Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

As I sad before, you have to take into account any mercury(solid)

Oh you mean the mecury vapor or sodium vapor, how did that become solid?

 

[Dancing David]

"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.

Uh huh, nice speculation, how does that actually happen? You know how do you take the ZPE and make it manifest in a giant hollow spere?

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

From this line of reasoning, quantum physics predicts that all of space must be filled with electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations (also called the zero-point field) creating a universal sea of zero-point energy. The density of this energy depends critically on where in frequency the zero-point fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at a tiny distance scale called the Planck scale (10-33 cm), it is argued that the zero point fluctuations must cease at a corresponding Planck frequency (1043 Hz). If that is the case, the zero-point energy density would be 110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun.

How could such an enormous energy not be wildly evident? There is one major difference between zero-point electromagnetic radiation and ordinary electromagnetic radiation. Turning again to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle one finds that the lifetime of a given zero-point photon, viewed as a wave, corresponds to an average distance traveled of only a fraction of its wavelength. Such a wave ''fragment'' is somewhat different than an ordinary plane wave and it is difficult to know how to interpret this.

 

[dasmiller]

Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at a tiny distance scale called the Planck scale (10-33 cm), it is argued that the zero point fluctuations must cease at a corresponding Planck frequency (1043 Hz)

(bolding mine)

Just to clarify something that appears to be a cut & paste bug, "1043 Hz" is really 10⁴³ Hz.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. This sort of statement is a perfect demonstration that you don't get the concept.

If an object is thinner than its optical depth, it will not be a blackbody.

Only dense bodies within the galaxy produce black body spectrum.

And as you've been told plenty of times, "dense" is a relative term. Density affects optical depth. If the object is thick enough, then it doesn't need a density approaching a solid.

And thats how you find astronomical bodies in a galaxy, from their BB spectrum.

Well, no. You find astronomical bodies in a galaxy by their light, whether it's blackbody or not.

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.

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its rear when it hopped.

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

Which would make it... what, class?

That would make it irrelevant to a fifth force. Weren't you paying any attention?

 

[Reality Check]

I missed this part of your post:

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

This sentence is so, so wrong:

• Plasma is inherently electromagnetic.
• Plasma is not a "source" of electrons. It is made up of neutral atoms, electrons, and ionized atoms.
• The aether does not have "manifestations".
• The aether is not a source of electrons.

 

[brantc]

Oh you mean the mecury vapor or sodium vapor, how did that become solid?

Hmmm, I guess that maybe its not really a solid, its a vaporized solid.
What makes a continuous spectrum is the fact that its under pressure as a ionized vapor.
Which brings it closer to a solid!!!

As I said before, its pressure that produces blackbody out of a plasma.

"When a mercury vapor lamp is first turned on, it will produce a dark blue glow because only a small amount of the mercury is ionized and the gas pressure in the arc tube is very low, so much of the light is produced in the ultraviolet mercury bands. As the main arc strikes and the gas heats up and increases in pressure, the light shifts into the visible range and the high gas pressure causes the mercury emission bands to broaden somewhat, producing a light that appears more nearly white to the human eye, although it is still not a continuous spectrum."

 

[brantc]

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

You can put a solid steel probe into a thin 100,000K plasma and it doesnt melt.

Why?

Because the plasma doesnt generate enough heat(heat capacity) to melt the steel.

The plasma is hot but the amount of plasma is not enough to transfer enough heat to the steel to overcome IR re radiation to melt it.

Think about it in the number of particles in a cc of plasma vs the number of particles in a cc of steel. More surface area to re radiate in the steel. The IR goes right through the plasma as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

 

[brantc]

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).


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?

NSO is pinpointing the depth. The depth that NSO see the WLF is the maximum depth that it can see at. HINODE sees in the Z direction so it really doesnt know the depth even though you can make an educated guess.

The standard model is that the flare is produced as the electrons descend from the corona.

My model says that the electrons come from the iron surface which alleviates many of the problems associated with such a scenario.

 

[Reality Check]

You can put a solid steel probe into a thin 100,000K plasma and it doesnt melt.

Why?

Because the plasma doesnt generate enough heat(heat capacity) to melt the steel.

The plasma is hot but the amount of plasma is not enough to transfer enough heat to the steel to overcome IR re radiation to melt it.

Think about it in the number of particles in a cc of plasma vs the number of particles in a cc of steel. More surface area to re radiate in the steel. The IR goes right through the plasma as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

Not the full picture, brantc.
If you put a solid steel probe into a 100,000K plasma (of any density) and leave it there for a few billion years then it will melt.

Likewise if you put a solid or hollow iron sphere into a ~5700K plasma (of any density) and leave it there then it will melt.

