Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[sol invictus]

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.

OK, let's try that.

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

Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance. The idea is that the fraction is independent of the intensity of the source. If you send 10^20 photons through something and 90% scatter and don't make it through, then if you sent 10^21 in through the same thing, 90% of those would scatter. Make sense?

Seems to me we should use 171A wavelength since that Yohkoh/Trace composite is based on a 171A image

OK

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?

It sounds loony, but OK. 90% neon, 10% standard solar model elements. Since the standard solar model says the photosphere is around 90% H, 9% He, plus trace - shall we just say 90%Ne, 10%H? Is that what you meant?

We might also try the standard mixture, but I don't think it's going to matter all that much. We'll see.

About the temperature, the standard model effective temperature in the photosphere is 5800K more or less. Are you OK with that?

The SM photosphere density should be somewhere around 10^-6g/cm^3. Maybe someone has a more accurate number (I got that from this plot).

OK so far?

 

[dasmiller]

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.

We covered that before. If the bulbs in your office are glowing white, you're not looking at neon.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, let's try that.



Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance. The idea is that the fraction is independent of the intensity of the source. If you send 10^20 photons through something and 90% scatter and don't make it through, then if you sent 10^21 in through the same thing, 90% of those would scatter. Make sense?



OK



It sounds loony, but OK. 90% neon, 10% standard solar model elements. Since the standard solar model says the photosphere is around 90% H, 9% He, plus trace - shall we just say 90%Ne, 10%H? Is that what you meant?

We might also try the standard mixture, but I don't think it's going to matter all that much. We'll see.

About the temperature, the standard model effective temperature in the photosphere is 5800K more or less. Are you OK with that?

The SM photosphere density should be somewhere around 10^-6g/cm^3. Maybe someone has a more accurate number (I got that from this plot).

OK so far?

Great. Just keep in mind that the loops are the energy source for that million degree corona, so don't be stingy on the current flow or photon output of the coronal loops.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

You have no information about composition from those images. And the difference in brightness is due to a difference in temperature, regardless of composition.

Get over it.

Michael, I'm asking because I think you might have serious misconceptions. It's quite a simple question. You can either answer it and dispel my concerns, or stay silent and suggest to everyone that you're clueless.

No it's not. You need that surface to become opaque to *EVERY SINGLE WAVELENGTH* under the sun.

No, I don't. Least of all to demonstrate that your interpretation of g-band images is unsupportable.

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.

No, you cannot. The depth perception in the hurricane image comes from shadows. There are no shadows here.

It's not a 2D surface, it's a 3D feature that looks and acts just like that computer simulation of a sunspot.

Except that the pictures of the simulations you referred to didn't display brightness (or even temperature), but magnetic field strength and field direction. Neither of which is visible in g-band images. And it doesn't matter if the surface is 2D or 3D: there's still no way to determine depth from the g-band images.

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.

Fluorescent lights aren't white, Michael. Hell, you don't even know that they've got any neon in them.

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.

under appropriate conditions, spectroscopy can accomplish what you refer to. g-band images can not provide spectroscopic data sufficient to accomplish this task.

 

[D'rok]

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.

The point is that the images don't show depth like you think they do, not that sunspots don't have depth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We covered that before. If the bulbs in your office are glowing white, you're not looking at neon.

Neon does emit light in the visible spectrum and yes, there are and must be other elements present in the neon, hence that 90/10 composition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The point is that the images don't show depth like you think they do, not that sunspots don't have depth.

Oh, but they do, just like any surface layer of clouds as we look down the eye of any hurricane. We can see the sides of the clouds down the eye of the hurricane. We can also see the sides the neon layer due to the upwelling silicon plasma, even in white light.

Even their own supercomputer model maps out the 3D nature of the "tube" in the sunspot. We're just looking at the sides of that tube.

 

[sol invictus]

Great. Just keep in mind that the loops are the energy source for that million degree corona, so don't be stingy on the current flow or photon output of the coronal loops.

Sorry, what?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, what?

The coronal loops are electrical discharge processes IMO and quite powerful ones at that. The photon output at 171A has to be scaled accordingly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, what?

