Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

Why did you assume it was opaque in those specific bands?

I don't. This is known from measurements.

Electrons are flowing through all these layers and carrying heat with them. I think so.

Conduction is not radiation. And electrons will only carry heat from a higher-temperature source to a lower-temperature source, so that doesn't help you either.

No way. It's certainly relevant. The photosphere is *THIN*.

Compared to the size of the sun, yes. Compared to the penetration depth of radiation, no.

How did you determine this?

By looking at it.

We see radiation at about 6000 K. If the photosphere is opaque, then that light is coming from the photosphere. If the photosphere is transparent, as you claim, then that light is coming from under it, and that underlying surface is at 6000 K. Blackbody radiation can only come from something opaque, and in this case that something is at 6000 K. So even if everyone is wrong about the photosphere being the source of that radiation (yeah, right), that doesn't allow you to have anything below it cooler than 6000 K.

 

[Reality Check]

Ah, the old argument by ridicule routine. Yawn....

Yawn... indeed. If an comment is ridiculous then it deserves ridicule.

Where does any experiment show that a plasma, particularly a very light and flimsy plasma acts like a black body and emits and absorbs all wavelengths? You surely must realize that this is *GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION* don't you?

That is beyond ignorant.
Astronomers actually measure a near black body spectrum from the Sun.
Plasmas scientist actually measure a near black body spectrum from plasmas.
Experimental scientists measure that heated materials emit a near black body spectrum.
And since you are obsessed by iron - have you ever asked a blacksmith what color iron is when it is cold, warm or hot?
Have you ever heard of the term "red hot"? Hint: What is the glowing color of a heated object between about 950 °F and 1500 °F (510 °C to 816 °C)?
Have you ever heard the term "white hot"?

Only someone truly ignorant of physics and the real world can be deluded that the light emitted by a heated body is not characteristic of its temperature.

Well, for one thing it's solid/rigid. That requires a solid and solids wont stay solid much above 2000K. It therefore must be less than 2000K.

You assume this without stating any evidence.
Thank you for confirming one more time that you are a total crackpot!

I'm not arguing that the photosphere is not 6000K. I don't 'want' solids to be there, I observe them in Doppler and RD images. I'm only seeking to explain these solids.
Fortunately I didn't go about it that way. Instead I *OBSERVED* solids under the photosphere that form a "stratification subsurface" that is visible in Doppler and RD images. I observe the suns layers are arranged with the highest density and coolest layers below hotter, less dense layers. I see no reason to believe that this process begins or ends at the photosphere. I simply seek to explain what I observe.

You have not "observed" this.
You have grossly misinterpreted the RD images display of changes in the temperature of the corona around coronal loops and CME as "mountain ranges".
In addition you are ignorant enough to think that the TRACE images can even see the photosphere and so these mythical "mountain ranges" are on the surface. You are persistently ignoring the fact that the 173A pass band TRACE instrument only detects material with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. Thus your "mountain ranges" have a temperature of more than 160,000 K.

However your web site does have one bit of honesty in it with this quote from an email from Alexander G. Kosovichev about the Doppler images

The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4.

Emphasis added - see my above comment about your ignorance anout RD images.

A "scientist" would notice that angular shape in the Doppler image and those rigid angular features in the RD image too, and they'd attempt to explain these details. A crackpot ignores all the details and regurgitates what they've been told regardless of the visual evidence.

I like the last sentence. That is exactly what you are doing.

A scientist will measure the actual temperature of the photosphere, see that this is ~6000 K and notice that this means that there is nothing solid at that temperature.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not arguing that the photosphere is not 6000K. I don't 'want' solids to be there, I observe them in Doppler and RD images. I'm only seeking to explain these solids.

There is no known theory in physics that allows there to be solids at the 6000 K you now agree that the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun) has.

Maybe we have misinterpreted this post:

The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.

Emphasis added.
I suspect it is your nonsense about an subsurface that is actually at 2000 K - which is physically impossible because the photosphere (above the subsurface) is where the Sun's plasma cools enough to let energy escape the Sun. If there was a cooler subsurface then the photosphere would not exist!
See the earlier posts by Ziggurat.

 

[Reality Check]

Emphasis mine. Notice that the loops are anchored into, or begin below the photosphere just like the NASA animation I provide you with? What is the average density of the photosphere and what makes you think it blocks all 171A light exactly at the surface of the photosphere?

