Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Reality Check]

It has already been agreed that the footprint of the loops are below the photosphere.

By who?
I certainly do not agree. By definition the footprints are not below the photosphere because the photosphere is where light escapes the Sun. You cannot image light that does not exist!
The footprints may be within the photosphere, i.e. in the first few 100 kilometers. This is the region where we can measure a temperature of ~9400 K (you know - the tempertaure that rules out a solid iron surface).

TRACE observes white light flares above the limb at the base of certain loops. According to Tim this Ghost limb, where the flare footprints take place is an artifact of the telescope.

According to the astronomers who wrote the papers (and Tim and me), the ghost limb is an artifact of the detector.

So if this is an artifact and then if you correct for the artifact (2 degree wedge) then that places the white light flares under the photosphere at the loops footprints. I have already said that the loop footprints should produce white light flares.

It is an artifact.
There is no 2 arcsecond difference in the image to correct. The 2 arcsecond difference between the actual solar limb and the ghost limb is a result of subtracting the 1600 A data from the actual data. The 1600 A data comes from above the solar limb (The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact IV).

Can you give the citations to the scientific papers that give the evidence that coronal loop footprints emit white light (or any) flares? How about the textbook where you got this idea?
My impression is that flares are emitted from the tops of coronal loops.

This is just for my interest and not particularly relevant. The emission of flares from footprints just means what they are emitted from within or above the photosphere. Remember that the definition of the photosphere is where the light from the Sun escapes and thus can be detected. This makes it impossible to detect any footprints (or white light flares from them or anything else) that are below the photosphere.

So we have loop footprints, solar moss and structures under the loops in these pictures.

That is correct - there are loop footprints, solar moss and structures under the loops.
The physical fact that we cannot see below the photosphere puts the loop footprints, solar moss and structures within or above the photosphere.

 

[kalen]

In the beginning....

There was a Big Bang and the Primordial Nucleosynthesis and no Elements heavier than Beryllium were created. Yea, the Universe cooled and Gravity brought the Hydrogen and Helium together to form Stars, and none of these Stars containeth Iron. Behold, these Stars glowed brightly in the Heavens!

 

[brantc]

According to the astronomers who wrote the papers (and Tim and me), the ghost limb is an artifact of the detector.

Maybe you missed this post

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
No, that is not what Handy, et al., say. What they say is this: "The correction mechanism described in this paper is able to remove part of the ghosted limb, but it is evident that corrected limb images are still not right. What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method." (Handy, et al., 1999, page 360; this is the full text of the entire top paragraph on that page). You left off the first sentence, and cut the second one in half, putting a period at the end, as if that's where Handy, et al., actually stopped. You present a misleading view of what the paper actually says.

I only did that for brevity.

From the paper.
"What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method."

Let us focus on this sentence for a moment.

"What is left is" So after all of their corrections there is still something left, that was apparently not corrected.
The corrected images are still not right, they have some form of limb brightening, which we have agreed takes place on the sun..

"evidently some form of" Here they are not sure what it is that is left, but they seems as though they are ruling out the instrument..

"limb brightening" then instead of saying something like, We may need to examine the optical correction for errors or you may need to apply a 10% higher correction factor, or you may need to take an average of the brightness of you image and subtract that, they say it's "limb brightening"!!!
They dont even mention the instrument!!

Its happening on the sun, not in the telescope. Unless you're saying they did not know that limb brightening implied that the phenomena was taking place on the sun.

"that is not corrected by this method." So they must have tried a correction factor more extreme than the empirical one from the Viking probe but it did not go away, the limb brightening.

So no, whats left is evidently some form of limb brightening which a phenomena of the sun. Not in the instrument.

 

[GeeMack]

I know what your definition is. And just because you say it doesn't make it so.

It's not just because I say it. It's because in astrophysics we need to agree on certain terminology in order to communicate with each other when discussing the science. The photosphere is the part of the solar atmosphere where the plasma becomes too dense to allow for passage of light. That means it's opaque. (Look at this chart.) If you don't like the definition, or the data, you'll need to somehow convince every solar physicist on Earth that you're right and they're wrong. Good luck with that.

My model is different than your definition.

Your "model" isn't a solar model at all. A solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun. It describes the thermal characteristics, density, luminosity, and composition. Your "model" is pretty much just a guess about a particular aspect of the Sun, seemingly based on your incredulity and supported mostly by your gross misunderstandings of some solar images and subsequent arguments from ignorance. It appears to lack any real mathematical considerations at all.

I am not changing your definition of the word.
My definition of the luminous region that covers the surface of the sun is surface glow. You can use the word photosphere however you want.