Michael thinks the light comes from electrical discharge, not blackbody thermal radiation. He also thinks the source and intensity of light is relevant to opacity.

 

[D'rok]

Oh, but they do, just like any surface layer of clouds as we look down the eye of any hurricane. We can see the sides of the clouds down the eye of the hurricane. We can also see the sides the neon layer due to the upwelling silicon plasma, even in white light.

Even their own supercomputer model maps out the 3D nature of the "tube" in the sunspot. We're just looking at the sides of that tube.

I get that you think you see these things in those images. Do you get that your interlocutors are not denying that sunspots actually have 3D properties?

 

[sol invictus]

The coronal loops are electrical discharge processes IMO and quite powerful ones at that. The photon output at 171A has to be scaled accordingly.

Michael - please re-read my post. The idea is to forget the sun for a little bit, and just think about plasma opacity. Again, opacity is independent of intensity. As for coronal loops, they have nothing to do with the question at hand - right?

Please confirm that you think the relevant plasma is 90%Ne, 10%H, and specify whether you mean by mass or by number.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I get that you think you see these things in those images. Do you get that your interlocutors are not denying that sunspots actually have 3D properties?

I get that. I also get that they are limited to 500KM in optical depth too, and that is a significant problem for them in solar imagery.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The problem sol is that the way GM (not necessarily you by the way) use the term "opaque'. He makes it sound like *ALL* the light is completely blocked, not simply a set percentage, making it impossible for me to see beyond that point. That's not the way you've defined "opaque". Now what?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Photospheric Opacity

The SM photosphere density should be somewhere around 10^-6g/cm^3. Maybe someone has a more accurate number (I got that from this plot).

Foukal's semi empirical model runs from 3.18x10^-7 at the base (9400 Kelvins) to 2.183x10^-11 at the top (6150 Kelvins) and 2.249x10^-7 at the 5790 Kelvin level, in gm/cm³ (Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, 2nd revised edition 2004; table 5-2 page 153). Electron density ranges from about 10¹⁵ at the base to 10¹¹ at the top, in e^-/cm³.

So to match the 5800 Kelvin layer, one might want about 10^-7 for mass density and 10¹³ electron density, the latter being I think more significant than the mass density due to photon scattering off the free electrons.

But of course the mix Mozina wants to use makes no sense to anyone but him anyway. Still, if one can show that his favorite silly mix is "opaque", so much the better I guess.

One should also keep in mind that the continuum opacity of the solar photosphere is actually dominated by the H^- ion; yep, negative hydrogen, believe it or not (e.g., The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres; David Gray, 3rd edition 2005, page 154; Wildt, 1939; Chandrasekhar, 1945 & citations thereto).

 

[GeeMack]

I get that. I also get that they are limited to 500KM in optical depth too, and that is a significant problem for them in solar imagery.

Except it has been demonstrated that you are wholly unqualified to speak with any expertise on solar imagery. So your comment above is unfounded, unsubstantiated opinion and is therefore worthless as support for your claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except it has been demonstrated that you are wholly unqualified to speak with any expertise on solar imagery. So your comment above is unfounded, unsubstantiated opinion and is therefore worthless as support for your claim.

OMG. Quit spamming the thread. We all know what you think and we all know you can't tell coronal rain from purple rain.

 

[D'rok]

The problem sol is that the way GM (not necessarily you by the way) use the term "opaque'. He makes it sound like *ALL* the light is completely blocked, not simply a set percentage, making it impossible for me to see beyond that point. That's not the way you've defined "opaque". Now what?

I have zero expertise in all of this. My definition of opaque is the normal English usage. I have no idea to what extent that is consistent with the scientific definition. I'm about to learn, thanks to Sol.

 

[GeeMack]

The problem sol is that the way GM (not necessarily you by the way) use the term "opaque'. He makes it sound like *ALL* the light is completely blocked, not simply a set percentage, making it impossible for me to see beyond that point. That's not the way you've defined "opaque". Now what?

Yes, sol's "opaque" isn't opaque.

How's that project coming along, Michael? You know, where you destroy mainstream solar theory with your math? Do you figure it will take you as long as, say, the math you were finally going to get around to on the SFN or BAUT forums about five years ago?

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

I'm also looking forward to this!