Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Wilf James on 05/08/2010 08:30:04

Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 05/08/2010 08:30:04
Wilf James  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Dear Chris,

I am very much a latecomer to the Naked Scientist website, so my question may have been answered already.

I have tried to get to grips with quantum physics to some degree.

One thing I have learned which is relevant is that a photon is emitted from an excited atom as the energy level in the atom drops. The wavelength/frequency of the light emitted depends on the the change of energy level in the atom in discrete steps. Electrons "fall" from one shell level to the next giving off photons at a given wavelength. These steps can be and are used to determine what sort of atoms are emitting light.

As far as I have been able to discover, only changes in the energy levels of atoms produce photons. I have never heard of photons being produced in any other way. If you know of another way to generate photons I would very much like to know.

This leads on to what I think is a frequently stated error about the sun.
The sun is very hot. The atoms in the sun are excited by the heat. The atoms emit photons as they cool.

The heat of the sun nearer its centre is so hot that some atoms lose their outer electron shells. At some point near the centre of the sun the atoms lose most of their electrons if not all of them.

The result is that there are fewer or no electrons available to drop drown from a higher energy level to a lower one. In consequence there are fewer photons emitted from a region that is very much hotter than the rest of the visible sun.

If fewer photons are emitted, the light level will be lower so that the region will appear to be darker. Since photons also carry heat, the region where fewer photons are emitted will appear to be cooler.
This is why I think that sunspots are extremely hot regions of the sun and NOT cooler regions as claimed in astronomy books..

Please can you tell what is wrong with my logic if it is wrong.


Wilf James
Letchworth Garden City

What do you think?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite on 05/08/2010 12:06:57
One flaw in your logic is that you are assuming conditions that apply in the deeper layers of the sun - extensive ionisation of atoms - is equally prevalent in the surface layers. It isn't.

An observational flaw in your suggestion is that we can determine the temperature of various parts of of the visible sun through studying the distribution of emitted wavelenths and the sunspots are cooler.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d on 05/08/2010 12:47:45
"As far as I have been able to discover, only changes in the energy levels of atoms produce photons. I have never heard of photons being produced in any other way. If you know of another way to generate photons I would very much like to know."

Although not especially relevent to the discussion about the sun, photons are the quanta or particle representation of an electromagnetic wave (from radio waves to gamma rays). Obviously these do not have to be generated by an electron transition in an atom. Radio waves result from the movement of charge (which may be electrons) and gamma rays from nuclear reactions. Photons are regarded as the "force carrier" in electromagnetism.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 05/08/2010 22:51:26
Wilf you are missing out on understanding a fundamental property of all normal matter. Any solid liquid or gas with a reasonable density and temperature has its atoms moving and jostling together and in this process emits electromagnetic radiation (quanta if you like) each time atoms bump into each other they accelerate and can emit photons of a wide range of frequencies and this depends precisely on the temperature of the material and is by far the most probable source of radiation from a body.  Everyone is familiar with this in the process of heating an iron poker in a fire until it is red hot and glows.  This is known as thermal radiation.

The radiation and absorption of spectral lines depends on precise and uncommon condition but it is very useful for identifying the materials in stars.  This is mostly seen as absorption lines against the background of thermal radiation at about 6000 K which is the temperature of the sun.  The thermal energy emitted by materials increases as the fourth power of the temperature of the material so even a slightly cooler patch of the sun is much dimmer and dark in contrast to the brightness of the hotter parts  if you were to look only at the core of a sunspot you would see that it is radiating quite brightly.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 06/08/2010 11:54:39
Some of the replies I have had to my suggestion that sunspots are hot have claimd that the observed temperature is lower than the photosphere.

This goes back to my original point - photons are emitted when electrons fall from one level to a lower one. How is temperature measured remotely? It must use some form of detector. The only detectors available are photo-operated, whether they are thermometers or bolometers. As far as I know the temeperature can only be determined by the number of photons emitted. If there aren't many photons, the observed temperature will be lower.

The other approach to the same subject is to consider the sun as a ball with an extremely hot centre. We observe its photosphere which is obviously cooler than its interior. If, as I think is the case, looking at a sunspot is a bit like looking down a crater of an active volcano, the view is of a level below the photosphere "surface". I presume that if this  is right, the view is of a hotter region as would be the case with a volcano.

There are other aspects of sunspots as described in most astronomy books that do not make any sense at all to me.  It is claimed that they are caused by magnetic fields in the books. As an electronic engineer of more than 50 years standing I KNOW that a magnetic field is ONLY a property of an electric current. There is NO way to create a magnetic field otherwise. The "standard" theory for the generation of sunspots was originated by Babcock & co. This requires horizontal magnetic loops to become "entangled" somehow. The only way such magnetic loops could be created is for cylindrical currents to be created like worms across the sun's surface. I can't think of any thermal process that could create the wormlike cylindrical currents across thousands of miles over the sun's surface to create the magnetic loops that Babcock's theory is based on. There is magnetism there alright but not Babcock's magnetism. The net output from the sun is OUTWARD in the form of ionised gas. Streams of ionised gas are currents which have magnetic fields around them.

