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

[Loudmouth]

You didn't actually present any "facts".

The photosphere increases in temperature and density as you go down. This continues until you reach the core which is millions of degrees. You are trying to put a solid surface where tempatures are well above the vaporization temperature of iron.

Those are the facts.

 

[Michael]

The photosphere increases in temperature and density as you go down. This continues until you reach the core which is millions of degrees. You are trying to put a solid surface where tempatures are well above the vaporization temperature of iron.

Those are the facts.

You have yet to cite a single external reference to support any of your so called "facts".

 

[Loudmouth]

You have yet to cite a single external reference to support any of your so called "facts".

Those citations were already given to you over at JREF. You have known about this problem for years, but try to play dumb.

"Your concept of what constitutes "logic" in this case is seriously flawed. It is physics which requires that the base of the photosphere be roughly a factor of 2 hotter than the top of the photosphere. I have made specific reference to specific source material describing the relevant physics (e.g., the books Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal and THe Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray; also see my posts 130, 236 and 491). You simply ignore all of the relevant physics and instead make some vague reference to "by your logic". That does not constitute a meaningful response. You lose this point completely and as far as I am concerned, the iron surface ideas of both Mozina & brantc are simply refuted by physics to which neither is able to make any substantial response."
[Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries... - Page 23 - JREF Forum

All scientists working in solar physics agree that the photosphere gets hotter with depth. All scientists agree that the visible photosphere at the surface of the sun is 4500K at top and 6000K as it transfers into opaqueness. The science supporting these facts is massive. Nothing the SDO has captured has put any doubt as to these temperatures, and in fact they describe these temperatures right on their webpage. I have also cited other science related sites that have the same informaiton, such as this one:

The Photosphere of the Sun

In response, you have not shown one single peer reviewed paper that describes a temperature measurement for the photosphere that differs at all from these facts. None.

 

[Michael]

Those citations were already given to you over at JREF. You have known about this problem for years, but try to play dumb.

Um, I followed your links to you quoting yourself and Tim, but again, where is there an actual *published paper* to support any of this?

In response, you have not shown one single peer reviewed paper that describes a temperature measurement for the photosphere that differs at all from these facts. None.

Which *peer reviewed paper* that you provided were you expecting me to comment on? Do you really think I care one iota about WIKI page quote from a *now falsified* solar model?

 

[Michael]

All scientists working in solar physics agree that the photosphere gets hotter with depth.

Then surely you have published papers with real measurements to cite? That's something *I could* actually respond to.

All scientists agree that the visible photosphere at the surface of the sun is 4500K at top and 6000K as it transfers into opaqueness. The science supporting these facts is massive.

I don't recall disputing temperature aspects, just your kludged concept of the term 'opaque". Even by mainstream standards it's possible for light that was emitted below the surface of the photosphere to reach SDO.

Nothing the SDO has captured has put any doubt as to these temperatures,

Did I suggest otherwise in terms of the temperature of the surface of the photosphere or the chromosphere, or the corona?

In response, you have not shown one single peer reviewed paper that describes a temperature measurement for the photosphere that differs at all from these facts. None.

I fail to see why you expect me to provide any papers that differ in terms of the temperatures of the corona, the chromosphere or the surface of the thing you're calling a 'photosphere'. They have the same basic temperatures in a Birkeland cathode model!

In terms of your claims about the term "opaque", it's not clear that you even understand that term properly in the first place! Even based upon mainstream concepts, it's entirely possible for light emitted below the surface of the photosphere to be seen in SDO images! You haven't even figured out that much!

Are you ever going to deal with those mass flow images that show material blowing up and through 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

That mass flow movement is a verified 'prediction' in a cathode solar model, yet it enjoys no explanation in standard theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um, I followed your links to you quoting yourself and Tim, but again, where is there an actual *published paper* to support any of this?

"the books Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal and THe Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray"
[Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries... - Page 23 - JREF Forum

We can also add this paper:

1976ApJS...30....1V Page 1

Over and over again it shows a photosphere with increasing temperature with depth, starting at 4500k and increasing to 6000k as you move downwards towards increasing opacity.

