Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peratt said:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, vi α a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere .

Unless and until you can explain how and why a "magnetic reconnection" event that suddenly heats plasma to a million plus degrees, emits gamma and x-rays galore, not to mention high speed particles, falls outside of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge, forgetaboutit.

I note that MM just highlights magnetic energy, whereas, as usual, he forgets about the rest of the text.

Here is a very good paper (albeit a bit old, and therefore somewhat dated), but I think it is the first (and only?) paper that shows the deficits in the Carlqvist-Alfven model. MM will be happy as circuits are explicitly mentioned and papers that deal with circuit representation of various processes (e.g. by Spicer and by Ionson).

One of the things in the paper is that they discuss discharge models of solar flares, however, as far as I could see none of the models is actually labeled as such. I think we have to consider the section with models with parallel electric field as the part describing discharge models. Just below Eq. (26) this statement is made, making a difference between reconnection models and discharge models.

This shows the muddy waters we are dealing with: what do we call a discharge? Let's look at some of the definitions that we have come across here in the thread and some more:

Peratt: An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Dungey: The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

Oxford Reference (concise science dictionary): 2. The release of electric charge from a capacitor in an electric ciruit. 3. The passage of charge carriers through a gas at low pressure in ad discharge tube.

Alfvén: (Cosm. Eldy.) Traditionally a current through a gas is called a discharge.

Alfvén & Fälthammar: (Cosm. Eldy.) (no definition but (as in Alfvén) they say) Electric discharges in the laboratory are usually divided into two groups : non-sustained discharges, which depend upon an `external' ionizer to produce at least an essential part of the ions and electrons which carry the current, and self-sustained discharges, where the ionization is mainly produced by the discharge itself .

Alfvén: (Cosm. Pl.) does not even give a definition of what he means by a discharge, he just starts using the word.

Dictionary of Electronics: disruptive discharge Sudden, heavy current flow through a dielectric material when it fails completely under electric stress

And so we can go on and on and on.

So some want to define loosely, like Alfven just a "current through a gas" others in electronics want a dielectric to "feel completly under electric stress."
 
And so we can go on and on and on.

Not really. Unless one is attempting to suggest that it is physically impossible to suddenly release additional energy into a plasma simply because it's a "plasma", what's the problem with Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Thanks for the references by the way.
 
Last edited:
Alfvén & Fälthammar: (Cosm. Eldy.) (no definition but (as in Alfvén) they say) Electric discharges in the laboratory are usually divided into two groups : non-sustained discharges, which depend upon an `external' ionizer to produce at least an essential part of the ions and electrons which carry the current, and self-sustained discharges, where the ionization is mainly produced by the discharge itself .

Well, in terms of coronal loops, we're talking about structures that last for hours and iron ionization states inside those filaments of +20. I'd say they fall into the self-sustained category, wouldn't you?
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55

Oh how cute. LMSAL has *finally* figured out that the excess heat in the coronal comes from under the photosphere.
Where does either article say that? I see a lot about the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona, and, more broadly, quite a bit about the interface between the photosphere and the corona, but nothing about anything "under the photosphere".
I love how fast moving, million degree discharges are referred to as "hot gasses". That's so cute :)
Isn't that what spicules are? You aren't claiming that they are electric discharges, are you?
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55

Oh how cute. LMSAL has *finally* figured out that the excess heat in the coronal comes from under the photosphere. I love how fast moving, million degree discharges are referred to as "hot gasses". That's so cute :)
Ah! Michael you beat me to it :)

I’ve been too busy since my last post on here on the 2nd Jan page 31 and when I look in again, a few days later, it’s now on page 37! Quite amazing.

I haven’t time to read what I’ve missed yet but I just wanted to post this which I think is very interesting for the Electric Sun theory.

The Origins of Hot Plasma in the Solar Corona
Abstract
However, the coronal heating mechanism remains unknown. We used observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Hinode solar physics mission to reveal a ubiquitous coronal mass supply in which chromospheric plasma in fountainlike jets or spicules is accelerated upward into the corona, with much of the plasma heated to temperatures between ~0.02 and 0.1 million kelvin (MK) and a small but sufficient fraction to temperatures above 1 MK.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55.abstract

These fountainlike jets or spicules seem like Birkeland currents to me?

