The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
4
5
Go Down
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
89 Replies
48309 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
graham.d
Naked Science Forum King!
2207
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #20 on:
09/08/2010 13:37:51 »
Wilf, I think you have shifted from asking questions to making assertions that would qualify as a new theory of electromagnetism. I doubt that there are too many physicists here that could have a reasoned debate starting with the premise that Maxwell's equations are wrong.
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #21 on:
09/08/2010 15:45:21 »
Wilf you are clearly obsessed with there being some fundamental difference between a varying magnetic field created by a a current in an electrical wire and a "static" magnetic field created by a "permanent" magnet. this is not the case. The permanent magnet is only a vast array of tiny electrical currents associated with unpaired electrons in electron orbitals in the atoms of a ferromagnetic material held in position by the crystal structure at low temperatures and forced into that position at some time in the past by a powerful magnetic field.
«
Last Edit: 09/08/2010 16:20:09 by Soul Surfer
»
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #22 on:
09/08/2010 16:19:56 »
Your statement re maxwells equations is incorrect electricity and magnetism are NOT stated to be equivalent, they are differentially equivalent. That is a changing electrical field produces a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field produces an electrical field and this fully explains the results in your "anomalous" experiment with a static magnet. You need to move the magnet to light the lamp as can well be seen with shake and go torches. It seems to me that you may not understand differential equations and vector calculus properly. This is essential for a full understanding of electromagnetic processes.
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
imatfaal
Naked Science Forum King!
2782
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
rouge moderator
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #23 on:
09/08/2010 16:38:12 »
Wilf, Maxwell is far more complicated that an equivalence between magnetism and electricity; Faraday's law shows that the curl of the electric field is related to the
change
in magnetic field over time and Gauss's un-named law demonstrated that there can be no magnetic monopole or charge (quite distinct from electric). He relates magnetism and electricity and their fields but he does not equate them.
Maxwell's law have been tested and checked relentlessly for many years - not least that the speed of light that can be calculated from them - and cannot be easily jettisoned without showing a real failing.
Matthew
Logged
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. John Von Neumann
At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #24 on:
09/08/2010 19:34:33 »
wilf at one point you mention you would like to know how relativity fits into electricity and magnetism.
It is quite possible to derive the existence of magnetism by the application of relativity to classical electrostatics.
see
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=6685.0
for a fuller discussion
gravity also demonstrates the same process via an effect called gravitomagnetism (or frame dragging) and there is a probe in orbit around the earth (gravity probe b) trying to measure this effect as accurately as possible.
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #25 on:
10/08/2010 14:36:44 »
I am grateful to all of you who have replied to my latest post.
In general, you have claimed that I have used static magnetic and electric situations to replace the dynamic ideas that Faraday, Gauss and Maxwell dealt with.
I'm glad. It was my intention to consider steady states.
I regard an electron beam in a CRT as being similar in practice to a stream of ionised gas. Both can be compared directly with an unchanging current in a wire.
However, electrons in a beam and a stream of ionised gas move and therefore can be considered by some as being dynamic. However electrons in a wire carrying a steady current are no different in principle. They also move in a manner that not unlike the electrons in an electron beam.
I have chosen a steady state situation because the basis of my arguments concerning sunspots assumes that in the short term sunspots are more or less in a steady state. Some have existed for several weeks in the past. In my past work if something didn't change much in a minute, it was regarded as being in a steady state. (It is incredibly boring to look at a horizontal scan line on an oscilloscope for minutes on end.)
I have said that for some purposes, a sunspot can be regarded as being in a steady state. There is something else associated with the sun that is regarded it as being more or less in a steady state. That is the solar wind. It is considered to be so steady that it is only when a coronal mass ejection occurs in the form of a solar flare that a change in the strength of the solar wind becomes something of note. For my purpose, in the short term of a few hours, both sun spots and the solar wind can be considered to be in a more or less steady state.
These apparent steady states vary relatively slowly over periods of eleven and twenty-two years. They increase and decrease in step. If more sunspots are visible, the intensity of the solar wind is higher.