Which *peer reviewed paper* that you provided were you expecting me to comment on? Do you really think I care one iota about WIKI page quote from a *now falsified* solar model?

The measurement of the temperature within the photosphere has not been falsified. Again, you need to deal with the facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then surely you have published papers with real measurements to cite? That's something *I could* actually respond to.

You mean such as the NASA SDO site itself that describes the photosphere increasing in temperature with depth?

I fail to see why you expect me to provide any papers that differ in terms of the temperatures of the corona, the chromosphere or the surface of the thing you're calling a 'photosphere'. They have the same basic temperatures in a Birkeland cathode model!

You mean the Birkeland cathod model that requires a solid conductive surface that can not exist at 6,000+K?

In terms of your claims about the term "opaque", it's not clear that you even understand that term properly in the first place! Even based upon mainstream concepts, it's entirely possible for light emitted below the surface of the photosphere to be seen in SDO images! You haven't even figured out that much!

Increasing opacity with depth. Is that more to your liking? This means that the deeper you go the more heat you have trapped, and also denser plasma. You also have a massive heat source at the middle of the sun and it is in thermodynamic contact with these inner layers with more opacity. We then have the outer layer which is 6,000K and also in contact with this supposed "solid surface".

Thermodynamics requires that this solid surface be well above 6,000K. This is simple thermodynamics.

Are you ever going to deal with those mass flow images that show material blowing up and through the surface of the photosphere?

Right after you show that it comes from below the photosphere.

That mass flow movement is a verified 'prediction' in a cathode solar model, yet it enjoys no explanation in standard theory.

You cathode model is falsified by temperatures that disallow the needed solid surface.

 

[Michael]

"the books Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal and THe Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray"
[Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries... - Page 23 - JREF Forum

You can forget me bothering to go out and buy a textbook on a solar model that was falsified in 2012. I will read through this paper as I get time today:

We can also add this paper:

1976ApJS...30....1V Page 1

Over and over again it shows a photosphere with increasing temperature with depth, starting at 4500k and increasing to 6000k as you move downwards towards increasing opacity.

So what?

You seem to ignore two small issues at it relates to a Birkeland cathode model.

A) Ultimately, a Birkeland cathode can begin at a "rigid plasma". It doesn't even *require* a solid surface in the first place! Even if you were ultimate right on that point, it would have no impact whatsoever on any published paper I've written, or any impact on a Birkeland cathode solar model.

B) None of that addresses those sunspot observations, and observations of cooler umbra plasmas than exist at the surface of the photosphere. Your magical magnetic fields won't cut it.

As it relates to standard theory, you're intent on ignoring every bit of data from SDO, starting with those helioseismology findings that falsified your theory, and ending with those mass blowouts we observe spewing from the photosphere that also falsify your precious mainstream solar theory.

Apparently your one and only argument is "It's too hot for solids", and that isn't even a critical component of a Birkeland cathode solar model! If that is the best argument you have against a Birkeland solar model, you've got *absolutely nothing*. Do you even understand that?

The measurement of the temperature within the photosphere has not been falsified. Again, you need to deal with the facts.

In fact, the umbra is measured to be *cooler* than the thing you call a photosphere, which is again *entirely* consistent with a non-opaque mass separated solar model.

Until you address *any* other bit of data, and in fact until you address *all* of the data I've put before you, you're basically living in pure denial, and you're tilting at irrelevant windmills as it relates to the viability of a Birkeland cathode solar model.

The sad part from my perspective it that you personally know that every paper that I've been involved in used the term *rigid* not solid. It wouldn't even make one bit of difference either way, at least in terms of the papers I've published. Who therefore cares?

Not a single bit of your "big important point" has any real net effect on the viability of a Birkeland cathode solar model. Do you even understand that?

 

[Michael]

You mean such as the NASA SDO site itself that describes the photosphere increasing in temperature with depth?

Is that the same NASA website that talked about fast convection?

You mean the Birkeland cathod model that requires a solid conductive surface that can not exist at 6,000+K?

