Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

The hump is an UV/EUV portion of the spectrum that can be explained by thermionic emission(arc activity) at the loop foot prints at the surface.

It cannot be explained by the "slow photon to the surface train" process which would produce an "exceedingly smooth" blackbody spectrum.

What was my proposal again???

Missed this bit of your post: Are these your usual unsupported asssertions or do you have citations to papers or textbooks that

• derive a "hump" in the solar spectrum from "thermionic emission(arc activity) at the loop foot prints at the surface".
• state that the Sun's spectrum is from "slow photon to the surface train" process.
• derive that this process which would produce an "exceedingly smooth" blackbody spectrum.

Your proposal was that there is a physically impossible solid surface on the Sun. That is obvously a rather non-science idea given the temperature of the Sun.

 

[brantc]

Missed this bit of your post: Are these your usual unsupported asssertions or do you have citations to papers or textbooks that
[*]derive a "hump" in the solar spectrum from "thermionic emission(arc activity) at the loop foot prints at the surface".

Dont know how to do that but maybe I can figure it out.

So what I have to do is calculate the area of the solar surface, then the area that I think(observe) that the foot prints cover.
Then figure out how much emission that would be relative to the blackbody curve that is the sun?

Is that how I would derive it?

[*]state that the Sun's spectrum is from "slow photon to the surface train" process.

[*]derive that this process which would produce an "exceedingly smooth" blackbody spectrum.

These are standard model characteristics. You know, then 10000 years it takes the photon to get the surface from the core.
Although I thought that a solid matter blackbody would produce a smoother curve than plasma thermalization.

Your proposal was that there is a physically impossible solid surface on the Sun. That is obvously a rather non-science idea given the temperature of the Sun.

You must be confusing the scientific method with results. I can apply the scientific method to what I am doing.

 

[brantc]

Last week on my refresher smoke diver course I saw a video of a candle left in a couch.
Within 5 minutes the smoke layer were down to waist height and there were bits of ceiling dropping down through the smoke.
It is a reasonable good example of a gas emiting blackbody heat and light radiation consistent with it's temperature.

Another would be a large vat of burning kerosene, lots of blackbody radiation, ranging from heat to light.

The reason that candles have a spectrum resembling a blackbody at ~1400 degrees is the amount of solid matter(soot) in their flame.

This is the same with any sooty(large vat of kerosene) flame. A pure flame with no solids makes ~lines.

 

[brantc]

Way to move the goalpost, brantc. I don't care what you think it's closer to, water is not a solid.

Water is closer to a solid than a plasma.
And I'm not trying to move the goalposts, sorry if thats what I did. My point is that plasma does not produce blackbody unless its pressurized.

If the mean free path is too long then you will have lines, like from a plasma. Water has a short mean free path.

We've been over this before, brantc. Almost a year ago. Have you learned nothing?

What do you think the addition of mercury to a xenon lamp does??
Add solids to produce a spectrum that is more blackbody like.

No, brantc. You get a blackbody spectrum when the physical depth exceeds the optical depth. The optical depth is shorter for denser plasma, but pick any density and you can make the plasma thick enough to produce a black body spectra.

I have yet to see that in the lab.

You don't remember?

If there was a solid surface the light would reflect off of it from a flare moving upward. That is standard physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Dont know how to do that but maybe I can figure it out.

So what I have to do is calculate the area of the solar surface, then the area that I think(observe) that the foot prints cover.
Then figure out how much emission that would be relative to the blackbody curve that is the sun?

Is that how I would derive it?

My guess is yes. I await your published paper !
But the question was asking for your citations for the assertion. From your response I was correct - it is just anoher unsupported assertion

These are standard model characteristics. You know, then 10000 years it takes the photon to get the surface from the core.

That is right. It does take a long time for a photon emitted from fusion at the core to the surface. But this does not mean that the photons magically have a blackbody spectrum just because of the time. It is (I think) because of the scattering and absorption/emission during the passage.
The photons escaping from the photosphere are measured to have a roughly blackbody spectrum. There are lots of spikes and dips though.

Although I thought that a solid matter blackbody would produce a smoother curve than plasma thermalization.

As has already been pointed out to you in this thread: The smoothest blackbody curve ever measured was produced by plasma thermalization - the CMBR.