And this piece on it from Nature news is dismissive of the various other ideas

Plasma jets key to enduring solar mystery

Over the years, theorists have offered various explanations for the hot corona. One idea is that the Sun's violent inner motion shakes its magnetic field lines, sending waves through the atmosphere and into the corona that deposit their energy as heat2. Another posits that the magnetic field lines become so twisted that they snap, accelerating and heating the coronal gas3. However, there has been little observational evidence to support either of these theories.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110106/full/news.2011.1.html

Is mainstream edging towards an Electric Sun?
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55

Oh how cute. LMSAL has *finally* figured out that the excess heat in the coronal comes from under the photosphere. I love how fast moving, million degree discharges are referred to as "hot gasses". That's so cute :)


The article says...

Now scientists believe they have discovered a major source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: jets of plasma shooting up from just above the Sun's surface.


So it's just above the Sun's surface, not under. The argument that "the excess heat in the coronal comes from under the photosphere" is a lie. Another lie. No surprise there.
 
Where does either article say that? I see a lot about the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona, and, more broadly, quite a bit about the interface between the photosphere and the corona, but nothing about anything "under the photosphere".

Actually, you're right about that. I just glanced at the article between tech calls and *assumed* something I should not have assumed, specifically:

Isn't that what spicules are? You aren't claiming that they are electric discharges, are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicule_(solar_physics)

Causes

Bart De Pontieu (Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Palo Alto, California ), Robert Erdélyi and Stewart James (both from the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) hypothesised in 2004 that spicules formed as a result of p-mode oscillations in the Sun's surface, sound waves with a period of about five minutes that causes the Sun's surface to rise and fall at several hundred meters per second (see helioseismology). Magnetic flux tubes that tilted away from the vertical can focus and guide the rising material up into the solar atmosphere to form a spicule. There is still however some controversy about the issue in the solar physics community.


I guess it all depends on how one defines a "spicules", and specifically it's "cause". It is something that is typically "observed" in the chromosphere, but it's origin is related to the surface of the photosphere and the movements of that surface according to standard theory. You're right though, it doesn't specifically say "under" the photosphere in the article (or abstract), so they haven't actually figure it out yet. :) I guess I gave them too much credit. I suppose if they still think a million degree plasma in a high speed CURRENT FLOW is a "hot gas", they really haven't figured out much yet.

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif


I don't know if you recall that white light image discussion, but the base of the coronal loops penetrate up and through the photosphere as the bright areas around the bases of the loops demonstrates. They will *EVENTUALLY* figure that out, but I guess they haven't done that yet. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't know if you recall that white light image discussion, but the base of the coronal loops penetrate up and through the photosphere as the bright areas around the bases of the loops demonstrates. They will *EVENTUALLY* figure that out, but I guess they haven't done that yet. :)
I recall the white light image discussion quite well. It boggles my mind that you still don't understand what the photosphere is.
 
Not really. Unless one is attempting to suggest that it is physically impossible to suddenly release additional energy into a plasma simply because it's a "plasma", what's the problem with Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Thanks for the references by the way.

The problem is, as I think I made quite clear, that various people define discharge differently, therefore the list of the various versions.

So, you cannot read an Alfvén paper, with Peratt's definition of a discharge, as Alfvén just says that it is a current through a gas, whereas Peratt says it is a fast release of E or B stored energy, with a breakdown of the medium.

I don't think anyone is attempting to suggest anything, that's just your reading into it.
 
Well, in terms of coronal loops, we're talking about structures that last for hours and iron ionization states inside those filaments of +20. I'd say they fall into the self-sustained category, wouldn't you?

I would say it falls in neither category as the plasma is already there from the sun and does not need to be sustained. And that has nothing to do with whether there is +20 or not. The ionization is not because of the discharge, if you want to call it that, that may just increase the ionization state of some ions present. Also the time that they last is of no consequence here.
 
I would say it falls in neither category as the plasma is already there from the sun and does not need to be sustained.

The ion temp of the plasma at the photosphere is measured in the thousands. Something needs to sustain *million* degree temps and keep the iron ionized to a +20 state. That's going to take quite a bit more energy than exists at the photosphere surface. What is sustaining million degree temps *INSIDE A SINGLE LOOP* if not "current flow/discharge currents"?

And that has nothing to do with whether there is +20 or not. The ionization is not because of the discharge, if you want to call it that, that may just increase the ionization state of some ions present. Also the time that they last is of no consequence here.

Something besides the heat from the photosphere is going to be required to sustain that +20 ionization state for several hours inside a stable "pinch".
 