The IR goes right through the plasma as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

Better stated as: The IR goes through ~250 miles of the photosphere as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

 

[The Man]

You can put a solid steel probe into a thin 100,000K plasma and it doesnt melt.

Why?


Because the probe like the thin plasma loses heat easily enough to the surrounding environment.

Because the plasma doesnt generate enough heat(heat capacity) to melt the steel. [/qtote]

The thin plasma does not generate heat it has a certain amount of heat energy that it loses to both the probe and the surrounding environment, it is the energy source that generates the heat.

The plasma is hot but the amount of plasma is not enough to transfer enough heat to the steel to overcome IR re radiation to melt it.

No the plasma simply does not block (or re-radiate back to the probe) IR from the probe, again it is opacity.

Think about it in the number of particles in a cc of plasma vs the number of particles in a cc of steel. More surface area to re radiate in the steel. The IR goes right through the plasma as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

Uhm surface area is on a, well, surface not by number of particles. A surface area also determines how well something can absorb IR. So the probe both absorbs IR and emits IR more effectively then the surrounding plasma. Since the plasma does not block or reradiate the heat back to the probe the probe can lose heat efficiently. If the source of heat was from, under or though the probe, the case may be different. However as the heat the probe gains is from the plasma by conduction (limited in a thin plasma) or by radiation (also limited in a plasma essentially transparent to IR) the heat energy that builds up in the probe is, obviously, not sufficient for it to melt. Think of it as a bucket with some hole in it. You can keep pouring water (heat energy measured in calories) into the bucket, but if you don’t pout the water fast enough to account for what is lost thought the holes the bucket won’t overflow (melt). Plug up some of those holes or increase the flow of water into the bucket (by a thicker, denser or even hotter plasma) and it will soon overflow.

 

[TjW]

You can put a solid steel probe into a thin 100,000K plasma and it doesnt melt.

Why?

Because the plasma doesnt generate enough heat(heat capacity) to melt the steel.

The plasma is hot but the amount of plasma is not enough to transfer enough heat to the steel to overcome IR re radiation to melt it.

Think about it in the number of particles in a cc of plasma vs the number of particles in a cc of steel. More surface area to re radiate in the steel. The IR goes right through the plasma as shown by 1.6 micron observations.

I understand the difference between heat and temperature just fine, thanks. Can you show an example of solid phase steel with the steel at solar temperatures?

 

[brantc]

Here is a paper that gives an indication that the idea of see the solar surface at 171nm might be correct.


How Deep Can One See into the Sun?
Abstract.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the 1.642 um H- 'opacity minimum' is the best window to the depths of the solar photosphere. However, the violet continuum near 0.4um exhibits a larger intensity response to small thermal perturbations at depth, and thus might offer an even better view of the subsurface root of granulation cells and magnetic flux tubes.

"Less well-known however, is the curious fact that the intensity response functions for the violet continuum (L<= 0.4um) peak in the same or slightly deeper layers."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989SoPh..124...15A

So we have white light flares, violet and IR that peak in the same layer.

That would be the surface of the sun because you would expect them to peak in different layers if the opacity model of the sun was correct.

There is no real lab evidence for the opacity models in use. They are mainly calculations fit to some spectral observations.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm, I guess that maybe its not really a solid, its a vaporized solid.

No more than hydrogen gas is a vaporized solid.

What makes a continuous spectrum is the fact that its under pressure as a ionized vapor.

And increasing the pressure decreases the optical depth to shorter than the physical depth. But that's not the only way to make it a blackbody: we could leave the optical depth unchanged and increase the physical depth and get the same effect. Not practical for commercial lighting, but quite easy for something really big... like, oh, I don't know... the sun.

As I said before, its pressure that produces blackbody out of a plasma.

Only in a meaningless generic sense. And since all plasmas have pressure, well....

 

[brantc]

Have you never heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Yep. It was the shortest of the interferometer experiments.

Laser gyros are locked to sidereal motion(the stars). Some have been running for years.

"Dayton Miller's light-beam interferometer, at 4.3 meters across, was the largest and most sensitive of this type of apparatus ever constructed, with a mirror-reflected round-trip light-beam path of 64 meters. It was used in a definitive set of ether-drift experiments on Mt. Wilson, 1925-1926. Protective insulation is removed in this photograph, and windows were present all around the shelter at the level of the interferometer light-path (see below)."
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"During a 178-day experiment in Belgium in 1991, Roland De Witte detected a phase shift in the frequency of a 5 Mz signal sent 1.5 kilometers on a copper coaxial cable. But what was of profound significance about the observed shifts is that the phase shifts changed constantly and formed a sinusoidal curve with a nearly perfect "sidereal day" period for the entire 178-day duration of the experiment![19]"
http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter160-DeWitte.htm


"Orientation: Until today all relevant geophysical signals that our ring lasers detected were small periodic signals with periods of several seconds (seismic signals), half a day (solid Earth tides) and the sidereal day (polar motion)."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.1377.pdf

GG1320AN Digital Laser Gyro
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/com...les-Munitions/GG1320AN_Digital_Laser_Gyro.pdf


Why is there a sidereal signal in data???
This is by no means a complete list of experiments that have shown a sidereal signal in data.

Nobody has given me a straight answer, ever as to why the fringes of an interferometer would be locked to the stars!!!

So this to me means there is a background field that affects light.

 

[brantc]

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.

Owww. He said dense plasma!!!! That is the only thing that matters.

Here is the paper that says you do not measure a BB at any one point on the solar surface!!
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978SvA....22..715S

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

I only used the term ZPE so that you could conceptualize what I'm talking about. It isnt really ZPE as its popularized by any one of a zillion mathematical models.

Aetherometry and, Baron Karl Von Richenbach are the empirical data sets that I use..

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.

I have already explained to you why this is so.

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?

Sure I understand that stuff. You have just used it in the wrong context.
I keep explaining my model to you. Your not listening.

Neutrinos could be aether emissions.

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

I'm sure you can find the answers if you go back into the thread.

 

[Reality Check]

Here is a paper that gives an indication that the idea of see the solar surface at 171nm might be correct.


How Deep Can One See into the Sun?
...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989SoPh..124...15A

That is a paper that uses a model of the photosphere to claculate how deep we can see in the Sun.

So we have white light flares, violet and IR that peak in the same layer.

That would be the surface of the sun because you would expect them to peak in different layers if the opacity model of the sun was correct.

No we do not.
Firstly we have your assertion that white light flares, violet and IR "peak in the same layer".

The physics is that white light flares, violet and IR wavelengths have different opacity in the photosphere and so escape from the Sun at different layers in the photoshere (not the same layer).

That would be the photosphere of the sun that scientists do actual science about and see that the different wavelengths "peak" at different layers.

Next we have your statement about a "opacity model of the sun". Thiere is no such thing. I assume that you are talking about the opacity models for any material that can be applied to plasma in the Sun. This includes (I think you know about this but other people may not) the TOPS Opacities database.

There is no real lab evidence for the opacity models in use. They are mainly calculations fit to some spectral observations.

There is real lab evidence for the opacity models in use and this includes the fact that they "fit some spectral observations". That is science: Models have to fit the observations.

 

[brantc]

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.

Did you read the paper on how the calibration was done?

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.

The measurements are not wrong. I already explained that to you in the context of my model which works in the context of "simple thermodynamics"..

Simple thermodynamics does not explain why the photosphere is cooler in your model.

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.

Great example of circulus in probando.

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.

Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
by David Pratt
April 2005
This article presents a brief outline of the aetherometric theory of gravity and antigravity, based on Volume 1 and Volume 2A of Experimental Aetherometry, the first six monographs of The Gravitational Aether, and additional discussion in the Aetherometry Study Group.

http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm


AS3-II.11 The Gravitational Aether, Part II: Gravitational Aetherometry (9) -
Quantum & Subquantum Aether (Anti)Gravity:
Fine Variation and Determinations of G

Correa PN, Correa AN
Aetherom Theory of Synchronicity, Vol. 2, 11:1-92 (April 2008)
The present communication has an ambitious reach. It describes in detail the fine subquantum structure of the Aether lattice, and identifies its properties: the modal (or tendentially invariant) Planck's length, which is an actual wavelength (λPlanck) of subquantum ambipolar charges whose flux creates the lattice; the fundamental gyro-gravitational moment [mu sub e] 'of space' (ie of the lattice) and its relation to Planck's constant of moment in the world of the quantum; the frequency of the vacuum corresponding to the modal energy of the Aether lattice; and the ultra-high energy emissions from the lattice, which have been mistakenly assumed to be mass-bearing neutrinos or X-particles, and are shown to be massfree ambipolar charges in the range of 1015 to 1024 eV.

Thus, we are led to present a specifically aetherometric "cosmogenic production scenario". We suggest that these ultra-high energy, massfree ambipolar charges are the real cosmic primaries responsible for the ultra-high energy spectrum of cosmic rays (CR). We also indicate exactly how these tremendously energetic particles are released from the Aether lattice in the process of production of Matter and "cosmogenic radiation" (CBOR, mCBR and rCBR), by secondary superimposition of (2°) lattice elements derived from the energy of the (1°) ambipolar lattice constituents. Accordingly, our aetherometric model also explains how emission of gravitons from the Aether lattice accompanies the condensation of mass-energy and the emission of ultra-high energy ambipolar charges (CR primaries). Aside from the "production scenario", the outcome of this approach is a theory of the dual structure of gravitons (in phase-energy constructs and in "free transit"), the identification of their precise fine structure and geometry, and a model for the local, punctual variation of G.

We examine the fine structure of the Aether lattice of space in all its phase energy configurations that produce either the 'universal invariant' G force or a bipolar variation that locally increases or decreases G. In particular, we focus on how leptonic and baryonic particle creation necessarily engages a local G increase, as opposed to the local G decrease expected when the lattice releases antigravitons instead. A total of 8 processes are isolated, and 14 distinct aetherometric functions (including those relating to the conversion of the Newton into the meter-second system units of force) are employed in the determination of the correct value of the 'invariant' G, whose simplest expressions is:

G = λe/103 π2 (19,206)6 KkrSS = λPlanck KkrSS = [mu sub e] KkrSS/pe =1.107435902*10-35 m2 sec-2

also termed the aetherometric lawful value. This value of G is found to be remarkably close to the mean±SEM of 16 distinct numerical determinations:

G = 1.107458228*10-35 m2 sec-2± 0.000273341

In the course of the investigation, the exact value of the so-called 'Planck's length' is determined as an instance of a wavelength function shared by both gravitons (of either type, phase-graviton or transit graviton) and the ultra-high energy ambipolar charges that modally constitute the Aether lattice. We propose an exact value for the invariant or modal Planck's length, and further propose that, whether the length (function) is variable or invariant, G is always the product of that length by m sec-2 (KkrSS = 1 m sec-2). We also identify a gyro-gravitational moment [mu sub e] and formally show that most elegant of the Aether's subquantic 'utterances':
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS3-II.php

 

[Reality Check]

Forgot about the post of 11 August 2010 and its questions that you seem to have forgotten yet again, brantc.

And while I am thinking about outstanding questions, there is a set from March and April 2010 that seem to be still outstanding. You initially said you ignored them because I was not civil enough for you.
If you have not answered them then can you do so?
If their tone still offends you then I will re-post them in more civil tones.

 

[The Man]

Here is a paper that gives an indication that the idea of see the solar surface at 171nm might be correct.

At 171nm? When the paper specifies (in the introduction ) the violet continuum at wavelengths less than or about 0.4 µm?

How Deep Can One See into the Sun?
Abstract.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the 1.642 um H- 'opacity minimum' is the best window to the depths of the solar photosphere. However, the violet continuum near 0.4um exhibits a larger intensity response to small thermal perturbations at depth, and thus might offer an even better view of the subsurface root of granulation cells and magnetic flux tubes.

Thus more detail at depth (not below depth).

"Less well-known however, is the curious fact that the intensity response functions for the violet continuum (L<= 0.4um) peak in the same or slightly deeper layers."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989SoPh..124...15A

From the introduction

All other factors being equal (which they rarely are), the viewing of the deaths of the solar photosphere might be better at shorter wavelengths.

Again better detail “slightly deeper”.

So we have white light flares, violet and IR that peak in the same layer.

You mean those layers at which the plasma starts becoming essentially transparent to radiation?

That would be the surface of the sun because you would expect them to peak in different layers if the opacity model of the sun was correct.

There is no real lab evidence for the opacity models in use. They are mainly calculations fit to some spectral observations.

Those peaks depend on intensity (emitted) and transparency (emitted through) “mainly calculations fit to some spectral observations” including those done in labs as well as those done on the sun.

From the title “How Deep Can One See into the Sun?” questioning well “How Deep Can One See into the Sun” the inference would be, well, deeper. A different layer of the photosphere (not below it). As shorter wavelength radiation, violet and ultraviolet, one might expect that they could transverse a denser plasma more readily than longer wavelengths. However that is just speculation, the devil is in the details.

From section 2

I calculated density distributions by solving the equations of hydro-static equilibrium, chemical equilibrium and ionization equilibrium by means of Newton-Rapshson iteration scheme.

Oops, too bad just another model based on “mainly calculations fit to some spectral observations” including those in labs. That does not claim to be able to see below the photosphere, just deeper in the photosphere.

What was it you were trying to claim with this paper (or just portions of the abstract) again?

 

[Tubbythin]

The plasma is hot but the amount of plasma is not enough to transfer enough heat to the steel to overcome IR re radiation to melt it.

So the steel never gets close to solar temperatures. Now, please actually respond to the request:

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