The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?  (Read 26738 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #50 on: 18/08/2010 06:59:24 »
"For practical purposes almost all hydrogen on the sun is contained in thermally induced convective streams of ionised gas. "
For the practical purpose of taking pictures, people often use the H alpha line which arises from atoms of hydrogen.
Equally importantly, all the measurements of the zeeman effect (the direct evidence of a magnetic field) are based on hydrogen atoms.

You keep saying things like this which are  not true.
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #51 on: 18/08/2010 10:01:58 »
CreativeEnergy
You wrote:

"It would appear that it is you who have formed a hypothesis, therefore it is you who must provide empirical evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you have any empirical evidence to support this tacit assertion?"

The evidence I can offer is part empirical and part circumstantial.
1. There is an invisible solar wind that can be detected by its effects on the Earth's atmosphere.
2. The strength of the solar wind is greater when sunspots are visible on the sun.
3. The particles in the solar wind must have left the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape.
4. I deduce from 3 that there is a launching process for these particles at, in, or around sunspots.
5. The principal energy source in and on the sun is heat. I therefore think that heat is responsible directly or indirectly for the launching of the particles in the solar wind from the regions in or around sunspots.

According to quantum physics which I have no way of testing empirically, energy quanta in the form of photons are emitted from atoms when electrons in an atom fall from a higher energy level to a lower one.

I have read and believe that the heat of the sun is so high that some atoms lose their outer electron shells. This is partially confirmed by the fact that the solar wind is ionised. Ionised atoms are those which have lost electrons. Data from spacecraft indicate that the unneutralised proton density at the Earth's orbit is around 5 per cubic centimetre. This is confirmation (at least for me) that a lot of atoms that have left the sun have lost electrons.

Since the heat of the sun causes atoms to lose outer electron shells and thus become ionised, I PRESUME that more heat means more electrons lost.

If an atom is short of electrons, few if any electrons can fall from higher energy levels to lower ones. Consequently the ability of an atom to emit photons will be reduced. Since photon density is our way of determining if something is bright or dim, I DEDUCE that if something appears to be dim there aren't many photons coming our way from it.

Since a shortage of photons is associated with heat, and more heat means less photons, I DEDUCE that the darker parts of sunspots are regions where photons are scarce because of the enormous heat in these areas.

The solar wind does not emit photons and is invisible. There are no photons visible where at least part of the invisible solar wind is launched from sunspots. I PRESUME therefore that the sources of the solar wind at sunspots are also invisible. For me, invisibility means no photons. Where is the place on the sun where photons are scarcer than elsewhere on the sun?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #52 on: 18/08/2010 11:03:52 »
According to quantum physics which I have no way of testing empirically, energy quanta in the form of photons are emitted from atoms when electrons in an atom fall from a higher energy level to a lower one.

True, but that isn't the primary method by which the sun emits photons.  Photons can be emitted by anything that moves charges about, and the sun is constantly moving charges about by heating up molecules and jostling them around--not to mention the free electrons and ionized nuclei.  The heat energy in the sun gives a continuous emission spectrum that isn't due to the process you mention above.

Quote
This is the hole in your argument:

Quote
Wilf READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID  05/08/2010 22:51:26 !!!!!

All materials above absolute zero radiate electromagnetic energy in the form of photons as a result of the movement of the atoms and molecules.  This radiation is called black body radiation and has a characteristic spectrum that depends on only the temperature of the material.  This has nothing to do with electrons changing energy levels which is a different process altogether.

see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body for a bit more explanation

Soul Surfer pointed this out back on page 1.  It's a major error in your argument, since all your conclusions based on electrons jumping up and down energy levels as the source of sunlight are therefore wrong.
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #53 on: 18/08/2010 16:58:34 »
To JP and others.
I have had the impression that the sun is to hot to permit molecules to remain as molecules like H2 and O2. I have had the impression that the heat is such that not only do molecules split into their separate atoms but many of the atoms lose the electrons that could  bind molecules together.
If I am wrong about this then I can accept that I am wrong by the same standard as CreativeEnergy demanded from me - if there is empirical proof.