I use it the way solar physicists use it. You can use terms however you want, too. But when you use them incorrectly, any misunderstanding is solely your responsibility.

The internal fusion model is dead.

I must have missed the press release.

You have not demonstrated that my model is impossible. Far from it.

The construction of the Sun that you seem to be trying to support is physically impossible, whether you are willing to accept it or not.

As a matter of fact the latest data I have showed indicates that your model is not heavy enough. Metals do not match helioseismology data.
According to the latest measurements of the proton there are problems with opacity calculations as well.

Actually it's not a matter of fact. It's a matter of your attempt to cherry pick data, misunderstanding what you do find, and assembling those misunderstood bits and pieces into an argument from incredulity and ignorance. You might want to consider that there is a very good reason why you have been wholly unable to convince anyone except yourself.

You know nothing about your model except from what you see on the surface(maybe neutrinos)...

Well the standard solar model isn't really my model. What I know, or more appropriately the consensus view of the solar physics community, is not the issue here. It doesn't require defending the standard solar model to show that your conjecture is completely without any scientific merit whatsoever.

 

[brantc]

By who?
I certainly do not agree. By definition the footprints are not below the photosphere because the photosphere is where light escapes the Sun. You cannot image light that does not exist!
The footprints may be within the photosphere, i.e. in the first few 100 kilometers. This is the region where we can measure a temperature of ~9400 K (you know - the tempertaure that rules out a solid iron surface).


According to the astronomers who wrote the papers (and Tim and me), the ghost limb is an artifact of the detector.


It is an artifact.
There is no 2 arcsecond difference in the image to correct. The 2 arcsecond difference between the actual solar limb and the ghost limb is a result of subtracting the 1600 A data from the actual data. The 1600 A data comes from above the solar limb (The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact IV).

Can you give the citations to the scientific papers that give the evidence that coronal loop footprints emit white light (or any) flares? How about the textbook where you got this idea?
My impression is that flares are emitted from the tops of coronal loops.

This is just for my interest and not particularly relevant. The emission of flares from footprints just means what they are emitted from within or above the photosphere. Remember that the definition of the photosphere is where the light from the Sun escapes and thus can be detected. This makes it impossible to detect any footprints (or white light flares from them or anything else) that are below the photosphere.


That is correct - there are loop footprints, solar moss and structures under the loops.
The physical fact that we cannot see below the photosphere puts the loop footprints, solar moss and structures within or above the photosphere.

From the previous page.

This from brantc.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6092265&postcount=4161

And this reply from Tim.

"But all flares are correlated with sunspots, that is already well known. So what is your point supposed to be? That flares start below the photosphere? But we already know that flares commonly start below the photosphere in episodes of magnetic reconnection, so you are still not making any new point."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094482&postcount=4163

And this here.
"Hinode Discovers the Origin of White Light Flare."

"The Hinode observations completed so far indicate that many solar flares are accompanied by white light emissions."
<snip>
"The team found that the spatial location and temporal change of white light emissions are correlated with those of hard X-ray emissions (see Fig. 2). Moreover, the energy of white light emissions is equivalent to the energy supplied by all the electrons accelerated to above 40 keV (~40 percent of the light speed). This finding strongly suggests that highly accelerated electrons are responsible for producing white light emissions."

These white light emissions are correlated with sunspots as you can from the image at the bottom of the page.

So now the only thing left is to determine the z axis distance which has been done by TRACE.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok. Refresh me. Serve me again.

What frequencies do the free electrons radiate, when they reradiate photons?

 

[Dancing David]

The internal fusion model is dead.

Oh sure, and where did you demonstrate that?

"The report of my death was an exaggeration."
Mark Twain

 

[Reality Check]

From the paper.
"What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method."

So no, whats left is evidently some form of limb brightening which a phenomena of the sun. Not in the instrument.

Yes - the limb brightening is on the Sun, as already pointed out by Tim Thompson:

Of course the limb brightening is happening on the sun, I already said that ...

So what's your point?

And why are you so concerned about one sentence in this paper?
A sentence which is the one and only mention of limb brightening?

The paper is about correcting an artifact in the instrument. This uses 1600 A passband data. The failure of the correction is caused by "some form of limb brightening". My guess is that they are talking about limb brightening in the 1600 A image causing the ghosted limb to remain in the 1200 A image.

 

[Reality Check]

And this reply from Tim.
"But all flares are correlated with sunspots, that is already well known. So what is your point supposed to be? That flares start below the photosphere? But we already know that flares commonly start below the photosphere in episodes of magnetic reconnection, so you are still not making any new point."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094482&postcount=4163

Thanks for that - I had missed Tim's point.