I would expect that it is easier to create a blackbody spectrum from a solid in a lab than it is for a plasma but it has been done as you have known for almost a year:

You really don't have a clue about optical depth, do you? Furthermore, it's beside the point. Michael is claiming that the surface of the sun is much cooler than the roughly 6000 K temperature we observe. Whatever the source of that blackbody radiation, be it plasma, gas, liquid, or even solid, it's at around 6000 K (and 5780 counts), and it sure as hell isn't under a solid surface. Which makes his claim thermodynamically impossible.

Oh, and the light from modern xenon arc lamps comes mostly from the plasma, and it's roughly blackbody. Is that lab enough for you?

Neither. The blackbody curve isn't exact because it comes from multiple depths at different temperatures. The 5780 K figure is a sort of average. Some of the light (that UV hump in particular) comes from something hotter than 5780 K. For the purposes of calculating the temperature of any solid surface, it's the total radiant power the surface is exposed to, so these subtleties don't really matter, and 5780 K is good enough.

Carbon arc lamp light comes largely from the carbon, but modern arc lamps use tungsten electrodes and a xenon gas or a xenon-mercury mix. And in these lamps, the vast majority of the light comes from the plasma. In fact, you don't want much light to come from the electrodes, since you want to keep them cool to prolong lamp lifetime. And the light coming from the plasma is not a line spectrum, but is close to a daylight spectrum.

You must be confusing the scientific method with results. I can apply the scientific method to what I am doing.

You must be confusing the scientific method with some kind of fantasy.


I can apply the scientific method to what you are stating about a solid surface existing on the Sun and falsify your idea immediately:

1. The temperature of the photosphere is measured to be ~5700 K.
2. The composition of the photosphere is measured to be mostly hydrogen and helium.
3. Hydrogen and helium are plasma at ~5700 K.
4. Thus there is no solid surface on the Sun.

In case you share MM's fantasy about a solid surface below the photosphere:

1. All elements have a melting point where they turn from a solid to a liquid.
2. No element has a melting point of more than 3,948 K (graphite) or 3,695 K (tungsten).
3. The temperature of the photosphere is measured to be ~5700 K.
4. The temperature of the photosphere is measured to increase with depth to ~9400 K within a few 100 km.
5. Thus there is no solid surface under the photosphere.

Of course your idea is even more of a fantasy than MM's. At least he is brave enough to state what his surface is made of. Though you do imply in the OP that it is iron which is a totally dumb idea since iron melts at 1811 K (goodbye solid iron surface) and boils at 3134 K (goodbye iron liquid bubble)

 

[ben m]

Brant, this entire conversation---you don't believe that a thick 6000K plasma should look like a black body---has so far revolved around the list of things you don't know about blackbodies. It has not gotten to the things you don't know about plasma. This isn't a weird system for which three random JREF posters are doing back-of-the-envelope calculations in response to novel questions. This is the Sun, it's been up there for 4,000,000,000 years and it's been noticed by spectroscopers (we do come out of our basements sometimes) for the past 400 years; it's been noticed by people who understand atomic, plasma, and thermal physics for the past 100. It's one thing to say, "I don't understand why you say it's a blackbody". It's another thing to say "I don't think it's obvious that thick plasmas must be blackbodies". But it's much, much worse to say "This particular object that 5 generations of physicists have subjected to detailed study---I disagree that this object is a blackbody."

Brantc, have you read Meg Nad Saha's 1920 paper "On a Physical Theory of Stellar Spectra"? Do you find an error in it? Have you found a major error in NIST's atomic spectra database that prevents physicists from knowing how perfectly photon-absorbing the Sun is?

 

[ben m]

The reason that candles have a spectrum resembling a blackbody at ~1400 degrees is the amount of solid matter(soot) in their flame. A pure flame with no solids makes ~lines.

Yes, because candle flames are ~1cm across and optically thin. You can shoot a laser pointer into a candle flame and entertain a cat on the opposite side.

Optically thin is the opposite of a blackbody. It's right there in the intro physics definition; it's still there in the professional definition.

A 1cm candle flame is an emission line plasma. A candle flame 1000 meters in diameter will look like a blackbody.

If you gradually increase the plasma's thickness (from ultrathin to thick) while watching the spectrum, you'll first see the line fluxes increase; then you'll see the lines "max out" (as they become self-absorbing) with fluxes at the envelope of an ideal blackbody spectrum; then the lines begin to widen a bit; then you'll see the continuum gradually rise up to fill in the space between the emission lines. Eventually the whole spectrum has risen up to the blackbody shape and the blackbody flux, and it won't go any higher unless the plasma temperature changes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Water is closer to a solid than a plasma.