Here I will digress a little back to the time when I became aware of the variation in sunspots. I was playing with the radios I had built around 1947-1949 then. In Wireless World there was a regular forecast of the maximum usable frequencies (MUFs) for short wave propagation. The chart and graphs which showed the predictions also showed the sunspot number. The MUFs closely followed the sunspot numbers. In the terms of those days, the sunspots improved the reflectivity of the Heaviside and Appleton layers that enabled short wave signals to be bounced around the Earth. From that time onwards I knew that something which came from sunspots affected the ionisation of the upper atmosphere around the Earth. The graphs and charts in Wireless World showed the diurnal variation and the frequencies that would probably be useful between London, Cape Town, Hong Kong, New York and other places. The MUFs were lower at night and lower when part of the route was in darkness. These charts and graphs gave an idea of the distribution of the ionisation around the Earth as the Earth rotated.
Now, since spacecraft have investigated the solar wind and the ionisation around the Earth, the terms Heaviside and Appleton layers have become obsolete. In addition, satellites and undersea cables have reduced the need for short wave communications. This reduction in the need for short wave radio has led to a decreased awareness of the relationship between sunspot numbers and the ionisation around the Earth. Technology may have improved a lot during the last 60-odd years but the sun hasn't changed very much on average. It still gets sunspots although some people were worried recently about a second (?) Maunder minimum.
It is partly because sunspots have been few recently that the reappearance of sunspots has become news.
60-odd years ago I learned that sunspots affected the ionisation around the Earth. Since then I have learned something about astronomy and the great number of misconceptions many astronomers have about the true natures of electricity and magnetism. I have mentioned some of them in my posts to this forum.
Since sunspots affect the ionisation around the Earth, the question is how? Somehow or other sunspots send ionised particles out into space in rough proportion to their number. In modern times we have observed that the intensity of the solar wind is related to sunspot numbers. Since sunspots are a relatively steady state phenomenon, (at least, when considered over a week) there is no need to consider them in any other terms than a steady state to analyse their properties.
We know the following:
Sunspots increase the intensity of the solar wind in rough proportion to their number.
From this we must conclude that sunspots are launch sites for the emission of ionised particles out from the sun into space.
From this basic premise we now have a question to answer.
What causes sunspots to launch ionised particles?
The major energy source in the sun is heat. That is why I think that sunspots are sites of hot spots.
I think that the most likely explanation for sunspots appearing to be dark and cool is that there is an absence of light and heat photons since photons are the only form of electromagnetic radiation that we can detect to give us an indication of light and heat levels.
Whatever is thought about the nature of sunspots, I presume that all participants in this forum will agree that sunspots don't change much from minute to minute and probably for longer periods. For this reason they can be considered to be a short term steady state phenomenon. In consequence there is no need to complicate matters with dynamic considerations.
I have mentioned that the ionisation that makes up the solar wind is invisible. We routinely observe the sun through it as if it is more transparent than glass. We know it is ionised and does not emit many photons. If it did, our view of the sun would be obscured. Is it a giant step to presume that one source of this ionisation is similar and does not emit many photons?
Since heat is the major energy source in the sun, other phenomena that are caused by heat and involve dynamics are a diversion from the fundamental energy source. I know of no other form of energy in the sun that is capable of producing regions which are often thousands of miles in diameter. There is no such thing as "cool" energy and the fusion reactions which create the sun's heat are deep in the interior of the sun. The emissions from the fusion reactions are in the form of particles and photons. Photons liberated within the depths of the sun follow a random walk to get to the photosphere. It may be that some of these photons are what can be perceived as black body radiation within a sunspot - but that is pure conjecture.
I have said that the solar wind is invisible and that it is likely that one of its sources is invisible too. There is only one sort of solar phenomenon that is as persistent as sunspots. That is what is known as a prominence. Prominences are very dim when compared with the photosphere but their arcs could be the paths similar to the launch paths that the ionised particles take when launched from sunspots. Whatever is launched from sunspots must leave the apparent surface at a speed which is greater than the sun's speed of escape for anything to reach the Earth's orbit,
It is easy to think that prominences are launched from sunspots because they are generally arcs which fall back to the sun's apparent surface. A prominence could be launched from a hot dark hole and crash back down to make a second dark hole. Could it be more than a coincidence that sunspots generally appear in pairs.?
Are prominences dim because they are so hot that they do not emit many photons?
If prominences are not launched from sunspots, there must be some evidence of their launch and destination sites. I know of no sites of a nature that could launch prominences that have been observed - if a sunspot is not a prominence launch site.
