Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I love nothing more than discussions about flux transfer events...

 

You should keep it to the flux transfer window, though.

 

To point out a contradiction in Solar theory, NASA say that the sun is brighter in the centre than at the edges because we can "see deeper" into the sun.
Yet at the same time, they say that coronal holes that let us "see deeper" into the sun are "dark" and "cold", in a fusion model that's just dogmatic silliness and I can offer a reason why I think that.

That is a contradiction right? or is that just me?

Wiki

Which makes no sense in a thermonuclear fusion sun model. None at all because it has now been shown that there is nowhere near the convection needed to either transfer heat to the surface nor the convection to cause coronal holes.
There was a convection assessment on current solar modelling, a requirement for the theory to work, it has been found now that convenction is 80 to 100 times weaker than thought meaning, the model is broken.

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html

Magnetic forces, part of plasma physics much better explain coronal holes

 

The most sensible post all day

 

The sun's pretty hot, I reckon it might have an effect like, as when it goes down it gets cold.

Do you reckon I could get funding for 3 years study into this phenomenon?

It'd basically involve me and me other half travelling around the globe, to places that where bathed in sun and then travelling to other places that weren't and measuring the difference, using a cuprinol woodshades colour guide as the scientific measurement of skin colour / temperature / effect of the big yellow thing in the sky.

 

An example of the magnetic lines coming from coronal holes, the ones that connect to earth, which very possibly have an effect on the jet stream, climate and it looks to be geology too.

please log in to view this image

Notice the lines from the coronal hole, when earth facing that magnetic force it is theorised can deliver larger amounts of energy than standard irradiance does. There is evidence for energy being transmitted over magnetic pathways all over the universe. NASA sdo has confirmed this energy transmission.

Cold spells correlated to low sun spot activity backs this assertion

Lets not forget, all our efforts on earth at creating wireless electricity has been via electromagnetism. We are actually trying to crack that nut since Tesla, yet here we have an example in nature, yet it appears to be ignored. More contradiction.

 

says the scientist who's staying well away from the science

 

The BS and ignorance from Sisu is off the scale

Coronal holes are not black. They appear dark in those images because they are filtered images looking at plasma at a specific temperature. In filtered images dark areas imply less plasma at that specific temperature, which is either a result of a lower plasma density or the plasma being hotter or colder than the temperature corresponding to the filter being used.

The effect of limb darkening in visible light images of the Sun cannot be compared to darkening in filtered EUV images of coronal holes and in no way implies the Sun is not thermonuclear

 

I like to think that anyone with a brain would not quote information from Wikipedia

 

You should look at using Wikipedia to back up your proposals/claims. If not people will just ignore you

Will you be using the natural shade book from cuprinol or the new funky greens and blues they offer?

The blues could be useful for the north/south pole

 

#fail

Astro false argument, my point was related to emissivity v conductivity, nothing to do with colour, I can quote my post above is you wish. Do you understand the difference between those two?

I referred to them as "dark" and referred to the dark images as "black"
The "dark" as I call it means "lack of emissions", you can't even understand what you are trying to argue against

No one inferred a colour to coronal holes, you just make another false argument.
The imagining fallacy you are trying desperately to perpetrate is a good example.

These "holes" or "cool spots" are convection related so the theory goes, but it has not been reconciled with the distinct lack of convenction, they are not cool spots tho, they are every bit as hot as the surrounding area, the "low plasma pressure and temperture btw not just temperature", in fact they are hotter possibly due to the pressure and turbulence in those areas as well as the exiting magnetic pathways transferring more energy along those pathways, as with the latest images it looks like these coronal holes above the surface and touch down as it were, the walls of these holes can be seen with what look like tornadoes touching down, travelling from the Corona to the surface of the sun.

But more to the point, when coronal holes appear, there is a lack of emission in most spectrums of visibility, which makes a mockery of the solar thermonuclear fusion model because the emissions should not all be affected by the surface pressures temperatures at all in terms of viewing many different spectrums.

