Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I'm looking for some Hinode images that show the same effect, but so far I haven't found the one(s) I'm looking for. They show the same effect, in not quite the same resolution, but show it in various wavelengths. Many of them show exactly the same effect in terms of shape and depth related to "layering".

 

[D'rok]

Sure. The "umbra" is the dark region in the center. The penumbral filaments are the areas around the side of the sunspot that isn't dark, but not as light as the rest of the surface of the photosphere.

Thanks.

I'm really struggling to see what you see. I mean, sure...it looks like a hole. In fact, put a couple of hands on the edges and you've got a giant solar goatse. (If you don't know what goatse is, I implore you not to google it. Trust me on this one). But I just don't see any "upwelling" and I don't know how you are estimating depth from an overhead perspective. I just don't see anything inconsistent with the standard model, expressed so simply by phunk up-thread.

It really seems like you are making merely a qualitative assessment of the appearance of the features. It isn't very convincing. Certainly no more so than the standard explanation that the umbra is black because the plasma is cooler relative to the surrounding plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma. Keep in mind there is a discharge process occurring between the solid surface below, and the heliosphere far out in space, and all the layers have "current flow" running through them. The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere. The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra. As it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and starts to enter the chromosphere, the density change is too great, plasma starts to cool off, and it sinks back into the photosphere. There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate. There are two different types of plasma in this image, one that is "seen", and one that is "darker" that is upwelling in the umbra. The various plasmas tend to "stick together" so the penumbral filaments are simply the "sides" of the neon layer.

 

[D'rok]

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma. Keep in mind there is a discharge process occurring between the solid surface below, and the heliosphere far out in space, and all the layers have "current flow" running through them. The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere. The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra. As it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and starts to enter the chromosphere, the density change is too great, plasma starts to cool off, and it sinks back into the photosphere. There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate. There are two different types of plasma in this image, one that is "seen", and one that is "darker" that is upwelling in the umbra. The various plasmas tend to "stick together" so the penumbral filaments are simply the "sides" of the neon layer.

I have no idea how you can get all of that from looking at an image.

 

[Tubbythin]

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma. Keep in mind there is a discharge process occurring between the solid surface below, and the heliosphere far out in space, and all the layers have "current flow" running through them. The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere. The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra. As it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and starts to enter the chromosphere, the density change is too great, plasma starts to cool off, and it sinks back into the photosphere. There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate. There are two different types of plasma in this image, one that is "seen", and one that is "darker" that is upwelling in the umbra. The various plasmas tend to "stick together" so the penumbral filaments are simply the "sides" of the neon layer.

Why silicon and neon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks.

I'm really struggling to see what you see. I mean, sure...it looks like a hole. In fact, put a couple of hands on the edges and you've got a giant solar goatse. (If you don't know what goatse is, I implore you not to google it.

Googled it. LOL!

Trust me on this one). But I just don't see any "upwelling"

You don't because the material in the umbra is not emitting any white light. It's more or less "invisible" to your eye in those images, but if you look at the rest of the surface of the photosphere, the plasma in the umbra is also "convecting", it just that it's made of a different material that isn't emitting white light at the same rate as the neon photosphere.

I'll get to the rest in moment, but it's beer time for me and I have to stop laughing for a moment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why silicon and neon?

Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.

 

[Tubbythin]

Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.

In what quantities?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It really seems like you are making merely a qualitative assessment of the appearance of the features.

Before we could even begin to quantify anything we have to "conceptually understand it". I'm simply trying to "explain" it logically.

It isn't very convincing. Certainly no more so than the standard explanation that the umbra is black because the plasma is cooler relative to the surrounding plasma.

Well, the standard explanation doesn't really explain the "wiggling around" you'll see at the bottom of the penumbral filaments where the neon meets up with the silicon. In their explanation, why do they end like that at a very specific depth, and what magic process below "cooled" the plasma? They seem to want you to believe it's much "hotter" down below, so what magic force of nature suddenly makes the plasma "cooler" when they need it to be cooler down below?

Isn't that a little "convenient"? My model "predicts" the presence of cooler, more dense plasma below that could "heat up a little" and upwell through the photosphere. Their "magic refrigeration" process is *WAY* harder to buy than my concepts IMO.

 

[D'rok]

Before we could even begin to quantify anything we have to "conceptually understand it". I'm simply trying to "explain" it logically.