I invite anyone to find a way to "entangle" two or more magnetic fields. A practical example of three lots of magnetic fields inter-operating is in a cathode ray tube as used for television or a computer monitor. They don't get "entangled" in any way. They create a resultant field field in proportion to their strengths and orientations. The resultant field acts on the electron beam, deflecting it appropriately. TV sets and computer monitors would not work if this was not true.
I invite anyone to study how magnetism is generated and used in a CRT and to compare it with the tosh quoted by many astronomers about magnetism in space.

A jet of ionised gas is directly comparable to the beam of electrons in a CRT. The beam of electrons is a negative current that has a cylindrical magnetic field around it. A jet emerging from the sun is most likely positively charged, consisting of atoms missing electrons. The orientation of the magnetic field around a jet of positively charged particles is opposite that of an electron beam but is in every other way similar. If, as I suspect, a sunspot is like the crater of a solar volcano, it will be the source of such a positively ionised jet.

AROUND the jet will be an extremely intense magnetic field. The jet would be so hot that it would not emit a significant number of photons and would be invisble in comparison with the suns's photosphere.

The next bit is speculation based on what I have written here.

What if a solar prominence emerges from one sunspot and falls back to the sun's surface, to create a second sunspot?

The ionised gas in prominences is optically dim and can usually only be seen during eclipses. Is it because it is too hot to emit many photons? If this is the case, it tends to support my hypothesis that sunspots are extremely hot regions that are in some ways comparable to the craters of active volcanoes on Earth.

I invite the members of this forum who are interested in this topic to find images of prominences. Then to estimate how high they get above the visible surface of the sun. Then, having done that, calculate the energy needed to launch a kilogram of matter in  a prominence to the height reached against the suns gravity. (28g) Then think what the energy source could be to launch the prominence. The only energy source I know of in the sun is heat, lots of it.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d on 06/08/2010 13:16:44
The sun behaves as a good approximation to a blackbody radiator. Although there are emission and absorption spectra interspersed, the dominant behaviour conforms to a blackbody radiation. The photon emissions are not primarily due to the energy level transitions of electrons within atoms. Blackbody radiation behaves in a way that there is a specific relationship between the emitted flux and the wavelength of the em radiation. Both the normal surface of the sun and sunspots have this characteristic and the curves correspond to different temperatures, the sunspots seemingly at a much lower temperature. Sunspots often occur in pairs and it is thought that this is because of a curved magnetic field "leaving"
one spot and "entering" the other spot. The presence of the magnetic field strongly inhibits the free movement of the surface plasma reducing the effective temperature. I believe this is the theory.

That ionised gas emissions can only be see during eclipses is just a matter of practical optics. The effect of an eclipse can be created optically, in a telescope, and then the emissions are observable despite the huge heat/light source nearby that otherwise tends to overwhelm the optics with unwanted multiple internal reflections.

I have not studied the subject but there are many complex convection currents within the structure of a star like the sun. These do not always behave in a regular way - maybe chaos theory could explain things - and the resulting magnetic fields that result are very complex. Such behaviour has been modelled though, so I don't think it is inexplicable.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite on 06/08/2010 15:35:42
Wilf,
since entangled magnetic fields have been observed with devices such as this (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/magnetograph.shtml), do you think it would not be more productive to consider how they arise, rather than to deny their existence?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 07/08/2010 09:48:35
To Ophiolite and others who refer to magnetism.
Any electrical engineer will tell you that magnetism is a force that is in some ways comparable to gravity and the electrostatic force.

There is only one sort of magnetism in the same way as there is only one sort of gravity. Two or more magnetic fields can only join each other or cancel each other to varying degrees. The basic rules of mechanics apply as in such an elementary concept as the triangle of forces.

The way that the electron beam is controlled in a cathode ray tube is an example of the way that three discrete magnetic fields interact. The position of the spot on a CRT screen is the resultant of the interaction of the three fields. The horizontal deflection is caused by a vertical field. The vertical deflection is caused by a horizontal field, the two fields working together to act on the electron beam's magnetic field which is cylindrical. CRT monitors work very well. I am using one now. the precision of the control of the electron beam is such that the text I am writing now is as clear as if it had been printed on paper by letterpress. A magnetic deflection CRT would not work if magnetic fields could become entangled. Magnetic fields are not discrete entities like strings or ribbons that can become entangled. They are stresses in spacetime.

