Both have been evidenced ad infinitum. At this juncture my point has been made. The evidence doesn't matter to you. Your solar model is entirely unfalsifiable.
Upvote
0
The day of reckoning. What will replace the standard solar theory?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Both have been evidenced ad infinitum. At this juncture my point has been made. The evidence doesn't matter to you. Your solar model is entirely unfalsifiable.
Where? Most references put the surface temperature at 5800K, not 4500K, and you still never explained how sunspots contain *cooler* plasma?
Apparently the mainstream model is unfalsifiable or that convection number would have sufficed. Project much?
Upvote
0
Throughout this thread. The filters on the SDO instruments themselves record these temperatures. The photosphere is also opaque, and density increases with depth. This requires temperature to increase. There is no way around it.
You still have not explained how you can have a solid surface at well above 4500K.
Tu quoque much?
Upvote
0
They don't claim the surface temperature of the photosphere is 4500K. You made that up.
Again, you abuse that term, and you've yet to demonstrate that it has any meaning in terms of the location of solar moss activity. I'm handing you a perfect way to actually "falsify" virtually *all* cathode solar theories, not just a single interpretation of a single blog image. How can you even demonstrate that it makes any difference whatsoever whether or not the photosphere is "opaque" in mainstream terms as it relates to whether or not "solar moss" activity takes place *above* or *below* the surface of the "photosphere"?
There is no way around it in *your* model, I'll grant you that. There is no such thing an an "opaque" (as in blocks all light entirely) neon double layer in a Birkeland cathode solar model, so mainstream predictions are irrelevant to me.
I have explained it to you several times now. Unlike in *your falsified* model, the neon double layer is *not* "opaque" in a Birkeland cathode solar model. It's a semi-opaque, non special, current carrying double layer in the solar atmosphere, just the like the corona, just like the chromosphere, and just like the mostly silicon plasma double layer under it.
I'm simply pointing out to you that I've offered you a clear way to differentiate between a standard model interpretation of solar images, and a cathode solar model interpretation of those same images.
Your model makes no particular "predictions" about hot spots on the photosphere and their relationship to magnetic field lines, or their relationship to coronal loops for that matter. Nothing about your model actually *explains* anything, starting with the actual heat source of the corona, or the heat source of flux ropes.
Considering your convection predictions bit the dust in 2012, you've lost your most important energy source for "reconnection", and you have no explanation as to why even a single flux rope reaches millions of degrees.
The standard model is apparently unfalsifiable if those convection prediction failures won't do it. You don't even have a legitimate power source to explain the energy release of a single flare in your model!
Convection never was an 'energy source' as it relates to coronal heating, or flux rope heating. Those processes are "current driven" processes in a cathode solar model. Those convection numbers do not falsify a cathode solar model. They would however falsify mainstream solar theory.
Solar moss events are the real Achilles heal of mainstream solar theory. There is no actual "thin transition region" in SDO images. The flux ropes trace *through* the surface of the photosphere, and follow the contours of the penumbral filaments as *expected* in a cathode solar model and as *predicted* by those sunspot modeling studies.
There's nothing left standing in standard solar theory. Even the mass movements up and through the surface of the photosphere blow *huge chucks* in mainstream solar models.
SDO has already falsified standard solar theory. Whatever survives SDO AIA imagery and HMI data, it won't be the standard solar model.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
AIA 1700 filter = 4500k
AIA 4500 filter = 6000K
NASA - How SDO Sees the Sun
Getting deeper, and only getting hotter.
Upvote
0
That 4500 figure is *not* the surface temperature of the photosphere, it's probably a minimum temperature range of that one filter. Since the same page claims that this filter can see both the surface of the photosphere *and* the "hotter* chromosphere, I fail to see where that 4500 figure relates to anything useful.
What is useful is the fact that it shows us the surface of the photosphere and the mass movement through that surface. It also shows us sunspots on that surface, and their relationship to 171A images of sunspots.
