure is consistent with mainstream theory.

Add to that list Rempel & Schussler, 2008 ...
Abstract: We present results of a 3D MHD simulation of a sunspot with a photospheric size of about 20 Mm carried out with the MURaM MHD code. The simulation covers a time span of about 12 hours. The largely relaxed state of the sunspot shows a division in a central dark umbral region with bright dots and a penumbra showing bright filaments of about 3 to 4 Mm length with central dark lanes. By a process similar to the formation of umbral dots, the penumbral filaments result from magneto-convection in the form of upflow plumes, which become elongated by the presence of an inclined magnetic field: the upflow is deflected in the outward direction and bends down the magnetic field to become almost horizontal in the upper part of the plume near the level of optical depth unity. At the same time, roll-type motion leads to a flow perpendicular to the filament axis and to downflow near its edges. Expansion and flux expulsion leads to a strong reduction of the field strength in the upper part of the rising plume, where a dark lane forms owing to the piling up of matter near the cusp-shaped top and the upward bulging of the surfaces of constant optical depth. The simulated penumbral structure corresponds well to the observationally inferred interlocking-comb structure of the magnetic field with Evershed outflows along dark-laned filaments with nearly horizontal magnetic field and roll-type perpendicular motion, which are embedded in a background of stronger and less inclined field. Photospheric spectral lines are formed at the very top and somewhat above the upflow plumes, so that they do not fully sense the strong flow as well as the large field inclination and significant field strength reduction in the upper part of the plume structures.

The simulation, consistent with observation, shows that it is the magnetic field, not downhill motion in gravity that dominates the outward flow (note "almost horizontal" in the abstract).

Now look at Beck, 2008 ...
Abstract: Aims: I deduced a 3D sunspot model that is in full agreement with spectropolarimetric observations, in order to address the question of a possible penumbral heating process by the repetitive rise of hot flow channels.
Methods: I performed inversions of spectropolarimetric data taken simultaneously in infrared (1.5 μm) and visible (630 nm) spectral lines. I used two independent magnetic components inside each pixel to reproduce the irregular Stokes profiles in the penumbra and studied the averaged and individual properties of the two components. By integrating the field inclination to the surface, I developed a 3D model of the spot from inversion results without intrinsic height information.
Results: I find that the Evershed flow is harbored by the weaker of the two field components. This component forms flow channels that show upstreams in the inner and mid penumbra, continue almost horizontally as slightly elevated loops throughout the penumbra, and finally bend down in the outer penumbra. I find several examples where two or more flow channels are found along a radial cut from the umbra to the outer boundary of the spot.
Conclusions: I find that a model of horizontal flow channels in a static background field is in good agreement with the observed spectra. The properties of the flow channels correspond very well to the moving tube simulations of Schlichenmaier et al. (1998, A&A, 337, 897). From the temporal evolution in intensity images and the properties of the flow channels in the inversion, I conclude that interchange convection of rising hot flux tubes in a thick penumbra still seems a possible mechanism for maintaining the penumbral energy balance.

Here we see in the detailed 3D model that the penumbra does exactly what I said it does, and what is obvious in the velocity field that I have referenced before, namely it convects upwards along the rim of the umbra.

I never said that sunspots were not 3D structures, and I never even said that there was not downhill flow. What I did say, and continue to say now is this: You have not presented any adequate evidence that this is in fact the case. You consistently present images and make false claims about what is visible in the images, claims that are false because it is obvious that the images by themselves do not contain enough information too support the claims made. You need to provide additional information, which you fail to do because you have no idea what you are talking about. Your approach to "science" is childish & naive.

Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate through any image that there is the slightest problem with any mainstream model of the sun.

The entire mainstream model stands up nicely in front of any genuine image you can show us, including all G-band imagery, all HINODE imagery & data, and all data and imagery from any and all other spacecraft or ground based data. You have not, and indeed cannot present any image not readily consistent with mainstream theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, The first paragraphs leaps off the page and I quote.​

Clearly, observations must point the way, because it is evident now that the sunspot is too complicated a structure to be the product of a single overwhelming theoretical effect. The sunspot results from the conjunction of several effects, and we can spend a lot of time guessing what those effects might be without getting anywhere”. Eugene Parker (Personal communication 2010)​

The paper also mentions optical depth twice and that the optical depth varies due to the sunspot but nowhere do they say that the optical depth runs into 1000's of kilometres.

That is why I asked "which part". The 3D aspects of the sunspot however really isn't a "debate" among most gas model theorists.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?