No! Technically speaking a "Birkeland cathode model" doesn't even require solids!!!!!!!!! Grrrr!

Increasing opacity with depth. Is that more to your liking?

It would be more to my liking if you'd address that convection data from the HMI gear and that mass blowout video seen in 1700A, and/or those mathematical modeling studies of sunspots and how they jive with 171A images of sunspots. I'd be thrilled if you focused on anything *critical* at all!

This means that the deeper you go the more heat you have trapped, and also denser plasma.

That analogy fails between the chromosphere surface and the photosphere surface. It also fails between the corona and the chromosphere. Why should I believe it actually 'works' at the photosphere when in fact you model was actually *falsified* in 2012?

You also have a massive heat source at the middle of the sun and it is in thermodynamic contact with these inner layers with more opacity. We then have the outer layer which is 6,000K and also in contact with this supposed "solid surface".

All we have is one more *non-opaque* atmospheric layer also being "heated" by the flux ropes as those hot spots on 1700A images attest!

Thermodynamics requires that this solid surface be well above 6,000K. This is simple thermodynamics.

It's *oversimplified* thermodynamics that is completely dependent upon the validity of your claim that the thing you call a "photosphere" is actually 'opaque' as you claim.

Since it's ultimately *irrelevant* to the viability of a Birkeland cathode solar model, and you still can't *adequately* explain low sunspot temperatures, who cares?

Right after you show that it comes from below the photosphere.

I did. I handed you a 1700A image that isn't even directly on the limb, but close enough to see all the events as they relate to the limb. Nothing 'starts above' the photosphere. The mass comes *up and through* that surface!

You cathode model is falsified by temperatures that disallow the needed solid surface.

The sad part is that you actually seem to *believe* (naively I'm afraid to say) that your argument is some sort of a death sentence to a Birkeland cathode model, or even a death sentence to any paper I've published. Get over yourself already! That issue isn't even a threat to a single paper I've published, let alone a threat to every Birkeland cathode model! Oy Vey!

If you had a valid explanation for lower umbra temperatures, you're whole argument would sound so ridiculous. Since you need magical magnetic fields to do all sorts of impossible thermodnamic tricks in your model, you're whole argument sounds pointless and ironic!

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that the same NASA website that talked about fast convection?

It is the same website that has a photosphere that increases from 4500K to 6000K with increasing depth and opacity. Are you saying that the NASA SDO scientists don't know what they are talking about? Are you saying that the telescope is designed so badly that it can't even measure these temperatures?

No! Technically speaking a "Birkeland cathode model" doesn't even require solids!!!!!!!!! Grrrr!

Right, just a "rigid" body, right? Same thing.

It would be more to my liking if you'd address that convection data from the HMI gear and that mass blowout video seen in 1700A, and/or those mathematical modeling studies of sunspots and how they jive with 171A images of sunspots. I'd be thrilled if you focused on anything *critical* at all!

I'm sure you would like it if I stopped talking about the evidence that completely destroys your model.

That analogy fails between the chromosphere surface and the photosphere surface. It also fails between the corona and the chromosphere. Why should I believe it actually 'works' at the photosphere when in fact you model was actually *falsified* in 2012?

You have not shown ANY falsification for the temperature of the photosphere. None. All you have given is denial and a refusal to deal with the facts from the peer reviewed literature.

Again, your denial is becoming legendary.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to ignore two small issues at it relates to a Birkeland cathode model.

A) Ultimately, a Birkeland cathode can begin at a "rigid plasma". It doesn't even *require* a solid surface in the first place! Even if you were ultimate right on that point, it would have no impact whatsoever on any published paper I've written, or any impact on a Birkeland cathode solar model.

Your song has already changed quite a bit. From Post #9 of this very thread:

"Yes! The magnetic ropes originate at the 1200 degree solid surface, and rise up through the atmosphere, creating a colored band (in this case green) as they go up through 4800KM of solar atmosphere before rising up and through and falling back into the surface of the predominantly Neon plasma layer that you call a "photosphere". "--Michael

First you say it is a solid surface that can be seen 4800km below the edge of the photosphere. Now you are saying that it can't be seen, and it isn't solid.