A "mistake" is something one makes innocently and is willing to admit is a mistake. A lie is a mistake that one refuses to admit was a mistake even after seeing the evidence that it is a mistake.
By those definitions, you'd be a liar. Adding blue text to fix that for you:

A "mistake" is something one makes innocently and is willing to admit is a mistake after one understands that it was a mistake. A lie is a mistake that one refuses to admit was a mistake even after seeing the evidence that it is a mistake and understanding that evidence.
 
Understanding it, and agreeing with it are two entirely different issues.
If you are still claiming that the photosphere is in fact transparent, then you plainly do not understand what the photosphere is.
 
Electric Sun and Coronal Heating III

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55

Oh how cute. LMSAL has *finally* figured out that the excess heat in the coronal comes from under the photosphere. I love how fast moving, million degree discharges are referred to as "hot gasses". That's so cute :)

Where does either article say that?

Neither article says any such thing, Mozina just made it up to fuel a pointless journey into sarcasm. Look at the abstract for the Science paper:

The Sun's outer atmosphere, or corona, is heated to millions of degrees, considerably hotter than its surface or photosphere. Explanations for this enigma typically invoke the deposition in the corona of nonthermal energy generated by magnetoconvection. However, the coronal heating mechanism remains unknown. We used observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Hinode solar physics mission to reveal a ubiquitous coronal mass supply in which chromospheric plasma in fountainlike jets or spicules is accelerated upward into the corona, with much of the plasma heated to temperatures between ~0.02 and 0.1 million kelvin (MK) and a small but sufficient fraction to temperatures above 1 MK. These observations provide constraints on the coronal heating mechanism(s) and highlight the importance of the interface region between photosphere and corona.​
The paper is not freely available online, as is often the case for papers published in Science. However, this research was presented at the Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, and that abstract (similar to the previous abstract in content) is also online:
We use coordinated observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), Hinode and the Swedish Solar Telescope (SST) to show how plasma is heated to coronal temperatures from its source in the chromosphere. Our observations reveal a ubiquitous mass supply for the solar corona in which chromospheric plasma is accelerated upward into the corona with much of the plasma heated to transition region temperatures, and a small, but significant fraction heated to temperatures in excess of 1 million K. Our observations show, for the first time, how chromospheric spicules, fountain-like jets that have long been considered potential candidates for coronal heating, are directly associated with heating of plasma to coronal temperatures. These results provide strong physical constraints on the mechanism(s) responsible for coronal heating and do not seem compatible with current models. The association with chromospheric spicules highlights the importance of the interface region between the photosphere and corona to gain a full understanding of the coronal heating problem.​
It is quite obvious that the papers designate the chromosphere specifically as the source for the energy input they have identified. At no time do they ever refer to anything below the photosphere, and the photosphere itself is designated only as that which lies below the chromosphere. But of course, the standard model of the sun ultimately powered by nuclear fusion in the solar core clearly requires all of the energy deposited in the corona to start its journey deep inside the Sun and migrate up through the photosphere one way or another. When the authors say "the coronal heating mechanism remains unknown" they are telling us that the exact nature of this migration of energy is not known, but they are certainly not suggesting that nobody understands, at a more fundamental level, how the corona could possibly be hotter than the photosphere. That level of incredulity is reserved for those who choose to rely on dubious alternative explanations, while ignoring such mundane & useless things as physics, for instance.

I love how fast moving, million degree discharges are referred to as "hot gasses".
As we have seen in the last several pages, and especially the very informative post 1441 from tusenfem, what the words "electric discharge" actually means seem to be user dependent. It would appear that Mozina wishes to limit the meaning to the phrase "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" ignoring everything else. I have always argued that electrical discharges were impossible in a plasma, but then I always simply assumed that the words meant what everybody would naturally expect them to mean in a colloquial sense, the catastrophic reunion of separated charges across a breakdown potential (lightning, for instance). Only now, after so many years, has Mozina actually defined those words and only now do I (we) realize that the colloquial meaning is not what he had in mind (or at least not what he has in mind now).

It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).

As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.
 
Care to be specific? I was certainly specific.

How many pages of posts did we go through pointing out the physical impossibility of your solid surface sun idea? You persisted, despite seeing the evidence (time and time again) that you were wrong. As far as I know, you still persist. Under the definition that you just gave, that makes you a liar, or if by chance you've abandoned that nonsense, it at least made you a liar.
 
If you are still claiming that the photosphere is in fact transparent, then you plainly do not understand what the photosphere is.

I simply don't agree that the surface they call the "photosphere" is actually "opaque". What exactly do you want me to do about their choice of terms?
 