The visible top of a prominence photographed by NASA in infra-red is around 215,000 kilometres above the sun's apparent surface. The energy needed to launch the prominence is colossal. I have calculated that the energy needed to launch just one kilogram of material to a height of 215,000 kilometres above the sun's surface is 58,909,999,785 kilogram-metres per second. Your guess is as good as mine about the number of kilograms in a prominence. The NASA image only shows what is visible in the infra-red. It is conceivable that some invisible particles launched in the same prominence reach heights greater than 215,000 kilometres or even have escape velocity.
My hypothesis is that one of a pair of sunspots is effectively a colossal solar volcano that ejects what we perceive as a prominence. The prominence creates a second sunspot when it gets back down to the sun's surface. A prominence arc is a reasonable model for the way ionised particles are launched from a sunspot fast enough to leave the sun. The darkness of sunspots and the dimness of prominences is not coincidental.
For many participants in this forum my ideas may be considered to be fanciful or even loony. If one or more of you can offer an alternative way to explain how sunspots can cause a major contribution to the solar wind by causing ionised particles to be launched from the sun at greater than the sun's speed of escape, I will be very interested. Whatever method is suggested, it must be one which is continuous and more or less as static as the appearance of a sunspot or a prominence.
Logged
graham.d
Naked Science Forum King!
2207
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #26 on:
10/08/2010 16:00:57 »
Wilf, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
The areas surrounding groups of sunspots are hotter than the average surface temperature. This correlates the total average temperature of the surface with the presence of sunspots even though the spots themselves are cooler regions.
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #27 on:
10/08/2010 22:47:42 »
I have already explained this to you a possible route for this process a couple of days ago the magnetic confinement you describe forces the thermal particle velocities to bcome coherent (and hence cooler) and have a velocity in one direction. You are half way there but your poor thinking resulted in the wrong conclusion. If a process working inside something that is in an approximate thermal equilibrium is going to give some part of the material a great deal of energy in a particular direction it has to extract energy from somewhere (cool things down) to do this. remember also adiabatic expansion into low pressure areas also causes cooling. you are so used to thinking that things getting accelerated need to involve the release of energy like explosions in a gun to push things.
There are however violent releases of energy associated with the gradual twisting of the magnetic field due to the differential rotation of the fluid sun (this is where the "tangled lines of force" come into the theory
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #28 on:
11/08/2010 17:21:05 »
Dear Soul Surfer,
I find it hard to answer your most recent posting.
You mention the magnetic confinement implied in one of my precious posts. You also wrote:
"There are however violent releases of energy associated with the gradual twisting of the magnetic field due to the differential rotation of the fluid sun..."
I will put the point simply in a way I have not mentioned bedore.
Magnetism is a symptom or a sign or evidence that a current is flowing. Any description that refers to one thing or another being done by magnetism is almost like saying a football team wins by having red shirts.
I refer back to previous points made.
In the sun there is a lot of heat.
The inner regions of the sun are hotter than the outer regions.
The sun is made of gas.
The heat ionises the gas in proportion to the heat available.
Gas expands when it gets hotter if it is not contained by something or other.
The most likely and easiest way for gas to expand is outwards (upwards) from the sun.
A gas moving upwards from the sun will form an electric current that has a magnetic field around it.
The magnetic field will constrain the gas into a column or cylinder.
The gas has mass and the sun has a gravity of 28g.
A stream of gas going upwards from the sun's surface will decelerate.
This will cause the magnetic field around the stream to weaken but not usually enough to cause the stream of gas to break up.
The suns' gravity overcomes the stream's upward movement and the stream is pulled down again.
There is a lovely NASA image available of the phenomena at or just above the sun's surface.
The image shows a series of arcs of gas. The arcs appear to be going in both directions.
Please see
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/sun-gallery/#/coronal-loops_905_600x450.jpg
[nofollow]
The caption is:
Coronal Loops
Magnetism made visible: That describes virtually every feature on the sun, from sunspots to these soaring structures, called loops. Loops easily reach the height of ten Earths. Energy generated by the dynamics of smaller loops is likely the source of the solar corona's mysterious heat. The superheated gases that form the sun,
mainly hydrogen and helium, exist in an electrified state called plasma. Below the surface, plasma can push and drag magnetic field lines. But when lines are strong enough to arc out, wildly conductive plasma follows.
Sadly, here, as in most astronomy books I have read, these arcs are called magnetic loops. A magnetic field is as visible as a gravity field and the arcs in the NASA image are quite luminous. In addition, Magnetic fields exist between two opposite poles or are circular. These arcs conform to no magnetic field shape I have ever encountered in more than 60 years.
