Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Tubbythin]

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

You've said it before, you're still wrong. Pressure is a factor in determining the amount of absorption per unit length. The total degree of absorption is thus dependent on pressure but also on the amount of stuff the light has to pass through. How could it possibly not be?

 

[brantc]

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.

They are all the same set of questions asked in different ways.
I have answered them all(I think) in this thread.
But if you make up a concise list I will answer them again.
Thanks RC.

 

[brantc]

You've said it before, you're still wrong. Pressure is a factor in determining the amount of absorption per unit length. The total degree of absorption is thus dependent on pressure but also on the amount of stuff the light has to pass through. How could it possibly not be?

Photosphere pressure vs depth
Depth
(km) % Light from this Depth Temp(K) Pressure (bars)
0_____99.5_______________4465 ____6.8 x 10-3
100___97 ________________4780_____1.7 x 10-2
200___89 ________________5180_____3.9 x 10-2
250___80 ________________5455 ____5.8 x 10-2
300___64_________________5840 ____8.3 x 10-2
350___37_________________6420 ____1.2 x 10-1
375___18_________________6910 ____1.4 x 10-1
400 ___4_______________7610 ____1.6 x 10-1


If you have an infinitely long tube of plasma would you expect to see a black body or lines??

At what point in the pressure range do you see a blackbody if you go from say 10-11 torr to ATM???

How hot does the plasma have to be?

Well if you look at these papers on sonoluminescing bubble with the included spectrum you can see that the pressure is in the range of 9000 atmospheres before there is a continuum from a 15,000K plasma, probably hotter.
Looking at the top spectrum in figure 2, there are about 1500 atmospheres internal pressure in a 1 micron bubble at ~1 bar of driving pressure. You can see how the lines go away as the pressure increases to 5.5 bars(atm) of drive amplitude..

Evidence for plasma inside a Sonoluminescing Bubble
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pressclippings/physicstoday_0505.pdf

Measurement of Pressure and Density Inside a Single Sonoluminescing Bubble
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/documents/prl.06204301.pdf

 

[brantc]

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

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

Along with the opacity spectrum from the TOPS database that I posted way earlier in this thread.

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.

All I'm saying is that if IR, UV etc "peak" at the same surface, that is not plasma like behavior unless your model of the sun has some other feature there that supports this density.

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?

This paper is just like the standard model of the sun. Thats how they interpret the observations, with their model/theory. Neutrinos are the strongerst evidence for central fusion in the sun. Use another model and you have a different conclusion.

All I saying is that here is some calculations that may support that idea that you might be able to see the surface of the sun at UV wavelengths.
Again I believe this is a image of the surface of the sun. The bright spots at the loops footprints are where you would see a white light flare.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

I wish I had NSO, HINODE and TRACE to do a simultaneous observation at this angle.

 

[brantc]

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?

I never claimed that there was such a thing.

Portions of the iron surface get hotter under thermionic emission(loop foot prints, solar moss), just like portions of a filament are hotter than the melting point of tungsten. Look at the picture.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sun and Optical Depth

Quoted material altered by TT for legibility & appearance. Somebody should take the time to learn the formatting tools the board has available to make things look like they are supposed to look.

Photosphere pressure vs depth
Depth

(km) 	% Light from this Depth Temp(K) 	Pressure (bars)
0________99.5____________________4465 ____________6.8 x 10[sup]-3[/sup]
100______97 _____________________4780_____________1.7 x 10[sup]-2[/sup]
200______89 _____________________5180_____________3.9 x 10[sup]-2[/sup]
250______80 _____________________5455 ____________5.8 x 10[sup]-2[/sup]
300______64______________________5840 ____________8.3 x 10[sup]-2[/sup]
350______37______________________6420 ____________1.2 x 10[sup]-1[/sup]
375______18______________________6910 ____________1.4 x 10[sup]-1[/sup]
[B]400 ______4______________________7610 ____________1.6 x 10[sup]-1[/sup][/B]