The photosphere does not block all all 171A light. It is the point at which visible light can escape the Sun. Given that the Sun's spectrum nearly black body then a tiny bit of the spectrum is all 171A light.

So wherever this peeling moss stuff is taking place it is located at the *BASES* of the arcs/loops which extend down into the photosphere.
Electrical current would be required to heat it to that temperature too

Ooops. They just got through saying that the bases of the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss process takes place at the *BASES* of the loops. It can't occur 1000 miles above the photosphere because the base of the loops begin *UNDER* the photosphere according to NASA.

They are talking about the *BASES* of the coronal loops in the images.
Coronal loops do not have bases - they are loops ("A coronal loop is magnetic flux fixed at both ends, threading through the solar body, protruding into the solar atmosphere."). If they had bases they would be coronal hoops.
And a fuller description from the corona article:

Coronal loops are the basic structures of the magnetic solar corona. These loops are the closed-magnetic flux cousins of the open-magnetic flux that can be found in coronal hole (polar) regions and the solar wind. Loops of magnetic flux well up from the solar body and fill with hot solar plasma. Due to the heightened magnetic activity in these coronal loop regions, coronal loops can often be the precursor to solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Solar plasma feeding these structures is heated from under 6000K to well over 1×106K from the photosphere, through the transition region, and into the corona.

The highlighted sentence is what the NASA movie is showing.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

Something here doesn't add up. If the loops originate under the photosphere, the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss occurs at the bases of the loops, then all these moss events occur *UNDER* not over the photosphere.

That is the problem with depending on cartoons and animations for your science education. You do not see the bits thay miss out, e.g. the NASA animation shows only half part of the magnetic loops when it goes under the photosphere (about a third of the way through the movie).

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034_bar_clip.gif

If you notice, the temperature does not drop off with distance as expected, but rather it extends throughout the arc, with the brightest regions being the base of the arc. The loops are "hot" because they are electrically active, particularly at the bases of loops where parts of the surface are being ionized by the discharge process.

Or they are hot everywhere, but the bases extend down into the photosphere and therefore the photosphere blocks some of the x-rays. When the tops of the loops reach the corona, they pick up heat from the corona and the light from the loops is not blocked by the photosphere. Your explanation requires the tops of the loops to necessarily be hotter than the bottoms but that other image I provided shows that the brightest and hottest regions are at the based of the loops not the tops. The composite image shows us where the layers of the atmosphere of the sun begin and end. 171A light is visible deep into the photosphere whereas x-rays do not penetrate the photosphere easily and therefore we do not see many x-rays once the arcs are below the photosphere.

You think that the bars are temperature? Try reading the description for once:

The right-hand bar in the lower image on the left shows how radidly the emission should have dropped off in the case of such simple gravitational stratification; the observed situation is closer to the intensity profile in the left-hand bar, for which the scale height has been doubled.

How do you know that?

Because I know basic physics and how to read.

If that were true, the bases of the arcs would not be the brightest parts of the image.

Bright does not equal hot. Bright equals intensity.

There are pieces of the surface being peeled (melted) away from the surface and ionized in the electrical current. That ionization process is what we observe in these solar moss images and the same thing can be seen in the peeling process we observe in the RD image.

The surface of the Sun (photosphere) is at 6000 K as you have agreed - no material to be peeled off and ionized.
In addition there are magnetic fields - no electric current.

 

[Reality Check]

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034_bar_clip.gif

If you notice, the temperature does not drop off with distance as expected, but rather it extends throughout the arc, with the brightest regions being the base of the arc. The loops are "hot" because they are electrically active, particularly at the bases of loops where parts of the surface are being ionized by the discharge process.

The image you included is a form of quote mining since it does not show temperature.

The web page has:
The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. "This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so."
Here is the actual image that indicates the temperature:

The analysis of the actual data unfortunately does not look at the bottom of the loops ("an area near the base of the loop (roughly 1/5 of the distance to the loop top)"): Temperature and Emission-Measure Profiles along Long-lived Solar Coronal Loops Observed with the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer. This is about 20 pixels in the image or ~19,000 km of the 120,000 km height of the loops in the image.

There does appear to be a blue gap between the surface and the loops but as you know images are not always what they look like.

I cannot find any observations that concentrate on the interaction between the base of coronal loops and the photosphere.
The coronal loops may or may not be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K on the photosphere. They also may or may not be at least 160,000 K as they continue down through the photosphere for another 120,000 km (if they are symmetrical).