It seems in the image that the arcs are in pairs. The destination point of one arc is the emergence point for its pair. I am convinced that the arcs in the image are streams of gas that are maintained in relatively narrow paths by the magnetic fields around them. The nearest Earthly analogy to these arcs is a geyser that just squirts out of the ground a little bit sideways like a fire hose jet.
Unlike a geyser, these arcs maintain their paths for minutes on end. All the moving images of these arcs have shown them to appear to last for significant periods of time within the length of time that the moving pictures were taken. The NASA image seems to me to indicate that one arc of gas when it lands at its destination provides material and energy to sustain the parallel arc that flows in the opposite direction. As these arcs are electric currents flowing in opposite directions, they do not interfere with each other.
As with a geyser on Earth, these arcs of gas have no obvious sources that cause them to be projected upwards. Also like a geyser, something must cause them to squirt upwards from the apparent surface. The circumstances are totally different but the cause is the same. Heat drives the geyser and the arcs. As the arcs are currents of gas which have their own surrounding magnetic fields, if there was some agency driving them which involves a magnetic field, it would alter the forms of the arcs. All arcs are more or less rainbow shaped with little variation in their visible diameters from their origins to their desinations.
Also have a look at:
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/sun-gallery/#/sunspot-loops_1236_600x450.jpg
[nofollow]
The caption reads:
Sunspot Loops
It may look wild, but this image of the solar surface, captured by a NASA satellite called TRACE in 2000, was described by scientists as "a quiet day on the sun." In other words, spectacular loops but no storms.
In the two images there is no apparent "magic magnetic mechanism" that produces the jets of ionised gas. The author of the caption for the first image is using the same misused jargon for solar phenomena that has persisted for nearly 100 years. It is clear from your posts you are influenced by the same misuse of jargon.
I think that prominences are just bigger versions of the jet arcs seen in the first image.
The energy that produces them is the same - heat from the interior of the sun.
I will stick to what I have written until magnetic fields become visible and exist as separate entities as astronomers seem to think they do.
«
Last Edit: 14/08/2010 21:21:21 by Wilf James
»
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #29 on:
11/08/2010 19:06:43 »
Bar magnets and iron filings render magnetic fields "visible" in exactly the same way as coronal arcs you are being pedantic.
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #30 on:
12/08/2010 14:42:02 »
Dear Soul Surfer,
As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space.
Even they lose their magnetic properties when hotter than their Curie points. The sun is a geat deal hotter than than the Curie points of all ferrous materials.
The first of the two images in my last posting shows the arcs of gas clearly - through the sun's transparent 28g gravity field. Gravity fields contain no particles or photons and are therefore invisble. As far as I know, magnetic fields are likewise invisible for the same reasons.
If you can accept that magnetic fields are invisible and NEVER do things on their own, you should be able to see why I think that the caption with the first image is silly. You may now gather why I am having my private one man battle with those who continue to promulgate "Accepted wisdom" without doing the simplest check on the facts.
If it is being pedantic to state verifiable facts, I'm very pedantic.
Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is.
You didn't like what I wrote about Babcock's sunspot theory. Maybe you might be beginning to understand now why I think it is ludicrous.
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30352
Activity:
13%
Thanked: 1217 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #31 on:
12/08/2010 21:48:30 »
"As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Shows how little you know.
"Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is."
Do you believe that hurricanes do things?
What colour is the wind?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #32 on:
12/08/2010 23:07:15 »
To Bored Chemist
You said quoting me:
"As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Shows how little you know.
The little I know has sufficed for more than 60 years. Please tell me what material or phenomenon offers a shorter magnetic path than free space at temperatures greater than 1,000 dgrees celsius. Such a material or phenomenon would be of great help to those working on the ITER Fusion reactor.
"Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is."
Do you believe that hurricanes do things?
What colour is the wind?
The reason why I suggested that question is rhetorical.
Magnetic fields are invisible although many astronomers say that some visible phenomena on the sun are magnetic fields. The "magnetic loops" in the NASA image I have referred to are just one sort of example. As I have indicated to Soul Surfer, A lot written in many astronomy books and elsewhere implies that magnetic fields exist on their own and cause many observed phenomena.