...nice Hinode observation (see below)...
So now the only thing left is to determine the z axis distance which has been done by TRACE.

That z-axis caculation from TRACE places the white light flare within or above the photosphere because it is physically impossible for any image from any instrument on any spacecraft or here on Earth to see light emiited from below the photosphere.
That is because the photosphere is defined as the place from which light is emitted from the Sun. I know that photosphere is a link to Wikipedia but you should read it so that you can learn what is the defintion of photosphere.

One more time:
If you can see light from the Sun then it is being emitted from plasma that is within or above the photosphere. That is basically the definition of the photosphere.
Any light from anywhere below the photosphere never reaches a detector. Instead it is absorbed by the plasma within the photosphere and re-emitted in a different direction and wavelength. It is this light that we can detect. Also see optical depth.

You missed a link to Hinode Discovers the Origin of White Light Flare.
That flares are associated with sunspots is well known as mentioned in the article

British astronomer Richard Carrington made the first observation of solar flares in 1859 by sketching details of sunspots, including bright features that at times corresponded to white light emissions. However, the occurrence of such emissions is infrequent, leaving the mechanism for their creation unclear.

The interesting discovery is their association with hard X-rays and so with accelerated elections:

This finding strongly suggests that highly accelerated electrons are responsible for producing white light emissions. Hard X-rays are emitted when accelerated electrons impact the dense atmosphere near the solar surface. Normally, white light emissions primarily come from the solar surface, whereas 40 keV electrons can penetrate into the atmosphere about 1,000 km above the solar surface, i.e., the chromosphere.

 

[brantc]

What frequencies do the free electrons radiate, when they reradiate photons?

I gonna have to ask what post or context that was in.
I guess depending on the process its going to be some sort of Bremsstralung, synchrotron or something like that. And then the exact spectrum would depend on the energies of the electrons.

Cathode glows are know for their quantities of H- ions due to the large influx of electrons (off of the cathode).

 

[dafydd]

I gonna have to ask what post or context that was in.
I guess depending on the process its going to be some sort of Bremsstralung, synchrotron or something like that. And then the exact spectrum would depend on the energies of the electrons.

Cathode glows are know for their quantities of H- ions due to the large influx of electrons (off of the cathode).

Where did you study science? Do you have a PhD?

 

[brantc]

Where did you study science? Do you have a PhD?

No. I do not have a PhD. I studied science by working my way up through the ranks at several research companies(lots of experiments, instruments and equipment), you know, real world experience, hard science. I am comfortable with most of the equipment(except chemisty stuff, those guys are nuts) that is in a lab.
I am currently the lead "lab tech" at the company I work for.

I hold several patents as well as an author on 2 peer reviewed JASA papers.

I work with vacuum on a regular basis(10^-7 torr). Have built several plasma chambers, small ones.

I have been working in electronics since I built my first circuit at 13 years old.
I think I have BA in electronics. I forgot....

I was in the gifted program at school ........ Teachers pet in science class... etc, etc...
Own a recording studio(into acoustics, bounded vs unbounded resonators).

I work quite well with the PhD's where I work.....
Even though I dont have the letters I still get props......

 

[Reality Check]

I gonna have to ask what post or context that was in.
...

The question was in regard to your assertion:

Originally Posted by brantc
A true blackbody spectrum comes only from a solid body. That box in kirchoffs experiment will never be thermally equilibrated.

That is obviously wrong. For example the cosmic microwave background radiation definitely has a "true" blackbody spectrum and was never emitted by a solid object.

Free electrons have a range of energies. When they combine with H+ to form H or with H to form H-, broad specrum light is emitted. That is one reason why the spectrum of light from the Sun is not described by Kirchhoff's Three Laws of Spectroscopy (defined before the discovery of electrons).
Another reason is obvious:

There is no solid body emitting the light because the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere, ~9400 K inside the photosphere and even hotter further in.
​

I might also ask you what distinguishes a "true" blackbody spectrum from a "false" blackbody spectrum .

A nitpick: You never cite the experiment Kirchoff did that involved a box. This sounds more like the theoretical considerations that Planck used to derive Planck's law.

 

[Dancing David]

I gonna have to ask what post or context that was in.
I guess depending on the process its going to be some sort of Bremsstralung, synchrotron or something like that. And then the exact spectrum would depend on the energies of the electrons.

Cathode glows are know for their quantities of H- ions due to the large influx of electrons (off of the cathode).

Um, so in other words you are not versed in plasma physics and do not knoe the answer, even though I beleive it was already discussed in this thread.