I think that the idea of magnetic fields becoming entangled arose from the concept of magnetic lines of force. They are as real as isobars or contours on a map. They do not exist. Can you tangle isobars or contour lines?

There is no electronic device that can detect a magnetic field line. Magnetic field strengths are continually variable with no steps or jumps. The direct analogy is gravity. The strength of gravity is continually variable without any steps or jumps in it. Can you show me where a gravitic line of force exists?

The critical basis for all discussions about magnetism that very many astronomers ignore is that magnetism is a PROPERTY of an electric current. If permanent magnets are excluded, magnetism is ONLY a property of an electric current. Magnetism cannot exist in isolation.  If magnetism is detectable, there must be an electric current that has created it. The next time that "entangled" magnetic fields are mentioned, please think of the electric currents needed to create such an entanglement. Electric currents can only be initiated by the expenditure of energy. Guess where the energy comes from to produce electric currents in the sun.


Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 07/08/2010 10:39:56
To Graham D.
You mention a black body radiator.
The ONLY radiation that can be detected by instruments consists of photons.
The emission and absorbtion spectra are affected by the nature of the atoms involved and their energy levels.

The basic question I have asked myself is:
What sort of photon emission can occur when atoms are so excited that they have lost most of, or all of their electron shells?

The circumstantial evidence is in two parts.
The interior of the sun is hotter than the exterior.
The density of ionised particles in the solar wind is greater when sunspots are visible.

The conclusion from this is that sunspots are a source of ionised particles.
Since the major cause of ionisation of atoms is heat, these particles must be produced in a very hot region. I therefore conclude that sunspots are, or are associated with, very hot regions.

I go back to a fundamental question that I still do not have a good answer for.
If photons are only emitted from atoms when electrons fall from higer energy levels to lower ones, what happens when the energy level in atoms is so high that they have lost most of if not all their electron shells? If electrons can't fall to lower energy levels because of the extreme heat, how can photons be produced?

If photons can't be produced by this means, the apparent radiation from the atoms concerned will be low if it is not zero. Photon density is our yardstick for judging energy levels.

We know that the sun's heat ionises atoms. That means the atoms lose electrons and become positively charged. The proton density of the solar wind at the Earth's orbit is around 5 (unneutralised) protons per cubic centimetre. Lots of electrons are lost somehow. If electrons are lost, so are photons. If the apparent photon density is low, the perceived energy level is PRESUMED to be low.

I can't prove what I think is the case but I think that when atoms are hot enough, they can't emit photons. If extremely hot atoms can't emit photons, they are perceived to be cool because photons are our only way to detect energy levels.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 07/08/2010 23:17:33
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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 08/08/2010 09:20:23
To Soul Surfer,
I am familiar with the concept of black body radiation.
It is a factor that I have had to deal with when I did a lot of colour photography using  chemical processing.

My argument is based on whether photons are emitted from a source or not. A black body implies that there is quantised radiation based on Plank's and Einstein's work. The quantised radiation consists of photons.

This is a selected quotation from the Wikipedia entry for Blackbody Radiation.

"Today, these quanta are called photons and the black-body cavity may be thought of as containing a gas of photons."
(Presumably some of these photons are emitted in order to be detected.)

The Blackbody radiation which is interpreted as a temperature depends on the photons available. The most available photons will be those from atoms that can cool enough to enable electrons to fall from a higher energy state to a lower one. There is a region where this can occur that I think is associated with sunspots.

If, as I hypothesise, a sunspot is a source of solar vulcanism, the ejecta will be in the form of invisible highly ionised gas. The gas will leave the solar surface at an extremely high velocity and reach a great height above the sun's surface.

I can offer information calculated from an image of a prominence photographed in infra-red by NASA. The prominence in the image has a visible height above the sun's surface of at least 215,000 kilometres and extends around the sun's circumference 600,000 kilometres. For something to reach the height of 215,000 kilometres above the sun's surface, it must have an initial upward velocity of at least 343,249m/s or 767,827mph or 213.285 miles per second. (The calculation that derived this figure assumes no air resistance.)

As hot gas rises it expands and cools.

Could the observed Blackbody radiation be obtained from this cooling gas that is optically invisible but covers the region of a sunspot as seen from Earth?

I leave you to calculate how much energy would be needed to project just one kilogram of solar matter to a height of 215,000 kilometres above the sun's apparent surface - against 28g. Then think what the energy source must be to launch ??? kilograms. I think it is in the form of a colossal level of heat. I think that at such a level of heat, most atoms have lost most of if not all of their electrons. If electrons are scarce, there can't be many photons to observe.


Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/08/2010 12:25:30
What I am trying to tell you is that you are wrong on all counts,  The temperature of the gas in the middle of sunspots is easily and accurately measurable from the earth by looking at is black body spectrum.  This includes any general velocities that it may have.  As I have said the radiation does NOT!! originate from a rearrangement of electrons but from the collisions between the ionised atoms themselves and is not at a precise frequency but over a broad spectrum relating to the energies (temperature) of the atoms and the nature of the collision. OK each individual collision results in the emission of a particular photon frequency but it is not a spectral line.

The energy of the prominences comes from electromagnetic interactions and the directions of flow can be seen to follow magnetic fields, which themselves can be measured remotely using the Zeeman effect in the line spectrum absorption (taken from the black body spectrum) that is also present.

If the sunspot was hotter, its own black body radiation would be much more intense and would dominate and pass through the cooler layer you think might be masking the measurements.  Sunspots would appear as bright blue objects on the surface of the sun!  You really need to appreciate the way the laws of physics work and be prepared to accept the observations and models of people who have a great deal more experience than you (or me for that matter!)
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: syhprum on 08/08/2010 14:19:50
It was suggested in the 19 century that Sunspots were cool enough to support life, we now know that they are about 2000K cooler than the photosphere.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Farsight on 08/08/2010 15:13:56
Wilf, have a look at Kinetic Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory) re heat. A hot gas is hot because the atoms are moving fast. No one atom has any property of temperature or hotness, that's just an emergent property of motion. Now apply this to say hydrogen, where the electron has some kind of motion around the proton. Now strip away the electron, and you take away the motion too. So you're left with a proton. It might be moving fast within a plasma along with electrons, and thus the plasma itself is hot. But if it isn't, it's cold. So maybe you could apply your reasoning and say this is why the sunspot is cooler than the surrounding photosphere.

Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 08/08/2010 16:00:31
To Farsight
I refer back to what I wrote in reply to Soul Surfer.

If sunspots are cooler than the surrounding photosphere they must have been radiating heat somehow. The concept of the black body radiator applies. If a sunspot is cool it must have lost a lot of heat. Where did the heat go? Since heat is the primary cause of convection, there should be evidence of the convected gases to account for the loss of heat. The convected gases would be ionised and have a magnetic field around them that should be detectable.

Since sunspots are a relatively long lived phenomenon, and heat ALWAYS travels from the hotter to the cooler, why isn't heat from the rest of the sun travelling towards them to warm them up? There is plenty of heat available for this purpose but no evidence that heat is being transferred into sunspots.

The logical answer to my mind is that the heat is travelling the other way, Sunspots are hotter than their surroundings.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/08/2010 16:14:19
Wilf there are other processes that can remove heat (or energy) from a system the notable ones in operation on the sun are electromagnetic.  Where do you think all the energy that uses the electromagnetic field to fling the material out with such velocities come from?  The strong magnetic fields associated with sunspots forces the charged atoms and electrons to move coherently in processes called    magnetohydrodynamics  this turns a lot of the random heat energy from areas of the sun into very high coherent velocities in particular directions the reduction in random velocities is, as we said cooling, so the temperature in these areas falls.     You must also remember that a good sized sunspot is about as big as the earth.  Do you expect to feel much of the heat from a volcano in iceland? conduction is a process that is irrelevant on these space and time scales abd convection is slow and on a much smaller scale.  This can be seen it in the granulation of the sun's surface
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 08/08/2010 17:23:08
Dear Soul Surfer,
My previous reply to your posting disappeared.
I wish that I had taken a copy of it before I got sidetracked.

I said in my lost reply that I consider myself to be an expert on electricity and magnetism and the misuse of the terms magnetism and electromagnetism got me started on my attempts to correct what many astronomers have written. I have worked with electricity and electronics all my life. I am now 74.

I will try to enumerate the basic facts of electricity and magnetism so that you can see for yourself where a problem lies in what you wrote.

1. Magnetism is a PROPERTY of an electric current. (Permanent magnets excluded.)
2. Electromagnetism creates radiation. It is an oscillatory phenomenon.
3. Magnetism is generally a static phenomenon. It causes NO radiation.
4. The prime energy source in the sun is heat.
5. The heat of the sun causes convention of the gases in the sun's atmosphere. The convected gases are generally ionised and form an electric current. Such a stream of ionised convected gases will have a magnetic field around it.
6. The ionised gases in the sun's atmosphere are hot enough to emit electromagnetic radiation in the form of heat and or light.

From my point of view, any explanation that mentions magnetism or electromagnetism as a motivating force is based on a false premise. The only motivating force in the sun is heat.

I got started in my quest to deal with inaccuracies with the ludicrous explanation of sunspots proposed by Babcock. There are no such things as magnetic lines of force. They are as real as gravitic lines of force and contours on a map. Even now you can find Babcock's stupidity on Wikipedia.

In my lost contribution I said that many astronomers treat electromagnetism and magnetism as interchangeable when they are not. They seldom if ever refer to the electric currents that create the magnetism in the first place.

