The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?  (Read 26768 times)

Post by Vincent click to view.

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #75 on: 21/09/2010 09:11:18 »
Shrunk
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. 

Point noted and taken.

Honestly I was trying to be friendly to BC instead of reporting him. And I did simply point out to him, he replied and we discussed. Since you raised the issue that the act amount to suggesting other user has a learning disability is not all right in the forum discussion, I will not mention it anymore.

BC if you do felt offended, please accept my apology. While you could easily make rebuttal of it, I had admitted I suffered from the said symptom; no offend ya?

Quote
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.

Noted.

Quote
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.

Seriously, I thought it was the other way around. Most others were unwilling to discuss his main objection on the anomaly and this was based on his valid empirical observation that is inexplicable with those putative theory forwarded. The postulation of his hypothesis generally deemed as scientifically incorrect therefore fallacious does not make his arguments not science discussion nor his question on the anomaly invalid. Ya?   
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8678
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #76 on: 21/09/2010 09:49:19 »
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?

 
 

Can I just point out that Vincent is not telling the truth. He says I admitted to trolling. I didn't.
I did attack a strawman by parody; I posted a couple of other strawmen.
Also, as it happens I am not dyslexic, someone who knows what they are talking about tested me many years ago. (If you saw my handwriting you would see why the school thought it wise to check). It's not offensive; just foolish to try to diagnose a medical condition in that way.
What difference could it have made if I was?

I didn't misread anything.
Wilf wrote
"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 pointed out that the Sun is a fairly obvious source of energy and produces a lot of heat. Heat is detectable, even from the cold bits of the Sun's surface (the spots).


Also the anomaly referred to is one of his understanding rather than of the theory.

You say he was met with proof by intimidation. I say I pointed out genuine holes in his assertions (about paramagnetic materials, for example).
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #77 on: 21/09/2010 19:41:11 »
Quote
I didn't misread anything.
Wilf wrote
"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 pointed out that the Sun is a fairly obvious source of energy and produces a lot of heat. Heat is detectable, even from the cold bits of the Sun's surface (the spots).

I have drop an email to Wif James, let's see if he replies; no point discussing this now.

Quote
Also the anomaly referred to is one of his understanding rather than of the theory.

It is a known fact that solar variation is closely correlated with solar cycle, intense solar activities such as corona loops are also known to be formed around sunspots; the anomaly he raised was establised on sound foundation. As he rationally mentioned, thermodynamics of the universe based on heat as its first principle could not explain this anomaly for its apparent observation. 

Quote
You say he was met with proof by intimidation. I say I pointed out genuine holes in his assertions (about paramagnetic materials, for example).

Your rebuttals on the hypothesis seems alright, at least for some, but did you provide any valid or probable answer at all to address the anomaly he raised? You simply dismissed it for no good reason at all. 
« Last Edit: 21/09/2010 19:48:13 by Vincent »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #78 on: 22/09/2010 01:58:25 »
It seems that some of my basic points have been ignored or deliberately misinterpreted. A lot of what has been written here since my previous post has little or nothing to do with the very basic issue.
SOMETHING launches ionised particles from the region around sunspots.

Someone mentioned a vortex.
A vortex is a form of motion caused by the expenditure of energy. What causes the vortex if it isn't heat?

I keep effectively asking any and all contributors to this forum - What form of energy can launch ionised particles away from the sun? I get no clear answer and some resort to what amounts to abuse.

I know that the fusion reactions within the sun generate an enormous amount of heat. I know that heat causes convection. I know that a lot of ionised particles leave the sun at greater than the sun's speed of escape. I know that the dark regions in sunspots apparently do not radiate as much light and heat as the rest of the photosphere.

I was prompted to rejoin this thread because of an email from Vincent. In my reply to Vincent I have asked:
'If the dark areas radiate X-rays, can they be detected from Earth?'

It is clear that radiation from sun spots is lower in the heat and light parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I ask: Is the radiation higher in in the extreme high energy end of the spectrum? If it is higher, can the radiation be detected by present methods on Earth?

I have not mentioned previously something that a reference book reminded me of a couple of days ago. The electrical definition of an ampere is based on the attraction of two parallel wires one metre apart that are both carrying a current of one ampere. The attraction is the force of one newton multiplied by a factor. This supports what I have written previously in connection with the so-called "magnetic loops". I think that the arcs in the photo referred to previously in this thread are streams of ionised gas constrained by the magnetic fields around them. Magnetic fields are just as invisible as gravity fields. The arcs were photographed by NASA through a 28g gravity field. The loops are not magnetic but consist of matter that can be photographed. As these arcs are visible enough to be photographed, what is the form of the invisible ionised particles rising from around sunspots?