That doesn't matter. It's not a solid.

My point is that plasma does not produce blackbody unless its pressurized.

You're wrong. Denser plasma has a shorter optical depth, but all you need is for the physical depth to be greater than the optical depth.

If the mean free path is too long then you will have lines

And what counts as "too long"? Longer than the physical depth of the plasma. So if the plasma is thick enough, it's a black body.

What do you think the addition of mercury to a xenon lamp does??
Add solids to produce a spectrum that is more blackbody like.

Except the mercury is in a plasma state with the lamp on, and it's not even solid with the lamp off. Fail.

I have yet to see that in the lab.

Your ignorance of basic optics and thermodynamics is of no significance. Optical depth is a well-established, well-documented phenomenon. Free electrons can scatter any wavelength of light, so they will have a non-infinite optical depth. All of this has been seen in lab. Now, where can we find some free electrons? I think you know the answer to that.

If there was a solid surface the light would reflect off of it from a flare moving upward.

Not if it can't get there because of something opaque above it. And guess what: we see a layer of the sun which is opaque and at about 6000 K. So either your solid surface is impossibly hot, or there's something above it which would block light transmission of light both to and from the surface.

Your solid surface doesn't exist. There's no way to form it. There's no way to keep it from gravitationally collapsing. There's no way to keep it cold. There's no way to keep it from evaporating. And there is NO evidence it exists. All you've got is misinterpretation of data and incoherent "theories" which you can't quantify or even explain and which contradict basic physics and observational evidence. It's been almost a year since last time we talked about plasmas and blackbody radiation. You have learned nothing since then. It's time you stated to learn some basic physics.

 

[brantc]

Brant, this entire conversation---you don't believe that a thick 6000K plasma should look like a black body---has so far revolved around the list of things you don't know about blackbodies.

If you want to sat the density of the solar interior approaches solid matter, then I would say that emits something like blackbody. If you were to say I have a 6000K plasma ball the same density all the way through, I would expect to see lines. Thats what happened at JET. Unless those plasma physicists working on an experimental TOKAMAK dont know how to interpret data.

It has not gotten to the things you don't know about plasma. This isn't a weird system for which three random JREF posters are doing back-of-the-envelope calculations in response to novel questions. This is the Sun, it's been up there for 4,000,000,000 years and it's been noticed by spectroscopers (we do come out of our basements sometimes) for the past 400 years; it's been noticed by people who understand atomic, plasma, and thermal physics for the past 100. It's one thing to say, "I don't understand why you say it's a blackbody". It's another thing to say "I don't think it's obvious that thick plasmas must be blackbodies". But it's much, much worse to say "This particular object that 5 generations of physicists have subjected to detailed study---I disagree that this object is a blackbody."

The sun emits a blackbody spectrum. It has some feature that indicate there may be other processes happening(UV hump), which have never been explained by the standard model.
I disagree with the never experimentally tested opacity calculations of the photosphere that say at ALL wavelengths you cannot see through it..

Brantc, have you read Meg Nad Saha's 1920 paper "On a Physical Theory of Stellar Spectra"? Do you find an error in it?

Its theory. Math. They try different things until it is close to what is observed. That doesnt prove anything.

Have you found a major error in NIST's atomic spectra database that prevents physicists from knowing how perfectly photon-absorbing the Sun is?

There are known problems with opacities and opacity tables. Thats what the Opacity Project is all about. Forgive me if I dont just say that the calculations of photosphere opacities are right.

This is powerpoint.

Accurate Solar Opacities and the Solar Abundance Problem.
"Predictions of solar structure do not agree with observations."
"Solar structure depends on opacities that have never been measured."
"Modern model disagree with solar observations. Why?"
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...RsKZaxtb-aMp7VH2g&sig2=xE3YuNuMIlQgIVELxKYmVw


Again there is a difference between a photon being emitted from a dense blackbody object made of solid matter vs traveling through a thin plasma for a long distance and being thermalized.

 

[brantc]

I posted this some time ago. 13th April 2010, 09:32 PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825002&postcount=586

Lets talk about these 2 papers.

Finding out what is really going on with solar models and observations took some digging.

The transition layer is where SM(standard model) says it is(1 point). 2000Km above the surface of the sun.

Before TRACE the observations consisted of associating flows with areas per time. That was because that was the limit of their resolution. So they had good x-y determination but not good Z(depth).