As I thought that Babcock's explanation of sunspots was rubbish, I began to wonder what they are and what caused them.

I started from first principles. (This is a simplified summary.)
1. The interior of the sun is hotter than the exterior.
2. Heat is continually lost from the sun by several mechanisms.
3. One mechanism is visible in granulation where gases burst forth in a manner comparable to steam emerging from boiling water.
The next item is hypothetical.
4. What would happen if a very large bubble of gas was temporarily trapped beneath the surface of the sun and sudden;y burst forth? Would it leave a hole?
5. Since such a bubble of gas would have come from a hotter region below the surface of the sun it would be extremely hot and ionised.
6. The hole, if there is one, would be an aperture that would permit a view into the sun's depths where it would be presumably hotter than the photosphere.
7. Would the interior of the hole appear bright or dark?
Images of sunspots seem to indicate that they are holes.
I hypothesise that the inside of the hole would be dark because of an absence of photons.

Another lost posting covers sunspots seen from the other point of view.

If sunspots are cooler regions, they must have lost more heat than the surrounding photosphere. They presumably lost heat by causing convection of ionised gases. The column of covecting ionised gases would be an an electric current with a magnetic field around it. Such a magnetic field would be detectable. I have yet to hear of such a magnetic field being detected.

Since sunspots are apparently long lived, and there is plenty of heat available, why isn't there any evidence of the heat from the surrounding photosphere being transferred into the sunspots? Heat ALWAYS goes from the hotter to the cooler but I have never come across any sign that heat is being transferred into sunspots. I find it very strange that cool sunspots can hang around for days without being warmed up in the hottest place in the solar system.

My conclusion is that sunspots are hotter than the photosphere and powered by the heat from the sun's interior.





Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/08/2010 18:21:25
YOU ARE WRONG!   YOUR PREMISES AND UNDERSTANDING ARE WRONG 

I too  am a retired expert professional in electricity and magnetism  MIEE  I am also a Member of the Institute of Physics and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.  I really do know what I am talking about.   The thermal and magnetic effects in sunspots are well observed and broadly understood although I am prepared to agree we have a lot to learn in the detail.  The article on sunspots in wikipaedia seems to be OK on a cursory glance.  I have looked up the work by Babcock and see no reason for your tirade and do not consider it to be "ludicrous".  From my own personal experience magnetohydrodynamic processes are very often counterintuitive.  As I have pointed out if sunspots were hotter than the rest of the sun they would appear bright not dark.   How then do you explain the experience of solar flares?   as cooling ! ?  :-)

You seem to be either a troll or a loony. I have tried hard to explain in detail where you are going wrong and clearly you are just not listening and thinking. Unless you start talking sensibly I will terminate my contribution to this discussion as a waste of my valuable time.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/08/2010 12:45:30
I find it very strange that cool sunspots can hang around for days without being warmed up in the hottest place in the solar system.
Sunspots are dynamic entities, not static ones. Therein lies your answer.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 09/08/2010 13:29:05
Dear Soul Surfer,
This loony has based his knowledge on what really happens with electricity and magnetism and NOT on what some mathematicians think happens.

I start with Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations, on which a lot of later works concerning electricity and magnetism are based, directly conflict with what can be observed with the simplest apparatus.
The apparatus needed comprises a battery, a small torch lamp some wire and a magnetic compass.
If the wire is wound into a solenoid connected in series with the lamp and the circuit connected to the battery, the lamp will light and the compass needle will be deflected if it is near the solenoid.
Now remove the battery and connect the wires together that connected to the battery.
Check if the lamp lights or if the compass needle is deflected.
In most cases nothing will happen.
Next get a small bar magnet and find some static arrangement that will make the lamp light in any circuit configuration you can imagine without a battery included.

These simple tests will conclusively prove to the unbiased onlooker that Maxwell's claim that electricity and magnetism are equivalent is false. Electricity is a current which is powered by some form of energy. Every continuous electric current in a wire has a stationary magnetic field around it. Putting a stationary magnetic field around a wire will not produce an electric current. This is why I have doubts about any explanation concerning electricity and magnetism based however remotely on Maxwell's equations.

I continue with the basic properties of magnetism.
Magnetism is a form of stress in space-time comparable to gravity and the electrostatic force.
Magnetism has the unique property of taking the shortest possible path. A magnet attracts ferrous objects because ferrous objects offer a shorter magnetic path than free space.
An example of the way magnetism takes the shortest magnetic path can be seen in a magnetically controlled cathode ray tube. The annular or cylindrical field around the electron beam constricts it. In a television or a computer monitor this constriction is organised to make the beam as small in diameter as possible when it reaches the display screen.
The stress in space-time caused by magnetism is continuous and follows the inverse square law. There are no steps or jumps in the strength of a magnetic field in the same way as there are no steps or jumps in a gravitic field. There are no lines of force in a magnetic field. (This is why any explanation of phenomena in terms of magnetic lines is misleading or even stupid.)

