RC's only interest in this thread is pure personal harassment, nothing more.
You are wrong: I have several interests for being in this forum.
It may be that other people in the forum have not experienced the wonder that is an Internet physics crank
! So they may take your statements seriously. By listing the various things that you are ignorant of or denying I can demonstrate that your knowledge of the area is so small that they should not waste their time (
Science that Michael displays ignorance of or just denies!). The basic bit of ignorance in that list is the definition of the photosphere
N.B. This does not depend on your unsupported assertion that the standard solar model has been debunked by the first measurement of convection currents that it predicts (but a lot faster than the measurements).
Giving other posters an insight into the behaviour of an Internet physics crank. For example:
Ignoring basic physics, e.g.
- When given basic facts about the Sun (surface temperature of ~5700K) and iron (melting point of ~1811 K) you still assert that there is a solid iron surface below that photosphere, ignoring basic thermodynamics (2nd law).
- When given the definition of the photosphere (the region where light is emitted from the body of the Sun), you still insist that there is light in solar images from 1000's of km below the photosphere. You cannot understand that this light by definition is being emitted from the photosphere!
- When given the scientific evidence that the photosphere is ~100 km deep (How deep can we see into the Sun), you ignore this and still insist that there is light in solar images from 1000's of km below the photosphere.
Ignoring internal contradictions,
The inability to acknowledge mistakes.
When challenged, attacking the challenger rather than addressing the argument.
The continuous labeling of me as just an "IT guy" when we are both IT guys is a case in point. I am not just an "IT guy" - I have an education in physics (M.Sc. in theoretical solid state physics) and so can see the simple errors that you have made. My background allows me to understand the scientific literature.
Your physics education is that you have read some books. So far all we have talked about is one page in one of these books (
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma). This discussion has demostrated an inability to comprehend this one page!
My own education
!
My university education was almost 30 years ago. I have kept current with some fields of interest but solar physics was not one of them until 4 or 5 years ago. As an example I did know the definition of the photosphere but had to look up its depth. So addressing the errors that you have committed in solar physics has allowed be to learn some interesting physics.
Lastly
Michael, you do produce some citations to interesting science, e.g.
Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?
There are problems with this though
.
A few times you link to really bad web sites - in this case a climate denial site.
You have a tendency to cite news articles which suggests that you did not look at the scientific literature. In this case a more proper citation would be to the pre-print (or to PNAS but that requires payment):
You tend to make up stuff about the citation. In this case, you assert that this result somehow invalidates the standard solar model. It does not - it implies that the convection part of the model is somehow wrong, i.e. it needs fixing.
That is what the paper states. The authors do not say that the standard solar model is debunked by this result.
P.S. Let say there is an observation that does invalidate the standard solar model. that does this mean? It means that your ideas is still debunked!
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
) and is obsolete!
.