TRACE can see 1 arc second on the limb, ~759 km.

Here is the TRACE calibration paper from 1999 when they were trying to remove cross channel contamination....

These are the only examples of the ghost limb that i can find..

Page 9 or 359 has an image of what they called "the ghost Limb" taken in the UV.
In case one link doesnt work.
CALIBRATED HI LYMAN α OBSERVATIONS WITH TRACE
http://www.solar.physics.montana.edu/handy/publications/lya_cal.ps
http://www.solar.nrl.navy.mil/rockets...pubs/trace.pdf

The ghost limb is 2 arc seconds above the "true" limb. If you read the text you might try to say "Its an artifact" or what ever. But if you go to this paper they refer to the ghost limb in the Handy paper in connection with a flare event and a image of the event in the ghost limb.

I made a composite of the 2 images by scaling the images according to the legend.
http://www.box.net/shared/833e2lbx10

"Panel b shows the prominence as loop-shaped emission at 1216 °A, where the bright spot below the northern leg is, most likely, an UV continuum rightening on the ghost limb that appears 2′′ above the true limb (Handy et al. 1999, their Fig. 5)."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.1805v2.pdf

That ghost limb is 2000km above something. and that something shows up in the UV.

I say its the ghost limb is the lower transition layer. That means the photosphere is 1 arc second(100km) below the the transition layer in the images. This makes sense since it should not show up in a 1200 image.

"Correlating the 1216 and 1600 Å images to one another places the 1600 Å limb squarely on this ghost limb"

Yes, that would place the photosphere on the ghost limb if you thought that it was a ghost limb and not the transition region.

This is exactly why there is the confusion between heliosphere data and photosphere observations. Because they are sticking to the model that has been fitted to the data from day one.

The observations are correct. And they do make sense if you use a different model.

1. The observation is that the photosphere is at some diameter. It is.
2. The heliospheric observation is that the true surface of the sun is below the photosphere. It is.
3. The TRACE observation is that the transition layer is 2 arc seconds(2000Km) above the lower limb as imaged at 1200A. It is.
4. Traces observations that events happen on this ghost limb establishing its existence.
5. Subtracting the diameter of the sun at the photosphere with the TRACE observations and heliospheric observations says we are seeing the surface of the sun in 1200A.

The lower limb is the true surface of the sun. Its below the photosphere. And its visible in UV at 10000K.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The sun emits a blackbody spectrum. It has some feature that indicate there may be other processes happening(UV hump), which have never been explained by the standard model.

(bold added)

Can you support this claim?

Brantc, have you read Meg Nad Saha's 1920 paper "On a Physical Theory of Stellar Spectra"? Do you find an error in it?

Its theory. Math. They try different things until it is close to what is observed. That doesnt prove anything.

(bold added)

What is observed?

How was it observed?

How much "theory" is incorporated into what is observed?

There are known problems with opacities and opacity tables.

What are they ("known problems with opacities and opacity tables")?

Again there is a difference between a photon being emitted from a dense blackbody object made of solid matter vs traveling through a thin plasma for a long distance and being thermalized.

(bold added)

What is a thin plasma?

FYI, I think you are using standard words with non-standard (or idiosyncratic) meanings, or, perhaps, you simply don't understand the standard terms you are using.

More fundamentally, I think you have grossly misunderstood the amount of "theory" (as you call it) which is embedded in what you call "observations"; IOW, if you reject "theory", then you must also reject nearly all the "observations" your ideas seem to rely upon (leaving you with nothing).

However, I may be wrong; nay, I hope I am wrong and that you can show that I am.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I posted this some time ago. 13th April 2010, 09:32 PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825002&postcount=586

Lets talk about these 2 papers.

Finding out what is really going on with solar models and observations took some digging.

The transition layer is where SM(standard model) says it is(1 point). 2000Km above the surface of the sun.

Before TRACE the observations consisted of associating flows with areas per time. That was because that was the limit of their resolution. So they had good x-y determination but not good Z(depth).

TRACE can see 1 arc second on the limb, ~759 km.

Here is the TRACE calibration paper from 1999 when they were trying to remove cross channel contamination....

These are the only examples of the ghost limb that i can find..

