Electric universe theories here.

[Tim Thompson]

Stop that plasma!

Blocking the flow of plasma over an area the size of the Earth however is no small feat. What kind of "magnetic field" does something like that?

Heavens to mergatroid, I thought you knew something about electromagnetism! How about any magnetic field!. When did charged particles start moving perpendicular to any magnetic field? You never heard of the Lorentz force? vxB? The plasma is stopped "cold" over any spatial scale you can imagine, including that of the entire galaxy.

Why are sunspots always related to coronal loop activity if the mass flows to block plasma flows are located under the photosphere?

Because the action is all above the sunspots, not below.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't care what you think is going on, there is a 6000K layer of the sun which is radiating like a blackbody.

I don't really care what you think is going on, but the surface of the photosphere is not a "black body". You might suggest such a thing about *THE WHOLE SUN*, but the photosphere is physically incapable of acting like a "black body". It's made of extremely light neon plasma.

We can SEE that.

All you see is white light from a mostly NEON photosphere. That's all you see.

And that radiation will go in all directions.

No, it moves AWAY FROM the surface TOWARD the heliosphere. Heat from a rock in a river will not flow upstream very far before being picked up and carried downstream by a moving water molecule.

Radiation does not "flow".

No, but particles flow and carry heat with them.

And even if the source of the radiation is flowing outwards, the radiation itself will travel in all directions.

So what? I'm sure the heat from a hot rock will travel in all direction in the stream. The water in the stream (in this case charged particles) will pick up and carry that heat downstream. If we measure the temperature of the water a mile upstream from my hot rock, it's not going to have the slightest effect on the temperature of the water upstream.

Once again, I DON'T CARE what layer is doing it.

You should care and you must care if you expect to comprehend the actual physics involved in this process. Slapping math to an unrelated physical design is pointless.

Whatever it is that's radiating as a 6000 K blackbody, it sure as hell isn't underneath your solid layer.

You are right, it is the particles in the atmosphere released (and contained) in the z-pinch processes that emit most of the "heat" we experience.

And it's going to radiate both outwards and inwards.

Sure, some heat will radiate inwards, but just like my water in the stream analogy, so what? The outbound particles will pick out that heat and transfer it to the heliosphere eventually.

What we see is a 6000 K blackbody spectrum.

So what? That is the *AVERAGED* temperature that relates to many atmospheric layers all radiating at different temperatures as well as the heat contained in the outbound particle flow. It's not coming from ONE thing, or ONE place.

That IS the "white light" that we see.

So what? Neon bulbs often emit white light. So what? Of course all layers emit photons and many of them fall into the visible spectrum. What we see in the full spectrum is a combination of a lot of emissions points.

You aren't under the delusion that "white light" is a specific frequency, are you?

Nope.

No, Michael. I've been very explicit about this: I make no assumptions about where exactly this blackbody spectrum is coming from.

Yes you did. You tacked it to the photosphere. It has nothing (well little) to do with the surface of the photosphere.

I don't care if you want to attribute it to something under the photosphere or not: it's still coming from somewhere.

Great. Get it through your head that the coronal loops originate under the photosphere in Birkeland's model and they emit the bulk of the "heat" you feel when you stand in the sunshine. The surface emits heat too of course, as do all the plasma layers.

And whatever it is that's giving off 6000 K blackbody outwards is also going to be giving off 6000 K blackbody radiation inwards.

You're missing the point. The particle flow is all *OUTBOUND*. If there was no particle flow your argument would have merit. Because the flow is constant and always outbound, your argument has no merit at all. Just like the water molecules pick up heat and carry it downstream, so too, the plasma particles moving in the outbound direction pick up heat and carry it away from the sun.

That's not an assumption, that's the way blackbody radiation works.

Black body theory is almost unrelated to solar theory. It's a handy oversimplification in some instances, but you can't use it to make your arguments, particularly in a Birkeland solar model. If, and only if, there was no solar wind, your argument would in fact have merit. Because the flow of particles is constant and outbound, your argument is moot.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I[...]