Well, the standard explanation doesn't really explain the "wiggling around" you'll see at the bottom of the penumbral filaments where the neon meets up with the silicon. In their explanation, why do they end like that at a very specific depth, and what magic process below "cooled" the plasma? They seem to want you to believe it's much "hotter" down below, so what magic force of nature suddenly makes the plasma "cooler" when they need it to be cooler down below?

Isn't that a little "convenient"? My model "predicts" the presence of cooler, more dense plasma below that could "heat up a little" and upwell through the photosphere. There "magic refrigeration" process is *WAY* harder to buy than my concepts IMO.

I read a lot of facts not in evidence in your description. Why should the standard model explain things like "neon", "silicon", "upwell" and "depth"? You come to a conclusion, and then ask why the standard model doesn't explain your conclusion. I think you really have this whole thing backwards. Why doesn't the standard model explain my goatse model? If it can't explain it, it obviously must be true right? I mean, that's the first thing I saw when I looked at that picture. (Should I be worried about that? Probably. Oh well).

 

[phunk]

Googled it. LOL!



You don't because the material in the umbra is not emitting any white light. It's more or less "invisible" to your eye in those images, but if you look at the rest of the surface of the photosphere, the plasma in the umbra is also "convecting", it just that it's made of a different material that isn't emitting white light at the same rate as the neon photosphere.

Except that it's not a different material, and it is emitting light. It's the same material just a bit cooler. Remember, that black area is not actually black, it's just underexposed in those images.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

We have already seen convincing evidence that fundamental thermodynamics does not allow for the possibility of an iron crust of any kind.

No, we have not. If that were "convincing evidence", by your same logic the photosphere should radiate at millions of degrees just like the corona or 20K degrees like the chromosphere. The layers under the photosphere are cooler and more dense than the photosphere.

Your concept of what constitutes "logic" in this case is seriously flawed. It is physics which requires that the base of the photosphere be roughly a factor of 2 hotter than the top of the photosphere. I have made specific reference to specific source material describing the relevant physics (e.g., the books Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal and THe Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray; also see my posts 130, 236 and 491). You simply ignore all of the relevant physics and instead make some vague reference to "by your logic". That does not constitute a meaningful response. You lose this point completely and as far as I am concerned, the iron surface ideas of both Mozina & brantc are simply refuted by physics to which neither is able to make any substantial response.

IMO your thermodynamic argument simply doesn't hold water (or heat in this case) because the photosphere isn't 20K or a millions degrees as your claim insists. Instead it's a relatively "cool" 6K degrees against a million degree background of discharge loops that radiate at over a million degrees. Most of the "heat" released in the loops occurs far below the surface of the photosphere and "convects" to the surface of the photosphere and away from the sun's actual surface.

Witness my previous statement. You are simply making things up, but provide no justification for any of it. The photosphere temperature profiles runs from roughly 9400 kelvins at the base to roughly 4500 Kelvins at the top. You never have, and never will address the physics involved in deriving a photosphere temperature profile from observations, and that cleanly refutes everything you say about the photosphere. There can be no doubt that your idea of an iron surface of any kind on the sun cannot survive the thermodynamic argument.

We have also seen no rational counterpoint to this argument from either brantc (who favors a solid, rigid surface), or Mozina (who favors a less solid & rigid crust of some ill-defined sort).

How is "a standard volcanic surface" ill-defined?

Easy: There is no such thing as a "standard volcanic surface" recognized in science. Each volcanic surface is peculiar to its specific environment. The terrestrial crust is dominated by silicates, whereas you propose some kind of surface dominated by iron. Even on Earth, volcanic terrain depends heavily of the nature of the extruded magma, dominated by silicates; cinder cones or shield volcanos develop very different kinds of terrain, very different kinds of surface; which is supposed to be the "standard" volcanic surface? You can't just throw out some vague reference to "standards" that are not "standard" except for you. Be specific. What are the chemical compositions of the surface and magma? What are the temperatures of the surface and magma?

It is apparent that the whole "mountain" story is simply an optical illusion, where the brain creates mountains out of pure imagination, given a few hints from suggestive lighting.

It's "optically created" in the sense the lighting changes from moment to moment but the "patterns", and specifically the "persistence" of these "rigid features" is no optical illusion. That persistence is specifically related to the surface features that spawn that light/dark emission pattern in the original and the RD images.

