The day of reckoning. What will replace the standard solar theory?

[Loudmouth]

Ya, those loops. We see them "come up and through" the surface of the photosphere,

No, we only see them above the photosphere. Show me a single picture of this material lying below the photosphere.

Also, you still have hotter material below the photosphere. Going deeper and only getting hotter.

Your model fails simple thermodynamics. You have a massive heat source in the middle of the Sun and a 6,000K outer layer. Guess what the temperature of the material between those two positions is going to be? Oh, that's right, a temperature gradient. Your solid surface would be vapor. Your model fails a simple assessment of thermodynamics.

 

[Michael]

No, we only see them above the photosphere. Show me a single picture of this material lying below the photosphere.

I showed a "blast" of material going right through the photosphere! I guess your basic attitude is if you can't deal with it, don't deal with it, and dodge the data. How about all those alignments between flux ropes, magnetic fields and the hot spots on the surface in 1700A? How about the alignment between the mathematical models of sunspots and the SDO movies of sunspots? How about that mass flow up and through the surface of the photosphere?

Also, you still have hotter material below the photosphere. Going deeper and only getting hotter.

You keep making an unsupported assertions. We go from a million degree corona, to a 20,000K chromosophere, to a 6000K photosphere. Your claim about "deeper=hotter" is pure bunk! Demonstrate your claim!

Your model fails simple thermodynamics.

No, your model violates the laws of thermodynamics by trying to claim million degree flux ropes "cool down" thousand degree plasma!

You have a massive heat source in the middle of the Sun and a 6,000K outer layer.

No, I don't. I have a massive heat source in the middle of the sun, just like I have a massive heat source in the center of Earth. I have an outer solid crust layer that is about 1200K. From there I have various *non* opaque layers that get *hotter* as heat from the flux ropes heats up the lighter plasma layers in the solar atmosphere.

Guess what the temperature of the material between those two positions is going to be? Oh, that's right, a temperature gradient. Your solid surface would be vapor. Your model fails a simple assessment of thermodynamics.

You have constantly dodged all the math, all the images, all the mass flow images and every bit of the data I've put before you. Instead you fixated on a *mainstream* solar claim, from a *now falsified* solar model, in a pathetic attempt to attempt to discredit one solar model using the *assumptions* of a completely *unrelated* solar theory! Meanwhile you *avoid* all the data that blows your theory away, including that *massive* blowthrough of material that goes right up and through the photosphere during flare events.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

That mass movement *through* the photosphere is completely consistent with a *Birkeland* cathode solar model, and completely *inconsistent* with standard theory! Those mathematical predictions about sunspot flux rope alignments work out *perfectly* with the SDO images, again *completely consistent* with a Birkeland model, and completely *inconsistent* with a "transition region" model. Those HMI measurements of slow convection also *falsify* your model, they don't *support* it!

Go ahead and keep running from the facts all you like, but movie says it all. Your model does *not* predict such mass flows. Mine does.

 

[Michael]

No, they don't. Those are IN THE PHOTOSPHERE, not under them.

It's cool plasma from below coming *up and through* the photosphere!

Those are plasmas where convection has been stopped by magnetic lines allowing them to radiate more heat before sinking back down into the photosphere.

Explain that magic to me. How *exactly* do million degree flux ropes "stop convection" over a *gigantic* round area? How do dense hot plasmas cool off thousand degree plasma? Talk about thermodynamic impossibilities! You're just making up "magic magnetic fields' to do whatever you claim they do!

I am STILL waiting for observations of cooler layers BELOW the photosphere. Where are they?

I have repeatedly explained to you that every observation of cool umbra temperatures demonstrate my claim. The cooler plasma comes from *below* the surface of the photosphere.

I have already explained how sunspots cool.

You didn't "explain" anything! You simply *made up* a ridiculous story about how magnetic fields do magical thermodynamic tricks.

You mean the mass flows of material that is even hotter than the photosphere? Getting deeper and still getting hotter.