Two parallel conductors carrying a direct current in the same direction are attracted to each other. Their magnetic fields join together. (This action is used in a solenoid to concentrate a magnetic field.)  Correspondingly, two parallel conductors carrying direct currents in opposite directions repel each other.
Two or more close streams of ionised gas carrying steady currents in the same direction will join together forming a joint current and magnetic field.

The magnetic constriction around an electron beam or a stream of ionised gas is proportional to the speed of travel and the density of the beam or stream. In other words it is proportional to the effective current.

These are phenomena that I have directly observed on Earth. I therefore cannot understand the concept of current sheets frequently referred to in discussions concerning magnetohydrodynamics. If a stream of ionised gas is projected from a thin rectangular aperture, the constrictive effect of the magnetic field around the stream will compress it into a cylindrical form. For me, a cylinder is NOT a sheet.

The only way such a current sheet could form would be if the current concerned did not obey the laws of electricity and magnetism as I know them and have observed them to be on Earth.

The explanation of magnetohudrodynamics as explained in Wikipedia describes currents and magnetic fields that do not follow the behaviours of electric currents and magnetic fields on Earth. The description may be very satisfactory mathematically but not, as I think, empirically.

If you can devise a way to create a magnetic line of force or a continuous current sheet on Earth, I will happily change my name from Wilf to Loony. In the meantime I will tend to disbelieve explanations of phenomena based purely on mathematical analysis. I have found that empirical testing always works best.

I still ask why, if sunspots are cooler than the photosphere, why doesn't the heat available flow from the photosphere to warm them up? Some sunspots last for weeks without being warmed up. Are they insulated from the photosphere in some way?  Since heat ALWAYS flows from the hotter to the cooler, what strange mechanism keeps sunspots cool - if they are cool?

Since the density of the solar wind is higher when sunspots are present, ionised gases must be escaping from sunspots. These ionised gases are invisible. They only become visible when they excite atoms in the upper atmosphere near the magnetic poles causing the aurorae. Are the sources they come from invisible too?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: imatfaal 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

Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer 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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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

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
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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.



Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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

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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: syhprum 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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: CreativeEnergy 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.

Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: graham.d on 17/08/2010 17:23:23
Strictly magnetism is a property of an electromagnetic field and it depends on the relative velocity of an observer whether it is perceived as a magnetic or electric field or a combination of both. That aside, I am sure that the magnetic fields on the sun are indeed generated by movement of hot ionised gas which would be an electric current. It is common to consider a field as "a line of force"; it refers to the force vector exerted upon a small test particle that can be introduced. In the case of an electric field, a small charge, gravity with a small mass and a magnetic field a theoretical small monopole (it can be calculated from a small dipole also).

I don't think there is much disagreemment other than your assertion about sunspots being hotter but I may be missing something.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: CreativeEnergy on 17/08/2010 18:03:41
George Ellery Hale was well acquainted with the work of Michael Faraday and James Clark Maxwell. By that time, Maxwell's four light equations had been well established in the scientific community. Hale was well aware 1) that photons were the carrier of the electromagnetic force and 2) of electromagnetic induction, i.e., that a current could be generated by a magnetic field and a magnetic field could be generated by an electric current.

There is no doubt that the Sun generates a magnetic field by means of the dynamo process, i.e., resulting from the generation of electricity, which is not hard in a hot dense ball of plasma such as the Sun.

What causes the breaking up of the magnetic field approximately every 11 years is the differential rotation of the Sun's equator with respect to its polar regions. The magnetic lines of force get twisted around the equatorial regions because the equatorial regions are rotating considerably faster than the polar regions. You can actually see this with a moderately sized telescope with a white light solar filter or an H-alpha solar filter as sunspots move across the disk of the sun.

And if there are no magnetic lines of force along which plasma follows, then what do you call these from a TRACE image of our Sun?


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrace.lmsal.com%2FPOD%2Fimages%2FTRACE171_991106_023044.gif&hash=bad7af39df1f971acf383b41c17ecb8d)
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2010 19:23:35
Re.
"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."
Catch the goal post as it flies past.
Suddenly "ferrous" has been replaced by "material or phenomenon offers a shorter magnetic path than free space at temperatures greater than 1,000 dgrees celsius."
Probably because I was perfectly correct in my initial comment.