The predictions made by the Birkleland model are like nailing jello to the wall. They just change to whatever you need at any moment.

B) None of that addresses those sunspot observations, and observations of cooler umbra plasmas than exist at the surface of the photosphere. Your magical magnetic fields won't cut it.

You still haven't shown that magnetic fields won't cut it. I have an entire field of scientists who disagree with you, and they know way more about it than you do.

As it relates to standard theory, you're intent on ignoring every bit of data from SDO, starting with those helioseismology findings that falsified your theory, and ending with those mass blowouts we observe spewing from the photosphere that also falsify your precious mainstream solar theory.

You still haven't shown anything that falsifies the current model.

Apparently your one and only argument is "It's too hot for solids", and that isn't even a critical component of a Birkeland cathode solar model!

It was earlier in the thread.

 

[Michael]

It is the same website that has a photosphere that increases from 4500K to 6000K with increasing depth and opacity. Are you saying that the NASA SDO scientists don't know what they are talking about?

Which ones? Which 'facts'?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173.pdf

Are you saying that the telescope is designed so badly that it can't even measure these temperatures?

No, I'm saying:

A) As it relates to the viability of a Birkeland cathode model it doesn't matter.

B) As it relates to explain where the low temperature plasma in an umbra comes from, your magic magnetic fields won't cut it.

Right, just a "rigid" body, right? Same thing.

A more "dense plasma" might appear to be quite 'rigid' in RD images. I have no real emotional or scientific attachment to "solids'. I just personally think it 'better' explains many events, including the sudden eruption of hot spots and active regions, and particularly the deflection of shock waves.

I'm sure you would like it if I stopped talking about the evidence that completely destroys your model.

Pssst! That wouldn't 'destroy' anything! No published paper I've been involved in mentions a "solid" surface. No Birkeland cathode model *requires* such a thing.

You have not shown ANY falsification for the temperature of the photosphere.

I don't have to because you've never rationally explained low temperature umbras!

None. All you have given is denial and a refusal to deal with the facts from the peer reviewed literature.

It is a fact that in the peer reviewed literature I've published, you will find no mention of a "solid" surface. Your refusal to deal with published works is getting rather old.

Again, your denial is becoming legendary.

Denial of what!?!?!?

Even in a *very worst* case scenario, where you actually *did* have a legitimate scientific explanation for low temperature sunspots and your model hadn't been falsified by HMI, it wouldn't make one bit of difference as it relates to anything I've actually *published*. Your denial of fact is legendary. You can't handle the fact that your precious solar theory bit the dust last year, not by my hand, but by the hands of the very 'scientists' that study solar physics!

You can't handle the fact that there is no actual "transition region' in the solar sky where flux ropes do magic heating tricks, they heat up *below* the photosphere according to MHD theory. You can't handle those mathematical models of sunspots and their relationship to recorded SDO events on the surface of the photosphere and umbra. You can't deal with any of it.

Even your 'key point' is ultimately *irrelevant* to the viability of a Birkeland cathode solar theory, and you're in denial of that fact too! Get a grip already!

 

[Loudmouth]

Which ones? Which 'facts'?

The fact that the photosphere is too hot for the solid surface that you proposed.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173.pdf

But still convecting, and still rotating which is what produces the flux ropes.

A) As it relates to the viability of a Birkeland cathode model it doesn't matter.

It sure mattered up until this point. There is no solid or rigid structure. There are no iron lines coming from 4800km from below the photosphere. There is no 1200K layer as you claimed. Everything you claimed about the model has been shown to be wrong.

A more "dense plasma" might appear to be quite 'rigid' in RD images. I have no real emotional or scientific attachment to "solids'. I just personally think it 'better' explains many events, including the sudden eruption of hot spots and active regions, and particularly the deflection of shock waves.

What rigid layers? Again, you have zero evidence for this.

Pssst! That wouldn't 'destroy' anything! No published paper I've been involved in mentions a "solid" surface.

And yet you mentioned a solid surface in this very thread as a part of your model, just as you did over at JREF.