Electromagnetic force go much further to explain coronal holes

A graphical representation of what happens when a coronal hole appears and the magnetic force that carried energy away from the sun. The magnetic field which is highly conductive, like strings and the waves of energy that travel along it.

Coronal holes are holes in case you didnt know are holes in the atmosphere, they are not related to what happens inside the sun, the whole cool spots argument is

please log in to view this image

Two of the most important unsolved problems in heliospheric physics are the origin of the solar wind and the heating of the solar corona
Because obviously the corona is hotter than the deeper layers.

 

I was thinking of just the traditional, with Dark Mahogany being the critical measure.

Come to think of it, I could just take the funding money and sit at home using Wiki to prepare my thesis.

 

This is not a subject area that holds any interest for me

 

The thermonuclear model is funny, they said in the 60s

Was just pulling your leg matey, obviously you are versed in things LHC I don't doubt your cred in areas you are interested in

After all you don't just rush off to the internet and come back with tidbits and pretend to be an expert unlike some

 

Speaking as a uni lecturer, wiki is now considered a legitimate source for information provided the references are 'robust' i.e. not links to tabloids

The recent links Sisu has provided cite references from academic articles and journals which is about as robust as you can get.

 

I want to hear you speak. Are you the one who's son's at Bluecoats?

What do you lecture, by the way?

 

Bluecoat > Merchant Taylors

 

I would like to know what you lecture? It has been a few years since my BEng and MSc, however I started a second MSc in 2009 and wiki was not seen as a source to quote. By all means follow the links and references, but if you post a wiki link prepare to have the slash taken out of you - why not quote the original text?

 

Wiki is considered a good 'starting point' for research but because of it's crowd sourcing nature, isn't a reliable source to quote and should never be quoted. However, if the information you're looking for, such as Sisu's 'Groupthink', has footnotes to robust references [and it does] then for our purposes on here, it's about as legitimate as you can get. For uni essays, research etc. then you would quote the references from the footnotes. Wiki does the work for you in terms of things like Groupthink by putting together most of the information you require on the subject using an array of references.

And no a quote or link to wiki wouldn't be accepted on an academic paper but universities are starting to see that a lot of wiki entries are well researched with extensive citations. Some US colleges are working with wiki editors to clean up entries because of students growing reliance on wiki as a first port of call.

 

Wiki is a disaster, there have been alternate theories removed from Wiki on theoritical physics due to the attacks from those that support mainstream theories. There are "protected pages" and companies and PR companies that manage thousands of pages and even governments editing wiki pages, their IPs were connected to Westminster and other govs around the world.


Seeing as you mention that, I posted a doc by the world's foremost imagining expert who gave us our current MRI machines. He smashed the radio imaging record, doubled it. Astro called his "40 lines of evidence for condenced matter on the sun" doc "a #meltdown". This is the sort of "debate" he engages in. The paper is only backed by plasma physics modelling results and the new images we get from better telescopes like the observatory in Sweden.

Besides all this solar stuff is really just in relation to the fact that IPCC models are not factoring in the sun as a meaningful driver of earth's climate.
The irony is solar theory is so bad that they have no idea at all how the solar wind works and how it is generated, and they have absolutely no solid ideas on why there is only a 3rd of neutrinos and again no real ideas on why the Corona is 2 million degrees yet the surface is 5500 degrees. Thermonuclear fusion DEMANDS that the core is hotter. To suggest that the core produces 5500 degree temps that increase to 2 million degrees upon leaving the sun and going into the corona, given what we know about nuclear Fusion is just ridiculous.

Throw in the convection being far less than thought (another model breaker) the alternate rotation of the solar surface, another model breaker and a whole host of other things no mainstream theory covers. One might ask, is there a better theory?

Plasma physics has created an electrical sun and sustained it in the lab, the nuclear fusion model has not been replicated once since the work began in the 60s