But your thinking is completely circular. There are no fixed surface features visible on the sun in any image. You have to arbitrarily assume that there are invisible surface features to explain the persistent features in the image. But the natural persistence of the magnetic loops does not require any surface features to explain them. You are seeing magnetic loops and then misinterpreting them as surface features, or falsely assuming them to be supported by invisible surface features.

and I don't doubt that is what Mozina is in fact doing, imagining mountains where none really are.

Then provide a "better" scientific explanation" for the persistence of the features over time, both in the RD and Doppler images.

I just did. Magnetic loops are persistent features and do not require any appeal to scientifically dubious and thermodynamically impossible surface features.

Mozina identifies this as Active Region 9143, his image above dated 28 Aug 2000. The structures he identifies as mountains are in fact simply magnetic field loops.

Well, yes and no. ...

Your webpage specifically says (or said when I looked at it): "The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges." Are you or are you not claiming to actually see physical mountain ranges on the sun, in this or any other image of the sun?

 

[dasmiller]

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma.
<snip>
The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere.

So, if I'm following this . . . the white light comes from glowing neon. Neon actually glows orange, but the neon layer gets it other colors from impurities. Since this layer looks white rather than orange, these impurities dominate the emission spectrum and, hence, neon makes up only a minority of the 'neon layer.'

The glowing impurities in the neon layer can't be coming from the layers above, because those layers aren't emitting much light. And they evidently don't come from the layers below, which (as evidenced by the sunspot) also don't emit much light.

What did I miss?

 

[Ziggurat]

IMO your thermodynamic argument simply doesn't hold water (or heat in this case) because the photosphere isn't 20K or a millions degrees as your claim insists. Instead it's a relatively "cool" 6K degrees against a million degree background of discharge loops that radiate at over a million degrees.

I've explained to you MANY times why you're totally wrong about this. The corona is transparent. This means that not only can stuff below it radiate through it, but that it doesn't radiate much power itself. The photosphere (whatever it's made of) is not. That means it radiates a considerable amount of power (both outwards AND inwards), and anything underneath it cannot radiate significant power through it. This is not speculation, it's direct observation, and it is independent of the solar model you choose to construct. It is a direct consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V

See by way of reference my previous posted messages ...

1. Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible
2. Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible II
3. Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible III
4. Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

The entire concept of an iron surface of any kind, either a vaguely defined iron crust or a solid & rigid iron surface critically depends on the real, physical nature of the photosphere of the sun. A stellar atmosphere is the transition region between the stellar interior and the interstellar medium. The photosphere is the restricted region around the temperature minimum of the stellar atmosphere and is the source of most of the visible light emitted by the star. The physical condition of the solar photosphere is derived from observations of limb darkening, our ability to see the atmosphere of the sun projected against the empty space behind it, simply because the sun, unlike other stars, is really nearby. You can see a schematic illustration of how this works in figure 9.2 of the book The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray. The figure appears on pages 174 & 175, and can be seen in the Google Books link provided. Unfortunately, the preview does not include figure 1.1 on page 2, which is a nice schematic of the temperature profile of the outer layers of the sun. Placing the arbitrary zero altitude at where the effective temperature of the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins, the temperature is seen to rise to about 12,000 Kelvins 1000 km below the zero reference, and fall to a minimum of about 4500 Kelvins 800 km above the zero reference. The temperature then rises slowly through the chromosphere, then passing rapidly through 20,000 Kelvins into the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona, which reaches into the tenuous interplanetary medium of the solar system.

Chapter 9 of Gray's book, "The Model Photosphere", begins on page 170, and much of it is available on the Google Books preview link provided. This is the chapter which describes in detail how the model photosphere is derived from observations and known physics. It is the rational, scientific counterpoint to the vague & opinionated assertions of Mozina. It is this science, this physics, which utterly destroys any notion of an iron crust or surface on/in the sun.

The laws of thermodynamics absolutely refute any notion of an iron crust or surface without question. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of physics. The attentive reader should not let Mozina get away with fobbing off unsupported opinions as if they were anything other than just that. If he cannot produce arguments as detailed and scientifically complete as the science presented in this book, which science he claims to refute, then his arguments must be rejected in their entirety.