It gets *cooler*, not "hotter" as we go "deeper" into the solar atmosphere! You're just making up facts not to suit yourself. The corona is *hotter* than the chromosphere. The chromosphere is *hotter* than the photosphere. That double layer is *hotter* than the one underneath of it too!

Again, where are these cooler layers below the photosphere?

They are looking at you from the umbra!

 

[Loudmouth]

I showed a "blast" of material going right through the photosphere!

Show me this material below the photosphere. You claim that is where it is coming from, so show me.

How about all those alignments between flux ropes, magnetic fields and the hot spots on the surface in 1700A?

What about the complete lack of any observation of cooler layers below the photosphere? What about thermodynamics which completely rules out a solid iron surface anywhere below the photosphere? Still in denial I see?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's cool plasma from below coming *up and through* the photosphere!

Nowhere have you shown this. Nowhere. It is completely fantasy. The photosphere is measured to get hotter as you go down. Never does it cool off. The only time it cools is when it radiates heat at the surface which is exactly what happens in sunspots.

Explain that magic to me. How *exactly* do million degree flux ropes "stop convection" over a *gigantic* round area?

It is magnetic field lines that stop convection, not flux ropes. Also, the cornoal loops are trillions of times less dense than the photosphere and contain way less energy than the photosphere. You also keep ignoring this as well.

Going deeper and still getting hotter.

How do dense hot plasmas cool off thousand degree plasma? Talk about thermodynamic impossibilities! You're just making up "magic magnetic fields' to do whatever you claim they do!

Really? You have a solid iron surface between layers of plasma that are thousands of degrees above the vaporization temperature of iron, and you want to lecture me on thermodynamics? Really?

Wake up Michael.

 

[Michael]

Nowhere have you shown this. Nowhere.

Nowhere have you shown otherwise. Nowhere!

It is completely fantasy.

That mass blowing up and through the surface of the photosphere is no "fantasy", it's "reality", a "reality" that *destroys* your claims about a magical "transition region' in the sky.

The photosphere is measured to get hotter as you go down.

Where? You keep making wild claims and providing *zero* support for your verbal handwaves!

Never does it cool off. The only time it cools is when it radiates heat at the surface which is exactly what happens in sunspots.

Except in sunspots we observe *cooler* plasmas, not *hotter* plasmas!

It is magnetic field lines that stop convection, not flux ropes.[/quote

You don't have any 'magnetic lines' that are capable of doing anything of the sort! What you have are *wild personal claims* with *zip* so far in terms of actual support. Your "magnetic field generator" got falsified last year as well, not that you care one bit!

Also, the cornoal loops are trillions of times less dense than the photosphere and contain way less energy than the photosphere. You also keep ignoring this as well.

You haven't demonstrated that flux ropes are less dense than the surface of the photosphere. Again you make *wild* claims, and provide *zero* supporting work.

Going deeper and still getting hotter.

False. It gets *cooler* and deeper like the photosphere is cooler and deeper than the chromosphere, and the chromosphere is cooler and deeper than the corona.

Really? You have a solid iron surface between layers of plasma that are thousands of degrees above the vaporization temperature of iron, and you want to lecture me on thermodynamics? Really?

I really think your bigoted desire to judge a cathode solar model with no opaque layers based upon the *assumptions* of a now *falsified* solar model is pathetic! You have nothing! You can't deal with the data. You can't deal with the math. You can't deal with the images. You can't deal with the *model* itself either, so you "mix and match" things to suit yourself, while avoiding every image, and all the math!

Wake up Michael.

Wake up yourself. You can't handle the math. You can't handle the mass flow images. You can't handle the magnetic field alignments with the hot spots on the surface. You can't handle the fact that flux ropes drop right down into the penumbral filaments just as the *models* predict! About all you can do now is run like hell from the data that falsifies your beliefs, just like you've run from that slow convection observation since the start of this conversation.

