Solar flares and Earthquakes, Is there a connection?

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

What is your conclusion about sunspots and flares? Why do solarquake waves accelerate? These are no longer a mystery to me and I am not sure whether forum rules allow me to recommend reading my posts in other subjects. It will give you some idea of my consistancy. As far as star mechanics go, they are more or less based on atomic physics. Does fusion etc happen in stars? No doubt. Are those mechanics caused by other forces or are they complete and separate from anything you cannot imagine or measure, or more correctly perceive?

Would you like me to believe that whatever we cannot measure or see is not true? Where was the Higgs field before they named it?

I hope your reasoning is not like the child who threw the ball and when it fell behind the piano thought it had disappeared from the universe.

 

[origin]

What is your conclusion about sunspots and flares?

Here is a very easy to understand explanation of a sunspot. What is it that you dissagree with?

edited to add; it is rapidly approaching time to move this train wreck to the fringe section.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Here is a very easy to understand explanation of a sunspot. What is it that you dissagree with?

edited to add; it is rapidly approaching time to move this train wreck to the fringe section.

Higher magnetism is not the cause of a sunspot, it is a consequence of what causes a sunspot.
If the gas in the sunspot is equalised in pressure to the surrounds by the magnetism, the surrounds would not move thousands of miles into it, and if the magnetism causes an increase in pressure, the energy would increase in that area, unless something else was cooling it down in the same proportion that the pressure was increased. The overall effect of a sunspot is that it lacks pressure and temperature. Thanks for the link.

 

[origin]

Higher magnetism is not the cause of a sunspot, it is a consequence of what causes a sunspot.

Really? Uninformed blind guesses do not count as evidence.

If the gas in the sunspot is equalised in pressure to the surrounds by the magnetism, the surrounds would not move thousands of miles into it,

Where did this come from, the article does not imply this.

and if the magnetism causes an increase in pressure, the energy would increase in that area, unless something else was cooling it down in the same proportion that the pressure was increased.

The artilce did not say this either.

The overall effect of a sunspot is that it lacks pressure and temperature. Thanks for the link.

Which is just what the article says and gives the reason as the magnetic field.

Did you even read the short article?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Really?

Which is just what the article says and gives the reason as the magnetic field.

Did you even read the short article?

The article says, to my comprehension that "because magnetic fields can exert pressure..." the gas does not need as much pressure to keep equilibrium etc, and then we are supposed to believe that the gas has for some reason cooled off or lowered its own pressure, because the pressure of the magnetic field is equal to surrounds.
To my understanding if gas is in anyway competing for space, be it more gas or a pressured magnetic field, it will not cool itself off or reduce its pressure, but gain heat and presssure.

 

[Hipparchia]

Going by this comment, I understand that at the moment you are not capable of a sensible conversation.

Perfect way to avoid addressing difficult questions. Do you intend to offer any justification for your beliefs, or will you leave us no alternative but to conclude you are a fool and a charlatan?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Perfect way to avoid addressing difficult questions. Do you intend to offer any justification for your beliefs, or will you leave us no alternative but to conclude you are a fool and a charlatan?

The subject is now headed to science philosophy and away from the threads theme, because it involves new modes of thinking. In order to get what I am saying you have to accept that matter is not self existent, and not independent of things that common science has not yet discovered. In other words what we see and measure is not all there is to it. However, the proof is in the pudding, and at the moment the only thing that stands in the way is a different perspective.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

.
OK. Where does their energy come from, then?

Then how do you explain our observations of stellar evolution? (including stellar creation, senescence and nova)

You can go down any road you like. But no one will take you seriously if you do not offer a self-consistent and testable alternative.

Sorry for not replying sooner. Stars are dependent on a flow of energy into them and out of them. See photos of the sun using different filters, like ultra violet, showing large dark areas and its counterpart exploding out, and note how these do not necessarily correspond with the obvious visible flares.
The idea that stars are born and dying comes from coffin science. The so called super novas and other activities of stars, numbering in thousands, are just routine for stars, and stars reform just as easily, infact, scientists cannot tell if a star is dying or if it is born, its a guess. Their conclusions come from a strange view of the universe. By the way the sun and stars are not violent, their displays come with a tranquil and economical ease. But coffin science needs to believe what they need to believe, and at the moment its atomic! After the invention by men. "The sun will turn into a red dwarf" "Mercury has a history of violence" "The universe is filled with dark and malevant forces" who writes this fiction? The universe is for life not death.

 

[origin]

Sorry for not replying sooner. Stars are dependent on a flow of energy into them and out of them.

Bull crap. There is no need to make up some sort of magical energy to 'flow into' the star. The fusion that occurs in stars has thousand of supporting pieces of evidence. What evidence do you have that there is any energy flowing into the sun.

See photos of the sun using different filters, like ultra violet, showing large dark areas and its counterpart exploding out, and note how these do not necessarily correspond with the obvious visible flares.

So what this has nothing to do with any magical energy into the sun. Some areas have strong ultarviolet emissions and other areas have lower emissions, that doesn't support your guesses in the slightest.

The idea that stars are born and dying comes from coffin science.

These ideas come from observation, calculations, experimentations and measurements. Your ideas seem to come from a bong.

The so called super novas and other activities of stars, numbering in thousands, are just routine for stars, and stars reform just as easily, infact, scientists cannot tell if a star is dying or if it is born, its a guess.

pure bull crap.

I am guessing you are just a troll trying to get a rise. It seems doubtful that you could really believe this tripe.

 

[billvon]

Sorry for not replying sooner. Stars are dependent on a flow of energy into them and out of them.

Quite literally correct - just as a nuclear reactor has energy flow in and out of it. In the case of a star, though, the energy flowing out is many, many orders of magnitude higher than the energy flowing in.