Again, your "Getting deeper and only getting hotter" claim is falsified by the fact that sunspots can contain plasma that is 1500 degrees (or more) cooler than the surface of the photosphere, and the fact that the chromosphere is hotter and higher than the photosphere.
The point you simply sidestepped is the fact the opacity claim of your model has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not flux ropes are visible *above* or *below* the surface of the photosphere.
The mainstream and cathode solar models make two very different predictions about the location of "solar moss" activity in face on images of sunspots, and solar moss events in terms of their relationship to the surface of the photosphere. These two models make very different predictions as to where the flux ropes are visible in face on images, and different predictions related to mass movements in and through the surface of the photosphere. The mainstream model doesn't even *allow* for 'reconnection' events to occur *under* the photosphere and blow mass up and through that surface. The Birkeland model does make allowances for "discharges" to occur anywhere in the solar atmosphere, both above and below the surface of the neon double layer. Mass *can* be blown up and through that layer as a result of flare activity. Your model of flares only allows for 'reconnection' to occur *above the transition region*.
Upvote
0
Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.
Like I said, you refuse to deal with facts. There is no reason to discuss anything with someone who invents facts as they need them.
Upvote
0
Oh, for crying out loud!
Photosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emphasis mine. Denial is your game which is why you keep avoiding the real issues related to mass movements and the alignments of flux ropes with magnetic fields, hot spots on the surface, and penumbral filaments!
Upvote
0
So the photosphere is between 4500 and 6000K, both well above the melting point of anything in your supposed solid surface, and your solid surface is supposed to be below the opaque photosphere. So we have nowhere for the heat to go and increasing density. Thermodynamics requires that the temperature be higher than what is measured at the surface of the photosphere.
There is no solid surface.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The trivial nonsense is obvious......
Not only haven't you copped to the fact that your own solar theory is dead, you don't care. You've made no effort to address any of the key images and maths that I posted last week, nor have you commented on the mass movements seen in any of the images I've cited thus far this week. All you seem to fixate on is a *trivial number* that has literally *no bearing at all* on the key points under discussion.
Your whole game is nothing but a ruse to keep you from dealing with the real data in front of you. You have no mathematical basis for your claims, whereas I do. You have no visual confirmation of your claims in terms of mass movements, whereas I do. You have no SDO images at all to support your claim that flux ropes originate in some thin region above the photosphere. About all you have are pointless diversions.
Not only haven't you copped to the fact that your own solar theory is dead, you don't care. You've made no effort to address any of the key images and maths that I posted last week, nor have you commented on the mass movements seen in any of the images I've cited thus far this week. All you seem to fixate on is a *trivial number* that has literally *no bearing at all* on the key points under discussion.
Your whole game is nothing but a ruse to keep you from dealing with the real data in front of you. You have no mathematical basis for your claims, whereas I do. You have no visual confirmation of your claims in terms of mass movements, whereas I do. You have no SDO images at all to support your claim that flux ropes originate in some thin region above the photosphere. About all you have are pointless diversions.
Upvote
0
Avoidance once again. The surface of the sun is well above the melting point of anything solid, and it only gets hotter the deeper you go.
You can't deal with the simple facts of temperature. Why good is it to talk of these other problems for your model when you can't understand the basic facts?
Projection at its finest.
6,000K at the surface, and only getting hotter as you move inwards.
Upvote
0
If the neon double layer were "opaque" in a cathode solar model, I might care.
The neon double layer of a Birkeland solar model is not opaque. Only in your *now falsified* solar theory is that surface 'opaque'. It's not even "opaque" in the way you are claiming!
Again, all of these claims are useless, and they have no meaning in cathode solar theory. Your claims about 'opacity' are based upon a *falsified* solar theory! That opacity claim has nothing to do with the cathode solar model on my website.
Upvote
0
The neon double layer is make believe. This is what I mean by you making up facts.
The photosphere is opaque. It is 6,000K. It only gets hotter the deeper you go.