Page 9 or 359 has an image of what they called "the ghost Limb" taken in the UV.
In case one link doesnt work.
CALIBRATED HI LYMAN α OBSERVATIONS WITH TRACE
http://www.solar.physics.montana.edu/handy/publications/lya_cal.ps
http://www.solar.nrl.navy.mil/rockets...pubs/trace.pdf

The ghost limb is 2 arc seconds above the "true" limb. If you read the text you might try to say "Its an artifact" or what ever. But if you go to this paper they refer to the ghost limb in the Handy paper in connection with a flare event and a image of the event in the ghost limb.

I made a composite of the 2 images by scaling the images according to the legend.
http://www.box.net/shared/833e2lbx10

"Panel b shows the prominence as loop-shaped emission at 1216 °A, where the bright spot below the northern leg is, most likely, an UV continuum rightening on the ghost limb that appears 2′′ above the true limb (Handy et al. 1999, their Fig. 5)."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.1805v2.pdf

That ghost limb is 2000km above something. and that something shows up in the UV.

I say its the ghost limb is the lower transition layer. That means the photosphere is 1 arc second(100km) below the the transition layer in the images. This makes sense since it should not show up in a 1200 image.

(bold added)

Which is it brantc, 1" = ~759 km? or 1" = 100 km?

"Correlating the 1216 and 1600 Å images to one another places the 1600 Å limb squarely on this ghost limb"

Yes, that would place the photosphere on the ghost limb if you thought that it was a ghost limb and not the transition region.

This is exactly why there is the confusion between heliosphere data and photosphere observations. Because they are sticking to the model that has been fitted to the data from day one.

(bold added)

What do you mean by the term "heliosphere" here?

The observations are correct. And they do make sense if you use a different model.

1. The observation is that the photosphere is at some diameter. It is.
2. The heliospheric observation is that the true surface of the sun is below the photosphere. It is.
3. The TRACE observation is that the transition layer is 2 arc seconds(2000Km) above the lower limb as imaged at 1200A. It is.
4. Traces observations that events happen on this ghost limb establishing its existence.
5. Subtracting the diameter of the sun at the photosphere with the TRACE observations and heliospheric observations says we are seeing the surface of the sun in 1200A.

The lower limb is the true surface of the sun. Its below the photosphere. And its visible in UV at 10000K.

(bold added)

What are these "heliospheric observations"?

FYI, I think you are using standard words with your own, idiosyncratic, meanings (and not explaining what you mean). I hope I am wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you want to sat the density of the solar interior approaches solid matter, then I would say that emits something like blackbody.

IIt doesn't have to be any particular density. So long as its thick enough it will have a black body spectrum.

If you were to say I have a 6000K plasma ball the same density all the way through, I would expect to see lines.

It depends on the thickness of the plasma ball.

Thats what happened at JET. Unless those plasma physicists working on an experimental TOKAMAK dont know how to interpret data.

That's because the plasma in JET is very much smaller than the Sun.

The sun emits a blackbody spectrum. It has some feature that indicate there may be other processes happening(UV hump), which have never been explained by the standard model.

It was explained to you a few posts ago.

I disagree with the never experimentally tested opacity calculations of the photosphere that say at ALL wavelengths you cannot see through it..

But you don't understand what optical depth is.

Its theory. Math. They try different things until it is close to what is observed.

No. It's derived from fundamental thermodynamics.

 

[Reality Check]

I posted this some time ago. 13th April 2010, 09:32 PM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825002&postcount=586

Lets talk about these 2 papers.

Lets talk about the ghosted limb that is caused by contamination of the 1216 A channel in the TRACE observations as described in CALIBRATED HI LYMAN α OBSERVATIONS WITH TRACE.(PDF or postscript file).

Firstly you are wrong: It is a "ghosted limb" not a "ghost limb" in this paper.
It is the ghosting of the solar limb caused by contamination of the 1216 A channel in the TRACE observations. End of conversation !
This has nothing at all to do with the existence of an impossible solid surface in the Sun.

Lets talk about EPISODIC X-RAY EMISSION ACCOMPANYING THE ACTIVATION OF AN ERUPTIVE PROMINENCE: EVIDENCE OF EPISODIC MAGNETIC RECONNECTION
These authors do call the original ghosted limb a "ghsots limb"
This has nothing at all to do with the existence of an impossible solid surface on the Sun. You did read it and see no mention of a solid surface on the Sun?

