Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The day of reckoning. What will replace the standard solar theory?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 62610740" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>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?</p><p></p><p> I showed you one that falsified your solar model entirely, and you ignored it completely!</p><p></p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/</a></p><p></p><p>Oh look, it never happened! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /> </p><p> 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!*.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>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].</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current</a></p><p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29" target="_blank">plasma</a> (Figure 15.3.2, Alfvén and Arrhenius, 1976)<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-26" target="_blank">[26]</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p> Boloney. It was also falsified last year. As bad as you keep trying, the paper still exists.</p><p></p><p> 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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 62610740, member: 627"] 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? I showed you one that falsified your solar model entirely, and you ignored it completely! [URL]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/[/URL] Oh look, it never happened! :( 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!*. 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. 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. 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'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. 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. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current[/URL] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/IMG] The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29"]plasma[/URL] (Figure 15.3.2, Alfvén and Arrhenius, 1976)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-26"][26][/URL] 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! Boloney. It was also falsified last year. As bad as you keep trying, the paper still exists. 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The day of reckoning. What will replace the standard solar theory?
Top
Bottom