The only properties of a magnetic field that I know of are to cause a current to flow in a moving conductor and to take the shortest path possible. A magnetic field can be transferred to some ferrous materials when they are below their Curie points. Some semiconductors work with magnetic fields by using the fact that like magnetic fields repel each other. (Hall effect.) Since all magnetic fields apart from those around permanent magnets on Earth are a property of an electric current, many of the things that they are alleged to do by astronomers are impossible.
The prime cause of most solar phenomena is heat. The same applies to hurricanes on Earth. I fail to understand why a hurricane can be considered relevant to the topics under discussion in this part of the forum.
My contention is that many phenomena on the sun are not caused by magnetism (as alleged by many astronomers) but are the results of the action of heat on gases.
Logged
JP
Naked Science Forum King!
3346
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 3 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #33 on:
13/08/2010 05:09:56 »
As a moderator here: This thread is bordering on name-calling. Please keep it civil.
As a general commentator: Wilf, Soul Surfer really does know what he's talking about. I suggest trying to understand what he's getting at, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Logged
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #34 on:
13/08/2010 10:43:23 »
To JP,
The Name calling did not start with me.
Please check my posts.
I appreciate your point about understanding what Soul Surfer has written. However, in physics, particularly in the fields of electricity and magnetism, there is no way that any pair or group of people can come to a compromise on the facts.
For me, the bases for my arguments are that electricity and magnetism have clearly defined properties that can be tested very easily on Earth. Most of the arguments decrying what I have written are based on theories produced by very prominent astronomers more than 50 years ago. As one young lady astronomer graduate told me: "I know that a lot of the things taught about astronomy are wrong but one does not rock the boat by trying to put things right if one wants to get a good position and promotion. Bosses don't like being told that they are wrong."
I ask those who say that I am wrong in any part of any posting I have made, (apart from the odd spelling error) to do the most elementary of experiments to see what magnetism is really like.
I will sum up the facts as I know them to be here.
Then I will offer the conclusions that I have arrived at based purely on these facts.
An electric current is produced as a result of the expenditure of energy.
A property of an electric current is that it always has a magnetic field around it.
The magnetic field produced by a current is invisible.
Magnetic fields always take the shortest possible magnetic paths.
The way magnetism takes the shortest path can be observed in the way it constricts an electron beam or a current in ionised gas.
Magnetic fields cause a sort of stress in space-time that is comparable to the stresses in space-time caused by gravity and the electrostatic force.
The stress in space-time produced by gravity causes the lensing that enables a far distant object to be observed to some degree when it would otherwise be obscured by a closer object.
The stress in space-time caused by magnetism shows itself by splitting spectrum lines.
A magnetic field can induce a current into a moving conductor.
A photon is emitted when an electron falls toward the nucleus from a higher energy level to a lower one.
The heat of the sun causes many atoms to lose their outer electron shells.
The loss of electron shells is roughly proportional to temperature.
The solar wind as detected in the vicinity of the Earth's orbit is stronger when sunspots are visible on the sun's surface.
The solar wind at the Earth's orbit has an average unneutralised proton density of around five per cubic centimetre.
The solar wind is transparent and invisible.
The particles in the solar wind must have left the sun with a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. Since the intensity of the solar wind is related to sunspot numbers, sunspots must in some way be launch sites for the particles that make up the solar wind.
The main energy source in the sun is heat produced at its centre by nuclear fusion. The sun is hotter below its photosphere than the temperature of the photosphere.
A calculation based on an infra-red photo of a prominence produced by NASA indicates that the visible top of the prominence is 215,000 kilometres above the sun's apparent surface.
See: (I regret the long URL)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9709/solprom1_eit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970918.html&usg=__6oyAhcbnrWUKOfUSyLMcR5duqlA=&h=363&w=446&sz=28&hl=en&start=481&tbnid=FYrueclnC1Q4wM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnasa%2Bsun%2Bphotos%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D683%26bih%3D387%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C16816&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=317&vpy=87&dur=10073&hovh=202&hovw=249&tx=59&ty=223&ei=HQllTLy6BJKTjAeKyeDYCw&oei=oQdlTMzlCdGbOMHbwIcN&esq=83&page=60&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:481&biw=683&bih=387
[nofollow]
The minimum launch speed for something to reach that height against the sun's gravity is 213.285 miles per second if air resistance is excluded.
Prominences are generally very dim optically and are mainly observed during total eclipses of the sun. The energy needed to launch the prominence in the NASA photograph is colossal. The main energy source in the sun is heat. The amount of heat needed to launch such a prominence is unimaginable (at least by me).
The jet arcs called "Magnetic Loops" in a NASA photo already referred to have no apparent causes yet they reach heights of around 130,000 kilometres. (10 Earth diameters).
They are akin to geysers that just squirt out of the ground.
My conclusions based on the foregoing.
The primary cause of most solar phenomena is heat.
I think that when the temperature is high enough, either atoms have lost all their electron shells or the excitement of the atoms due to extreme heat prevents electrons from falling from higher energy levels to lower ones. Since this action by electrons is the main (only?) source of photons, a lack of electrons falling towards nuclei will result in a scarcity of photons. A scarcity of photons will give the impression of dimness and coolness.
The image of a prominence referred to indicates that it was produced by an enormous expenditure of energy. I think that the energy source was heat. If that is the case, the material in the prominence must be extremely hot. Even so, like all other prominences it is dim optically. This leads me to think that the material in prominences is too hot to emit many photons.
Since sunspots are one of the main sources of the solar wind, and the material in the solar wind has exceeded the speed of escape from the sun, the launch capability of sunspots must be enormous. I presume that the particles in the solar wind are launched in a manner that is similar to that which launches prominences. However, since the particles in the solar wind have exceeded the sun's speed of escape, they must have been launched with more energy than in the prominence referred to earlier. For me, more energy means the expenditure of more heat energy. More heat means that fewer photons will be visible. That is why I think that one sunspot of a pair is a source and is a hole that permits a view into the sun's hotter interior. As I think that electrons can't fall towards nuclei if the temperature is high enough, few if any photons would be emitted from the depths of the hole, giving an impression of darkness and coolness.
Referring back to the "Magnetic Loop" photo. The arcs of gas drop back to the sun's apparent surface. The arcs are like small prominences. Since the arcs of ionised gas are constrained by the magnetic fields around them, much of the material and energy which launched them is returned to below the sun's apparent surface. I think that this material and energy forms the source for a second arc that may take a similar route in the reverse direction to the first arc. The two arcs becoming mutually supportive for a time.
If one sunspot is the source of a prominence-like launch site for material which leaves the sun, some of the material launched will not exceed the speed of escape and will fall back towards the sun's surface. Since an enormous amount of material was launched and much of it will be constrained by the magnetic field around it, it will be more or less together when it gets back to the sun's surface. A lot of the material and energy that was involved in the launch will hit the sun's surface at a speed downwards that is comparable with the original upward launch speed. I think that such a return of material will create a hole that will be less neat then the emergence hole.
The momentum of the returning material will carry it down to a significant depth below the sun's surface. I think that this returning energy and material will partially restore the energy source that was the cause of the original launch of material. It will be at one side of the energy source. This could be the reason why the original source of the launch is dragged a bit towards where the material fell. This would have the effect of the source and destination gradually moving across the face of the sun. If the returning material acts as replenishment for the original energy source, it could explain why a pair of sunspots is relatively long lived and why they move sideways together.
In conclusion I must say that most of the images I have seen of the sun produced by NASA show a lot of emissions of material. None of these images show any form of energy that produces these emissions apart from heat coming (invisibly) from the sun's interior.
Astronomers claim that much seen on the sun is the result of magnetic fields. In general, these astronomers do not say where these magnetic fields come from or what causes them.
I know that the ONLY causes of magnetic fields on the sun are the currents formed by streams of ionised gas which are in turn activated by heat, presumably from the hotter interior of the sun.
The caption of the image called "Magnetic Loops" is an example of an explanation based on buzz words. The facts I have mentioned can be independently checked. The conjectures I have made are based on what appears to occur on the sun while not contravening any known facts.
I rest my case.
«
Last Edit: 15/08/2010 23:42:11 by Wilf James
»
Logged
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #35 on:
17/08/2010 10:36:21 »
This is a sort of little addendum to my last posting.
After re-reading all the posts on this topic I came to the conclusion that one point that I had mentioned almost in passing deserves a bit more attention.
The solar wind is invisible. We see the sun through it. Much of the solar wind comes from sunspots. The solar wind as it emerges from sunspots is also invisible. We see the sunspots through it.
The particles in the solar wind leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. They must be launched at least in part from sunspots. The launch mechanism for the particles at sunspots is not very obvious.
I presume that the particles are launched from one sunspot from what appears to be a hole. The interior of the sun is hotter than the exterior so if the launch sunspot is a hole it must be pretty hot in the hole.
As I think that sunspots are the sources and destinations of prominences, the second sunspot of a pair is formed by the material launched from the first sunspot that did not achieve the speed of escape from the sun.
In all my life working with electricity I have never seen it. I have often seen how it makes air luminous in lighting and other sparks. I have seen the effects of the magnetic fields caused by electric currents but I have never seen a magnetic field.
Electric currents are produced by the expenditure of energy. The solar wind is an electric current. What is the energy source for the solar wind if it is not heat?
«
Last Edit: 17/08/2010 16:01:47 by Wilf James
»
Logged
syhprum
Naked Science Forum King!
5198
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 74 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #36 on:
17/08/2010 11:35:07 »
Although magnetic fields are invisible their effect on electromagnetic radiation can be readily observed through the Zeeman effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
Logged
graham.d
Naked Science Forum King!
2207
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #37 on:
17/08/2010 12:34:56 »
Wilf, I posted a while back that the temperature of sunspots is lower than the average surface temperature but that the presence of sunspots results in the surrounding areas having a higher than average temperature. This I found on the web. You did not reply to this although it is in contradiction to your assertion that sunspots are hotter. I don't think there is any dispute (at least from me) than sunspots are associated with greater emissions from the sun but I don't think it follows that the emissions emerge from the sunspots themselves.
Logged
CreativeEnergy
Jr. Member
28
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #38 on:
17/08/2010 12:57:51 »
Graham.d is correct. Sunspots per se are cooler regions on the surface of the sun. That's why they appear darker than their surroundings. They are the direct result of the sun's lines of magnetic force breaking through the surface while the sun's magnetic field is in the process of reversing polarity.
It was first realized and demonstrated that sunspots represented magnetic lines of force by George Ellery Hale when he observed the Zeeman effect, the splitting of spectral lines in the presence of magnetism, while observing the sun using the Mount Wilson solar observatory.
«
Last Edit: 17/08/2010 13:27:42 by CreativeEnergy
»
Logged
Caelum videre iussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.
"He bid them look at the sky and lift their faces to the stars."
--Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. 85-86
Eric's Journal
Eric's Cosmos
Wilf James
Jr. Member
34
Activity:
0%
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
«
Reply #39 on:
17/08/2010 17:09:14 »
syhprum
I have already covered the splitting of spectrum lines which has been given the name of the Zeeman effect. It is the example I used to illustrate how magnetism stresses spacetime
graham.d
The surrounding area of a sunspot may be hotter than the inner apparently dark area. Hoewver, I have yet to see an indication of how this higher than average (6,000K?) temperatue is being transferred to the apparently cooler and darker region. I think that one of the reasons why the solar wind is invisible is because there are no photons in it. The apparently darker and cooler area is also apparently short of photons.
CreativeEnergy
George Ellery Hale was one of the great early astronomers. Sadly he never did any work with magnetism on Earth. If he had, he would have discovered that there are no magnetic lines of force. (They are as common as gravitic lines of force.)
You also mention the Zeeman effect that I have already dealt with. Sadly the Zeeman effect only detects the presence of magnetism. It does not indicate in any way where the magnetism comes from or if it is bipolar or circular. As I have written before, magnetism is a PROPERTY of an electric current. It can only be produced by an electric current.
Hale and many of his contemporaries and successors have frequently described phenomena as having been caused by magnetism as if it could do things on it own or cause mechanical disturbances. It can do neither. It can induce currents into moving conductors and constrain the path of an ionised stream of gas.
The main motivational force on the sun is caused by the expansion of gas because of heat. This principle is what makes steam and internal combustion engines work. The sun has plenty of heat. As an expanding gas is one that has been heated, it is less dense than the gas around it so it convects upwards. As it is ionised the rising stream of hot gas is a current that has a magnetic field around it. The magnetic fields detected on the sun have all been caused by currents of heated ionised gas.
It is sad that so many students of astronomy have not dared to challenge those who taught them when what was being taught could so easily be shown to be wrong. The fact that some extremely famous astronomer said that x is y in the past has never made x into y even though a large number of people have quoted what he said as if it was the truth.
«
Last Edit: 17/08/2010 20:40:02 by Wilf James
»
Logged
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
4
5
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...