The point about something being in Wikipedia about blackbody radiation is of interest.
However, until items like Babcock's theory of sunspots is dealt with in Wikipedia I would not rely on Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

As I have said in previous posts, a lot that has been claimed in astronomy by extremely prominent astronomers is in direct conflict with the way electricity and magnetism work on Earth. These claims have been repeated almost parrot fashion for decades. A lot of these claims have been repeated in posts on this topic to decry what I have written.  It is therefore why I revert when I can to the very basic first principles which can't be disputed.

My original reason for postulating that sunspots are hot is that it is the most likely explanation for  the origin of a large part of the solar wind. Heat can launch prominences and smaller jet arcs. Magnetism cannot. If it is not heat that can launch a lot of invisible ionised material at a greater speed than the speed of escape from the sun from the region around sunspots, what can?

My hypothesis is that the apparently dark regions of sunspots are too hot to emit visible and heat photons. If, as many claim, these dark regions are cooler than the photosphere, how can they survive for weeks without being warmed up?
I think that the claim that the dark regions of sunspots are cooler than the photosphere (and somehow remain cooler) needs some evidence to justify the claim.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #54 on: 19/08/2010 02:39:29 »
It's very good to go back to first principles to check theories, but you're making a major mistake in your assumptions about how light gets emitted by matter.  All black body radiation requires is that charges in the matter due to heat energy.  The sun has charges.  Heat makes them vibrate.  Therefore you get blackbody radiation.  Blackbody radiation isn't an untested theory--it's been around for ages and has been experimentally confirmed, and can be observed in other celestial objects. 

Light is certainly released when electrons jump down energy levels and absorbed when they jump up levels within an atom or molecule, but that's not the primary method by which the sun generates light.  If it was, the sun would only generate discrete frequencies of light.  As it is, it's light is primarily a spectrum.  However, it does have absorption lines within that spectrum which correspond to molecular oxygen and helium (so those must exist on the sun). 

The problem with your argument is that hot spots on the sun would still emit blackbody radiation--even if the atoms dissociated and the electrons were free to wander about.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #55 on: 19/08/2010 07:06:09 »
Wilf,
There are two points here.
There are un-ionised atoms present in the sun's outer reaches, but not many. At that temperature most are ionised.
Because there are still some left I can point out that they are paramagnetic and so meet the requirement you asked about earlier. I can also probably find pictures of the sun taken by H alpha light.

However, as most of the sun's radiation is emitted by, relatively speaking, free charged particles as they collide with each other your ideas about energy levels are not relevant. That's why the dark spots are the cooler spots.
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #56 on: 25/08/2010 10:40:07 »
To JP & Bored Chemist
There are things I know through experience about physics - particularly when electricity and magnetism are concerned.
There is one thing that I believe but can't prove.
I believe that all light (including comparable radiation outside the visible spectrum) is transmitted by what are known as photons. This spectrum ranges from below the apparent temperature of the much cooled down residue of the Big Bang to beyond x-rays.

I note the references to "Black Body Radiation". What strange emanation is provided by such a "Black Body" that does not consist of photons. How is it detected if photons are not involved?  Is the "Black Body Radiaton" referred to different from the photon emissions I have been concentrating on? Does it consist of muons, pions, kayons, neutrinos or some other emanation that does not include photons?

For me, the blackbody MODEL is one which THEORETICALLY reproduces the PHOTON emissions of an unknown body when raised to a particular temperature.

There may be photon emissions from the dark areas of sunspots that are well outside the observable light, heat and radio spectra that we on Earth can observe.  However, as we can't observe whatever is radiated as light or heat, the general conclusion has been that there isn't any light or heat. I have concentrated on what can be observed in the conventional ways. The dark spots radiate less photons in the conventional heat spectrum than the photosphere but that does not prove that they are cool.

I refer back to first principles.
Particles leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. These particles are invisible and a great number of them come from the regions associated with sunspots. These particles are launched outward from the sun by some means involving a great deal of energy. Whatever it is that launches these particles is invisible. As the main form of energy available in and on the sun is heat I conclude that the energy source which launches these particles is heat.