I don't have to because you've never rationally explained low temperature umbras!

Yes, I have. It has been explained by the scientific community for a long time now.

You can't handle the fact that there is no actual "transition region' in the solar sky where flux ropes do magic heating tricks.

No need for any magic. You see bunnies in images when they aren't there. That's all that needs to be explained.

[qutoe] YOu can't handle those mathematical models of sunspots and their relationship to events on the surface of the photosphere and umbra. You can't deal with any of it.[/quote]

The scientific community can handle it, and they are explained by the current solar model, not yours with no solid surface.

 

[Michael]

Your song has already changed quite a bit. From Post #9 of this very thread:

"Yes! The magnetic ropes originate at the 1200 degree solid surface, and rise up through the atmosphere, creating a colored band (in this case green) as they go up through 4800KM of solar atmosphere before rising up and through and falling back into the surface of the predominantly Neon plasma layer that you call a "photosphere". "--Michael

FYI, my opinion hasn't changed on that point. I've simply pointed out to you that it *DOESN'T matter*!

First you say it is a solid surface that can be seen 4800km below the edge of the photosphere. Now you are saying that it can't be seen, and it isn't solid.

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been published for 7 years. I haven't changed my position, but you haven't come to grips with reality. Your "big argument" is not nearly as "critical" to a Birkeland cathode model as you seem to think. It's ultimately a *minor* point!

The predictions made by the Birkleland model are like nailing jello to the wall. They just change to whatever you need at any moment.

No, they worked very well to predict mass flows and discharges occur *under* the photosphere, and they worked extremely well to predict the non-existence of some magic heating "transition" layer in the solar sky. The didn't fail it's key points like those convection predictions of mainstream theory.

You still haven't shown that magnetic fields won't cut it.

You can't even create a field that powerful without the current heating the plasmas. Those 171A images of sunspots show that the "magnetic lines" are very *hot*. They aren't capable of "cooling" anything! You can't even explain why a gigantic area of cool plasma would be associated with magnetic lines in the first place!

I have an entire field of scientists who disagree with you, and they know way more about it than you do.

They don't. They'd come here and talk about it if they did. Bridgman ran from the data, he didn't come here to discuss it. Their convection predictions turned out to be useless, so your experts clearly are not "infallible".

You still haven't shown anything that falsifies the current model.

Boloney! I've shown that there is no 'transition region". The loops are *hot* before they ever exit the surface. I've shown that convection speeds are two full orders of magnitude *wrong*! You can remain in denial if you like, but those mass flow patterns *through* the photosphere tell it all. Your theory is useless at predicting solar events.

It was earlier in the thread.

It's never been a *critical* aspect of a Birkeland cathode model. You seem to overreach your claims a lot, and someone has to point it out.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't changed my position, . . .

And no evidence will convince you to change your position.

No, they worked very well to predict mass flows and discharges occur *under* the photosphere, and they worked extremely well to predict the non-existence of some magic heating "transition" layer in the solar sky. The didn't fail it's key points like those convection predictions of mainstream theory.

They failed to predict a 6,000K photosphere that is only emits 4% of light at around 300km below the temperature minimum, and only gets hotter from there. It failed to predict the complete absence of any rigid or solid layer. The density of plasma at these depths is less than the density of our own atmosphere.

You can't even create a field that powerful without the current heating the plasmas.

And nowhere have you shown this.

Bridgman ran from the data, he didn't come here to discuss it. Their convection predictions turned out to be useless, so your experts clearly are not "infallible".

There is still convection, still rotation, and there are still magnetic fields being produced by these mechanisms.

Boloney! I've shown that there is no 'transition region". The loops are *hot* before they ever exit the surface.

We only see them ABOVE the photosphere.

I've shown that convection speeds are two full orders of magnitude *wrong*!

Actually, the lower estimate in that paper was 20. Convection is STILL going, and it all relies on an accurate model of what the inner convection layers are doing to the outer photosphere. If their model does not accurately model the relationship between the convective and photosphere layers then those calculations are worthless anyway.

You can remain in denial if you like, but those mass flow patterns *through* the photosphere tell it all. Your theory is useless at predicting solar events.