What's the point of this table, and what's the source? At the bottom layer of your table the optical depth is approximately 4, and 50 kilometers below that the optical depth climbs to about 20, despite a mass density of only about 3.2x10^-7 gm/cm³. Any optical depth over about 1 (and it does not matter what kind of plasma it is, "any optical depth" means "any optical depth") will primarily produce a blackbody, strictly Planck Law, thermal continuum emission. This is exactly what happens on the sun. Most of the photosphere serves primarily as an absorption layer, producing the absorption lines seen in the solar spectrum, against a thermal continuum emission that is generated deeper in the sun.

 

[Tubbythin]

Photosphere pressure vs depth
Depth
(km) % Light from this Depth Temp(K) Pressure (bars)
0_____99.5_______________4465 ____6.8 x 10-3
100___97 ________________4780_____1.7 x 10-2
200___89 ________________5180_____3.9 x 10-2
250___80 ________________5455 ____5.8 x 10-2
300___64_________________5840 ____8.3 x 10-2
350___37_________________6420 ____1.2 x 10-1
375___18_________________6910 ____1.4 x 10-1
400 ___4_______________7610 ____1.6 x 10-1


If you have an infinitely long tube of plasma would you expect to see a black body or lines??

A blackbody from the end I suppose. From the sides it would depend on how thick the tube was in comparison to its optical depth.

At what point in the pressure range do you see a blackbody if you go from say 10-11 torr to ATM???

You'd see a blackbody at the point when the mean free path becomes much shorter than the optical depth.

How hot does the plasma have to be?

Depends how thick it is.

Well if you look at these papers on sonoluminescing bubble with the included spectrum you can see that the pressure is in the range of 9000 atmospheres before there is a continuum from a 15,000K plasma, probably hotter.
Looking at the top spectrum in figure 2, there are about 1500 atmospheres internal pressure in a 1 micron bubble at ~1 bar of driving pressure. You can see how the lines go away as the pressure increases to 5.5 bars(atm) of drive amplitude..

Evidence for plasma inside a Sonoluminescing Bubble
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/pressclippings/physicstoday_0505.pdf

Measurement of Pressure and Density Inside a Single Sonoluminescing Bubble
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/documents/prl.06204301.pdf

[/Quote]
What is your point? Optical depth depends on pressure and on other things. If you keep everything else constant and vary the pressure then of course at some point you will go from lines to blackbody.

 

[BowlOfRed]

If you have an infinitely long tube of plasma would you expect to see a black body or lines??

Think of it in reverse. If you have an infinitely long tube of plasma, would you expect to absorb blackbody (full-spectrum) radiation completely? If so, then it should radiate it as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well if you look at these papers on sonoluminescing bubble with the included spectrum you can see that the pressure is in the range of 9000 atmospheres before there is a continuum from a 15,000K plasma, probably hotter.

Optical depth, brantc. How thick are those bubbles? How thick is the photosphere? Why are you still unaware of the significance of optical depth to these problems?

 

[The Man]

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

Along with the opacity spectrum from the TOPS database that I posted way earlier in this thread.

It does not give that indication or that idea, hence my question about 171nm. Any indication you might have gotten in that regard from that paper is just what you put there by speculation.

All I'm saying is that if IR, UV etc "peak" at the same surface, that is not plasma like behavior unless your model of the sun has some other feature there that supports this density.

What I’m (and the paper) is saying is that the wavlenght consider by the paper migth give more detail slight;y deeper. So that would not be the same layer (not surface).

Does “your model of the sun” have any feature that supports any density or observations for that matter?

Do you even have a “model of the sun” or just more speculations about the “indication” of your (or someone else) “ideas”

This paper is just like the standard model of the sun. Thats how they interpret the observations, with their model/theory. Neutrinos are the strongerst evidence for central fusion in the sun. Use another model and you have a different conclusion.