The "Black Body" radiation from the dark areas does not include many light and heat photons which is why they are considered to be dim and cool. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence indicates that an enormous amount of invisible energy is expended in or around sunspots. The fact that we can't detect it directly does not prove it is not there.

We have some basic facts. The sun is hot on its exterior. Because the heat is developed in the sun's interior, it is hotter inside than on its surface. The heat developed inside the sun is convected and radiated outwards. The particles coming from the regions around sunspots are also emitted outwards with an enormous amount of energy.

I refer back to Occam's Razor. The simplest cause for the emission of the particles is heat energy. I have yet to hear of another energy source that could launch the particles at the speeds necessary for them to leave the sun.

As I have said before, I can't see electricity or a magnetic field. The fact that I can't see these phenomena does not mean they are not observable through the effects they have. Something has the effect of launching particles at enormous speeds outwards from the sun. The fact that we can't see it does not mean it is not there. I think that something is heat.

If there was a Harry Potter and he could say "Accio charged particles" to draw them from the sun to the Earth, then a lot conventional physics would be different.  There isn't a Harry Potter and I have yet to hear of a launch mechanism for particles that does not involve the expenditure of a lot of energy. Could it be "Dark Energy" that launches the particles from sunspots? I don't think so. Unless there are some new fantastic discoveries about forms of energy we don't know about yet, I prefer to assume that the forms of energy we do know abut are responsible for what we observe happens.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #57 on: 25/08/2010 15:17:04 »
To JP & Bored Chemist
There are things I know through experience about physics - particularly when electricity and magnetism are concerned.
There is one thing that I believe but can't prove.
I believe that all light (including comparable radiation outside the visible spectrum) is transmitted by what are known as photons. This spectrum ranges from below the apparent temperature of the much cooled down residue of the Big Bang to beyond x-rays.

I note the references to "Black Body Radiation". What strange emanation is provided by such a "Black Body" that does not consist of photons. How is it detected if photons are not involved?  Is the "Black Body Radiaton" referred to different from the photon emissions I have been concentrating on? Does it consist of muons, pions, kayons, neutrinos or some other emanation that does not include photons?

Black body radiation is photons.  There are more mechanisms than electrons jumping up and down energy levels that create photons.  That is a major flaw in your logic.

Put another way, when you suggest that sun spots are hotter than their surroundings, but don't emit light (or detectable radiation), you're creating new physics.
« Last Edit: 25/08/2010 15:19:58 by JP »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #58 on: 25/08/2010 18:34:59 »
We have tried our best!  Modorators please move this topic to the New theories madhouse
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #59 on: 26/08/2010 16:39:22 »
To JP
You said:
"Put another way, when you suggest that sun spots are hotter than their surroundings, but don't emit light (or detectable radiation), you're creating new physics."

Please read EXACTLY what I said.
I said that the radiation is not detectable in the usual heat and light parts of the spectrum. I meant that we know there is SOMETHING there but we can't detect it as the heat and light we know about.

I left out a factor which relates to what I have been saying about sunspots being a source of ionised particles. Babcock claimed that sunspots were caused by magnetic fields. If Babcock's magnetic fields can create sunspots, that is NEW physics.
Magnetic fields on Earth can't do anything physical as I have repeatedly explained in previous posts. (I can repeat their properties again if needed.)

Babcock and maybe others detected magnetic fields around sunspots. As I have said, a magnetic field is a property of an electric current. All contributors to this forum who deny my claim that sunspots are hot have apparently accepted that a significant part of the invisible solar wind originates somehow from around sunspots. You have apparently accepted that the solar wind from sunspots is launched at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. You have accepted that it is ionised.  What is an ionised stream of particles if it is not an electric current?  The stream of particles is invisible but there are magnetic fields detectable around where the stream comes from.

It becomes a bit of a circular argument but the observable factors all fit together. Sunspots are a region from which ionised particles are somehow launched at greater than the sun's speed of escape. Magnetic fields are detectable around sunspots. A stream of ionised particles is an electric current. An electric current has a magnetic field around it. The logical conclusion is that the magnetic field detected
around a sunspot is produced by the stream of ionised particles emitted from a sunspot.  The properties of magnetic fields around streams of ionised gases are known. A stream of ionised gas is constricted by the magnetic field that surrounds it. This leads to the conjecture that the stream coming from a sunspot is in the form of a jet.