No, Michael. I've been very explicit about this: I make no assumptions about where exactly this blackbody spectrum is coming from. I don't care if you want to attribute it to something under the photosphere or not: it's still coming from somewhere. And whatever it is that's giving off 6000 K blackbody outwards is also going to be giving off 6000 K blackbody radiation inwards. That's not an assumption, that's the way blackbody radiation works.

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Heavens to mergatroid, I thought you knew something about electromagnetism! How about any magnetic field!. When did charged particles start moving perpendicular to any magnetic field? You never heard of the Lorentz force? vxB? The plasma is stopped "cold" over any spatial scale you can imagine, including that of the entire galaxy.

How exactly did you intend to create a magnetic field the size of Earth? Why wouldn't "heat" cross that barrier even if you figured out a way to create such a thing?

Because the action is all above the sunspots, not below.

I guess you haven't seen the DVD? When you get it to a format you can watch, freeze the frame at around 30 minutes and 4 seconds. You will observe the coronal loop coming up through the photosphere and it "lights up" the photosphere at the base of the loops. There is no doubt from this image (and many other by the way including the two others I noted) that the loops originate *UNDER*, not above the photosphere. As tsenfem has noted, Alfven's model of a loop carried current throughout the loop. It would "light up" everywhere, including under the photosphere in Alfven's model. I personally prefer Birkeland's model, but the physics related to MHD theory applies to either a plasma or solid surface model. The loop is visible in white light in that image I cited, and the photosphere is "lit up" along the both sides of the loops. The later item I cited will demonstrate that matter is moving UP AND AWAY from the photosphere during the flare. If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Why are you even here? You absolutely *refuse* to stand up and show a little a backbone and scientifically explain even two satellite images. You're afraid. You can't handle the images, so you're bashing he messenger. Do you really think this technique has any effect on me personally, or that it makes you "look good" somehow? If so, you're only fooling yourself. If you want to impress me and the readers, lets hear you explain the images.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't really care what you think is going on, but the surface of the photosphere is not a "black body".

Something on the sun sure as hell is, and whatever it is, it's above your solid surface. Unless you think your solid surface is at 6000 K. I've repeatedly stated that for the current argument, it makes no difference if it's the photosphere or not. Your repeated insistence that it's not the photosphere is a rather pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the fact that this 6000 K source will heat up your solid layer to at least as hot.

All you see is white light from a mostly NEON photosphere. That's all you see.

We see an entire 6000 K blackbody spectrum. I don't care where it comes from, but it's source is at 6000 K, and radiating as a blackbody.

No, but particles flow and carry heat with them.

Which is why I did those calculations. Calculations which you have yet to address. You claim I'm wrong, but you can't provide what you think are correct numbers for any of it.

So what? I'm sure the heat from a rock will travel in all direction in the stream. The water in the stream (in this case charged particles) will carry that heat downstream. If we measure the temperature of the water a mile upstream from my rock, it's not going to have the slightest effect on the temperature of the water upstream.

Provided we have enough water to do this. Which, again, was the point of my calculations: your mass flow cannot possibly do what you're claiming it does. There's just far too much heat involved.

You should care and you must care if you expect to comprehend the actual physics involved in this process.

Oh, but I'm not dealing with all the physics involved. I'm only dealing with the basic thermodynamics: are your proposed temperature differentials possible? And for that, many of the details (including the ones you keep trying to bring up) ARE irrelevant. Just like the atmospheric composition of the earth is irrelevant to its orbital trajectory around the sun.

Slapping math to an unrelated physical design is pointless.

Except that the math I've done is rather directly related to the physics in question. And you have been able to produce NO alternative numbers for any of the quantities involved. Why is that, Michael? Why have you wasted so much of your life on a "physics" theory that you can't quantify on even the most basic level? It's kind of sad, when you stop and think about it.

Sure, some heat will radiate inwards, but just like my water in the stream analogy, so what? The outbound particles will pick out that heat and transfer it to the heliosphere eventually.

Which is the model I did my calculations for. And what did I find? The numbers don't work out, not by many orders of magnitude. Which means that the outbound particles CANNOT do what you require them to do.