And you a re guessing incorrectly, rather than finding out what the research shows.

 

[brantc]

The question was in regard to your assertion:

That is obviously wrong. For example the cosmic microwave background radiation definitely has a "true" blackbody spectrum and was never emitted by a solid object.

Actually you dont know where the CMB came from. It's only theorized as part of the Big Bang model.

From Wiki.....

"Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University made an announcement that CMB was not that of a true black body. In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths.

With these developments serving as a backdrop to COBE’s mission, scientists eagerly awaited results from FIRAS. The results of FIRAS were startling in that they showed a perfect fit of the CMB and the theoretical curve for a black body at a temperature of 2.7 K, thus proving the Berkeley-Nagoya results erroneous.

FIRAS measurements were made by measuring the spectral difference between a 7° patch of the sky against an internal black body. The interferometer in FIRAS covered between 2 and 95 cm−1 in two bands separated at 20 cm−1. There are two scan lengths (short and long) and two scan speeds (fast and slow) for a total of four different scan modes. The data were collected over a ten month period."

But thats not the end of the story there.

From:
COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?
"Furthermore, “In the end, the FIRAS team transfers the error from the spectrum of interest into the calibration file” ... “Using this approach it would be possible, in principle, to attain no deviations whatever from the perfect theoretical blackbody. Given enough degrees of freedom and computing power, errors begin to lose physical meaning. The calibration file became a repository for everything that did not work for FIRAS” [8]."
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/COBEwmap-3.pdf

I think the Japanese team should go back and repeat their experiment.

Free electrons have a range of energies. When they combine with H+ to form H or with H to form H-, broad specrum light is emitted. That is one reason why the spectrum of light from the Sun is not described by Kirchhoff's Three Laws of Spectroscopy (defined before the discovery of electrons).
Another reason is obvious:

There is no solid body emitting the light because the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere, ~9400 K inside the photosphere and even hotter further in.
​

I might also ask you what distinguishes a "true" blackbody spectrum from a "false" blackbody spectrum .

Mainstreams conceptualization of a blackbody based on Kirchoffs experiments are not completely correct.

The blackest material in the world is a solid and reflects .01% of its light.
It is not a perfect blackbody. So its entirely possible that a true perfect blackbody does not exist. And you would have a really hard time convincing me a plasma made a blackbody spectrum.
However, a solid surface sphere will have a spectrum that is much closer to a blackbody than a decreasing density plasma sphere.

Not even galaxies are black bodies and they are much thicker than our suns photosphere.

Thermal Emission as a Test for Hidden Nuclei in Nearby Radio Galaxies
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602..116W



An Analysis of Universality in Blackbody Radiation
He had initially observed that all materials in his laboratory displayed distinct emission spectra. Generally, these were not blackbody in appearance and were not simply related to temperature changes. Graphite, however, was an anomaly, both for the smoothness of its spectrum and for its ability to simply disclose its temperature. Eventually, graphite’s behavior became the basis of the laws of Stefan [7], Wien [8] and Planck [3]. For completeness, the experimental basis for universality is recalled [1,2,5,6]. Kirchhoff first set forth to manufacture a box from graphite plates. This enclosure was a near perfect absorber of light (e =1, k =1). The box had a small hole, through which radiation escaped. Kirchhoff placed various objects in this device. The box would act as a transformer of light [6]. From the graphitic light emitted, Kirchhoff was able to gather the temperature of the enclosed object once thermal equilibrium had been achieved. A powerful device had been constructed to ascertain the temperature of any object. However, this scenario was strictly dependent on the use of graphite.
Kirchhoff then sought to extend his findings [1,2,5]. He constructed a second box from metal, but this time the enclosure had perfectly reflecting walls (e =0, k =0). Under this second scenario, Kirchhoff was never able to reproduce the results he had obtained with the graphite box. No matter how long he waited, the emitted spectrum was always dominated by the object enclosed in the metallic box. The second condition was unable to produce the desired spectrum.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0507/0507007.pdf
[1] G. Kirchhoff, "Ueber den Zusammenhang von Emission und Absorption von Licht und Warme,"
Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, sessions of Dec. 1859, pp. 783-787, 1860.
Google translate "On the relation between emission and absorption of light and warmth,"
[2] G. Kirchhoff, "Ueber das Verhaltnis zwischen dem Emissionsvermogen und dem Absorptionsvermogen der Korper fur Warme und Litcht, Annalen der Physik vol. 109, pp. 275-301, 1860.
Google translate ""On the relationship between the Emissionsvermogen and Absorptionsvermogen the body for warmth and Litcht"

On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...265348.pdf?arnumber=1265348&authDecision=-203

A nitpick: You never cite the experiment Kirchoff did that involved a box. This sounds more like the theoretical considerations that Planck used to derive Planck's law.