Wake up. Mainstream solar theory is dead. Whatever will survive SDO data sets, it certainly isn't going to be the standard solar model.

 

[Michael]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

When are you going to deal with this image that *falsifies* your solar theories?

 

[Michael]

Show me this material below the photosphere. You claim that is where it is coming from, so show me.

I showed a bunch of that material flying up and through your photosphere in that flare image which you completely avoided!

What about the complete lack of any observation of cooler layers below the photosphere?

Since every observation of cool umbra temperatures *falsifies* your claim, you need a new song and dance routine.

What about thermodynamics which completely rules out a solid iron surface anywhere below the photosphere? Still in denial I see?

Since I don't have any opaque layers in my model, the only one in pure denial is you, and only you.

When are you going to deal with the mass flow image I handed to you that shows that the discharge occurs *under* the surface of the photosphere?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

 

[Loudmouth]

I showed a bunch of that material flying up and through your photosphere in that flare image which you completely avoided!

All of which is hotter than the photosphere.

Where are these cooler layers below the photosphere? Show them to me.

Since every observation of cool umbra temperatures *falsifies* your claim, you need a new song and dance routine.

That is a flat out lie. Nothing about cooler sunspots falsifies my claims.

Since I don't have any opaque layers in my model, the only one in pure denial is you, and only you.

We are talking about the Sun, not your make believe.

Until you can deal with the massive problems for a solid surface in 6000+ K plasma then there is nothing else to talk about. I am done feeding your fantasies. You are a troll, plain and simple.

 

[Michael]

All of which is hotter than the photosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

Well, in that particular case sure. The million degree, current carrying flux ropes "reconnected" underneath of the photosphere, and a million degree electrical discharge ensued. That hot material from inside the flux ropes came ripping right up and through that surface.

Where are these cooler layers below the photosphere? Show them to me.

Every sunspot study that shows *cooler* umbra temperatures should suffice.

That is a flat out lie. Nothing about cooler sunspots falsifies my claims.

Your emotional need for "magic magnetic fields" is your ultimate downfall, along with that "blow out" image from a flare. I realize you don't want to come to terms with reality, but your convection predictions bit the dust in 2012, along with your power source of 'magnetic fields'.

In a "plasma medium", "magnetic lines" do not form *without* the flow of current along the line, ie a "Birkeland current". Even the mainstream model is dependent currents to sustain magnetic fields. Their problem is they lost their power source and their mixing mechanism.

We are talking about the Sun, not your make believe.

The concept of "fast convection" turned out to be "make believe". The mainstream notion that all flares occur above the surface of the photosphere turned out be "make believe". The concept of a magic 'transition region' in the solar sky turned out to be "make believe". The limb images show nothing more than the chromosphere changing from transparent to opaque along hundred thousand kilometers of chromosphere along the limb! Mainstream solar theory turned out to be "make believe".

All that matters now is what actually *survives* SDO data set studies. Whereas a Birkeland cathode solar model *does* predict that electrical discharges can occur *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere, mainstream theory does not. Whereas a Birkeland model jives with all the mathematical models of sunspots *and* all the SDO images of sunspots overlaid in 171A wavelengths, the mainstream model is an *epic fail* on both fronts.

Until you can deal with the massive problems for a solid surface in 6000+ K plasma then there is nothing else to talk about.

There is no "massive problem" in a Birkeland cathode solar model because none of the atmospheric layers are 'opaque' in a cathode model. The only massive problem seems to be getting you to realize that you must judge each model based upon it's *own* assumptions, not based upon the assumptions *you personally* wish to judge them!

I am done feeding your fantasies. You are a troll, plain and simple.

FYI, you completely botched your golden opportunity to reciprocate graciously. Instead of acting like a scientist and actually dealing with any of the mathematical models of sunspots, or any of the SDO images of sunspots that exactly fit those models, or dealing with any of the alignment issues related to flux ropes traversing the surface of the photosphere, or the mass flow *blowouts* seen in solar flares, you *simply run*.