Any stream of ionised particles rising upwards from the sun is an electric current that will have a magnetic field around it. The magnetic field will do nothing except constrain the stream of particles. The energy involved is the energy that causes the electric current in the first place.

I don't care what mechanism makes the particles rise from around sunspots so fast that they leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. I just want to know what the energy source is that drives the mechanism. As heat is the form of energy that the sun has in fantastic abundance I presume that the original energy source is heat. I am open to offers for alternative solar energy sources that can launch ionised paricles so that they reach the Earth's orbit.

The basic facts are:
The ionised particles that originate from around sunspots are invisible from when they are formed until they reach the Earth's atmosphere where they cause aurorae. That means they do not radiate in the visible part of the spectrum. Could it be that they are too hot to radiate in the visible part of the spectrum? I don't know. I do know that they have a lot of kinetic energy because of the way they react with the Earth's outer atmosphere.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #79 on: 22/09/2010 03:19:29 »
I keep effectively asking any and all contributors to this forum - What form of energy can launch ionised particles away from the sun? I get no clear answer and some resort to what amounts to abuse.
I believe this has been stated previously, but you chose to ignore it. Magnetic field energy. I expect you will decalre this is not possible.

Abuse, if it is occuring, is a consequence of frustration at your bloody minded refusal to acknowledge any of the objections made to your thoughts on the topic. On several points you are simply wrong. Attempts to show you this have been greeted by derision on your part. If some posters become abusive in those circumstances you may ponder that this is the source.
 

Post by Bored chemist click to view.

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8678
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #80 on: 22/09/2010 19:23:02 »
Shrunk
Vincent,
you seem to have missed this bit.
Can I just point out that Vincent is not telling the truth. He says I admitted to trolling. I didn't.
Did you think I was going to let you get away with it?

Once you explain what useful role you think dishonesty plays in science, we can get back to the other bits of nonsense you are talking (for example, I don't need to explain an anomaly that doesn't exist).
« Last Edit: 22/09/2010 19:26:10 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #81 on: 23/09/2010 00:28:34 »
To Ophiolite
As I mentioned in my previous post, I referred to a book I used when I started a degree as an electronics and computing mature student in 1983. (I was 47 then and I am 74 now.)
(It is strange how the meaning of the same two figures changes when they are reversed.)

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate. It is published by McGraw-Hill.

I have re-read the section dealing with magnetism very carefully. At no point is there any reference to magnetic energy. I know from very many empirical tests that there is absolutely NO energy in magnetism. Magnetism is a form of stress in spacetime that is normally experienced as a force. In some ways it is a force like gravity. There is no energy in gravity either.

The basic terms in physics relate to power, energy, force, friction (or resistance) and work. Energy is needed to to do work. It is applied through a force. These elements of the basic mechanics aspects of physics are so elementary that I would have thought that anyone participating in this forum should know the difference between energy and a force.

The only energy associated with magnetism is the energy used to create an electric current that in turn creates the magnetism. Stop the energy supply that creates the electric current and the magnetism disappears.

The basis for a lot of the points I have made in this forum is what I call "Astronomer's Magnetism". Many astronomers glibly claim that many astronomical phenomena are caused by magnetism. I happily challenge all astronomers to prove that the magnetism associated with ionised gases does anything except constrain a plasma current to a thin jet.

A changing magnetic field can induce a current in a conductor but energy must be expended to increase the current that causes a magnetic field to increase. Then, when energy has been expended to increase a current and the consequent magnetism to a certain level, the energy expenditure can be reduced, decreasing the current and the magnetism. There is no energy in the magnetism itself.

In a transformer magnetism is just a means of transmitting energy. In this sense it is comparable to a push rod in a car engine. the push rod transmits the power delivered to a piston to a crankshaft. There is no energy in a push rod.

Almost all forms of energy can be changed to another form. Heat energy can be used to power mechanical engines. Mechanical energy can be used to operate a generator of electrical energy. Electrical energy can be used to generate heat energy. There are losses when one form of energy is converted into another form. I am very curious to know how your "magnetic energy" is produced from heat, mechanical or electrical energy or how your "magnetic energy" can be used to create mechanical, electrical or heat energy.