It is the same model that all scientists are using to accurately predict solar events.

 

[Michael]

And no evidence will convince you to change your position.

Actually this very thread demonstrates that your claim is false. Some evidence has convinced me to change my opinions on some minor points, and make changes to my website, from this very thread.

You are the one that has shown themselves to be incapable of accepting change.

They failed to predict a 6,000K photosphere that is only emits 4% of light at around 300km below the temperature minimum, and only gets hotter from there.

Except it gets cooler in sunspots whenever and wherever you say so!

My model doesn't necessarily deviate from standard theory in every area, so yes it did in fact "predict" the same basic temperatures as it relates to the temperature of the corona, the chromosphere and photosphere.

It failed to predict the complete absence of any rigid or solid layer.

That's because there isn't an absence of such a thing.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

The density of plasma at these depths is less than the density of our own atmosphere.

Yet you keep insisting it's 'opaque' to every wavelength!

And nowhere have you shown this.

Oh yes I did. I showed that the *hot* loops descend into the photosphere as predicted by sunspot models. The fact we see them in 171A precludes them from being "cooler" than the surrounding 6000K photosphere. The fact they leave "hot spots' also proves they are "hotter', not cooler than surrounding plasmas. The fact those hot spots are aligned with the magnetic field regions also demonstrates the cause/effect relationship between *current* and flux rope.

There is still convection, still rotation, and there are still magnetic fields being produced by these mechanisms.

Ya, *under* the photosphere according to Kosovichev's work, not in some magic heating transition region in the sky!

We only see them ABOVE the photosphere.

False. They flow right along the penumbral filaments. We observe them above *and below* the surface of the photosphere, and we see their effect on that surface in the form of magnetic fields and hot plasma spots.

Actually, the lower estimate in that paper was 20. Convection is STILL going, and it all relies on an accurate model of what the inner convection layers are doing to the outer photosphere. If their model does not accurately model the relationship between the convective and photosphere layers then those calculations are worthless anyway.

Notice how you simply "toss out" the data you don't like? The basic rate worked out to about 1 percent of "predicted value". Nothing like botching the power supply of our model by 2 orders of magnitude!

It is the same model that all scientists are using to accurately predict solar events.

Their prediction record speaks for itself actually.

They do a good job on after the fact modeling in terms of when things hit Earth, but their ability to actually "predict" flares is still pretty primitive. They don't even track "dark filaments" in fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually this very thread demonstrates that your claim is false.

"FYI, my opinion hasn't changed on that point. "--Michael

You are the one that has shown themselves to be incapable of accepting change.

Show me some scientists who have written peer reviewed papers modeling a 1200K solid surface in the Sun's photosphere based on the SDO data and we can talk.

Except it gets cooler in sunspots whenever and wherever you say so!

It's already been modeled:

Solar Surface Magneto-Convection

Oh yes I did. I showed that the *hot* loops descend into the photosphere as predicted by sunspot models.[/qs]

You showed hot loops ABOVE the photosphere. That is ALL you have ever shown. That's it.

My model doesn't necessarily deviate from standard theory in every area, so yes it did in fact "predict" the same basic temperatures as it relates to the temperature of the corona, the chromosphere and photosphere.

Nailing jello again.

Yet you keep insisting it's 'opaque' to every wavelength!

Already supplied the reference showing increasing opacity with depth.

Oh yes I did. I showed that the *hot* loops descend into the photosphere as predicted by sunspot models.

You showed loops of hotter material above the photosphere.

The fact they leave "hot spots' also proves they are "hotter', not cooler than surrounding plasmas.

Hotspots are due to heating of the photosphere by current between magnetic lines. No need for any solid or rigid surface. Current solar models explain all of it.

False. They flow right along the penumbral filaments. We observe them above *and below* the surface of the photosphere, and we see their effect on that surface in the form of magnetic fields and hot plasma spots.

Already explained by the current solar model.

Notice how you simply "toss out" the data you don't like?

6,000K photosphere, Michael. Your model is shot.