You run the moment that you can't deal with the data. Not only *did you not* deal with the data, you hurl personal insults at me as you run from the data that destroys your solar theories! Nice. Have a nice time running from all the SDO data. You're going to be running from terabytes of data for the rest of your life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Every sunspot study that shows *cooler* umbra temperatures should suffice.

It is complete denial like this that makes you a troll. Sunspots are IN THE PHOTOSPHERE, not below it.

You run the moment that you can't deal with the data.

So says the troll who tries to claim there is a solid surface in 6,000+K plasma.

I am deciding to stop feeding the troll. It is impossible to talk science with people who replace facts with make believe.

 

[Michael]

So says the troll who tries to claim there is a solid surface in 6,000+K plasma.

Since I never made any such claim, apparently you're talking to yourself, about yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since I never made any such claim, apparently you're talking to yourself, about yourself.

You did make such a claim. Again, here you are replacing facts with make believe.

 

[Michael]

It is complete denial like this that makes you a troll. Sunspots are IN THE PHOTOSPHERE, not below it.

Ya know,

I've explained several times now that *cooler* plasma from below is carried up and through the surface of what you're calling a "photosphere" by all kinds of powerful convection currents.

Unlike you, I do not have to evoke "magic million degree magnetic flux tube fields" to attempt to "cool" thousand degree plasma. I don't need to turn *one specific* layer of the solar atmosphere into a "special/opaque" layer as you must do in your now falsified model.

I've handed you the mathematical models of sunspots that "predict" that the most powerful magnetic fields are *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere. These models are *consistent* with the SDO 171, and photosphere overlay images which show the flux ropes descending down into the photosphere along the penumbral filaments.

Unlike in your model, there are no 'opaque' atmospheric layers. You keep *wishing* that the model were different, and *wishing* it were *the same* as your model, but it's not! You can't *force* other solar models to make the same *false assumptions* you make!

For instance, unlike in your model, in a Birkeland cathode model, solar flare electrical discharges can also occur *under* the surface of the photosphere, and blow materials up and through that surface as we observe in that SDO image you keep avoiding like the plague.

The only one feeding the troll around here is me. I've fed you mathematical models of sunspots which show the magnetic field strengths increase at the base of the sunspot. You ate them and didn't even say thanks. I fed you image after SDO image confirming the relationships between flux ropes, magnetic field alignments and hot spots on the surface of the photosphere as predicted in a Birkeland model. You didn't say thing about it. I showed you sunspot images that overlaid with 171A wavelengths that show that the flux ropes are aligned with the penumbral filament patterns as *predicted* in the mathematical models. You did nothing about it. I fed you for two weeks, and for two weeks you've been in steadfast denial of scientific facts!

About all you've done is attempt to use a completely *bigoted* campaign of imposing *your falsified model assumptions* upon a *different solar model*! That's about as desperate and irrational as it gets IMO.

Keep running from the SDO data all you wish, but like I said you'll be running from uncounted terabytes of data forever.

You aren't kidding anyone. You're deciding to run from a debate because you're losing it badly. You lost in terms of the math. You lost in terms of the images. You lost in terms of the predicted alignments. You lost most on the mass flow patterns of flares. You lost in the realm of helioseismology too. What's left? Run!!!!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

I've explained several times now that *cooler* plasma from below is carried up and through the surface of what you're calling a "photosphere" by all kinds of powerful convection currents.

Which is make believe. The plasma is over 6,000K where you are putting your solid surface. Those are the facts. You run away from them time after time after time, and try to cover this denial with walls of bluster.

Deal with the facts.

Unlike you, I do not have to evoke "magic million degree magnetic flux tube fields" to attempt to "cool" thousand degree plasma.

Neither do I. This is more make believe from you. What I have is magnetic fields lines as discussed throughout the peer reviewed literature. You know this. Just more bluster from you.

Unlike in your model, . . .

We are not talking about models here. We are talking about FACTS!!!!!