 

[Reality Check]

Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible

I have updated this to to include Ziggurat's explanation on the temperature difference between the photosphere and corona.
Hopefully this explanation of why the Iron Sun crust is thermodynamically impossible is simple enough for Michael Mozina and brantc to understand .


Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible?

• Consider a sphere made of any material or combination of materials.
• Place any energy source at the center of the sphere.
• Wait a while.

What is the resulting temperature distribution within the sphere?
The center of the sphere is hot. The temperature decreases as you approach the surface of the sphere. The surface of the sphere has the lowest temperature.
Thus if you measure the temperature of the surface then everything inside must be at a higher temperature.



Science has confirmed this with the Sun:

• The photosphere is at a temperature of ~6000 K
• The temperature is measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K at 500 km.
• The properties of the Sun (composition, energy output, temperatures, neutrino flux, etc.) match those predicted by the energy source being a fusion process requiring temperatures of millions of K at the core.

Thus the interior of the Sun must be hotter than 9400 K below 500 km. The Iron Sun crust has to be at a temperature at which it has vaporized and so does not exist.

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this question as well and Ziggurat answer is best:

I've explained to you MANY times why you're totally wrong about this. The corona is transparent. This means that not only can stuff below it radiate through it, but that it doesn't radiate much power itself. The photosphere (whatever it's made of) is not. That means it radiates a considerable amount of power (both outwards AND inwards), and anything underneath it cannot radiate significant power through it. This is not speculation, it's direct observation, and it is independent of the solar model you choose to construct. It is a direct consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

My answer is:
The actual mechanism is unknown (coronal heating problem).
My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.
Photosphere

• Within the photosphere you have both conductive and radiative transfer of heat. Above the photosphere the radiative transfer of heat dominates.
• The photosphere has a density much greater then the chromosphere or corona.

NASA - Sun

• "The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. This may seem to be an extremely low density, but there are tens of trillions to hundreds of trillions of individual particles in each cubic centimeter."
• "The density of the chromosphere is about 10 billion to 100 billion particles per cubic centimeter."
• "In the part of the corona nearest the solar surface, the temperature is about 1 million to 6 million K, and the density is about 100 million to 1 billion particles per cubic centimeter."

 

[Reality Check]

It's in that high speed solar wind that Birkeland "predicted" based on his experiments with charge separation between the sphere and box.

Do you mean the cathode ray pencils that he predicted to be traveling at a few 100 km/hr less than the speed of light?
You know - the ones that have never been observed.

Birkeland predicted that there would be a solar wind consisting of ions and electrons based on his observation of aurora as confirmed by his experimental results from simulating the aurora where the Earth was an magnetised iron ball.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, let's talk "numbers". According to you, how "deep" is the "photosphere" that you claim is "opaque" to every single wavelength under the sun? How much "photosphere" does it take to block/absorb all light on every wavelength?

This is all going to come back to sunspot images and what causes them by the way and you guys really don't have a satellite image to stand on, let alone a ground based observation that works in your favor.

No I ,asked you how opaque do you feel that the photosphere is?

There is a reason for it.

How deep do you feel the photosphere is?
How opaque do you feel the photosphere is?

This is important because I think I have seen you state many times that the RD images show light from sources reflecting off of features.

1. So how far down are the features that you allege are on the 'surface' of the sun, in that 'they are like mountains'?
2. How much photosphere is above those features you feel are shown 'reflecting; in the RD images?
3. How opaque do you feel that layer of photosphere is?

 

[Dancing David]

To what depth? Once we get to the solid surface crust, sure. Not the various plasma layers however. They aren't anywhere near dense enough to block all light on every wavelength.

So what depth do these layers have and how many of them are there?
And why does convection not mix them?

 

[Dancing David]

The term "layer" would be the most appropriate term IMO. I'm still working on wading through tech calls at work (it's actually a busy day for me today) and finding those images before I start our sunspot discussion.

We specifically need to look at and discuss the physical shape of the sunspot, and we need to get into the penumbral filaments and the dark areas right under them. There's a lot to consider in that discussion and I need some focused time to respond fully, and finding those two images I'm looking for is proving to be time consuming. I thought I had both links on my website but I can't remember which page(s) they are on.

Nope, I am asking about your alleged 'mountains' in the RD images.

You have stated that they are seen through light reflecting off of them.

At what depth are they?
You say that there are layers above them, what are the layes, what depths and size do they have?
What is their optical depth/opacity?