So, to answer the question that you should have asked, Nickel, Cobalt, Gadolinium and a number of alloys such as the heusler alloys are not ferrous, but are ferromagnetic. (Gd stops being on a hot day)

Incidentally, to answer the question you chose to ask instead (and I suspect you were hoping to trip me up by doing so).
Any paramagnetic material will "shorten" the magnetic path.
One such material is atomic hydrogen (rather than the molecular form).
It may surprise you to find that this isn't in short supply on the surface of the sun.

"I fail to understand why a hurricane can be considered relevant to the topics under discussion in this part of the forum."
That says a lot.
Hurricanes don't have colour, but they certainly has an effect.
Magnetic fields don't have a colour, but they certainly have an effect.

Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 17/08/2010 22:07:46
CreativeEnergy
The lovely image from NASA is one I have used myself as an illustration of almost the opposite of what you are trying to imply with the image. The version I referred to was brighter and yellower. If you go back through the various postings on this top you will find a  reference to "Coronal Loops"

The gravity field between our Earth and the Moon looks good, doesn't it? I wonder why no artists have ever painted it or no photographers have had exhibitions of photographs of it. I must be a defect in my eyes but I have never ever been able to see a gravity field or a magnetic field.
I have one of those very very useful disc magnets on the end of a telescopic stick that I have had a look at while writing this. I could not see any trace of the magnetic field that pulled at the metal casing of an AA cell, even with a powerful magnifying glass. I had my eyes photographed today because I am a type two diabetic. The photos looked good in 10 inch diameter views on the display. There may be something wrong with my eyes that the opticians won't tell me about because I can't see a magnetic field. As seeing is believing, I have never believed that magnetic fields are visible.

I think that the arcs in the image are of ionised gas. If they are ionised gas, they will have invisible magnetic fields around them like an invisible pipe which contains them. I know that an electron beam in a cathode ray tube is not the same as a stream of ionised gas but the behaviour of an electron beam in a CRT indicates that it is contained within a cylindrical magnetic field that squeezes it to become a very narrow beam when it reaches the screen. Since a stream of ionised gas behaves in a very similar manner to an electron beam I presume that the arcs of ionised visible gas in the image are comparably constrained.

Please, before you make further comment about what I have written in my postings do some of the very simplest of experiments to see what electricity and magnetism are really like. Please do not echo what some books have claimed about magnetism and its effects without checking if the claims can be verified.

I did a one year course on Solar System Astronomy with Ian Nicholson at Hatfield Polytechnic when I was 47 and a mature student in 1983-4. I argued with him a lot because a lot of what he said was is direct conflict with what I had learned and EXPERIENCED as an electronic engineer. I am 74 and it is 2010 now. In 2000 I started to put my thoughts about astronomers' misconceptions about what electricity and magnetism are really like on my website. I have clarified my ideas a bit since but the thrust is still the same.

Anyone who refers to a magnetic line of force in an explanation is just quoting what someone else has written or said. He or she has never ever seen or experienced a single magnetic line of force.

It is strange but only last Sunday a good blind friend asked me if I could explain something he had seen when he was a boy before he went blind. He referred to the demonstration done by putting iron filings on a piece of paper over a bar magnet. He said that the teacher could not explain why when the procedure was repeated, the pattern looked similar but was not the same. It was always different each time the demonstration was repeated. He and his teacher were observant.

Sadly, a lot of people who have only seen the demonstration done once, think that the lines caused by strings of filings are an indication of where the magnetic lines of force are. As my blind friend's teacher had noticed, the lines are always in different places. Either there are no lines or an infinite number of them. There is no electronic instrument that can detect a magnetic line of force.

Please, in future, CreativeEnergy, treat any astronomical explanation that implies that magnetism does anything to move anything as one which has never been tested empirically. Magnetism can only induce currents in moving conductors, constrict steams of ionised gas or electron beams, or cause the Zeemann effect. It can NEVER appear by itself as many astronomers imply.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2010 22:16:19
You have already answered your own question.
The iron filings fall initially under gravity. When they are in the magnetic field, not only are they influenced by it, but they influence it- as you put it "only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Since they do that in a non-linear way you have a non linear positive feedback system.
that's pretty much the condition required for chaotic behaviour.
No wonder it's never the same twice.

Also, since you haven't commented on my points I presume that you accept them ie
you shouldn't have moved the goalposts
and
hydrogen, which isn't rare, meets the criterion you set of being paramagnetic, even at high temperatures.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: CreativeEnergy on 17/08/2010 22:28:42
Just because you can't see magnetic lines of force doesn't mean that I cannot infer their existence. I can't see quarks either or neutrinos, but I am pretty sure they exist.

You speak of an electron beam hitting a CRT. Have you ever seen an electron? Aren't you taking the word of someone else as to their existence?

And for the record, I have done plenty of experiments with electricity and magnetism....as a kid!

