Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[brantc]

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.

"During the first few days of the Universe, the Universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum."

"The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the Universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum."
wiki

Yet, Kirchhoff’s law states that, for a blackbody, the temperature must be determined in the presence of thermal equilibrium, within an enclosure [2–4]. The Universe can never meet this requirement.

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).

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.

Show me. Something else besides the sun.

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.

Nope. All I was saying was that it was "too perfect". That should raise alarm bells.
But it doesnt because people dont realize what that means when you have too good a blackbody curve.. That most likely there is something wrong.

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.

You keep asserting that. I explained why that was not so in my model. You have not listened, so we move on from that point. And I assume you understand why my model supports an iron surface. And you have not explained why my model could not work specifically(thermionic emission, cathode glow, solar wind, corona). Aether is no worse than dark matter. And we need a new model of gravity. The model of gravity I use allows for an iron sun.

No one point on the solar disc emits as a blackbody. Only the disc as a whole. My model also explains the UV opacity problem as well as the spectrum of the sun perfectly.

The interpretation of the data is based on a model.

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.

And my point is the CMB doesnt come from radiation stretching. It comes from an interaction with matter. The closer the spectrum is to a blackbody the more likely it is NOT a plasma that created it.

And the other point is that a perfect spectrum was not measured. It was created from the measurements via bad calibrations.

 

[Ziggurat]

So depending on the situation it is continuum emission that is overlaid with a blackbody spectrum

Dude: the continuum emission is the blackbody spectrum.

Optical depth. Learn what it means.

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

Nope.

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.

Wrong again.

 

[Dancing David]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The free electrons are not bound to emit in spectral lines, Brantc, which contradicts your previous statement.

And now you respond in this very strange fashion. You were in error I was pointing that out. Now you continue just blindly trying to cram what little bits of information appeal to you into your preferred notions. Procrustes seems to be your mentor.

There is no mechanism aether or otherwise which could provide enough energy to cause stars to shine through electrical current flow.

 

[Reality Check]

...Yet, Kirchhoff’s law states that, for a blackbody, the temperature must be determined in the presence of thermal equilibrium, within an enclosure [2–4]. The Universe can never meet this requirement.

Which one of Kirchhoff’s laws?
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation: "At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity."
Maybe his three laws of spectroscopy:

1. A hot solid or a hot, dense gas produces a continuous spectrum.
2. A hot, low-density gas produces an emission-line spectrum.
3. A continuous spectrum source viewed through a cool, low-density gas produces an absorption-line spectrum.

(my emphasis added)

Show me. Something else besides the sun.

I can show you every one of the billions of stars in the universe. Shall we start with Alpha Centuri and work our way outwards ?

Nope. All I was saying was that it was "too perfect". That should raise alarm bells.
But it doesnt because people dont realize what that means when you have too good a blackbody curve.. That most likely there is something wrong.

There is no such thing as a "too perfect" experimental measurement. The close fit of the CMB to a blackbody spectrum is an experimental fact.

You keep asserting that. I explained why that was not so in my model. You have not listened, so we move on from that point.

I do not assert it. The actual physical measurements are

1. the Sun has a temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere.
2. ~9400 K inside the photosphere

and simple thermodynamics tells us that is is even hotter further in.
We will not move on until you can show why these actual physical measurements are wrong.

And I assume you understand why my model supports an iron surface. And you have not explained why my model could not work specifically(thermionic emission, cathode glow, solar wind, corona). Aether is no worse than dark matter. And we need a new model of gravity. The model of gravity I use allows for an iron sun.

You model will not work because:

1. The Sun is too hot for an iron surface to exist.
2. No surface = no thermionic emission.
3. No surface = no cathode glow.
4. No surface = Your model does not explain the solar wind.
5. No surface = Your model does not expain the corona.

You have not stated any "model" of gravity. I suggest that you start a new thread for this. Start by stating the model, its equations, how it reduces to GR or Newtonian gravity, its testable falsifiable predictions and the tests that distinguish between it and GR.
A statement like "gravity kills my idea so I wll change gravity but not make this new gravity match the observed universe" is what we typically see from cranks. I do not want you to be associated with crank ideas about how science works.

No one point on the solar disc emits as a blackbody. Only the disc as a whole. My model also explains the UV opacity problem as well as the spectrum of the sun perfectly.

The interpretation of the data is based on a model.

Your citation for this ?
The fact is that the spectrum of the Sun is surprisingly enough measured for the Sun, the entire Sun and no one point of the Sun.

No surface = Your model does not expain the "UV opacity problem".

First asked 11 August 2010
brantc,
Now we have a testable falsifiable prediction from your model of a physically impossible iron surface:

Your model can "spectrum of the sun perfectly"
​

Please

1. State exactly how an iron surface can exist at temperatures > ~5700 K or why the measured temperature of the Sun are wrong (and what its temperature actually is).
2. Post the derivation of the spectrum of the sun from your model and show that matches the measured spectrum perfectly.

And my point is the CMB doesnt come from radiation stretching. It comes from an interaction with matter. The closer the spectrum is to a blackbody the more likely it is NOT a plasma that created it.

And the other point is that a perfect spectrum was not measured. It was created from the measurements via bad calibrations.

And my points are that

• The scientific evidence is that the CMB comes from a hot dense stage of the universe and then was "radiation stretched".
• A perfect spectrum was not measured - a close to perfect blackbody spectrum was measured by multiple instruments.

You have an unsupported assertion that "bad calibrations" caused this somehow. You do realize the enormous improbablity of this?

• Some unknown thermal spectrum (that according to your assertions should be a discrete spectrum) gets turned into a near-perfect continuous blackbody spectrum by "bad calibrations".
• These "bad calibrations" exist in every instrument that has ever measured the CMB spectrum.

However I think I know where you get these ideas from. I ignored your link previously to a Stephen J. Crothers PDF on the web because it is just a PDF on the Web. All you seem to be doing is parroting his opinion in that PDF.

Stephen J. Crothers picked up on an easily debunked idea from Pierre-Marie Robitaille that the CMB is actually a signal from the Earth's oceans. The debunking is easy enough - the anisotropies in the WMAP data do not match waves or boats on the oceans . The anisotropies do match what we expect from standard cosmology. The paper shows that a similiar lack of knowledge that you (brantc) are showing - that blackbody radiation can only be emitted from solids (and liquids in his case).

Some side notes:
Robitaille is a Professor of Radiology who has made many contributions to the advancement of MRI. You have to be doubtful of the work from any scientist who steps outside of his area of expertise.
Another cause for doubt is where he selected to publish. So Robitaille has rock-solid evidence that the COBE and WMAP measurements of the CMB are wrong. This is a earth-shattering discovery that scientists around the world must be informed of. You would expect him to submit it to a high impact journal like Nature. But he submits it to Progress in Physics which is a low impact on-line journal with an unknown peer-review process. Stephen J. Crothers is an editor (in fact many of his papers are published there).

 

[brantc]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The free electrons are not bound to emit in spectral lines, Brantc, which contradicts your previous statement.

And now you respond in this very strange fashion. You were in error I was pointing that out. Now you continue just blindly trying to cram what little bits of information appeal to you into your preferred notions. Procrustes seems to be your mentor.

No arbitrary fitting here....

There will not be a blackbody from a plasma unless it has a density approaching solid matter. Free electrons in a solid make a blackbody.

So yes. I made a mistake.

In this paper you can see the difference between a thin plasma and a dense plasma is that the emission changes from line to continuum "smoothly" as the pressure(density) goes up.
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/documents/nature.030205.pdf

It changes from bound to free as the temperature goes up in the bubble.
I was not thinking about that .....

But density is not the same as distance.

There is no mechanism aether or otherwise which could provide enough energy to cause stars to shine through electrical current flow.

How do you know this???

 

[brantc]

NEAR-INFRARED OBSERVATIONS AT 1.56 MICRONS OF THE 2003 OCTOBER 29 X10 WHITE-LIGHT FLARE
"We present high-resolution observations of an X10 white-light flare in solar NOAA Active Region 10486 obtained with the Dunn Solar Telescope (DST) at the National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak on 2003 October 29.
Our investigation focuses on flare dynamics observed in the near-infrared (NIR) continuum at 1.56 mm. This is the first report of a white-light flare observed at the opacity minimum"
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/607/2/L131/pdf/1538-4357_607_2_L131.pdf

That would mean the white light flares that Hinode and TRACE see are under the visible surface of photosphere. Possibly also meaning that TRACE still has the wedge problem.

The opacity minimum is the solid surface of the sun.


"Denver (June 1, 2004) -- Adaptive optics and a new infrared camera have provided the first infrared images of a white-light flare below the Sun's visible surface."
http://www.nso.edu/press/AAS_0604/AAS04_NJIT2.html

The reason white light flares are the "most powerful type of flare" is because they are the true foot print of a loop where the current exits the solid surface.

This also means that if your flare is bright enough it can be seen through the "photosphere". That means the name should be changed to "surface glow".

 

[Ziggurat]

No arbitrary fitting here....

There will not be a blackbody from a plasma unless it has a density approaching solid matter.

Wrong once again, brantc. The plasma in a high intensity discharge lamp isn't close to that of a solid. And you are once again ignoring the concept of optical depth. You have been told countless times how important this concept is, and yet you refuse to learn what it means, and why it's important here.

In this paper you can see the difference between a thin plasma and a dense plasma is that the emission changes from line to continuum "smoothly" as the pressure(density) goes up.

Yup: that will happen when your optical depth changes. Oh, and the optical depth is wavelength-dependent.

But density is not the same as distance.

And yet, distance matters. Optical depth. Learn it.

How do you know this???

Actually, he doesn't. He doesn't know that there isn't some fifth fundamental force which acts in the universe.

But assuming that there isn't, well, then none of the physics we know of can provide the necessary energy from a source outside of stars, and only nuclear fusion can provide the energy from within the stars. The energy budget just isn't there for any other mechanism.

And if there is some fifth fundamental force at play, well, all bets are off anyways, and there's no reason to think plasma effects have anything to do with it.

 

[BowlOfRed]

The opacity minimum is the solid surface of the sun.

Where does this definition come from? I thought the opacity minimum was a particular wavelength, the one where the solar atmosphere is most transparent.

From the paper:

Since the solar opacity minimum is at about 1.6 [micrometers]...

This also means that if your flare is bright enough it can be seen through the "photosphere". That means the name should be changed to "surface glow".

Different wavelengths penetrate differently. So if you're interested in how far you can image, you'd need to know what portion of the spectrum is involved.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi brantc, You seem to missed my post of 4 days ago and its questions.

 

[Tubbythin]

There will not be a blackbody from a plasma unless it has a density approaching solid matter.

No. That's somewhat similar to saying the following:
We have a quantity of a radioactive substance with a specific half life: if I wait a certain amount of time, x, the fraction of it left depends only on the value of the half-life and is independent of value of x.
This is clearly wrong.

 

[brantc]

Wrong once again, brantc. The plasma in a high intensity discharge lamp isn't close to that of a solid. And you are once again ignoring the concept of optical depth. You have been told countless times how important this concept is, and yet you refuse to learn what it means, and why it's important here.

As I sad before, you have to take into account any mercury(solid) or the filament(solid) that actually generates the pseudo blackbody part of the spectrum. Take away that solid electrode( like a plasma chamber) and you will no longer have a spectrum resembling a blackbody.

When examining a lightsource you really have to look at the component parts to determine the spectrum.

Right now we are working with calibrations using a Deuterium light source.

"A deuterium lamp uses a tungsten filament and anode placed on opposite sides of a nickel box structure designed to produce the best output spectrum. Unlike an incandescent bulb, the filament is not the source of light in deuterium lamps. Instead an arc is created from the filament to the anode, a similar process to arc lamps."

This is different than glow discharge cathodes.

 

[brantc]

And yet, distance matters. Optical depth. Learn it.

Do you have independent experimental verification for this, i.e. not the sun as a circular reference??

If it really did matter then all of the galaxies etc would be black bodies, but that is not the case. Only dense bodies within the galaxy produce black body spectrum. And thats how you find astronomical bodies in a galaxy, from their BB spectrum.

Actually, he doesn't. He doesn't know that there isn't some fifth fundamental force which acts in the universe.

But assuming that there isn't, well, then none of the physics we know of can provide the necessary energy from a source outside of stars, and only nuclear fusion can provide the energy from within the stars. The energy budget just isn't there for any other mechanism.

And if there is some fifth fundamental force at play, well, all bets are off anyways, and there's no reason to think plasma effects have anything to do with it.

"This thinking has led to the belief that the zero point energy of space should be 110 times greater than the energy at the center of the Sun."
http://www.universetoday.com/52206/zero-point-energy/

So if the sun was a hollow iron sphere acting like a spherical "aether, zero point energy, pick a name" antenna, then yes there is enough energy.

Plasma is inherently electrical as are most manifestations of the aether as a source of electrons.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
There will not be a blackbody from a plasma unless it has a density approaching solid matter.

No. That's somewhat similar to saying the following:
We have a quantity of a radioactive substance with a specific half life: if I wait a certain amount of time, x, the fraction of it left depends only on the value of the half-life and is independent of value of x.
This is clearly wrong.

I have yet to figure out why this is true but I can find no evidence to the contrary except what is quoted about the sun.

I find it odd that distance is different than density but that is the case.
I believe that the distance between the particles changes the distribution of energies differently than density does. Dont know why.

It may be related to the redshift of the universe.

 

[Tubbythin]

If it really did matter then all of the galaxies etc would be black bodies, but that is not the case.

This does not follow. The amount of absorption of a beam through a substance depends on the amount of "stuff" in the way and its density (well its ability to absorb per unit path length which depends on density). See the above analogy I gave and indicate which bit is so difficult to understand? Do you think that the more absorbing material there is:
The less absorption there should be
The more absorption there should be
It makes no difference?

 

[brantc]

Where does this definition come from? I thought the opacity minimum was a particular wavelength, the one where the solar atmosphere is most transparent.

From the paper:

Different wavelengths penetrate differently. So if you're interested in how far you can image, you'd need to know what portion of the spectrum is involved.

HINODE sees in white light. It sees white light flares correlated with sunspots from the z direction.

NSO sees in IR. It sees through the photosphere to its minimum opacity at 250miles. It has also located the WLFs as being 250 miles below the visible surface of the photosphere.
This together with HINODE places the whitelight flare 250 miles below, aligned with the sunspot.

So whitelight and IR have an opacity depth that is the same??? Could only mean a solid surface!!!

In my model that would be on the iron surface.

This also shows that you can see below the visible surface photosphere in white and IR light.
What does this also mean? That part of the visible light from the sun comes from below the photosphere.
That all of the "heat" does not come from the photosphere so my iron sun is not surrounded by a 5000K layer of heat.
It is only surrounded by a layer of plasma which has less heat capacity than solid matter. I.e. emits at a lower rate then the solid surface can absorb and re radiate it.

 

[dafydd]

Do you have independent experimental verification for this, i.e. not the sun as a circular reference??

If it really did matter then all of the galaxies etc would be black bodies, but that is not the case. Only dense bodies within the galaxy produce black body spectrum. And thats how you find astronomical bodies in a galaxy, from their BB spectrum.



"This thinking has led to the belief that the zero point energy of space should be 110 times greater than the energy at the center of the Sun."
http://www.universetoday.com/52206/zero-point-energy/

So if the sun was a hollow iron sphere acting like a spherical "aether, zero point energy, pick a name" antenna, then yes there is enough energy.

Plasma is inherently electrical as are most manifestations of the aether as a source of electrons.

Have you never heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

 

[Reality Check]

If it really did matter then all of the galaxies etc would be black bodies, but that is not the case. Only dense bodies within the galaxy produce black body spectrum. And thats how you find astronomical bodies in a galaxy, from their BB spectrum.

You are wrong. Optical depth does not matter for black body spectrum.

Stars ("dense objects") in a galaxy produce roughly blackbody spectra because they have lots of free electrons interacting with each other in a dense plasma and so producing a continuous spectrum.

Galaxies do not produce roughly BB spectra because they are not stars! The spectra of galaxies is the sum of the stars and the gas within the galaxies. The stars have different temperatures so their specta basically sum up to a roughly constant background. I think that you then have spikes above the background from the gas spectra.

Astronomers detect astronomical bodies in a galaxy because they emit, block or bend light.

"This thinking has led to the belief that the zero point energy of space should be 110 times greater than the energy at the center of the Sun."
http://www.universetoday.com/52206/zero-point-energy/

So if the sun was a hollow iron sphere acting like a spherical "aether, zero point energy, pick a name" antenna, then yes there is enough energy.

You have fallen into the trap that we often see from perpetual machine woo-merchants.
Zero point energy is not accessible energy.

Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state.

The rather ignorant thought that the sun is a hollow iron sphere is readily debunked because that Sun has a measured temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere, ~9400 K inside the photosphere and even hotter further in.

brantc,
First posted 17 August 2010 (but pointed out many times before)

A basic bit of physics that you really need to grasp rather than ignore:

• Measured temperature of the top of the photosphere = ~5700 K.
• Measured temperature deeper within the photosphere = ~9400 K.
• The overwhelming evidence for fusion within the Sun (e.g.neutrinos) means that the Sun is hotter than ~9400 K below the photosphere.
• Boiling point of iron = 3134 K.
  • ~5700 K is greater than the boiling point of iron.
  • ~9400 K is greater than the boiling point of iron.
  • Temperatures > 9400 K is greater than the boiling point of iron.

Is there anything there that you cannot understand?

You also seem to missed my post of several days ago and its questions.

 

[TjW]

Do you have independent experimental verification for this, i.e. not the sun as a circular reference??

Perhaps you could show an example of steel at solar temperature which is solid?

 

[Reality Check]

HINODE sees in white light. It sees white light flares correlated with sunspots from the z direction.

NSO sees in IR. It sees through the photosphere to its minimum opacity at 250miles. It has also located the WLFs as being 250 miles below the visible surface of the photosphere.

The visible surface of the photosphere is only seen in the visible part of the spectrum. NSO sees the "IR surface" of the photosphere.

This together with HINODE places the whitelight flare 250 miles below, aligned with the sunspot.

No citation but sounds right since the opacity of the photosphere varies with wavelength.

So whitelight and IR have an opacity depth that is the same??? Could only mean a solid surface!!!

Definitely wrong.
White light is light. It does not have an optical depth.
IR is light. It does not have an optical depth.
Could only mean a plasma (the photosphere) has different optical depths in different wavelengths!!!

In my model that would be on the iron surface.

Your model is physically impossible since the Sun has temperatures over the boiling point of iron.

This also shows that you can see below the visible surface photosphere in white and IR light.

This shows that optical depth depends on wavelength (as well as several other factors). Thus you can see below the visible surface of the photosphere in other parts of the spectrum. Therefore you can measure the temperature of the photosphere and see that it gets to ~9400 K (again well above the boiling point of iron).

However "white light" is visible light and you cannot see below the visible surface of the photosphere in visible light in general.

 

[BowlOfRed]

This together with HINODE places the whitelight flare 250 miles below, aligned with the sunspot.

I would agree that the flare is producing effects there. Certainly it's not a point object such that being there precludes it from being at other depths (say much higher in the atmosphere).

So whitelight and IR have an opacity depth that is the same???

I don't see the basis for that statement. The flare is produced as particles descend from the corona. Is there some reason to believe that the different instruments are imaging the flare at the same depth?