The real thing that you seem to have not realized is that the ghosted limb is above the true limb. It cannot be your impossible solid surface because it would block the light from the Sun!
But my guess is that you will say that it is

1. A 100% transparent solid suface (made of glass?) or
2. One that emits light that shows that it is mostly H and He but is in fact made of magic H and He that is solid at ~5700 K.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to sat the density of the solar interior approaches solid matter, then I would say that emits something like blackbody.

You can say whatever you like, it's got no bearing on reality. Density isn't what matters. Physical depth versus optical depth is what matters.

If you were to say I have a 6000K plasma ball the same density all the way through, I would expect to see lines. Thats what happened at JET.

Because JET is physically much smaller than the optical depth of the plasma inside it.

Unless those plasma physicists working on an experimental TOKAMAK dont know how to interpret data.

They know how to. You don't.

The sun emits a blackbody spectrum. It has some feature that indicate there may be other processes happening(UV hump), which have never been explained by the standard model.

Nope.

There are known problems with opacities and opacity tables. Thats what the Opacity Project is all about. Forgive me if I dont just say that the calculations of photosphere opacities are right.

This is what happens when people use google without understanding their search results.

The optical depth of the photosphere is determined by observation. There is nothing wrong with these observations, they're correct, they work, they aren't in doubt.

The issue with the link you gave has nothing to do with the photosphere. It's about what happens deep inside the sun. Heat transfer mechanisms are important to interior stellar structure, and radiative heat transfer is obviously an important form of heat transfer. So opacity (or optical depth) is a critical factor. Since we can't see the interior of the sun directly, we infer properties indirectly, based on models of how we think the sun works. This is the sort of quantitative science that you never do.

In this particular case, there are inconsistencies between the model and observation. We do not yet know the source of the inconsistency. One possible source is the opacity of plasma deep inside the sun. If the opacity calculated from temperature, composition, and density is wrong, then that could account for the inconsistency.

But note: this is for calculated opacities for plasma that we cannot directly observe. We CAN directly observe the photosphere. We don't need to calculate it based on complex models, we can calculate it from direct observation. So nothing about that power point has any relevance to photosphere opacities.

Or, in short, you're wrong. Completely and totally wrong.

Again there is a difference between a photon being emitted from a dense blackbody object made of solid matter vs traveling through a thin plasma for a long distance and being thermalized.

If the plasma is thin, then how can a photon travel a long distance in it?

But in regards to the visibility of your solid surface underneath the photosphere, actually, no, there's observationally no difference between a photon emitted by black body radiation (density is irrelevant) and a photon that has been "thermalized" by scattering.

 

[brantc]

You can say whatever you like, it's got no bearing on reality. Density isn't what matters. Physical depth versus optical depth is what matters.

Ok. Your claim is that density doesnt matter.
My claim is that density is more important than path length even though it might seem like the same thing.

Or conversely thermalization with a short path (in a solid/water) produces blackbody where as "thermalization" in a thin(Atm or less density) plasma does not produce blackbody.

You can call Dr Ott at NIST and talk to him about arc discharges in high pressure gas. He was a pioneer in this field. He would be happy to talk to you.

Because JET is physically much smaller than the optical depth of the plasma inside it.
They know how to. You don't.

You're saying they did not realize that "JET is physically much smaller than the optical depth of the plasma inside it."

From the Jet website. You must have missed this.

"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".

"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level. The spectrum from a deuterium-tritium plasma is shown in Figure 13.4 (below). The observed frequencies depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field at the location of the emission and, surprisingly, it was found that in JET this meant that the emission comes from the edge of the plasma in the outer midplane."


I would take "were not consistent with this expectation" as saying that had theoretical expectations that were not met.

Since you seem to know alot about this subject, Zig, where did they go wrong??

 

[brantc]

The real thing that you seem to have not realized is that the ghosted limb is above the true limb. It cannot be your impossible solid surface because it would block the light from the Sun!
But my guess is that you will say that it is

1. A 100% transparent solid suface (made of glass?) or
2. One that emits light that shows that it is mostly H and He but is in fact made of magic H and He that is solid at ~5700 K.

I never said the ghost limb was the solid surface. The surface is is under the photosphere.

From the paper.
"Correlating the 1216 and 1600 Å images to one another places the 1600 Å limb squarely on this ghost limb."

The "ghost limb" is the bottom of the transition layer.

This is 2 arc seconds(~2000KM) above the true limb.

This means the photosphere is in the middle of the space between the ghost limb and the true limb.

This means you are seeing under the photosphere at ~9740K.

What I'm looking for that I have yet to find is a broadband UV high resolution limb image. I know TRACE can do it.