The plasma where you are putting a solid surface is over 6,000K. That is a fact.

[qutoe]For instance, unlike in your model, in a Birkeland cathode model,[/quote]

And more make believe. We are talking about the FACT of a 6,000+K plasma (actually closer to 9,000K at the depth you need it).

The only one feeding the troll around here is me. I've fed you mathematical models of sunspots which show the magnetic field strengths increase at the base of the sunspot. You ate them and didn't even say thanks. I fed you image after SDO image confirming the relationships between flux ropes, magnetic field alignments and hot spots on the surface of the photosphere as predicted in a Birkeland model. You didn't say thing about it. I showed you sunspot images that overlaid with 171A wavelengths that show that the flux ropes are aligned with the penumbral filament patterns as *predicted* in the mathematical models. You did nothing about it. I fed you for two weeks, and for two weeks you've been in steadfast denial of scientific facts!

About all you've done is attempt to use a completely *bigoted* campaign of imposing *your falsified model assumptions* upon a *different solar model*! That's about as desperate and irrational as it gets IMO.

Keep running from the SDO data all you wish, but like I said you'll be running from uncounted terabytes of data forever.

You aren't kidding anyone. You're deciding to run from a debate because you're losing it badly. You lost in terms of the math. You lost in terms of the images. You lost in terms of the predicted alignments. You lost most on the mass flow patterns of flares. You lost in the realm of helioseismology too. What's left? Run!!!!!!

And more bluster to cover up the fact of a hot photosphere.

 

[Elendur]

Aaaaand I have some time to answer. *finally*.

Well, like I said, there's a ton of material on these topics. If you point me in the right direction in terms of the information you need, I can probably find it for you.

Meh. Don't have the time nor interest for it.

Again?

Honestly I don't see any of your publications supporting what you've been claiming, you'd need something extremely explicit.

Somewhere earlier in one of these threads I gave the readers digest version. Based upon the temperature ranges mentioned on the NASA website, they combined a 171A, a 195A, and potentially 211A, to provide us with a view of the 'transition region", and assigned them blue, yellow and green. They also took a 304A image, and cropped the photosphere from it, leaving just a 'ring' around the sun in orange that shows us the chromosphere, This ring was then overlaid on the transition region iron ion lines to show us the relative location of the transition region with respect to the chromosphere.

It's essentially a "test" of both mainstream solar theory, and a Birkeland solar model.

The thing is that I want to see them explaining it before I make up my mind whether your claim is credible or not.

FYI, you'll only see the surface of the photosphere in 1600,1700, and 4500, not in 304A images. The 304A images are related to *chromospheric activity* whereas the other wavelengths you mentioned show the surface of the photosphere, and sunspots on that surface.

That "cromosphere" reference is key. We aren't observing the photosphere in that wavelength, we're observing the chromosphere in both solar models. In standard model, it's a function of temperature. In a Birkeland model, it's a function of the mass separation of elements, and the continuous current that is flowing through the various double layers. In each model, the 304A wavelength is directly related to the chromosphere. That's a *very* helpful starting point to "test" these two models, particularly since they predict that the transition region is located in different places with respect to this layer of the solar atmosphere.

You'll see the surface of the photosphere in that wavelength, along with mass flows into and out of that surface. Occasionally you'll actually see magnetic ropes in these images, whereas that's very rare in 1700A and 4500A.

1600A and 1700A images of the photosphere show the temperature effect of the magnetic ropes traversing that surface. In the areas where the largest loops come up and through that surface, it leaves bright, hot footprints on the surface. The current in the loop also leaves north and south magnetic field alignments on that surface depending on the direction of the current where it traverses that surface. This can be verified by overlaying 1600A and magnetogram images, along with an iron ion wavelength.

Unless this comes from something peer-reviewed that's kind of unverifiable to me.

Again, there is a key, and now "testable" difference between the standard model and a Birkeland cathode solar theory at it relates to the location of the 'transition' region, and the origin of million degree plasma.