See photos of the sun using different filters, like ultra violet, showing large dark areas and its counterpart exploding out, and note how these do not necessarily correspond with the obvious visible flares.

Agreed. The spectrum of the Sun is far from a perfect blackbody.

The idea that stars are born and dying comes from coffin science. The so called super novas and other activities of stars, numbering in thousands, are just routine for stars, and stars reform just as easily, infact, scientists cannot tell if a star is dying or if it is born, its a guess.

No, it's been observed. We have seen half a dozen supernovas explode and dissipate into rapidly expanding shells of ultrahot matter. They get dimmer, and more spread out, with time.

By the way the sun and stars are not violent

I guess that would depend on your definition of "violent." Since the supernovas we have observed have been the most intense and powerful explosions ever seen by Man you'd have to twist the language pretty hard to claim they are not violent.

their displays come with a tranquil and economical ease. But coffin science needs to believe what they need to believe, and at the moment its atomic! After the invention by men. "The sun will turn into a red dwarf" "Mercury has a history of violence" "The universe is filled with dark and malevant forces" who writes this fiction? The universe is for life not death.

Uh, the first quote is a scientific prediction, the second two sound like they come from science fiction books. There is a difference between the two.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

The common and widespread interpretation of stella activity is based on the idea that the sun and stars are operating at full potential, but they are operating at their lowest capacity. The sun underneath is even calmer, and the notion that it needs to be full of violent atomic activity, sounds very dramatic and acceptable, in the context of the lounge room fire.
Matter is caused and maintained by forces thousands of times more powerful than what is displayed.
What matter does in response to those forces is measurable, but only if you know what you are looking for.
It only takes the slightest change in the background forces to produce results with matter.
Science is constantly looking for evidence of matter completely sustaining its own existence, and it appears so, because every action is used as a tool to do that, to form a super economy of energy. But to remain with the conclusion that there is no other context to what we want to perceive, only caps off any further discovery and understanding.

Which is more magical, Origin, a light that is connected to an electrical line, or one without any supply?

The sun has a finite supply which will run out, would be your reply.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Quite literally correct - just as a nuclear reactor has energy flow in and out of it. In the case of a star, though, the energy flowing out is many, many orders of magnitude higher than the energy flowing in..

That energy I was referring to cannot be seen or measured, except by the effect it has on matter, ie, changes. It is one of the causes of matter existing.

 

[origin]

The common and widespread interpretation of stella activity is based on the idea that the sun and stars are operating at full potential, but they are operating at their lowest capacity.

What is your supporting evidence for this or do we just take your word for it?

The sun underneath is even calmer, and the notion that it needs to be full of violent atomic activity, sounds very dramatic and acceptable, in the context of the lounge room fire.

Evidence?

Matter is caused and maintained by forces thousands of times more powerful than what is displayed.

Evidence?

What matter does in response to those forces is measurable, but only if you know what you are looking for.

Evidence?

It only takes the slightest change in the background forces to produce results with matter.

Evidence?

Science is constantly looking for evidence of matter completely sustaining its own existence, and it appears so, because every action is used as a tool to do that, to form a super economy of energy. But to remain with the conclusion that there is no other context to what we want to perceive, only caps off any further discovery and understanding.

No evidence needed here, this is just gibberish.

Which is more magical, Origin, a light that is connected to an electrical line, or one without any supply?

A light bulb being illuminated with no energy source would indeed be in the realm of magic.

The sun has a finite supply which will run out, would be your reply.

Why would I talk about the sun in context with you question? At any rate you have finally stated something rational - of course there is a finite supply of matter for the sun to fuse and since it is finite it will run out.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Stars operating at their lowest and easiest capacity, is one of the fundamental characteristics of nature. All functions look for the path of least resistence.

The evidence for all of the above is in every observation of matter.
If that cannot be seen, then the blind fold is mindset, preconceived ideas.

Neither of our suns is magic, yours has a limited life span, mine is unlimited. Both are dependent on a source of energy. One temperal the other eternal. According to science nothing is eternal. They have interpreted the universe from the standpoint of death, and so death is in all their writings.
But death is only a local hazard.

 

[AlexG]

This really belongs in pseudoscience. A place to rest on the way to the cesspool.

 

[origin]

Stars operating at their lowest and easiest capacity, is one of the fundamental characteristics of nature. All functions look for the path of least resistence.

No I meant where is your evidence that "The common and widespread interpretation of stella activity is based on the idea that the sun and stars are operating at full potential", whatever that means.

The evidence for all of the above is in every observation of matter.

I see - you have no evidence, you just somehow know the truth. Forgive me if I dismiss your uneducated guesses at astrophysics, and rely instead on people that actually have a clue as to what they are talking about.

If that cannot be seen, then the blind fold is mindset, preconceived ideas.

The ideas are not preconcieved - these ideas have been discovered and modified over time and continue to be modified as new data becomes available. You have illogical, uneducated and just plain silly ideas that do not stand up the most cursory of inspections.

Neither of our suns is magic, yours has a limited life span, mine is unlimited. Both are dependent on a source of energy. One temperal the other eternal. According to science nothing is eternal. They have interpreted the universe from the standpoint of death, and so death is in all their writings.
But death is only a local hazard.

How poetic, and how utterly devoid of any semblance of reality.

You know if you actually find astronomy interesting you could take a course or two at a community college. It may be enlightening for you.

 

[Trippy]

This thread is inane.

I've seen some interesting discussions on links between solar activity, including some that proposed actual causal mechanisms, but this thread doesn't even come close to cutting it.

Which has an obvious consequence.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Nothing has changed...

 

[origin]

Yep, science is science and arm waving half baked conjectures are pseudo-science.

 

[FTLinmedium]

I don't see why there would be any connection between solar flares and Earthquakes, no.