Also:
Looking back at the solar moss composite image it appears that the X-rays are being emitted from a wider region than the TRACE image loops. So what we have is an volume of hotter (X-ray emitting) plasma whose height cannot be determined (since we are looking down on the loops) and that volume is wider than the UV emitting region of the loops.

The same image as "moss7" but with the co-temporal Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope image overlaid. Note that the patches of moss seen in the previous images (See Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun) occur only beneath areas of high intensity soft x-ray emission as imaged by the SXT instrument

 

[Michael Mozina]

The photosphere does not block all all 171A light.

Then it's likely we could see electrified loops emitting these wavelengths deep into the solar atmosphere.

It is the point at which visible light can escape the Sun.

We agree on that point too. Of course IMO the fact this specific layer radiates in the visible spectrum is as much due to it's composition as any other influence.

Given that the Sun's spectrum nearly black body then a tiny bit of the spectrum is all 171A light.

The BB concept is a *GROSS* oversimplification of the energy release process. The sun releases energy at different temperatures from different double layers. The photosphere is much cooler than the chromosphere and both of these layers are cooler than the corona. There no "black body", that's just a handy mathematical device in *SOME* (not all) circumstances.

They are talking about the *BASES* of the coronal loops in the images.
Coronal loops do not have bases - they are loops ("A coronal loop is magnetic flux fixed at both ends, threading through the solar body, protruding into the solar atmosphere."). If they had bases they would be coronal hoops.

That is incorrect. They have both a beginning and ending point that can be observed in solar moss observations. The solar moss event occurs at the bases of these loops. The loops even move material in a directional fashion. The certainly have a visible beginning and ending point and the bases of the loops are always brighter than the loop itself. Like any ordinary current carrying filament however, it's 'lit' (emits these wavelengths) the entire lengths of the filament.

And a fuller description from the corona article:

The highlighted sentence is what the NASA movie is showing.

Loops of magnetic flux well up from the solar body and fill with hot solar plasma.

So these "hot loops" form deep inside the solar body. That's exactly what I'm telling you as well. The base of the loop is *DEEP* under the photosphere, not somewhere out in the corona. Yes the coronal loops get large enough to poke through the photosphere and reach well into the corona, but the base of the loops begin inside the body of the sun, or underneath the photosphere. You evidently aren't comprehending what they are trying to tell you.

That is the problem with depending on cartoons and animations for your science education.

I'm simply providing you with NASA materials so we aren't arguing over who made them, their validity, etc. Evidently you can't grasp a basic concept, even when it is presented in a cartoon format. A child could comprehend the idea based on that animation. The loops begin *DEEP INSIDE* the photosphere.

You do not see the bits thay miss out, e.g. the NASA animation shows only half part of the magnetic loops when it goes under the photosphere (about a third of the way through the movie).

I think you're the one that's missing the point of what they show and left out. The loops have a base, in fact a brightly lit base that is visible in all 171A images. That is where solar moss activity occurs. The base however is not located in the corona. Yes, these loops reach into the corona, but they are rooted inside the body of the sun (under the photosphere), not far out into the corona. The light from these electrically heated loops is visible deep under the photosphere.

You think that the bars are temperature? Try reading the description for once:The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so."

Er, you need to try reading it again. The temperature of the loop is nearly constant along the length. That is due to the current flow inside the loop. It heats the entire thread. The heating process (solar moss process as well) is concentrated at the base of the loop. I wanted you to notice the bright footprints of the loop and the fact that the whole loop is essentially radiating at the same temperature. The x-rays we observe in that composite image (yellow) are visible once they reach the corona because the corona is too thin to absorb the x-rays. The temperature of the loops at that location is not necessarily any greater in the corona than at the base of the loops. It's just that the bases of the loops are located underneath the photosphere, not high in the corona, and the photosphere does absorb x-rays. The 171A wavelength however see *DEEPLY* into the photosphere which is why we can follow the loops further in blue than we can in yellow.

Because I know basic physics and how to read.

I have no doubt as to the former, but the latter is still in question. You seem to be missing several key points of the animation and the descriptions. The loops remains at a nearly constant temp over the whole loop. The bases of the loops are hot. That's where the heating process of these ions is concentrated and taking place. The bases of the loops however are not located in the corona, but deep inside the body of the sun, deep under the photosphere as that animation demonstrates. You're completely missing key points that are visible in the animation and clearly written in English. What's up with that?

