Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[DazzaD]

Ya, "illuminated" by that bright shiny layer of the sun!

By design, our human eyes evolved *BECAUSE OF* the light from that surface. There isn't any structure in nature more turned, and more designed to observe that bright surface than our eyes and our brains. The wavelength in question falls into the visible spectrum of our human eyes. That surface is the "external light source" that eyes evolved to be able to observe from the moment eyes began to evolve in the very first creatures on Earth.



Our eyes didn't evolve based on a light source on Earth, but from the very surface we're looking at in the visible spectrum in gband images.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

Our human eyes, and our human brains have "evolved" *because of" that surface. There are no better tools in this solar system with which to study that layer than our human eyes and our human brains.

Really?

So you can measure wavelengths and emission "energies" with your eyes?

You are a better scientist than I then...

Can you demonstrate the blackbody nature of the "light" using human eyes only?

What is it exactly you are getting at here? I dont see your point...

 

[GeeMack]

Yes. I see through them in every iron ion wavelength, including all the SDO images I looked at yesterday. It's actually a pity IMO that SDO doesn't have a silicon turned channel. That would be cool. I can live without it.

And you still radically misunderstand what it is about the iron ion wavelengths that makes them important to acquiring thermal data from the solar atmosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

Really?

So you can measure wavelengths and emission "energies" with your eyes?

You are a better scientist than I then...

Can you demonstrate the blackbody nature of the "light" using human eyes only?

What is it exactly you are getting at here? I dont see your point...

He does implicitly claim to have x-ray vision. The Sun is opaque to any wavelength starting about 400 kilometers deep, yet Michael claims to be able to see another couple of thousand kilometers through that opaque plasma. It can't be done; it's a physical impossibility. It must be some kind of magical powers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael, they are absolutely central.

No, it's absolutely and completely irrelevant. If I look a hurricane or a tornado in the Earth's atmosphere it must be "backlit" by some external light source. The hurricanes in the solar atmosphere are also revealed by an external light source. No difference.

The neon layer just so happens to emit white light. So what? That doesn't mean it's "opaque" to higher energy wavelengths, and it doesn't mean the umbra is made of the same material as those hurricane images demonstrate.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMDGJC4VUE_index_1.html
Check out the last image montage, Michael. The image you linked to does not in fact indicate depth.

Actually that's also pretty much (not quite) irrelevant to, other than perhaps the wavelength in question. I know for a fact that any and all hurricanes have a 3D component to them. Anything like a hurricane in the atmosphere will produce a host of 3D features.

The wavelength "could" matter in some cases, but in this case it does not matter one iota. The same "pattern" plays out in lots of wavelengths associated with the photosphere, not one wavelength.

A hurricane is still a hurricane and it's always a 3D event, not a 2D surface event.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_991127.mov

What part of those hurricane/tornadoes are 2D?

 

[Michael Mozina]

He does implicitly claim to have x-ray vision.

I have x-ray vision, gamma ray vision, iron ion vision, CA/H vision, Gband vision, He II vision. I have vision that even Superman never dreamed of. They're called "satellite images". Let me guess? "Satellite images? What satellite images?"

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have x-ray vision, gamma ray vision, iron ion vision, CA/H vision, Gband vision, He II vision. I have vision that even Superman never dreamed of. They're called "satellite images". Let me guess? "Satellite images? What satellite images?"

From time to time as I follow this thread, I find myself grateful Mozina is not a neighbor or relative. Whew!

 

[Michael Mozina]

From time to time as I follow this thread, I find myself grateful Mozina is not a neighbor or relative. Whew!

Fortunately the satellites don't point at your house.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Look -- I see blue water and (malachite) a green copper oxide (who would have guessed?):
LINK

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really?

So you can measure wavelengths and emission "energies" with your eyes?

No, for that I rely on the documentation of the instruments like that link I provided yesterday on SDO. I just use the eyes to "see" the wavelength in question.

You are a better scientist than I then...

Not me. I rely on the engineers that design and build and test the equipment. They're my true heroes, if not necessarily some of the opinions of the "interpreters" of that data.

Can you demonstrate the blackbody nature of the "light" using human eyes only?

IMO the whole "black body" claim is a ruse related to your "opaque" mythology. It's a handy mathematical oversimplification of the total energy output of the sun that "works", but sun's atmosphere is "layered" with energy coming from million degree coronal loops, 20,000K chromosphere, etc.

What is it exactly you are getting at here? I dont see your point...

Well, my "point" is that I'm willing to "stick my neck out" as it relates to the SDO data and note that my theory 'predicts' that the iron ion wavelengths should (must) originate under the surface of the photosphere as seen in either of two photosphere channels. That would also be a point of falsification.