You are right. I claim that there is no such thing as magnetic energy. There is only a magnetic force when energy is expended to create the current that produces the magnetism and thereby the magnetic force
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #82 on: 23/09/2010 03:09:11 »
To Ophiolite
As I mentioned in my previous post, I referred to a book I used when I started a degree as an electronics and computing mature student in 1983. (I was 47 then and I am 74 now.)
(It is strange how the meaning of the same two figures changes when they are reversed.)

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate. It is published by McGraw-Hill.

I have re-read the section dealing with magnetism very carefully. At no point is there any reference to magnetic energy. I know from very many empirical tests that there is absolutely NO energy in magnetism. Magnetism is a form of stress in spacetime that is normally experienced as a force. In some ways it is a force like gravity. There is no energy in gravity either.

I'm not sure why your book wouldn't have included magnetic energy density.  Most textbooks on electricity and magnetism do.  Anyway, it exists and is proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic field, squared.  See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_of_electric_and_magnetic_fields
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8678
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #83 on: 23/09/2010 06:59:28 »
" There is no energy in a push rod."
there is when it's moving and, unless it's moving it cannot transmit power.
" There is no energy in gravity either."
Yes there is.
E= mgh

Do you understand that, by not understanding these sorts of things, you lead to other mistakes?

Also it's not glib assertion that makes astronomers talk about magnetic fields on the sun.
They talk about them because they can measure them spectroscopically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect

We have told you this before.
Why will you not listen?


And I'm still waiting for Vincent to explain his dishonesty.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #84 on: 23/09/2010 07:13:03 »
The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate.

Ah yes! The Ordinary National Certificate (aka the ONC), kindly do not under rate it. When I did mine, I think we used Shepherd, Morton and Spence. I'll see if I can find it in the "archives".
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #85 on: 23/09/2010 07:56:54 »
To Wilf:
thank you for your reply. My thoughts are captured and expanded by the posts of Bored Chemist and JP.
I must echo BS's question: why will you not listen.
O.
 

Post by Vincent click to view.

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #86 on: 23/09/2010 12:49:04 »
Shrunk
Vincent,
you seem to have missed this bit.
Can I just point out that Vincent is not telling the truth. He says I admitted to trolling. I didn't.

Nah. I was waiting for the moderator to clean this up.

Was observing the acceptable usage policy of this forum and therefore did not want to waste time with your this self-defeating accusation. Also, did not want to embarrass you with your self-confessed act, but since you raged on persistently with your trolling acts and there are sufficient circumstantial evidence as observed, I hereby state my stand as followed:     

I did attack a strawman by parody; I posted a couple of other strawmen.

Trolling with straw man (Note: Off-limit url, please google for it.)
Attack the straw man is an act of trolling. No amount of justification could change this fact.

Quote
Did you think I was going to let you get away with it?

Mod, please take note that this is another inflammatory statement that is deliberately violating the acceptable usage policy by takings things personally with the explicit intention to derail by the act of trolling.

Quote
Once you explain what useful role you think dishonesty plays in science,

Baseless and therefore is unsustainable. In all events, it is irrelevant as well even if you deny attacking the straw man is tantamount to the act of trolling; your fallacy of composition is incredible.

Quote
we can get back to the other bits of nonsense you are talking (for example, I don't need to explain an anomaly that doesn't exist).

You are free to opine, but I don't have to entertain your opinions that were construed with prejudice in your denial.

Mod, kindly mitigate by deleting those inflammatory statements in several posts of BC in this thread that are deliberately disregarding the acceptable usage policy, and this post as well; these are not worth the bandwidth here. TY.


« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 16:36:20 by Vincent »
 

Post by Bored chemist click to view.

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8678
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #87 on: 23/09/2010 19:06:18 »
Shrunk
I'm sure the mods are keeping an eye on this.
In the meantime, you seem not to have noticed that I didn't admit to trolling (because I didn't).
Saying I did makes you a liar.
Saying it again "Also, did not want to embarrass you with your self-confessed act," doesn't help your case any. The mods will look through the post and see that you are saying something false.
If it were true you would presumably have quoted me saying I was trolling.

If strawmanning is a breach of the rules then at least I can say that I only did it in parody of your strawman.
If the mods decide to delete my post of a couple of videos from facebook then they will also delete your nonsense about the spouting bowl. If they do then my post did it's job.

Now, are you going to explain why you repeatedly said something that simply isn't true?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #88 on: 24/09/2010 02:00:05 »
This thread seems to have veered off into an argument rather than discussion about sunspots.  Locked.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #89 on: 25/09/2010 12:33:13 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #89 on: 25/09/2010 12:33:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length