Bright does not equal hot. Bright equals intensity.

Bright equals hot too. A discharge is bright because it's hot and the ions start to emit photons at all sorts of wavelengths, depending on the material in question and the valence shells that are involved. Bright certainly is hot in these images. The bright regions often exceed a million degrees.

The surface of the Sun (photosphere) is at 6000 K as you have agreed - no material to be peeled off and ionized.
In addition there are magnetic fields - no electric current.

It's not the photosphere that is being ionized, it is the crust of the surface that is being peeled off and ionized at the bases of the coronal loops. That "peeling'' we observe is also clearly visible in the original images as "solar moss" activity. There is no doubt that the bases of the loops originate *under* the photosphere, they are hot through the entire length of the loop, and heating takes place at the bases of the loops. NASA has clearly explained all of this to you in animations, and in English.

 

[Ziggurat]

The BB concept is a *GROSS* oversimplification of the energy release process. The sun releases energy at different temperatures from different double layers. The photosphere is much cooler than the chromosphere and both of these layers are cooler than the corona. There no "black body", that's just a handy mathematical device in *SOME* (not all) circumstances.

This is simply false. First off, a blackbody spectrum constrains radiation from ANY thermal source, be it black or not. A spectrum can release less radiation than the blackbody spectrum at a given temperature, but it can never release more. Furthermore, if it can emit at a certain frequency, it can also absorb at that frequency. These are hard constraints, and have nothing to do with oversimplifications OR mathematical devices, whatever you mean by that. Any violation of these hard constraints is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now, the chromosphere and the corona are not close to blackbodies: they only emit significantly at a few frequencies. They are transparent at all other frequencies. In contrast, the photosphere is close to a blackbody spectrum: it emits across a very broad range of frequencies, and therefore MUST absorb across those broad frequencies as well. It is, therefore, opaque across the relevant part of the spectrum (IR, visible, and UV). Whatever is underneath the photosphere therefore MUST be at temperatures at least as high as the photosphere itself, because it is not in effective thermal contact with anything outside the photosphere.

In contrast, because the chromosphere and corona are transparent for most of the IR, visible, and UV spectrum, the photosphere IS in effective thermal contact with space. Therefore the photosphere can cool down to temperatures lower than the chromosphere and the corona. Once again, Michael: that option is not available to anything underneath the photosphere: if whatever is under it is going to lose heat, it must transfer that heat to the photosphere, which is only possible if it's at higher temperatures than the photosphere. The opacity of the photosphere (which we can measure via its radiation spectra) is therefore proof that whatever is under it is at least as hot. The ONLY possible way around that is if the sun is continually violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, well, you won't find anyone but nutjobs who would accept that proposition.

You are desparately trying to rescue a failed theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how any surface underneath the photosphere can possibly remain cooler than the photosphere. And you won't be able to, because it's not possible. It's elementary physics, and you're failing it. Badly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It seems to me RC that you are overlooking the obvious. The loops are heated over their entire length because they are like any ordinary current carrying thread in plasma. They form filamentary shapes due to the current flow and the magnetic field created by the flow "pinches" these flows into tightly spiraling "ropes". It's not just a part of the loop that is lit and very hot, the whole thing is lit from one base to the other. The bases of the loops however do not "start" or become visible *ONLY* after the reach the corona. They are emitting these high energy wavelengths far below the photosphere and we are able to see them far below the photosphere. The yellow x-ray part of composite image shows us where the loops reach into the corona. While we can only observe the tops of the loops when they reach the corona, we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun. The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is simply false. First off, a blackbody spectrum constrains radiation from ANY thermal source, be it black or not.

The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place. The BB concept is a handy device and all, but the photosphere is made of light plasma, not solid carbon, so it's very unlikely to act as a "black body". Which test of *extremely light* plasma was shown to act as a "black body" here on Earth?

It should be noted that photons are generally related to specific valence shells of very specific elements. The SERTS data for instance will allow us to identify exactly which elements are emitting light based upon the specific wavelength observed. A light hydrogen plasma cannot emit all these wavelengths so any calculation you come up will will necessarily require that you *ASSUME* that elements stay mixed together and the iron and nickel ions are mixed with hydrogen and helium at the photosphere. That's the second major problem with standard theory. You have a "stratification subsurface" blocking the flow of plasma sitting smack dab in what is supposed to be an open convection zone that mixes and keeps all these elements mixed together.