So what? That is the *AVERAGED* temperature that relates to many atmospheric layers all radiating at different temperatures as well as the heat contained in the outbound particle flow. It's not coming from ONE thing, or ONE place.

It doesn't matter if it's averaged or not, and it doesn't matter if it's coming from one layer or not. It's still what your solid surface will be subjected to. It's still the power that your solid surface will need to somehow remove in order to avoid heating up.

Yes you did. You tacked it to the photosphere. It has nothing (well little) to do with the surface of the photosphere.

No I didn't. I've repeatedly and explicitly stated that I don't care what layer you want to attribute it to. It's still there, and it will still act to heat up your solid layer.

You're missing the point. The particle flow is all *OUTBOUND*

I assumed that when I did my calculations.

Just like the water molecules pick up heat and carry it downstream, so too, the plasma particles moving in the outbound directly pick up heat and carry it away from the sun.

Won't stop heat transfer if there isn't enough water. And as my calculations demonstrate, there isn't.

BB theory is almost unrelated to solar theory. It's a handy oversimplification in some instances, but you can't use it to make your arguments, particularly in a Birkeland solar model.

Yes, I can. Why? Because the sun gives off a blackbody spectrum. If it gave off a highly non-blackbody spectrum, you might have a point. But it doesn't. Therefore, you don't.

If, and only if, there was no solar wind, your argument would in fact have merit.

I did my first calculation based on the premise that the solar wind WAS the driver for your model. Did you somehow miss that? Because your response doesn't indicate that you actually understood any of my post.

Because the flow of particles is constant and outbound, your argument is moot.

The entire point of those calculations was to see what would happen if a constant flow of particles was carrying away heat to keep your solid surface cool. And you've got... no answer. No alternative set of numbers. No different way of doing the calculation. Instead, you irrationally claim I'm wrong because I'm not considering the exact thing those calculations were done to quantify.

 

[Dancing David]

MM, you just lost it again. Ziggy, while often abrupt, asked you pertinent questions, you are just getting hand wavy.

Now please explain how the layer that emits most of the visible light from the sun does not radiate inwards.

This is a huge problem for you, and the fact that you just use capital letters to address it does not help.

Where in you laboratory science does this effect occur, where you can demonstrate that:
1. Whatever layer it is that is radiating the visible light of the sun, it is not 6,000 degrees?
2. That the EM radiation in photons in only going to radiate in one direction?
3. That the temperature of the photosphere in not 6,000 degrees, or if so why does it not radiate exclusively in the spectral line of Neon?
4. Barring that, then answer Ziggy's question, how many electrons are going to flow off the 'iron shell' to keep it from absorbing the radiation of the layer at 6,000 degrees.

See, here is the problem with your theory and all the other strange electric sun theories, they fall down and go boom...

You still haven't explained how your flow between the sun and the heliosphere is going to have a mix of protons and electrons.
There is no evidence of the heliosphere having the charge needed, there is no evidence of the sun having the charge needed.
You haven't a mechanism for how the 'iron shell' of the sun is going to radiate this huge amount of electrons but still not heat to the level of vaporization.
Now you want to violate all the laboratory physics you claim to follow, where on earth can you show an experiment where a solid iron plate radiates electrons away fast enough to keep it from absorbing IR and other photons?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, you just lost it again. Ziggy, while often abrupt, asked you pertinent questions, you are just getting hand wavy.

It is not "handwavy" to note that the solar wind flows *outbound*, and that there is constant movement of plasma away from the sun. It is a physical fact.

Now please explain how the layer that emits most of the visible light from the sun does not radiate inwards.

The layer of the sun that emits the most visible light is the neon layer. I'm sure it radiates inward as well as outward, but the particle flow from the surface is constantly aimed away from the surface. The surface is a cathode and it emits charged particles on a continuous basis. The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

This is a huge problem for you, and the fact that you just use capital letters to address it does not help.

It might be a huge problem were it not for that solar wind you seem to be ignoring.