While I'm waiting for better SDO images to work with, I'll be wading through the Hinode images (provided they are ever made available again. ) and figuring out how to kill your opacity claim once and for all with a simple gband image. It's almost comical IMO that the links from Hinode data were taken offline. I really don't think that data is even necessary when an ordinary visual spectrum seems to work nicely.

 

[phunk]

Yes. I see through them in every iron ion wavelength, including all the SDO images I looked at yesterday.

You have iron ion wavelength of that hurricane?

Seriously, go learn what opaque means before you ask another stupid question like 'is that hurricane opaque?'

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have iron ion wavelength of that hurricane?

Is that even necessary to see "under" the surface of the clouds in the eye?

Seriously, go learn what opaque means before you ask another stupid question like 'is that hurricane opaque?'

It was a rhetorical question. You weren't supposed to answer it.

 

[sol invictus]

Michael, the discussion of your iron sun model seems to be deadlocked (to put it mildly). It's that way for many reasons, among them that no one other than you (and possibly brantc) believes that any of the available imaging techniques could possibly see very far down into the sun.

So I have a suggestion. Let's forget about the sun for a little bit, and just focus on how light propagates through plasma. The question we'll try to come to a consensus on is how opaque the plasma is to light, as a function of the frequency of the light, the temperature and density of the plasma, and any other parameters that may be relevant. To be clear, by "how opaque" I mean what fraction of the intensity of light gets absorbed as it passes through some thickness of plasma.

Since we're ultimately interested in solar physics, we'll focus on plasmas that are at least roughly of the type one finds in the top layers of the sun, and on light with frequencies in the bands observed by these satellites.

If you agree, let's start by choosing some parameters for the plasma - its temperature and its density to start with. Then we'll either look up or try to estimate its opacity to (say) 200 angstrom light (since that's one of the EIT bands). This is intended in the best spirit possible - I think we would all learn something from this, and if we can keep the discussion focussed on physics it might be more pleasant for everyone.

What do you say? Do you want to propose some numbers for the plasma parameters, or should one of us and you can critique? Is 200A good?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's absolutely and completely irrelevant. If I look a hurricane or a tornado in the Earth's atmosphere it must be "backlit" by some external light source.

The hurricane photo you showed was not backlit.

The hurricanes in the solar atmosphere are also revealed by an external light source. No difference.

Sun spots are not hurricanes. And they are not backlit. They aren't lit by an external source at all

The neon layer just so happens to emit white light.

What do you think white light is, Michael? And what is a white light filter?

So what? That doesn't mean it's "opaque" to higher energy wavelengths

The opacity at higher energies is irrelevant. The light in the g-band images is not coming from an external source, but from the objects in the image itself. You claim to be able to tell depth from the g-band images, but that's simply not possible.

and it doesn't mean the umbra is made of the same material as those hurricane images demonstrate.

The only thing that can be inferred from the g-band is temperature. You can't infer composition, you can't infer transparency, you can't infer depth. Only temperature.

Oh, and the eyes and walls of hurricanes ARE made out of the same stuff. The difference is that water is in the vapor phase in the eye, and a suspended liquid phase in the wall. This creates a difference in the optical depth, and we can see the optical depth change because it's externally illuminated, creating shadows on the strucutres. There's no phase change going in in a sun spot, there's no way to tell composition from the g-band images (regardless of whether or not it's changing), and you can't determine depth structure because there are no shadows.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the discussion of your iron sun model seems to be deadlocked (to put it mildly). It's that way for many reasons, among them that no one other than you (and possibly brantc) believes that any of the available imaging techniques could possibly see very far down into the sun.

So I have a suggestion. Let's forget about the sun for a little bit, and just focus on how light propagates through plasma. The question we'll try to come to a consensus on is how opaque the plasma is to light, as a function of the frequency of the light, the temperature and density of the plasma, and any other parameters that may be relevant. To be clear, by "how opaque" I mean what fraction of the intensity of light gets absorbed as it passes through some thickness of plasma.

Since we're ultimately interested in solar physics, we'll focus on plasmas that are at least roughly of the type one finds in the top layers of the sun, and on light with frequencies in the bands observed by these satellites.

If you agree, let's start by choosing some parameters for the plasma - its temperature and its density to start with. Then we'll either look up or try to estimate its opacity to (say) 200 angstrom light (since that's one of the EIT bands). This is intended in the best spirit possible - I think we would all learn something from this, and if we can keep the discussion focussed on physics it might be more pleasant for everyone.

What do you say? Do you want to propose some numbers for the plasma parameters, or should one of us and you can critique? Is 200A good?