You are "assuming" that light hydrogen plasma can form a "black body". Where can I see this actually demonstrated in a real experiment with a real control mechanisms and light plasma?

A spectrum can release less radiation than the blackbody spectrum at a given temperature, but it can never release more. Furthermore, if it can emit at a certain frequency, it can also absorb at that frequency. These are hard constraints, and have nothing to do with oversimplifications OR mathematical devices, whatever you mean by that. Any violation of these hard constraints is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The problem here between us is that we're using completely different models and concepts. You *assume* that the elements stay *mixed*. I *assume* they do not and that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element. You *assume* that a layer above must absorb the wavelengths from below, whereas I do not.

Now, the chromosphere and the corona are not close to blackbodies: they only emit significantly at a few frequencies.

So what exactly is the magic density point that makes light plasma emit like a black body?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no known theory in physics that allows there to be solids at the 6000 K you now agree that the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun) has.

Maybe we have misinterpreted this post:

The surface of the photosphere is not the surface of the sun that my website describes. The surface of the photosphere is simply another atmospheric layer of the sun, not unlike the chromosphere nor more unique than the chromosphere. It's simply the top of the neon layer of plasma, whereas the chromosphere is mostly helium and emits in Helium wavelengths. The actual surface crust is located at around .995R.

You fixating on the temperature of the top of the photosphere is like you fixating on the top of the chromosphere and claiming the photosphere must be at least the same temperature as the chromosphere. In reality, the top of the chromosphere is much hotter than the top of the photosphere. Likewise the top of the silicon layer is significantly more dense and cool than the top of the photosphere.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Even skimming the links GeeMack provided is painful ...

For those JREF Forum member who are reading this thread and who have also read the thread started by MM earlier, it's like 'the Casimir effect discussion' on steroids.

From that other JREF Forum thread, it is obvious that MM has only a 'word level' grasp of physics; however, the combined 'Sun has a solid (iron) surface' material shows a different, deeper, and much more disturbing aspect ... MM treats his own, personal, interpretations of data presented as images as being *far* more reliable than any other interpretations (including those from the PI's of the instruments which produced them!), irrespective of just how inconsistent those intretations are with simple, straight-forward applications of very basic physics.

One corollary: unless and until some common ground can be established concerning the relationship between data - whether presented in the form of 'images' or not - and physics, I think no meaningful discussion with MM will be possible (we saw this, in a more limited form, with his 'gravity, as a force of nature, exists' demonstration using a plasma ball from Tesco).

MM: the road from sensory experiences (what one 'sees', or 'hears', for example) to 'force of nature' is a very, very long one. It took the collective smarts of our species many dozens of centuries to travel, with lots of false turns that closely resemble your deep misunderstandings. However, that road was travelled, and today it is possible to retrace the steps of our brilliant forebears in a matter of years, if not months.

HOWEVER, an absolutely critical part of this journey involves math, starting with the ability to think *quantitatively*. It is clear that this essential foundation is all but entirely missing, for you.

So why not take some time off from the Sun and the data you are so in love with, and acquire at least a basic familiarity with the maths on which classical physics is based?

 

[Ziggurat]

The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.

Since it's giving off a close to blackbody spectrum, that's quite clearly not true.

The BB concept is a handy device and all, but the photosphere is made of light plasma, not solid carbon

And the ocean is made of water. And yet what happens when you go to the bottom?

so it's very unlikely to act as a "black body".

Very unlikely? No. We can see that it acts like a blackbody. Therefore it does. If your understanding cannot accommodate observations, then it's your understanding which must change, not reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png

It should be noted that photons are generally related to specific valence shells of very specific elements.

They can be. But free electrons (hmmm... where might I find such things?) can be broadband emitters and absorbers.

The SERTS data for instance will allow us to identify exactly which elements are emitting light based upon the specific wavelength observed.

Because you get either emission or absorption lines on top of the blackbody spectrum.

You are "assuming" that light hydrogen plasma can form a "black body".

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm observing it. Look, if you don't want to believe that this blackbody spectrum is coming from plasma, fine, I don't care (though for the record, the photosphere is defined as the outermost region of the sun which is opaque). But the spectrum is there, and whatever the source is, it's hot and opaque. So whatever is underneath it must be at least as hot. Since solid calcium, iron, and silicon are not transparent, the source of this radiation cannot be underneath your proposed surface. Your surface must either be the source of this radiation, or be under it. In no case is it physically possible for your solid surface to be cooler than the roughly 6000 K temperature we see. The conclusion is inescapable: even if you refuse to believe that plasma could act like a blackbody, any solid surface of the sun must be at least 6000 K, if not hotter.