 

[brantc]

(bold added)

Which is it brantc, 1" = ~759 km? or 1" = 100 km?

Its 759 Km. ~1000km.

What do you mean by the term "heliosphere" here?

(bold added)

What are these "heliospheric observations"?

FYI, I think you are using standard words with your own, idiosyncratic, meanings (and not explaining what you mean). I hope I am wrong.

Ahh yes. That would be in the "solar" context.
Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking helioseismic.

 

[Reality Check]

I never said the ghost limb was the solid surface. The surface is is under the photosphere.

Thank you for the clarification and confirmation that your solid surface is physically impossible.
As you must know by now (or are just continuing to ignore)

1. The photosphere has a measured temperature of ~5700 K.
2. Themodynamics states that the temperature must increase with depth for an internally heated body.
   P.S. An body that has been externally heated for billions of years as in the electric sun fantasy will have the temperature of its surface.
3. The phososphere has a measured increase in temperature with depth to ~9400 K by a few 100 km. This confirms that the Sun is an internally heated object. The observed neutrino flux shows that this heat source is fusion at the core at a temperature of ~13,600,000 K !
4. There are no solids at ~5700 K.
5. There are no solids at ~9400 K.
6. There are no solids at > 9400 K.
7. The simple conclusion is that there is no solid surface in the Sun at or below the photosphere.

What was your point with the derail about the ghosting limb when it has nothing at all to do with this thread?

 

[brantc]

Thank you for the clarification and confirmation that your solid surface is physically impossible.
As you must know by now (or are just continuing to ignore)

1. The photosphere has a measured temperature of ~5700 K.
2. Themodynamics states that the temperature must increase with depth for an internally heated body.
   P.S. An body that has been externally heated for billions of years as in the electric sun fantasy will have the temperature of its surface.
3. The phososphere has a measured increase in temperature with depth to ~9400 K by a few 100 km. This confirms that the Sun is an internally heated object. The observed neutrino flux shows that this heat source is fusion at the core at a temperature of ~13,600,000 K !
4. There are no solids at ~5700 K.
5. There are no solids at ~9400 K.
6. There are no solids at > 9400 K.
7. The simple conclusion is that there is no solid surface in the Sun at or below the photosphere.

What was your point with the derail about the ghosting limb when it has nothing at all to do with this thread?

Lets take the last one first.

Why the name Ghost Limb?? Because the position and wavelength of the object in the image does not fit the standard model. Notice how there is no follow up work on this ghost limb.
Its not the data thats there, its the data thats missing when we have the ability to capture it, that is interesting.

"The lower chromosphere is about 10,800F (6,000C), the middle rises to 90,000F (50,000C), and the upper part, merging into the lower corona, reaches 1,800,000F (1,000,000C)."

The ghost limb is visible at 1600A is 4-10000C. This is below the transition layer.
The ghost limb is 2 arc seconds(1600km) above the limb.
The limb is 1200A(10-30000C) which matches with your observations of the temperature under the photosphere..

You cannot see the photosphere at this wavelength.

Yet in the image we can see that there is gap between the GL and the limb.

This is where the photosphere is supposed to be..
So the limb visible in the image is under the photosphere because the GL shows the chromosphere and ~1000km below the chromosphere is the photosphere. The GL is 2000km above the 1200 image which places the photosphere in between the GL and the limb..

So it is the standard model calculations that says that you cannot see under the photosphere where as this observation says that the model is wrong.
We already know there are problems with opacity calculations. They have never been tested for this case and have failed in other cases.

Photosphere on wiki.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Sun_Atmosphere_Temperature_and_Density_SkyLab.jpg

So why is the surface under the photosphere 10K C?? How could it be solid.

1. Your assumption is that the photosphere has 100% coverage(no energy leak).
2. That the photosphere is generating the complete(blackbody) spectrum of the sun.

The photosphere does not have 100% coverage.
The photosphere does not generate a blackbody.
Its a thin plasma, it generates lines.

The photosphere contributes to the spectrum but is not blackbody!!

The reason its(the surface) 10,000C is the combination of emission from the footprints and the surface. If you have a solid surface and you have high temperature SPOTS on the surface, your average temperature reading at a distance is going to be a combination of the cold surface and the hot spots. So 3888C - ~50,000K footprint emission plus 1000C surface is 10,000C/K.

This is the structure of a cathode discharge.

Neutrinos dont prove anything.