Comedy of Errors Solar Science
To begin with, the "footpoint" of the loop is defined to be where the loop intersects the photosphere, so you lose that one to the dictionary.
Yes, that may be the definition but is that where they really are?
The location where the loop intersects the photosphere is
by definition the footpoint of the loop. So we know exactly what they really are, and that's it. If you have some other physical entity in mind, it's not a "footpoint", so you will need a new word for it, like maybe "brantcpoint". It does have a ring to it.
Of course, we already know that the magnetic fields around sunspots and active regions penetrate deeply into the photosphere, so if that is a point you are trying to make, then you are working hard to convince people of something that everybody already knows. But if you are trying to argue that the 171Å emission comes from below the photosphere, you have failed rather miserably to do so. I point out that you have never been able to produce a single image that unambiguously supports your claim. What you are seeing is loops that penetrate the top of the chromosphere, and then assuming that they are in fact penetrating the photosphere.
I think that all of the papers that you posted are based on Bilderberg continuum atmosphere from the 50's.
Well, you think wrong. They are not, and had you actually cited the source paper for the Bilderberg continuum atmosphere (
Gingerich & de Jager, 1968) and studied it a bit before posting, you might have figured that out for yourself and not bothered to post such a comment at all. See, for instance, the comment in
Fontenla, et al., 2006: "
As is usual in photospheric modeling (e.g., Gingerich & de jager, 1968; Gingerich, et al., 1971), we adjust the temperature stratification as a function of gas pressure in such a way that the computed intensities match the observed disk center intensities and center to limb variation (CLV) at various wavelengths. We base this study on our CLV observations using the Precision Solar Photometric Telescope (PSPT, e.g., Volger, et al., 2005) ..." So each paper uses either a model derived from their own observations, a model given by another source, or some combination of the two. If you want to know specifically which model was used by which paper, you have to read the paper and see for yourself.
The emission regions originally appear to be based on temperature assumptions for a fusion model.
Nonsense. The "fusion model" has nothing at all to do with the emission regions; never has, never will, and never could in any case. The transition region location is derived directly from the observations of the solar atmosphere and has no logical connection at all to any model for the heat source. The observed gas is what it is, no more & no less.
FeIV is really hot so its where its really hot. But they are confusing the iron emission in the corona with the loop footprints.
Nonsense again. The loop footpoints are
points, or nearly so, small bright regions. The corona emission is continuous. There is no confusion between a few bright points on the one hand and smooth emission from everywhere on the other hand. Where do you come up with such silly ideas?
I would expect that there is a layer of iron atoms but how did those atoms get there?? Especially when there is an enrichment of up to 5 times. That does not give you the source of the iron emissions!!!
Enrichment with respect to what? And why would you expect a layer of iron atoms? The 171A emission can come from iron line emission or thermal emission. You can't just look at a single waveband and know what it comes from. The continuous emission is most likely thermal continuum and the filamentary emission most likely from ionized iron at high temperatures. The only way you can use this emission to argue in favor of a layer of iron is to assume,
a priori, that the layer is there to justify itself.
There are no loop footpoints or footprints visible below the photosphere in either of these images.
This one you can see the formations under the loops that result from coronal rain.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
I see no such thin in this picture.
But the spicules are already a well known feature of the chromosphere (
Beckers, 1972 and citations thereto). What do they have to do with whatever you are going on about, anyway?
There is no question that 171 penetrates the thin photosphere, that the layer that is luminescent, and is only a few hundred miles thick.
In fact, there is really no question but that the 171A emission
does not penetrate the photosphere at all. There is no possibility of any iron layer or other significant amount of iron below the photosphere, so there will be little if any iron line emission. And the layers where temperatures are high enough to produce either the ionized iron emission or thermal emission at that short wavelength are way too far below the photosphere. The overlying plasma is much too opaque, we would never see it.
So in reality every assumption that went into building TRACE is based on a solar "model". Do you think they designed the cameras to to overexpose on purpose?? Those people are great engineers but if they are confined by theorists then that what you get.
Models, yes, but models tied to
real observations and
real physics. Your "models", on the other hand, are not at all consistent with any imaginable
real physics. Your models are more closely aligned with
comedy of errors physics.
since his answer to 
.
! It is a pejorative term but I cannot think of any more appropriate term. Unorthodox could be used but that assumes that your idea has some basis in science.