The problem here between us is that we're using completely different models and concepts. You *assume* that the elements stay *mixed*.

No, I don't. I don't care what the photosphere is made of, it's visibly opaque. By definition.

So what exactly is the magic density point that makes light plasma emit like a black body?

There is no magic density. It's a continuous transition of decreasing penetration depth. If the penetration depth is much shorter than the layer thickness, then it's opaque. If the penetration depth is much longer than the layer thickness, then it's transparent.

 

[Vermonter]

Michael, you are hopelessly lost. Your biggest failure as a scientist is coming up with a conclusion and then interpreting the data to fit that conclusion and ignore anything that disagrees, and then insulting those who disagree with your methods or results.

Saying "the surface HAS TO BE less than 2000 K" just to fit your theory is a failure of epic proportions. Observational evidence shows that the photosphere is much hotter than that, but you ignore decades of direct observation in favor of a solid surface. At the temperatures observed, solids simply don't exist on the Sun. But you ignore that because you think the picture looks different. You lack the basic understanding of highschool physics, much less high-level physics found in astronomy.

To quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman." And you'll never see why. Go take a first-year college physics class and get back to us in a year. Or hell, go take some intro astronomy courses.

 

[tusenfem]

One of the interesting things about Birkeland is, is that he was a wonderful experimentalist and knew how to interpret the measurements that he made. And indeed he inferred that there had to be charged corpuscules coming from the sun (like in MM's signature). However, as anyone can see (except maybe for MM and Sol88) the solar wind can never be created with the Sun being a cathode, like in Birkies experiments. I am sure Birkie would have realized that too, because the solar wind consists of both electrons and positive ions, which cannot be generated by a cathode.

By the way, I wonder if Sol88 is the Mr. Hyde to MM's Dr. Jackyll. S disappears as M pops up ...

So, can we stop this rediculous notion of the iron sun (or rather MM not understanding what pictures in different spectral bands mean and how the Sun creates a black body spectrum through local thermal equlibrium) and get to the real stuff here. The electric universe, there are many questions left that have never been answered:

• comments like "the original charge separation", what does that mean
• the problem with creating water from machined oxygen ions in the solar wind
• what maintains the enormous currents that create the stars in a z-pinch, and how much current is actually needed

But now that MM has come to stage, it seems we only get ***WORDS*** with never anything qualitatively let along quantitative. Suddenly 5 pages of "it too" - "is not" with really a nerve wracking and annoying self-interpretation of physics by MM. This goes no where, it would be best to close this thread.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Photosphere Temperature Profile

The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.

That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant. It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body. The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0 where it has a mass density of only 2.78x10^-7 gm/cm³ (but an electron number density 7.7x10¹³/cm³ and a hydrogen atom number density 1.2x10¹⁷/cm³). An optical depth that high guarantees a black body spectral energy distribution.

It is well known that the emission from the solar photosphere is an approximate black body. It is in fact a superposition of multiple black bodies at multiple temperatures, since we can see emission from throughout the depth of the photosphere. The temperature profile shows 6520 Kelvins at optical depth 1, down to a minimum 4400 Kelvins at optical depth 4x10^-4, after which the temperature increases again to 5160 Kelvins at optical depth 5x10^-6. The base of the photosphere, about optical depth 24, has a temperature 9400 Kelvins. The region around optical depth 1 contributes most strongly to the black body shape; lower regions of higher optical depth are more opaque, and higher regions of lower optical depth emit less thermal energy. That's why the best fit single temperature black body for the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins.

I am using the profile given in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition), page 153. The inversion technique for building the temperature profile is briefly described in section 5.2.2, but far more detailed descriptions & explanations can be found in any book on atmospheric modeling, where inversions are long standing techniques.

The shape of the photosphere SED is well represented in the diagrams on the Wikipedia page for solar radiation. Foukal's book gives far more detailed information for the curious reader.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you are hopelessly lost. Your biggest failure as a scientist is coming up with a conclusion and then interpreting the data to fit that conclusion and ignore anything that disagrees, and then insulting those who disagree with your methods or results.

