[JP]

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.

[Paradigmer]

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

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

Hi Wilf James,

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

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

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



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

Best to you.
 

[Bored chemist]

I prefer this movie.

or this one

And I'm sure they each have as much to tell you about sunspots.

[Paradigmer]

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?

[Paradigmer]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Paradigmer]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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?

[Paradigmer]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Lets ask Wilf James on this.

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

 

 

[imatfaal]

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

[Paradigmer]

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.

[JP]

Vincent, please keep the discussion to science.  Diagnosing other forum members with learning disabilities because you don't like/can't understand their posts not only has nothing to do with the discussion, but it is also a violation of the acceptable usage policy.  If you feel another user is making inappropriate or offensive posts, you can always report that to the moderators.

-JP (moderator)

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

[Paradigmer]

Vincent, please keep the discussion to science.  Diagnosing other forum members with learning disabilities because you don't like/can't understand their posts not only has nothing to do with the discussion, but it is also a violation of the acceptable usage policy.  If you feel another user is making inappropriate or offensive posts, you can always report that to the moderators.

Hi JP,

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

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

-JP (moderator)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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. 

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

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

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

[Paradigmer]

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?

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. 

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

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

Noted.

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?   

[Bored chemist]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Lets ask Wilf James on this.

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

 
 

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

I didn't misread anything.
Wilf wrote
"It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable?"

I pointed out that the Sun is a fairly obvious source of energy and produces a lot of heat. Heat is detectable, even from the cold bits of the Sun's surface (the spots).


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

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

[Paradigmer]

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.

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

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

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. 

[Wilf James]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.