In the "standard theory", all layers are arranged by temperature, and *only* by temperature. The "transition region" in standard theory is a layer that sandwiched between cooler "chromosphere", and the hot, million degree "corona". In other words, the layers according to mainstream theory starting closest to the core would be the 'photosphere', the chromosphere, the "transition region", and the corona. The 'coronal loops' supposedly create "solar moss" about 1200KM *above* the photosphere.

In a Birkeland cathode model, the layers are arranged by atomic weight, not *necessarily* temperature, although it does out that way. The cathode surface is the "transition" region in a Birkeland cathode. It's where all the 'discharges' originate. The "magnetic ropes" traverse from one point on the surface to another, often rising through every layer of the solar atmosphere.

The layers in a Birkeland model starting from the core are the rigid cathode "transition region", the silicon plasma layer under the Neon photosphere, the Neon photosphere, the Helium Chromosphere, and the mostly hydrogen corona. They are also arranged by density and temperature like the standard model, but there are actually more "layers" in a Birkeland model since the standard model does not account for the silicon layer that sits between the Neon photosphere and the rigid "transition region".

Were we discussing the pictures or the models?

You might start with the literature on WIKI and related to the Trace spacecraft in terms of the predicted location of the 'transition region'.

Solar transition region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That information is stated in the *temperatures* that they mentioned. The 60,000 degree figure they cited is directly related to the 304A wavelength. The million degree figure is related to the iron ion wavelengths, specifically the lower energy ranges, visible mostly in 171A, 195A, and 211A. Most of the other iron ion wavelengths require *multimillion degree* plasma to be visible in the image.

I don't see how you can discern the different colors they've used, the best thing would be an explicit statement similar to "here we use this and this".

The most important "prediction" that we can "test" in this image is the location of the "transition region" with respect to the chromosphere. The transition region is the place in the solar atmosphere where we observe limb darkening in the iron lines. It's *not* located in the upper Chromosphere as "predicted" in standard theory. Rather it is located about 4800KM *under* the chromosphere as I predicted in 2005 using Kosovichev's heliosceismology data related to mass flow movements under sunspots, and his work with related to a "stratification subsurface".

This image essentially falsifies mainstream "predictions" about the location of the "transition region", and it verifies the solar model on my website, hence the blog entry on my website, the moment it was released.

And not we're back to post #101. Not once do they mention iron lines. So how am I, as a layman, to "see" darkening at those?


I think this may have been covered in the time I've been absent, but I still thought I should reply.

 

[Michael]

Which is make believe. The plasma is over 6,000K where you are putting your solid surface. Those are the facts. You run away from them time after time after time, and try to cover this denial with walls of bluster.

Deal with the facts.

The "fact" is that you simply "make up" whatever "facts" you want! No, the plasma near the actual cathode surface is *not* anywhere close to 6000k. The chromosphere is *hotter*, not *cooler* than the photosphere. It doesn't get *hotter* as we go from corona, to chromosphere, to photosphere, it *gets cooler*! As long as you "make up" your own facts to suit yourself, we won't get far. Then again, you don't care.

There are no "opaque" atmospheric layers in a Birkeland cathode solar model. That's a "fact" that you simply don't want to deal with. You therefore "make-believe" whatever suits you.

Neither do I. This is more make believe from you. What I have is magnetic fields lines as discussed throughout the peer reviewed literature. You know this. Just more bluster from you.

That peer reviewed literature you keep bragging about just got *falsified* in 2012. More denial from you. You don't have any energy source to explain those "magnetic lines", you offered no logical way to "cool" hot plasma with "magnetic lines", and it was nothing more than a "theory" when it was published in the first place! Worse yet, its a bad solar model that got *shot down* by later data!

Every single instance where we observer lower temperature plasma upwelling in a sunspot, we observe cooler plasmas from lower in the atmosphere.

We are not talking about models here. We are talking about FACTS!!!!!