I also did plenty of experiments in physics classes in college. I, for one, found the evidence quite compelling.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 17/08/2010 22:38:29
Bored chemist
I regret that I used ferrous insted of ferromagnetic as a form of shorthand.
I am very familiar with most of the ferromagnetic materials as they were extensively used in my work before I retired.

The "colour" idea was sort of joke. Anything invisible has no colour. I intended to imply that anyone who says that a magnetic field is visible should be able to say what its colour is.

In my posting I have tried to confine my comments to the testable properties of electric currents and their magnetic fields.  Some people like to nit pick about shorthand expressions which may have been used to shorten an explanation.

For practical purposes almost all hydrogen on the sun is contained in thermally induced convective streams of ionised gas. These streams will have magnetic fields around them. The question of paramagnetism is unlikely to apply. Please note that I wrote on the sun and not in the sun.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: CreativeEnergy on 17/08/2010 22:47:56
Do you have any evidence, contrary to the solid solar science that has been done, that sunspots are as you call them "solar hotspots", Wilf James? After all the title of this of this post is "Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?"

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?

If not, then I think this discussion is over. Actually, I think this discussion is over--at least for me it is.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James on 17/08/2010 23:21:38
CreativeEnergy
The point that I Have been trying to make is that magnetic fields are a PROPERTY of an electric current.
The do not exist by themselves.

All explanations referring to lines of force or just magnetic lines are explanations that claim that magnetism acts on its own and does something it can't do.

It seems that you have never read some of my earlier posts which explain why I am very happy to deal with electricity and magnetism that are invisible. There is the principle of Occam's Razor involved with electron streams. A cylindrical constrictive field around an electron beam is the only explanation for the way it behaves in a cathode ray tube.

Mr. Oersted was the one who demonstrated the presence of a magnetic field around a wire carrying a current. Then later the effect was found to apply to electron currents and streams of ionised gas. Much later still a strong magnetic field was used to deflect electrons into a circle around a cathode as they were attracted to an anode. the magnetron was developed. The operation of a magnetron can only be explained if electrons moving in a vacuum have a magnetic field around them in the same way that Oersted demonstrated the existence of a magnetic field around a wire.

There are a lot of things that I have observed in electronics that indicate the way electrons act in varying circumstances. Some people who observed the way energy and electricity act produced theories and laws that now are routinely used by all electrical and electronic engineers. These people include Oersted, Henry Faraday, Gauss, Tesla, Kirchoff, Ohm, Fleming, Ampere, Volt, Watt, Joule, Newton, Lenz and others.

We can never see electricity or magnetism but through countless experiments done by thousands of people the way these phenomena behave is extremely predictable.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP on 18/08/2010 02:59:46
All explanations referring to lines of force or just magnetic lines are explanations that claim that magnetism acts on its own and does something it can't do.

Not true.  Magnetism can be observed by its interaction with matter, even if you don't know what currents have generated the field.  This is what is done in the sun, and it is inferred that the flow of plasma in the sun generates the fields. 

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?

I completely agree with CreativeEnergy here.  You're using this thread to try to push your own theory about sun spots.  Can you provide scientific evidence for it?  In particular, can you address either of the following questions with actual calculations or formulae?

1) Why is the prevailing dynamo model for the generation of magnetic fields that Soul Surfer mentions wrong?  It explains the fields as resulting from the flow of plasma.

2) What predictions does your model offer that the current model doesn't?  Can you point to observations that your model makes that the current model doesn't account for?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 25/08/2010 18:34:59
We have tried our best!  Modorators please move this topic to the New theories madhouse
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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 (http://www.answers.com/topic/sunspot) 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.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uvs-model.com%2Fpictures%2Fspouting_bowl.gif&hash=48e8069b575c6d5207e8a55edebd2392)

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 (http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm)", search the web page for escape velocity and you should be able to find the specific section easily.

Best to you.
 
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2010 20:07:39
I prefer this movie.
or this one
And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer on 15/09/2010 08:42:41
I prefer this movie.
or this one
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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2010 22:13:34
I prefer this movie.
or this one
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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer on 19/09/2010 19:30:31
I prefer this movie.
or this one
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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite 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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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 (http://overcoming-dyslexia.com/Dyslexia_Symptoms.html), 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?

 

 
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: imatfaal 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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0).  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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0).  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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer on 21/09/2010 09:11:18
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?   
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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 (http://overcoming-dyslexia.com/Dyslexia_Symptoms.html), 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).
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. 
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2010 19:23:02
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).
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Wilf James 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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP 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
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Geezer 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".
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Ophiolite 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.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Paradigmer on 23/09/2010 12:49:04
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2010 19:06:18
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?
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP on 24/09/2010 02:00:05
This thread seems to have veered off into an argument rather than discussion about sunspots.  Locked.
Title: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
Post by: JP on 25/09/2010 12:33:13
The thread is continued here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34137.0