We are familiar with visible jets of the sort that come from geysers and fire hoses. Both of these types of jet are propelled by mechanical energy. The geyser's jet is propelled by the mechanical energy produced by the expansion of boiling water into steam. The fire hose has a mechanical pump to make it work. Some form of energy projects the stream of ionised particle upwards and outwards from the sun. What is that energy if it isn't heat?

To Soul Surfer
Is it mad to wonder what can cause a lot of ionised particles to leave the region around sunspots?  It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable?  If it isn't heat that does it, please tell me what form of energy propels the particles. If you can't offer an energy source other than heat for what has been observed, what can you offer that can explain how the invisible ionised particles are projected away from the sun at a speed greater than the sun's
speed of escape?
« Last Edit: 26/08/2010 16:51:18 by Wilf James »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #60 on: 26/08/2010 17:49:49 »
Wilf, I give up.  You seem unwilling to address any of the fundamental mistakes you're making, so it's not worth continuing this discussion.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #61 on: 13/09/2010 19:35:36 »
It becomes a bit of a circular argument but the observable factors all fit together. Sunspots are a region from which ionised particles are somehow launched at greater than the sun's speed of escape. Magnetic fields are detectable around sunspots. A stream of ionised particles is an electric current. An electric current has a magnetic field around it. The logical conclusion is that the magnetic field detected
around a sunspot is produced by the stream of ionised particles emitted from a sunspot.  The properties of magnetic fields around streams of ionised gases are known. A stream of ionised gas is constricted by the magnetic field that surrounds it. This leads to the conjecture that the stream coming from a sunspot is in the form of a jet.

We are familiar with visible jets of the sort that come from geysers and fire hoses. Both of these types of jet are propelled by mechanical energy. The geyser's jet is propelled by the mechanical energy produced by the expansion of boiling water into steam. The fire hose has a mechanical pump to make it work. Some form of energy projects the stream of ionised particle upwards and outwards from the sun. What is that energy if it isn't heat?

Hi Wilf James,

You insisted that the streaming of ionised particle achieving escape velocity of Sun has to be caused by heat therefore sunspot should be hotter is a moot reasoning; temperature of sunspot is measured with spectroscopy that does spectral line analysis to measure the temperature range of sunspot.

IMHO, sunspot is a vortical structure void of photosphere, it thus inhibits convection and therefore is much cooler than the surrounding. See a link on "Sunspot" by Answer.com that states the vortex motion in sunspot with empirical observation.

The streaming of ionised particle from sunspot achieving escape velocity of Sun could be caused by vortical motion, an analogy for the vortical motion is the mechanism of Chinese spouting bowl as illustrated below. This is very different from the geyser mechanism you had suggested.



Since you could not accept the explanation forwarded by other members of this forum, try my explanation of vortical motion that was elaborated in a UVS topic on "Sunspot", search the web page for escape velocity and you should be able to find the specific section easily.

Best to you.
 
« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 19:37:44 by Vincent »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #62 on: 13/09/2010 20:07:39 »
I prefer this movie.
or this one
feature=related
And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #63 on: 15/09/2010 08:42:41 »
I prefer this movie.
or this one
feature=related
And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.

Nice movies.

I can entertain the possibilities of your proposition on how these movies could tell about sunspots. Can you elaborate?
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #64 on: 15/09/2010 09:10:43 »

Is it mad to wonder what can cause a lot of ionised particles to leave the region around sunspots?  It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable? 

I understand you are saying the best putative theory of the mainstream could not provide satisfactory answers to your questions on the fundamental mecahnism. Good observation on the anormaly.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #65 on: 15/09/2010 22:13:34 »
I prefer this movie.
or this one
feature=related
And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.

Nice movies.

I can entertain the possibilities of your proposition on how these movies could tell about sunspots. Can you elaborate?

They don't. That's my point.

Also re " It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable?"
Yes it is mad, you are saying there's no obvious heat detectable on the surface of the sun. It's obviously glowing white hot. The cooler bits on the surface are still white hot; just not quite as hot as the rest.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #66 on: 19/09/2010 19:30:31 »
I prefer this movie.
or this one
feature=related
And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.