The fact of the matter is that your model was falsified last year. You won't talk about that fact. The fact of the matter is that there is no magical "transition region" as predicted by mainstream theory where loops magically jump in temperature from thousands to millions of degrees. The fact is they come up through the photosphere already radiating at a million degrees as we can see by the penumbral filament alignments. You don't want to talk about that fact either. The facts are that flares often blow material *up and through* the surface of the photosphere because the discharge occurs *under* the photosphere. You don't want talk about that fact. The fact is that the flux ropes leave strong magnetic fields and they leave hot spots on the surface in 1700A and 1600A, another fact you don't want to discuss.

Every "fact" that destroys your claims, you simply *ignore*. It's a denial based belief system that requires you ignore the key points and fixate on an issue you can't actually demonstrate either!

The plasma where you are putting a solid surface is over 6,000K. That is a fact.

No, it's not. By you logic it's a "fact" that the chromosphere is 20,000K, so it's impossible for the photosphere to be cooler than 20,000K. By your logic the photosphere must be millions of degrees because it has to be hotter and warmer than the corona.

And more make believe. We are talking about the FACT of a 6,000+K plasma (actually closer to 9,000K at the depth you need it).

And look, yet another *made up fact* that you pulled out of you head without providing so much as a single supporting document or paper. Your "facts" come right our of your back pocket. Even worse, your "facts" ultimately ignore the fact that your favorite solar model *was falsified* in 2012. What's actually "sad" in all this nonsense is that a "rigid" cathode surface doesn't even have to be "solid" in the first place. The published papers simply refer to the cathode surface as a "rigid" surface! It wouldn't even *matter* if it *was hotter* in a Birkeland cathode model!

And more bluster to cover up the fact of a hot photosphere.

What a complete dodge! You can't even deal with the very first mass flow pattern observed in the very first flare that I handed you! You can't handle the math. You can't handle the images. There is no "transition region" observed in SDO images. The loops drop right down into the sunspot along the penumbral filaments as "predicted" by sunspot modelling studies. The mass flows often come *up and through* the surface of the photosphere, demonstrating that the electrical discharge from the flare takes place *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere as *successfully predicted* in a cathode model, while simultaneously falsifying mainstream flare models.

About all you can do is keep harping on your one bogus argument that is essentially nothing more than pure bigotry run a muck. Rather than judge the model based upon it's *own* merits and assumptions, you simply mix and match concepts from a *now falsified* model to suit yourself.

There are no opaque atmospheric layers in a Birkeland cathode solar model. When did you intend to accept that *fact*?

 

[Loudmouth]

The "fact" is that you simply "make up" whatever "facts" you want! No, the plasma near the actual cathode surface is *not* anywhere close to 6000k.

Yes, it is. Until you can deal with the facts there is no reason to continue this thread.

 

[Michael]

Aaaaand I have some time to answer. *finally*.

Better late than never.

Meh. Don't have the time nor interest for it.

That's a pity IMO. Solar physics is a fascinating subject IMO, and the leaps in technology over the past five years are staggering in terms of their implication on solar theory.

Honestly I don't see any of your publications supporting what you've been claiming, you'd need something extremely explicit.

The published papers have nothing to do with SDO images. The published papers describe a "rigid" set of subsurface features, illuminated by 171A and 195A light that is emitted from flux ropes as observed by TRACE and SOHO.

The thing is that I want to see them explaining it before I make up my mind whether your claim is credible or not.

In terms of your timing, "waiting" worked out in your favor. I think we've now firmly established that the single image in question did *not* show what I assumed it showed. It also pretty much blows out the whole concept of a "transitional region" as well. The transition from bright horizon to opaque dark region along the limb is nothing more than a transition point in the dusty chromosphere, where the chromosphere turns from transparent to opaque in these specific wavelengths along the limb. Such limb images however tell us *little or nothing* about the actual "origin" of flux ropes, particularly in face on images of the sun.