Where in you laboratory science does this effect occur, where you can demonstrate that:

Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

The particle flow from the photosphere may in fact be 6000K, but that is unrelated to the color of the photosphere.

1. Whatever layer it is that is radiating the visible light of the sun, it is not 6,000 degrees?

That depends I suppose on what your measuring. If you look at the AVERAGE temperature of the particles coming out of the surface of the photosphere (including electrons and protons), sure it's 6000 K.

2. That the EM radiation in photons in only going to radiate in one direction?

No, they will radiate in all directions like any photon but like any photon it can be *ABSORBED* by any atom or any ion or any molecule it encounters.

3. That the temperature of the photosphere in not 6,000 degrees, or if so why does it not radiate exclusively in the spectral line of Neon?

Well, the photosphere is full of "impurities" and it's not the only thing emitting photons in the visible spectrum. Lots of atoms contribute to the total visible spectrum, not simply the neon layer. It however does in fact "spew" the most light in the visible spectrum.

4. Barring that, then answer Ziggy's question, how many electrons are going to flow off the 'iron shell' to keep it from absorbing the radiation of the layer at 6,000 degrees.

I don't know. I do know that electrons are not the only thing flowing from the sun and that many atoms and ions are capable of absorbing photons in the infrared range.

See, here is the problem with your theory and all the other strange electric sun theories, they fall down and go boom...

You still haven't explained how your flow between the sun and the heliosphere is going to have a mix of protons and electrons.

Does any current carrying thread in plasma (like an ordinary plasma ball) contain *ONLY* electrons?

There is no evidence of the heliosphere having the charge needed,

Of course there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles toward it.

there is no evidence of the sun having the charge needed.

Yes there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles away from it.

You haven't a mechanism for how the 'iron shell' of the sun is going to radiate this huge amount of electrons

Well, you're right that I haven't settled on *ONE* possible scenario, but fusion and fission could easily produce the necessary excess of protons and electrons.

but still not heat to the level of vaporization.

Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.

Now you want to violate all the laboratory physics you claim to follow, where on earth can you show an experiment where a solid iron plate radiates electrons away fast enough to keep it from absorbing IR and other photons?

About the best I might do right now is cite Birkeland's work. His metallic sphere emitted electrons and other ions and produced similar if not identical "processes" in the atmosphere of the sphere. It produced "coronal loops", "jets", high speed solar wind in one direction and all the other key observations we see in solar images.

 

[GeeMack]

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Why are you even here? You absolutely *refuse* to stand up and show a little a backbone and scientifically explain even two satellite images. You're afraid. You can't handle the images, so you're bashing he messenger. Do you really think this technique has any effect on me personally, or that it makes you "look good" somehow? If so, you're only fooling yourself. If you want to impress me and the readers, lets hear you explain the images.

Not to speak for DeiRenDopa, but he/she seems to understand the construction of running difference images, has said so, appears to realize you're wrong, and looks to be willing to leave you playing with yourself in the mud on that issue. His/her position for many, many posts now is that you have not offered, and probably will not offer a single iota of quantitative support for your delusion. All you've got is your loud mouth claim that it is true because it is true. Then you wave a few pictures around and say, "See! See! If you stare at these long enough you'll see it, too!" That's not how sane people approach science, Michael. That's how you approach it.

The images have been explained by everyone except you, Michael. Once more, the fact that you intentionally ignore everyone's explanations means you are, by definition, ignorant. And the fact that nearly everyone has explained the images, or accepted the explanations provided by me and others, yet you keep insisting they haven't makes you, by definition, a liar. Michael, you are an ignorant liar. And that is the thing that isn't getting past anyone reading this.

Now where was that experiment that shows how you can see something in a difference graph that was something like 10000 kilometers or more away from the location of the data used to create the graph? Oh, that's right. There is no such experiment. Someone would have to be crazy to think they could do that, wouldn't they, Michael?

 

[GeeMack]

Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.

That running difference image you are unable to explain in detail, right down to the pixel, like everyone else has, like I have so many times? Okay.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not to speak for DeiRenDopa,.....