See above.

So do you see why its impossible for the CMB to be perfect?? And why the sun has a solid surface.

 

[Dancing David]

So brantc , what spectrum profile will the free electrons in a plasma have?

Hmmmmm?

[Iteration 1]

 

[GeeMack]

And why the sun has a solid surface.

The Sun does not have a solid surface, your arguments from incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding.

 

[dafydd]

No. I do not have a PhD. I studied science by working my way up through the ranks at several research companies(lots of experiments, instruments and equipment), you know, real world experience, hard science. I am comfortable with most of the equipment(except chemisty stuff, those guys are nuts) that is in a lab.
I am currently the lead "lab tech" at the company I work for.

I hold several patents as well as an author on 2 peer reviewed JASA papers.

I work with vacuum on a regular basis(10^-7 torr). Have built several plasma chambers, small ones.

I have been working in electronics since I built my first circuit at 13 years old.
I think I have BA in electronics. I forgot....

I was in the gifted program at school ........ Teachers pet in science class... etc, etc...
Own a recording studio(into acoustics, bounded vs unbounded resonators).

I work quite well with the PhD's where I work.....
Even though I dont have the letters I still get props......

Sounds very unlikely to me.If you are so hot on science why can you not understand the flaws in your theory? They have been explained to you here often enough.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually you dont know where the CMB came from. It's only theorized as part of the Big Bang model.

I do not know where the CMB came from - I was not there when it was emitted!
The physical properties of the CMB mean that it is from a hot dense stage of the universe. That hot dense stage is part of the Big Bang model.

The phyical facts are

1. The CMB cannot have been emitted by a solid object.
2. It has the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured.

Mainstreams conceptualization of a blackbody based on Kirchoffs experiments are not completely correct.

There is no "mainstreams conceptualization based on Kirchoffs experiments " used for blackbody radiation.
There are

• Actual measurements of blackbody radiation, e.g. in labs and from the Sun.
• The theory of blackbody radiation (Planck's law).

The blackest material in the world is a solid and reflects .01% of its light.
It is not a perfect blackbody. So its entirely possible that a true perfect blackbody does not exist. And you would have a really hard time convincing me a plasma made a blackbody spectrum.

That is right: It is not a perfect blackbody. No one claims this.
Your ignorance of the physics of plasma (e.g. that the free electrons emit a continuous spectrum) means that you will never be convinced that plasma can emit a blackbody spectrum.

So do you see why its impossible for the CMB to be perfect?? And why the sun has a solid surface.

I have never claimed that the CMB is perfect.
It is measured that the CMB has a black body spectrum that is almost perfect. In order to make the error bars wider than the theoretical line in graphs the errors have to multiplied by a factor of 500.
Do you see that

• No one expects it to have a perfect black body spectrum.
  Nothing in the universe will ever be measured to have a perfect blackbody spectrum if only for experimental error.
• You are raising a strawman argement in insisting that the CMB has or needs a perfect blackbody spectrum.

The simple fact is that the Sun is too hot to have a solid surface because the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere, ~9400 K inside the photosphere and even hotter further in.

Sorry for the excessive bolding here, brantc, but you do not seem to be getting the point about the CMB. There is a difference between an impossible to measure perfect blackbody spectrum and an almost perfect blackbody spectrum that is measured.

 

[brantc]

So brantc , what spectrum profile will the free electrons in a plasma have?

Hmmmmm?

[Iteration 1]

I'm sure, as I said before, it probably depends on the circumstances. If you have something in mine why dont you just tell me.

"For example, in high-energy environments such as the corona of a star, free electrons form a plasma that radiates energy due to Bremsstrahlung."
wiki

"The energy spectra and time variations of Cyg X-2 observed by Hakucho are presented. The energy spectrum was obtained over a wide energy range 0.3 -20keV."
"This cannot be fitted with a thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum but with a combination of blackbody spectra from the stellar surface and the accreation disc, both being comptonized by a hot central corona and a accreation disc corona, respectively."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=769&epage=769&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

So depending on the situation it is continuum emission that is overlaid with a blackbody spectrum depending on the electrode(solar surface) and some spikey line emission. Or not...

In our suns case its free electrons after thermionic emission from the surface causing the cathode(surface) glow.

Go to google and type in free electron spectrum or something like that and you get to pick the circumstances.

If your talking about the solar spectrum is because of scattering, you have no lab example of the process. As a matter of fact the only example of this process is the sun.