First off, your side is hurling 10 times the insults my way. Secondly, it's your side that has it in their head that this image *must* in some way be associated with gas model solar theory. I'm more than happy to listen to your responses, but they MUST be attentive to details within the actual image if you expect me to take you seriously.

Saying "the surface HAS TO BE less than 2000 K" just to fit your theory is a failure of epic proportions. Observational evidence shows that the photosphere is much hotter than that,

I am not talking about the surface of the photosphere, I'm talking about the crust underneath the photosphere.

but you ignore decades of direct observation in favor of a solid surface.

No, I did not. I embraced a decade worth of SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh images. That Doppler image shows a rigid feature in the photosphere. I didn't expect to find it, it's just there. Those persistent features of the RD image are just there too. I didn't make them up and you haven't explained their cause.

At the temperatures observed, solids simply don't exist on the Sun. But you ignore that because you think the picture looks different.

It's not just *ONE* image that convinced me, it *EVERY* one of the 17 Gigabytes of RD image, Doppler images, composite images, etc that convinced me. Note that at the time I was blissfully unaware of Birkeland's model, I assumed the gas model solar theory was accurate and I was simply trying to 'explain' these images.

Your the one insisting standard solar theory offers us an explanation, so let's hear it? Let's see you explain the details of these images for us?

You lack the basic understanding of highschool physics, much less high-level physics found in astronomy.

And to think you folks accuse me of insults. Get real. You folks belittle and attack individuals, not ideas. You also rely *HEAVILY* upon personal insult.

To quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman." And you'll never see why. Go take a first-year college physics class and get back to us in a year. Or hell, go take some intro astronomy courses.

Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Even skimming the links GeeMack provided is painful ...

What's really painful IMO is watching all of you run from every single specific detail in that image and continue to fixate on individuals rather than the details of the image itself. The fact that you won't address the details in the images in question, that fact you refuse to discuss any of the details in the images and the fact you fixate on an individual serve to demonstrate to me that you don't actually have an explanation. All you've got are petty insults. Yawn. You folks are absolutely pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since it's giving off a close to blackbody spectrum, that's quite clearly not true.

That spectrum tells you nothing at all about what the top of the photosphere emits. Get real. All you know is that the *WHOLE THING* emits a lot of wavelengths. You know absolutely nothing about the photosphere from that data.

And the ocean is made of water. And yet what happens when you go to the bottom?

The same thing that happens when you go to the bottom of the atmosphere on the sun. You find a "crust".

Very unlikely? No. We can see that it acts like a blackbody. Therefore it does.

The *WHOLE* sun may indeed emit a lot of wavelengths. That tells you absolutely nothing about the surface of the photosphere. You're simply *ASSUMING* that this *WHOLE SUN* observation relates to a single atmospheric layer of the sun. Why?

If your understanding cannot accommodate observations, then it's your understanding which must change, not reality.

The problem is that my understanding can accommodate and explain the various details of both those images and every image on my website in fact. You can't even handle two freaking images with any detail based on your understand of these images. Not one of you has touched a specific detail of that specific image! What does that tell us?

They can be. But free electrons (hmmm... where might I find such things?) can be broadband emitters and absorbers.

You'll find them flying out of the whole sun 24/7. They are found in something called "solar wind".

Most of the rest is rehash, so I won't bother. The fact you see a lot of different wavelengths from the whole sun does not tell us squat about the output of the photosphere. What you observe in a total spectrum are *ALL* the various parts of the sun emitting light. With the exception of a very few wavelengths like k-band or white light, you can't tell which of those various wavelengths is directly related to the photosphere. You simply *ASSUME* the elements stay mixed to the photosphere. I see no evidence of that. I see a simple layer of neon in the photosphere and I observe hotter helium and hydrogen layers as well. I also observe calcium and silicon emissions from deeper layer of the sun too. You simply use the BB idea as a handy way of calculating energy and opacity, but these things *ASSUME* things that simply are not true, including the notion that iron and nickel stay mixed with hydrogen. Sure. Like that is really going happen.

 

[GeeMack]

Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided.

Liar.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant.

Come on. You can't start by claiming that density is irrelevant when it comes to absorption and scattering, etc.

It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body.

How did you intend to even attempt to calculate it's optical depth to any specific wavelength if you don't know it's elemental composition and density?

The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0

Er, you measured that directly somehow, or you calculated without any sort of understanding of it's makeup and density?

Let's start with the basics. How did you determine that number 1.0 without knowing either it's elemental composition or it's density?