Nice movies.

I can entertain the possibilities of your proposition on how these movies could tell about sunspots. Can you elaborate?

They don't. That's my point.

You are attacking the straw man here.

Point noted, deliberated and dismissed; case close for your issue.

Quote
Also re " It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable?"
Yes it is mad, you are saying there's no obvious heat detectable on the surface of the sun. It's obviously glowing white hot. The cooler bits on the surface are still white hot; just not quite as hot as the rest.

It was obvious that Wilf James refers to the jetting out of ionized gas at the sunspot region would require an extra source of intensified heat and this was not obviously detected; you are twisting his statement by your lame argument with what you insist he was saying.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #67 on: 20/09/2010 07:54:12 »
I was indeed attacking the straw man of the Chinese bowl.
Why did you introduce it?

Also, it's seldom "obvious" what Wilf means.
On the other hand, it's obvious by simple observation (they are dark) and also my more detailed spectroscopic analysis of the light form them, that sunspots are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #68 on: 20/09/2010 10:00:34 »
Please read EXACTLY what I said.
I said that the radiation is not detectable in the usual heat and light parts of the spectrum. I meant that we know there is SOMETHING there but we can't detect it as the heat and light we know about.
We can detect and do detect all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore you are saying this something is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes, or no?
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #69 on: 20/09/2010 14:50:43 »
I was indeed attacking the straw man of the Chinese bowl.
Why did you introduce it?

IMHO I think it was a relevant analogy therefore I introduced it to Wilf James for his comtemp lation.

Quote
Also, it's seldom "obvious" what Wilf means.
On the other hand, it's obvious by simple observation (they are dark) and also my more detailed spectroscopic analysis of the light form them, that sunspots are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface.

Wilf James did stated it clearly he knew the standard notion that sunspot was a cooler region, in fact he postulated that sunspot could be a hotter region with his hypothesis.

Your admission to the act of trolling and your interpretation of Wilf James' posit leads me to suspect you might be suffering a certain degree of Dyslexia Symptoms, no offence.

In many of your posts you showed signs for Dyslexia symptoms such as display strengths in higher-level thinking skills, leave out parts of words or confuse the order of parts, guess or make "wild stabs" at words when reading, etc. These are sign for children with dyslexia but you are forty-four right? Well, there could be exception, example somnambulism is known to go away when the person becomes matured, but then it was known to have exception.

In all possibilities in case you do have Dyslexia symptoms, then no amount of third party prompting on otherwise would convince you in what you had interpreted with your own reading. The only way is for you to testify it with the author for clarification, otherwise our arguments would go round in circle and no conclusion could be drawn.

Lets ask Wilf James on this.

Wilf James, your clarification is needed. In your statement as quoted by BC, did you mean to say the region of sunspot has no heat at all like how BC put it?

 

 
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #70 on: 20/09/2010 16:42:39 »
Quote
In all possibilities in case you do have Dyslexia symptoms, then no amount of third party prompting on otherwise would convince you in what you had interpreted with your own reading.

pot kettle black
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #71 on: 20/09/2010 17:01:37 »
Quote
In all possibilities in case you do have Dyslexia symptoms, then no amount of third party prompting on otherwise would convince you in what you had interpreted with your own reading.

pot kettle black

IMHO, all people suffer to a different degree of Dyslexia symptoms; myself included. Those who knew it can therefore overcome it, otherwise can't. It's like if you suffered from astigmatism, knew it you therefore can resolve the issue such as by using prescrition glasses, don't know it and could read 3 as 8 and insist that you had saw 8 with your very own eyes.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #72 on: 21/09/2010 03:29:42 »
Vincent, please keep the discussion to science.  Diagnosing other forum members with learning disabilities because you don't like/can't understand their posts not only has nothing to do with the discussion, but it is also a violation of the acceptable usage policy.  If you feel another user is making inappropriate or offensive posts, you can always report that to the moderators.