How many pages of posts did we go through pointing out the physical impossibility of your solid surface sun idea? You persisted, despite seeing the evidence (time and time again) that you were wrong.

What evidence? Not a single one of you has ever really made any serious effort to explain even that first image on my website. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" seems to be the limit of anyone's attempt to "explain" the image.

Your "evidence" is based on a whole series of "assumptions" not a single one of you can demonstrate is true to begin with, like the notion that plasmas will stay mixed, hydrogen with iron, helium with lead, etc.

As far as I know, you still persist. Under the definition that you just gave, that makes you a liar, or if by chance you've abandoned that nonsense, it at least made you a liar.

If and when someone actually "explains" that RD image or that Doppler image on my website and the "rigidity" of those features using the standard solar model, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. Since that's never happened in 5 years, I'm not holding my breath.

If you'd like to give it a try, this thread is your chance to shine!
 
Electric Sun and Coronal Heating IV

The ion temp of the plasma at the photosphere is measured in the thousands. Something needs to sustain *million* degree temps and keep the iron ionized to a +20 state. That's going to take quite a bit more energy than exists at the photosphere surface.
This is quite wrong. You don't seem to understand the difference between temperature and energy. The energy required to heat the corona amounts to about 1% of the energy available in the regions below the corona (photosphere & chromosphere & transition region). In each case, the energy below is much higher than the energy needed to provide the heating of the upper layer. The reason for this is that the mass density falls off very fast with increasing height above the photosphere. Since temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy per particle, it is easy for the coronal temperature to be higher by orders of magnitude, because the particle density is lower by orders of magnitude. Hence the actual energy density of the corona is very much less than the energy density of the photosphere despite the higher temperature.

But one must also remember that if the heating mechanism is nonthermal (not conduction, convection or direct radiative transfer) then the temperature of the photosphere is not really relevant in any case. Temperature says nothing about the magnetic field that threads from the photosphere into the corona, through the chromosphere and transition region. Magnetoconvection, magentoacoustic waves and Alfven waves are not represented at all by the temperature but still carry significant energy.
 
What evidence?

The measured temperature gradient in the photosphere showing increasing temperature with depth. The thermodynamic impossibility of having something colder below the optically opaque photosphere. The non-existence of any solid at temperatures of 5700 K and above. The gravitational stress that a solid surface would exhibit being large enough to make diamond fracture and flow. The gravitational instability of any such surface even if the bulk strength was sufficient. The lack of any mechanism to form such a sphere in the first

Not a single one of you has ever really made any serious effort to explain even that first image on my website.

1) That's not true. I haven't really bothered to, but others have shown that your image interpretation methods are completely wrong.
2) If multiple other lines of evidence prove conclusively that your idea is impossible (as they have), then it doesn't matter whether or not anyone can explain the picture, YOUR explanation is clearly wrong.

Your "evidence" is based on a whole series of "assumptions" not a single one of you can demonstrate is true to begin with, like the notion that plasmas will stay mixed, hydrogen with iron, helium with lead, etc.

Nope. That assumption is completely unnecessary. About the only thing I've assumed in regards to the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid surface was that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are true. I made a few other well-justified assumptions (like Newtonian gravity being approximately correct) when I calculated the impossibly high stresses in your surface, but you've never shown that any of my assumptions were wrong, or that any alternative reasonable assumptions produce substantially different results.
 
The measured temperature gradient in the photosphere showing increasing temperature with depth. The thermodynamic impossibility of having something colder below the optically opaque photosphere.

What "optically opaque" photosphere? Again, this is an *ASSUMPTION* on your part that in no way physically addresses those images or the rigidity of the structures in those images.
 
If and when someone actually "explains" that RD image or that Doppler image on my website and the "rigidity" of those features using the standard solar model, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.
For me, the above is the key to your delusion. You want the experts here to explain why there is a rigid feature on the sun in those images. Problem: there isn't a rigid feature on the sun in those images. When they explain that there isn't, you complain that they didn't explain why that feature is rigid. It's all so silly.

By way of analogy, this is what you are asking:

Q: "Why is there a face on Mars in this image?"
A: "There isn't. It just looks kind of like it in that particular image you have. Here's some better resolution and more info that shows that the feature is not a face."
Q: "But that doesn't explain why there is a face on Mars. No one can explain to me why there is a face on Mars!"
A: "..."
 
It's opaque by definition. If you don't agree with the definition, then you are wrong, by definition. That's as wrong as you can possibly be.