In such instance, we need to look at the math (Kosovichev and the sunspot models) and see how well they jive with the SDO images. In this case the mathematical models predicting strong subsurface EM fields are supported by the SDO images that show 171A light descending into the penumbral filaments *as predicted* in the models.

In terms of mass flow differences however, there are some very unique "predictions" related to a cathode solar model, which I've addressed in those flare images. The SDO images show that electrical discharges can not only occur *above* the surface of the photosphere, but they can occur below that surface as well. Some flares blow hot material up and through that layer, whereas some events blow material down *into* that surface.

In a Birkeland model, the 'reconnection' of current in the circuits can occur anywhere in the solar atmosphere, both above and below the surface of the double layer called a "photosphere" by the mainstream.

Unfortunately for the mainstream, the SDO images and data sets haven't been kind. There's no real "transition region" to be observed in SDO images. Even along the limb, we aren't observing anything other than an opaque horizon. It's no the 'origin' of flux ropes we observe along the limb, just the point they become "visible" above the 'dust" in the atmosphere along the 100+ kilometers of chromospheric plasma along the limb.

Unless this comes from something peer-reviewed that's kind of unverifiable to me.

That recent paper on "slow" convection was "peer reviewed". Care to comment?

Were we discussing the pictures or the models?

Both at various times.

I don't see how you can discern the different colors they've used, the best thing would be an explicit statement similar to "here we use this and this".

I'd guess that I still selected the wavelengths and the various colors correctly, even if I was incorrect about the size of the inside disk that was "subtracted" from the 304A image. The colors and wavelengths really relate to the image, and the temperature ranges they mentioned. The 304A wavelength specifically relates to 50,000 degree plasma. The iron lines I mentioned (171A, 195A, 211A) all related to "lower' temperature iron ionization states, vs. the 94A, 131, and higher energy wavelengths.

Either way, it's pretty much a moot point now.

And not we're back to post #101. Not once do they mention iron lines. So how am I, as a layman, to "see" darkening at those?

I would assume that a "layman" probably wouldn't know that there is a link between iron and say 171A, or 195A, nor a link between HeII and 304A. These are things you'd have to know from reading some of the technical specs on satellite images.

I think this may have been covered in the time I've been absent, but I still thought I should reply.

Well, thanks for thinking of me.

Now that you're caught up from 3 weeks or so ago, you might be interested in some of the more recent data we've discussed, like this SDO image of a flare in 1700A.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

 

[Michael]

Yes, it is. Until you can deal with the facts there is no reason to continue this thread.

You didn't actually present any "facts". I handed you mathematical models of sunspots that align themselves up perfectly with SDO 171A overlay images of penumbral filaments in 1700A. I've handed you Kosovichev's work that verifies the subsurface origin of million degree plasma jets. I've handed you mass flow images of material blowing up and through the surface of the photosphere as predicted in a Birkeland cathode model.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2012_04_16_16_30_07_2012_04_16_19_29_19_AIA_1700-hq.mp4

In case you missed it, *every single published paper* that I've been involved in describes a *rigid*, not a "solid" surface, in terms of the origin of these 171A and 195A wavelengths. You're not even capable of falsifying the *published papers* we've produced based upon your *bigoted* assertion of *mainstream* claims onto *this* model! Your whole "game" is "busted"!

Whatever you're doing, it's *not* addressing the data. You didn't deal with any of it. You ignored every single piece of data that falsified standard solar theory, from the HMI convection data, to the mass blowing up and through the surface of the photosphere, and thereby blowing your model out the water!

You ignored Kosovichev's work describing the *subsurface origin* of hot plasma. You ignored the sunspot modeling maths entirely.

Your whole "game" consists of making personal claims about "hotter=deeper", when in fact ever layer change shows that (cooler=deeper). It's not *hotter* in the photosphere than in the corona. The photosphere is not "hotter' than the chromosphere. Your model doesn't even have a viable heat source left to explain why the upper layers are "hot" in the first place!

You're running from the data because the data destroys your claims. That's the ugly fact you can't handle.