And more make believe. The opacity of the photosphere has never been falsified.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You haven't accepted the fact that your own solar model was falsified, and you *insist* on judging a completely different solar model based upon those now *falsified* claims!
I can. What I can't deal with is simple bigotry. You can't judge a Birkeland model based on falsified *mainstream* claims!
The basic "facts" you don't want to deal with are the mass movements, the maths and the images that all show that the flux ropes are visible *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere. That's the basic fact you keep avoiding.
Bigotry at it's finest. It wouldn't be so sad that you cling to your own claims had your model not already been falsified over six months ago.
Upvote
0
Um, you keep picking and choosing between stories. First it was 4500, now it's 6000. Where is the photosphere actually 4500K, at the outside surface, or 400KM *under* that surface? What's the difference in terms of SDO images of penumbral filaments, one pixel?
Your whole theory was falsified in 2012, you simply don't care. You don't care to deal with the mass movement problems of your theory, nor do you care to deal with the heating problems of your theory. You don't want to deal with the math.
FYI, you totally and completely squandered your opportunity to reciprocate gracefully.
Upvote
0
And more make believe. The temperature of the Sun only gets hotter the deeper you go.
They haven't been falsified.
No, they are not visible underneath the photosphere. More make believe.
Bigotry at it's finest. It wouldn't be so sad that you cling to your own claims had your model not already been falsified over six months ago.
Not falsified at all. You keep harping on convection, but that does not falsify the standard model. All you had was your supposed iron lines, and that has been thrown out the door. Convection is still there, and the photosphere is still opaque and hotter than it could ever be for any solid surface.
Your Birkeland model is seriously falsified.
Upvote
0
The photosphere is 4500 at the surface and 6000 at the opaque transfer deeper in the photosphere. Take your pick. Getting hotter as you go down. No solid surface.
You think slower convection at the surface falsifies the entire model. It doesn't. Another piece of make believe from you.
And more deflection from Michael who wants to cover up the temperature problems for his model.
FYI, you totally and completely squandered your opportunity to reciprocate gracefully.
When you stop making up facts we can discuss further.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Here is the wiki page entry:
"The Sun's photosphere has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K[3] (with an effective temperature of 5777 K) [4] and a density of about 2×10−4 kg/m3;[5] other stars may have hotter or cooler photospheres. The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of plasma each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter[6] with hot rising plasma in the center and cooler plasma falling in the narrow spaces between them."
What happens with sunspots? The magnetic field lines stop the cooler plasma from falling back into the atmosphere allowing to radiate more heat and cool more than the surrounding plasma. How is this a problem for the current solar model? It isn't.
What is a problem for Michael's model. A star too hot for any solid surface. At 400 km depth into the photosphere the temperature is 6,000K and we only see 4% of the light that is produced at that depth. We see progressively less as you go deeper because the light is absorbed by the plasma as heat. There is nowhere for the heat to go, so as you go deeper towards the hotter power source the plasma gets hotter. Those are the facts that Michael has to deny, and deny he does.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html
"The Sun's photosphere has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K[3] (with an effective temperature of 5777 K) [4] and a density of about 2×10−4 kg/m3;[5] other stars may have hotter or cooler photospheres. The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of plasma each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter[6] with hot rising plasma in the center and cooler plasma falling in the narrow spaces between them."
What happens with sunspots? The magnetic field lines stop the cooler plasma from falling back into the atmosphere allowing to radiate more heat and cool more than the surrounding plasma. How is this a problem for the current solar model? It isn't.
What is a problem for Michael's model. A star too hot for any solid surface. At 400 km depth into the photosphere the temperature is 6,000K and we only see 4% of the light that is produced at that depth. We see progressively less as you go deeper because the light is absorbed by the plasma as heat. There is nowhere for the heat to go, so as you go deeper towards the hotter power source the plasma gets hotter. Those are the facts that Michael has to deny, and deny he does.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html
Upvote
0
Similar threads