Pfft. By *DEFINITION* GM and RC were wrong about a discharge too and not one of you mentioned it. Now of course you make an UNSUPPORTED CLAIM and you expect me to simply accept it *WITHOUT* you touching the images that I based my decision on. How is that going to resolve the issue?
 
What evidence? Not a single one of you has ever really made any serious effort to explain even that first image on my website. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" seems to be the limit of anyone's attempt to "explain" the image.


As one of several people who have analyzed that particular image pixel by pixel, and explained why each pixel is the color that it is, I can state absolutely and unequivocally that the argument above is an intentional, outright, bald faced lie.

By those definitions, you'd be a liar.

Neither article says any such thing, Mozina just made it up [...]

Under the definition that you just gave, that makes you a liar, or if by chance you've abandoned that nonsense, it at least made you a liar.


Recognizing the electric Sun crackpots' arguments as lies is like shooting fish in a barrel. I've pointed out dozens of those arguments-by-lying over the past several pages of this thread alone. It is reasonable to assume that any argument allegedly supporting the solar-flares-are-electrical-discharges claim, is a lie, if only because we have a record of persistent lies while no objective quantitative support has been provided at all.

If and when someone actually "explains" that RD image or that Doppler image on my website and the "rigidity" of those features using the standard solar model, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. Since that's never happened in 5 years, I'm not holding my breath.


It's been explained. There is no rigidity. Any argument that it hasn't been explained is blatantly a lie.
 
Last edited:
What "optically opaque" photosphere?

The photosphere which is optically opaque by definition, of course. The same one which produces a blackbody spectrum, which demonstrates observationally that it's opaque because (and here I'm using the assumption that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true - do you think it's not?) you cannot have anything that's even close to a blackbody radiator unless it's also close to a blackbody absorber.

Again, this is an *ASSUMPTION* on your part that in no way physically addresses those images or the rigidity of the structures in those images.

I'm not trying to address the image, I'm addressing your conclusions. Your conclusions are impossible. Therefore they cannot explain the image. It really is that simple. I don't need to figure out what it is in order to be able to conclude (quite definitively, BTW) that it's not what you think it is. Since you've been presented with the evidence that your conclusion is wrong (and it's wrong even if the standard solar model is also wrong), and yet you persist in your claims, that makes you a liar under your own definition of the word.
 
Pfft. By *DEFINITION* GM and RC were wrong about a discharge too and not one of you mentioned it. Now of course you make an UNSUPPORTED CLAIM and you expect me to simply accept it *WITHOUT* you touching the images that I based my decision on. How is that going to resolve the issue?


The dishonest argument was not on the part of Reality Check or me. The dishonest argument was on the part of the electric Sun cranks who time after time, page after page, made specific reference to the electrical discharges being analogous to lighting and to the sparks inside a toy plasma ball. They were clearly claiming that a lightning type electrical discharge was the subject of their claim. (See post 1233 for an example.) Pictures of a damaged lightning rod have been waved around here like a flag as an argument allegedly supporting the stupid electrical discharge claim.

Then... when it was demonstrated that an electrical discharge by that definition was impossible within a conductor, then the crackpot position was dishonestly shuffled all over the map. In a dishonest effort to avoid acknowledging the stupid mistake, sources were hunted and cherry picked to dishonestly change the concept from lightning to the desperate whatever-the-hell-might-work excuse.

It's all a sham, a fraud. The whole combined electric Sun argument is demonstrably one big stinking pile of intentional lies.
 
For me, the above is the key to your delusion. You want the experts here to explain why there is a rigid feature on the sun in those images. Problem: there isn't a rigid feature on the sun in those images.

That is a possibility of course, but then there still has to be a logical 'cause' for the rigid patterns observed in the image.

When they explain that there isn't, you complain that they didn't explain why that feature is rigid. It's all so silly.

An actual "explanation" would start by acknowledging that there are rigid geometric shapes and sizes in the image and then EXPLAINING why they stay in those same geometric shapes and forms even *DURING* and AFTER the CME. Claiming no such rigid geometric shapes exist isn't an "explanation" it's called "denial". They are there. They are rigid in terms of the patterns having lifetimes that are far in excess of the 8 minutes or so like the structures in the photosphere.
 
As one of several people who have analyzed that particular image pixel by pixel, and explained why each pixel is the color that it is, I can state absolutely and unequivocally that the argument above is an intentional, outright, bald faced lie.
What do you know about it Mr. "What flying stuff"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom