0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
I prefer this movie.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wmbM6EpZUor this one//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXH4vDQWptUAnd I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.
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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/09/2010 20:07:39I prefer this movie.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wmbM6EpZUor this one//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXH4vDQWptUAnd 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?
Quote from: Vincent on 15/09/2010 08:42:41Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/09/2010 20:07:39I prefer this movie.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wmbM6EpZUor this one//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXH4vDQWptUAnd 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.
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 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.
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.
QuoteIn 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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Vincent on 21/09/2010 06:29:28Cognitive 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. QuoteIndeed 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/09/2010 07:54:12I 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. QuoteAlso, 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?
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).
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.