But you're going to do it anyway?

but he/she seems to understand the construction of running difference images,

How would any of us know that? When has she ever said that or attempted to explain the images in any detail? Never. She's afraid to even discuss them and has avoided the actual images like the plague for over four years. Let's hearr her explain something useful about the image, then we'll know if she really understands anything at all about RD images. All we know at the moment is she is definitely afraid to stick her neck out and offer anything even remotely resembling an explanation for these images.

 

[GeeMack]

How would any of us know that? When has she ever said that or attempted to explain the images in any detail? Never. She's afraid to even discuss them and has avoided the actual images like the plague for over four years. Let's here he explain something useful about the image, then we'll know if she really understands anything. All we know at the moment is she is afraid to stick her neck out and offer anything even remotely resembling an explanation for these images.

Liar.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That running difference image you are unable to explain in detail, right down to the pixel, like everyone else has, like I have so many times? Okay.

Liar. You mentioned *NO* cause/effect relationships, *NO* specific frame, *NO* specific pixel, and *NO* specific observation in that image. You're a sleaze and a liar.

 

[GeeMack]

Liar. You mentioned *NO* cause/effect relationships, *NO* specific frame, *NO* specific pixel, and *NO* specific observation in that image. You're a sleaze and a liar.

First, I explained every single pixel. Second, you have never explained even one. Your turn, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is?

Oh, and the crybaby tantrums are getting old. Knock it off, will ya?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First, I explained every single pixel.

No, the only accurate thing you actually explained was the math. Everything else you have said has been false.

Second, you have never explained even one. Your turn, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is?

Oh don't worry, I'll provide you with a link when I'm ready. I've been dragging my feet, waiting to see if any of you have any real explanations of your own to offer before I put up a page to let you pick on. Thus far, the whole lot of you look pathetic. You're going to make me look *amazing* at this rate, and I don't even profess to be significantly "better than average" for anyone who's actually studied the RD imaging process. You guys and gals utterly *SUCK* at satellite image analysis. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? RD image credibility? What credibility?

 

[GeeMack]

No, the only accurate thing you actually explained was the math. Everything else you have said has been false.

After all, a running difference image is just a graphical representation of a series of very simple mathematical computations. (Subtraction, Michael. Don't trouble yourself. It's beyond your ability.) Explaining the math pretty much wraps it up.

And you haven't actually refuted anything I've said, well, other than with your tantrums and incessant whining. Why don't you ask some real scientists and let us know if they think hollering and complaining counts as refuting.

Oh don't worry, I'll provide you with a link when I'm ready. I've been dragging my feet, waiting to see if any of you have any real explanations of your own to offer before I put up a page to let you pick on. Thus far, the whole lot of you look pathetic. You're going to make me look *amazing* at this rate, and I don't even profess to be significantly "better than average" for anyone who's actually studied the RD imaging process. You guys and gals utterly *SUCK* at satellite image analysis. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? RD image credibility? What credibility?

Oh, like over at SFN when you said you were going to "shine" in your explanation? That was over three years ago and you totally pussied out over there. Shine? Not even a flicker.

It only took me a paragraph or two to explain why every single pixel is the color that it is. And my explanation exactly matched Neal Hurlburt's. If you recall, he's the fellow who is responsible for designing and implementing the TRACE program, acquiring and analyzing the data, creating the images, and producing the difference graphs you hold so dear. When you get your explanation ready, why don't you run it past Dr. Hurlburt to see if he agrees with yours, Michael, like he agrees with mine. That is if they don't still have you on their spam filter at LMSAL so they don't have to get email from you babbling on about your crackpot nonsense.

Now where is that experiment of yours, done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically supported, physically consistent, objective so that others can repeat it and come to the same conclusion as you have, that shows how you can see something below a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at a difference graph made from data acquired several thousand kilometers above that plasma? You said yourself that all your ideas meet those standards. And having that super vision is one of your ideas, isn't it? Or are you abandoning that claim of being able to see through the photosphere by looking at a thermal analysis of the corona?