-JP (moderator)

By the way, if you want to see what Wilf's theories were, he's made it pretty clear what he believes throughout this thread.  There is also a lot of criticism of the science of his theory, including the bits related to temperatures of the sunspots.
« Last Edit: 21/09/2010 03:35:30 by JP »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #73 on: 21/09/2010 06:29:28 »
Vincent, please keep the discussion to science.  Diagnosing other forum members with learning disabilities because you don't like/can't understand their posts not only has nothing to do with the discussion, but it is also a violation of the acceptable usage policy.  If you feel another user is making inappropriate or offensive posts, you can always report that to the moderators.

Hi JP,

Cognitive issue is pertinent to science and its explorations; it fundamentally has everthing to do with the discussion. Unless you failed to recognize this.

If this is not properly addressed and allow to lapse, it would derail a good quality science based discussion and could turn it to a ground of trading insults with inflammatory remarks among the posters in dispute; in rhetorical questions with negative assertion it could bury a valid inquiry for its proper discussion on the anomaly pertaining to the particular field of science.

Quote
-JP (moderator)

There was no issue with "because you don't like/can't... " like you have assumed. 

I know you are the moderator of NS forum, however, it did raised my eyebrows for someone from the little red dot is a modertor of a renowned science forum.

Nonetheless, it was not necessary to report the trolling act; BC was honest with his opinion and I do believe he was not deliberately trolling with the intention to derail the discussion. Unless taken personally, addressing a possible cognitive issue could keep the ambient of this thread friendly. And in no way my statement implies a diagnosis in concreteness like how you have put it.

I agree the rules of the acceptable usage policy have to be observed to keep forum discussion friendly and science-based, I hope other members would also observe this as well. Most of all, I hope the moderator would respond to mitigate on posts that violate these rules without prejudice especially in the New Theories section. 

Quote
By the way, if you want to see what Wilf's theories were, he's made it pretty clear what he believes throughout this thread.  There is also a lot of criticism of the science of his theory, including the bits related to temperatures of the sunspots.

Indeed he did. Although his hypothesis is very questionable, highly unlikely and it therefore had drawn all those critiques, his foundation that was based on the anomaly in empirical observation was excellent. So far he was merely suppressed in his thread with proof by intimidation that provides no valid nor probable answer at all to address the anomaly he raised.

IMHO, in this thread that was being thrown here, even in the New Theories section, the discussion other had posted here had shown there was no room to raise a valid inquiry for proper discussion expected by the thread starter on the anomaly. Correct me if I am wrong on this and I hope I was wrong; in all possibilities I could have missed some very subtle details posted in this thread.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #74 on: 21/09/2010 07:15:03 »
Cognitive issue is pertinent to science and its explorations; it fundamentally has everthing to do with the discussion. Unless you failed to recognize this.

If this is not properly addressed and allow to lapse, it would derail a good quality science based discussion and could turn it to a ground of trading insults with inflammatory remarks among the posters in dispute; in rhetorical questions with negative assertion it could bury a valid inquiry for its proper discussion on the anomaly pertaining to the particular field of science.

You're missing the point.  If you can't understand another user's posts or you think they're misinterpreting your posts, simply point that out.  It's not all right to suggest that the other user has a learning disability.  Period. 

Don't worry about the thread derailing if you don't do this.  If it starts to derail, the moderators should step in and sort it out.  You can always report it to a moderator if you think someone is trying to derail it. 

Quote
Indeed he did. Although his hypothesis is very questionable, highly unlikely and it therefore had drawn all those critiques, his foundation that was based on the anomaly in empirical observation was excellent. So far he was merely suppressed in his thread with proof by intimidation that provides no valid nor probable answer at all to address the anomaly he raised.

IMHO, in this thread that was being thrown here, even in the New Theories section, the discussion other had posted here had shown there was no room to raise a valid inquiry for proper discussion expected by the thread starter on the anomaly. Correct me if I am wrong on this and I hope I was wrong; in all possibilities I could have missed some very subtle details posted in this thread.

This forum is primarily for science discussion.  Wilf's thread was moved because it became clear he was using it to to promote his own theory about sunspots, and because he was unwilling to discuss the scientific objections to his theory.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #74 on: 21/09/2010 07:15:03 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums