Photospheric Physics (Again)
quite the contrary, the plasma of the solar photosphere will be far more likely to interfere with the higher energy wavelengths.
That depends *ENTIRELY* on the ionization state of the photosphere Tim. We've already discussed the fact that you folks completely *IGNORE* the current flow process between the cathode sun and the heliosphere so you completely blow the ionization state of the photosphere.
There is no current flow process to ignore, so the comment is not relevant. We know
precisely what the ionization state of the photosphere is by virtue of the fact that we can look right at the photosphere and see. I have already explained this to you numerous times over the last several years, but feel free to continue to ignore it all. See, e.g.
Photosphere Temperature Profile (26 June 2009);
Re: Validity of plasma properties & inversion techniques (29 June 2009);
171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere (9 July 2009);
The Transition Region (9 April 2010);
Photospheric Opacity (22 April 2010);
Ionized Neon in the Photosphere (26 April 2010, where you could not tell the difference between an artifact of image processing from ionized neon);
The Sun is Mostly Hydrogen I (12 March 2011).
The photosphere is easy to see at the limb of the sun, projected against black space, so measuring its properties is not a herculean task. From 14 July 2010:
We know from limb observations of the sun that, as deep as we can make direct measurements, the solar plasma is warmer at the bottom than at the top; the photosphere, to the extent that we can see it, reaches almost 10,000 Kelvins at the bottom, which is already well in excess of the vaporizing temperature of iron. So, as is the case for Earth, the photosphere of the sun is brighter & hotter at the bottom than at the top.
From 3 April 2010:
Limb observations of the sun make it possible to retrieve the temperature structure of the photosphere as a function of depth, in much the same way as limb observations of Earth's atmosphere by satellites allows us to retrieve temperature profiles for the Earth's atmosphere (see, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCh 2004, chapter 5: "The photosphere"; The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres by David Gray, Cambridge University Press 2005, 3rd edition). The temperature at the lowest level we can determine is 9400 Kelvins. We don't see much of that on Earth, because of the opacity of the overlying layers.
All you can do is look at pictures and make things up, but you have no science and no data to back you up. The photosphere is opaque to X-rays from below and no imagined system of electric currents is going to change that. Besides, if the photosphere were as highly ionized as you think it is, then the photosphere would be
even more opaque because the X-ray photons would interact far more strongly with the charged particles of the plasma than with the neutral atoms.
But I can say that I have a clear memory of you claiming to see fully 3-dimensional motion in flat 2-dimensional pictures, with no other supportive evidence for the claim. That said, your claim "It comes from UNDER the surface of the photosphere ... " is nothing but a figment of your over-active imagination.
You're also intent on ignoring the limb observations now too Tim? When we look at the limb of an active region, like the one going over the horizon at about the 2:00 position, we can see all sorts of materials coming up and through the photosphere Tim. We can see it "light up" the plasmas at the surface of the photosphere too. Take a gander at the active region going over horizon tell me you can't see materials rising up out of the photosphere.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg
As you say: I can't see materials rising up from under the photosphere. And neither can you. The image is made at a wavelength of 1600 Angstroms, which gives us a combination of C IV (triply ionized carbon) from the transition region, which is above the photosphere, and some continuum from the upper photosphere (see the
AIA instrument page). So at best you can see the upper photosphere. However, the spatial scale of the image is obviously such that neither you, nor anyone else, can look at the movie and know that the material is coming from the photosphere at all. Could be from the upper photosphere, or it could be from above the photosphere in the transition region. In the absence of real data, one simply cannot tell. For sure this image is totally uninformative as to anything actually coming up from below the photosphere, as you claim. You always make the same mistake, looking at pictures and movies and thinking that's all there is to it, that you can see everything. Well, no you can't. See, for instance,
Sunspots and photospheric physics II (17 April 2010) &
Sunspots and photospheric physics III (19 April 2010), where we discuss your poor interpretation of images. Clearly, you have learned nothing since then.
Are we going back to the bad old days of "science by pretty picture"?
No Tim, it's called OBSERVATION. It's an important part of "science".
Observations are not "empirical experiments". Astronomical data as you call it is also open to "subjective human interpretation". ... Uncontrolled observations alone often cannot "settle" anything related to "cause/effect" relationships.
Looking at pictures is a weak form of observation. Besides, as shown above, you are already on record as saying that the kind of "observations" you are now pushing on us should not be trusted. All you are doing is forcing your own "subjective human interpretation" on a picture, so by your own standards, your claims are not to be trusted. On the other hand, I have referenced real observations of the photosphere that prove your claims to be dead wrong.
You and LMSAL have a SERIOUS problem. Your 'theories' don't jive with the PHYSICS we observe in 1600A images. The high energy discharges come up and through the surface of the photosphere just as my theories "predict". Meanwhile LMSAL claims that the footprints of the loop, where the heating process occurs, and solar moss takes place, is something like 1200KM ABOVE the photosphere! BS. LMSAL's claims are complete BS.
All wrong. You are the one with the serious problem because everything you are doing is pure "subjective human interpretation", with no ounce of scientific fact or data to be seen anywhere. It makes quite a joke out of your claim that the theories don't jive with the physics. It's your own subjective human interpretation, your own personal prejudice that the theories don't jive with, and that happens to be a very good thing for us.
).