 

[Reality Check]

How do you explain a sunspot being composed of plasma that is something like 3000 degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere? Where does that lower temperature plasma come from and how in the world can it be *SO MUCH* cooler than the photosphere?

That sounds like a desperate attempt to derail.
Are you admitting that you cannot answer the question and so your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust just vaporized?

First asked 17 July 2009
The Iron Sun model assumes that the iron crust exists 4800 km below the photosphere and so must have an unspecified temperature < 2000 K (otherwise it vaporizes). The top of the photosphere is at a temperature of 5777 K.......
How do you explain the increasing temperature with depth?

 

[Reality Check]

Hi MM. In reference to a statment that the Sun's photosphere emits a nearly black body spectrum you stated:

No, it's not. The whole thing radiates as a "black body" perhaps, but it isn't the photosphere that does that.

First asked 18 July 2009
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K (i.e. characteristic of matter at 5777 K )?


Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

The effective temperature, or blackbody temperature, of the Sun (5777 K) is the temperature a black body of the same size must have to yield the same total emissive power.
Drawn by myself. The solar spectrum is the WRC spectrum provided by M. Iqbal: An Introduction to Solar Radiation, Academic Press 1983, Table C1. The black body spectral irradiance has been computed from a black-body spectrum for T equal 5777 K and assuming a solid angle of 6.8e-5 steradian for the source (the solar disk).

 

[Ziggurat]

The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

Yes, you keep saying that. But how much heat is it moving away from the sun? How much heat can it move away from the sun? Is that enough to keep your solid shell layer colder than the 6000 K part of the sun that we see? Why can't you answer such basic, fundamental questions about your own theory? Why was it left to me to do the calculations? And if you don't like my calculations, why don't you provide what you consider more accurate numbers? Like I said before, these aren't complex calculations. They're rather easy, in fact. But you consistently refuse to quantify any of your ideas.

You're a crank, Michael. You can get offended by that label all you want, but the one thing I know you won't do is prove the accusation wrong by quantifying your ideas.

 

[Reality Check]

Another little assertion from you:

Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

Are you seriously using a fluorescent light as evidence for a neon layer on the Sun?

You have obviously never looked at your office light. Have a look now. Note that it is not transparent. The light that you are seeing is not coming directly from the excited mercury atoms inside.
It is coming from the fluorescent coating on the tube.

The fundamental means for conversion of electrical energy into radiant energy in a fluorescent lamp relies on inelastic scattering of electrons. An incident electron collides with an atom in the gas. If the free electron has enough kinetic energy, it transfers energy to the atom's outer electron, causing that electron to temporarily jump up to a higher energy level. The collision is 'inelastic' because a loss of energy occurs.
This higher energy state is unstable, and the atom will emit an ultraviolet photon as the atom's electron reverts to a lower, more stable, energy level. Most of the photons that are released from the mercury atoms have wavelengths in the ultraviolet (UV) region of the spectrum predominantly at wavelengths of 253.7 nm and 185 nm. This is not visible to the human eye, so must be converted into visible light. This is done by making use of fluorescence. Ultraviolet photons are absorbed by electrons in the atoms of the lamp's fluorescent coating, causing a similar energy jump, then drop, with emission of a further photon. The photon that is emitted from this second interaction has a lower energy than the one that caused it. The chemicals that make up the phosphor are chosen so that these emitted photons are at wavelengths visible to the human eye. The difference in energy between the absorbed ultra-violet photon and the emitted visible light photon goes to heat up the phosphor coating.

There is also either argon or neon gas in your office light - contact the manufacturer to see which it is. It is an inert gas filler.

All the major features of fluorescent lighting were in place at the end of the 1920s. Decades of invention and development had provided the key components of fluorescent lamps: economically manufactured glass tubing, inert gases for filling the tubes, electrical ballasts, long-lasting electrodes, mercury vapor as a source of luminescence, effective means of producing a reliable electrical discharge, and fluorescent coatings that could be energized by ultraviolet light.

You are of course ignoring the physical fact that neon glows reddish-orange.