That sounds reasonable and potentially productive, but we'll have to start with my parameters, not yours, otherwise you won't be able to stuff the numbers in my face at the end.

We'll need to agree upon the intensity of the light source too I suppose.

Seems to me we should use 171A wavelength since that Yohkoh/Trace composite is based on a 171A image, and we should probably start with a 90/10 percent mixture of neon/(standard model elements) in terms of the plasma with a density that matches the standard model at the surface of the photosphere. How does that sound?

The umbra however is not neon. It's silicon with roughly the same density as the photosphere, so that part would need to be calculated separately in a similar 90/10 mixture of mostly silicon.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael, the discussion of your iron sun model seems to be deadlocked (to put it mildly). It's that way for many reasons, among them that no one other than you (and possibly brantc) believes that any of the available imaging techniques could possibly see very far down into the sun.

So I have a suggestion. Let's forget about the sun for a little bit, and just focus on how light propagates through plasma. The question we'll try to come to a consensus on is how opaque the plasma is to light, as a function of the frequency of the light, the temperature and density of the plasma, and any other parameters that may be relevant. To be clear, by "how opaque" I mean what fraction of the intensity of light gets absorbed as it passes through some thickness of plasma.

Since we're ultimately interested in solar physics, we'll focus on plasmas that are at least roughly of the type one finds in the top layers of the sun, and on light with frequencies in the bands observed by these satellites.

If you agree, let's start by choosing some parameters for the plasma - its temperature and its density to start with. Then we'll either look up or try to estimate its opacity to (say) 200 angstrom light (since that's one of the EIT bands). This is intended in the best spirit possible - I think we would all learn something from this, and if we can keep the discussion focussed on physics it might be more pleasant for everyone.

What do you say? Do you want to propose some numbers for the plasma parameters, or should one of us and you can critique? Is 200A good?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The hurricane photo you showed was not backlit.

Not that photo no, but I can look at a tornado in the Earth's atmosphere from the ground and it would be. That's a better analogy with that solar tornado image.

Sun spots are not hurricanes.

Actually, I'm sure at least some of them are based on the heliosiesmolgoy data.

And they are not backlit. They aren't lit by an external source at all

The neon is simply emitting visible light, whereas the silicon umbra doesn't emit the same amount of visible light.

What do you think white light is, Michael? And what is a white light filter?

Get over it.

The opacity at higher energies is irrelevant.

No it's not. You need that surface to become opaque to *EVERY SINGLE WAVELENGTH* under the sun. Literally. It all has to be done in 500KM no less too. That math bunny isn't going to stand up to visual scrutiny, not even in a gband image.

The light in the g-band images is not coming from an external source, but from the objects in the image itself.

Yes, mostly from the elements inside the neon and from the neon too.

You claim to be able to tell depth from the g-band images, but that's simply not possible.

I can tell the image "has depth" from the image, just as I can tell the any image of the eye of a hurricane has "depth" to it. It's not a 2D surface, it's a 3D feature that looks and acts just like that computer simulation of a sunspot. The only problem with your beliefs is that you *assume* (actually need like hell) for that "surface" to be "opaque" and 2D. Unfortunately for you it's neither.

The only thing that can be inferred from the g-band is temperature.

Even that's another of your gross oversimplifications related to "black bodies" and "opaqueness". You "need" that to be true, but the neon bulbs in my office glow white light too. They aren't 6000 degrees at the surface of the glass.

You can't infer composition, you can't infer transparency, you can't infer depth. Only temperature.

More mythos IMO. You can actually only infer "elemental compositions" and something about the element makeup of the elements, but since the whole thing is a "current carrying plasma", you can't actually infer temperature from that light.

Oh, and the eyes and walls of hurricanes ARE made out of the same stuff.

Ya, ya, ya, but it's "layered", it has a 3D composition, the eye walls have "depth", and it's not "opaque to every wavelength under the sun".

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Sol, in terms of temperatures I would have to start at the surface at standard model temperatures (because i don't have a better number personally) and treat it as you would have to treat the chomosphere, where it's hottest at the top, and coolest at the bottom where it meets up with the silicon layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And....

The light source intensity has to relate to an appropriately scaled "electrical discharge" to be powerful enough to be seen to any "depth".

 

[D'rok]

Michael why do keep repeating this crap about 2D? Absolutely no one here thinks sunspots are two-dimensional formations. Sheesh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael why do keep repeating this crap about 2D? Absolutely no one here thinks sunspots are two-dimensional formations. Sheesh.

Optically speaking they do seem to think it's a 2D process, when it's not. No side of the penumbra is less than 1000KM deep.