 

[Michael]

"FYI, my opinion hasn't changed on that point. "--Michael

You and your magic magnetic fields have given me no reason to change my opinion on that topic, but I have done so in this thread. You have not. You haven't even acknowledged *any* of the points I've made, and in fact you run from them! Do you even accept that "electrical discharges" occur in flares?

Show me some scientists who have written peer reviewed papers modeling a 1200K solid surface in the Sun's photosphere based on the SDO data and we can talk.

I showed you one that falsified your solar model entirely, and you ignored it completely!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...wer-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

Oh look, it never happened!

It's already been modeled:

Solar Surface Magneto-Convection

Of course even those claims were directly related to the solar convection speeds that got falsified, and those "flux tubes" are filled with *million degree plasma*. Other than that, you've not explained *rounded* structures larger than the earth that "cool", or why they 'cool' in the presence of *million degree flux ropes!*.

You showed hot loops ABOVE the photosphere. That is ALL you have ever shown. That's it.

Boloney. I even showed the connection to the maths and their subsurface "magnetic fields", not to mentioned showed how they follow the penumbral filaments down the sunspot. Your whole "show" is based on pure denial.

Nailing jello again.

Talk about jello. You won't even *discuss* the maths, or the images, or the HMI data that *FALSIFIES* your model! Dodge, dodge, weave and dodge is all you ever do.

Already supplied the reference showing increasing opacity with depth.

You opacity claims are ridiculous. You don't even understand that term. Even my mainstream definitions, the flux ropes all have a *subsurface* origin! [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

You showed loops of hotter material above the photosphere.

You're in denial of all the hot spot alignments, the magnetic field alignements and penumbral filament alignments and how they all tie back to the math. You're incapable of "seeing" anything other than what you wish to see.

Hotspots are due to heating of the photosphere by current between magnetic lines.

There is no "current" in 'between" magnetic lines. Birkeland currents flow in *parallel* to the current. More denial on your part. They just so happen to overlay perfect *with the magnetic lines*! More denial on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a plasma (Figure 15.3.2, Alfvén and Arrhenius, 1976)[26]

No need for any solid or rigid surface. Current solar models explain all of it.

You're stuck in pure denial. You can't even explain that one flare image that shows mass blowing through the photosphere, not to mention that convection problem. Current model explains *none* of it!

Already explained by the current solar model.

Boloney. It was also falsified last year. As bad as you keep trying, the paper still exists.

6,000K photosphere, Michael. Your model is shot.

My model predicts and explains every relationship we observe in satellite images. Mainstream model was falsified by HMI in 2012 and it explains *none* of the images I showed you which is why you've avoided them and remained in denial of what they show. Mainstream solar theory is toast, and it's not going to be saved by bashing away at other solar models. When did you intend to address that HMI SDO data? Never?

 

[Michael]

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

Blam! There goes your solar theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

You and your magic magnetic fields have given me no reason to change my opinion on that topic,

The temperature of the photosphere has nothing to do with magnetic fields.

You haven't even acknowledged *any* of the points I've made, and in fact you run from them! Do you even accept that "electrical discharges" occur in flares?

Your model is falsified by the observed temperature of the photosphere, so why should I take it seriously?

Of course even those claims were directly related to the solar convection speeds that got falsified, and those "flux tubes" are filled with *million degree plasma*.

They still haven't been verified. It is just one theoretical measurement out of many. Also, differential rotation produce magnetic field lines.

You have also failed to show anything below the photosphere.

Other than that, you've not explained *rounded* structures larger than the earth that "cool", or why they 'cool' in the presence of *million degree flux ropes!*.

What is the density of the flux ropes? What is the density of the photosphere? What is the energy content of both? You keep ignoring this bit.

Boloney. I even showed the connection to the maths and their subsurface "magnetic fields", not to mentioned showed how they follow the penumbral filaments down the sunspot. Your whole "show" is based on pure denial.

The only denial is your continued denial of the temperature of the photosphere and how magnetic fields already explain all of the features of sunspots in peer reviewed models.

It's all explained without the need for any "rigid" plasma, which is just your fantasy anyway.