If you have “another model” by all means present it, however so far all you have presented are speculations that would couse you to fail a high school phsics test.

All I saying is that here is some calculations that may support that idea that you might be able to see the surface of the sun at UV wavelengths.

Again that is not what that paper says, you want to say something elese then do your own calculations and write your own paper, don’t try to hijack someone else work.

Again I believe this is a image of the surface of the sun. The bright spots at the loops footprints are where you would see a white light flare.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

I couldn’t give a flying handshake what you believe, only what you can support with evidence and so far your belief in a solid iron solar surface remains entirely (and quite literally) unsupportable.

I wish I had NSO, HINODE and TRACE to do a simultaneous observation at this angle.

I wish we could convince you of the appalling lack of any physical basis for your belief in a solid iron solar surface, but that seems as lilkey as you gaining access to those devices.

 

[Reality Check]

They are all the same set of questions asked in different ways.
I have answered them all(I think) in this thread.
But if you make up a concise list I will answer them again.
Thanks RC.

Actually you have ignored the 11th August 2010 questions for 12 days now.
But if you want a list:

1. 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."

   First posted 11 August 2010
   I suspect that you are just repeating Robitaille's words.

2. 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.

3. Why is your solid iron surface emitting IR or EUV light that is typical of plasma?
   First asked 31 March 2010
   This sounds similar to the above question bit is really about why your suface in invisible in IR and EUV light
4. What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for?
   First asked 2 April 2010
5. What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   So far it is any model that he want so long as it "supports" his thermodynamically impossible iron shell.
6. How thick is your thick hollow shell made of iron?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   First answer : 93 986 kilometer thick shell but the Sun is all iron and a vaccuum inside the shell !
7. Cite the detection of your 93,986 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology?
   First asked 6 April 2010
8. Prediction of the solar neutrino flux from "aether based" reactions?
   First asked 7 April 2010
9. Please list the empirical controlled experiments for "aether based" reactions.
   First asked 7 April 2010

 

[Reality Check]

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

Owww. The physics states that you are not right. What matters is the optical depth. It just so happens that the denser a plasma is the smaller its optical depth tends to be.

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

Thanks. That is just about what I expected.

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.

Then what is it? And has it been measured in an expeeriment.

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

Citations to the paper & text books conntaining these "empirical data sets" please.
How did you use them?
What papers did you publish using them?

I have already explained to you why this is so.

All you have done is keep on repeating your unsupported assertion of your idea of a solid iron surface without showing any understanding of the basic contradiction in that assertion.

So here it is again in simpler steps

• You have an idea that the Sun has a solid iron surface.
• That solid iron surface emits the light that we see from the Sun.
• The Sun's light has a roughly blackbody spectrum (which you think can only come from solid objects).
• So that blackbody spectrum coming as you believe from a solid object just happens to say that that solid object is at a temperature of ~5777 K.
• The physical fact is that iron has a boiling point of 3114 K.
• The number 5777 is greater than 3114.
• The temperature of your solid iron surface must be greater than the boiling point of iron.
• Therefore your solid iron surface has vaporized and does not exist.
  This is a form of reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe you think that the Sun is a hollow sphere of iron with all of the light emitted from above the surface of the sphere. That is easily debunked:

The light is emitted from plasma in all directions. The heat from the plasma above the surface is also directed inwards. So the temperature of your iron will be greater than ~5777K and vaporizes yet again.
​

Also the neutrino types and flux measured means that the Sun is powered by fusion. Fusion also produces gamma rays (e.g. see the CNO cycle). If the fusion were happening on the surface of the Sun then we would fry in gamma rays. The fact that we measure the neutrinos frim fusion and not the specific gamma rays from fusion means that the fusion is happening in the core of the Sun where the gamma rays can be absorbed and converted into other parts of the spectrum. N.B. We do detect gamma rays from the Sun - just not the right ones or enough.

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

You do not have a model. A model predicts stuff.
You have a couple of ideas (solid iron surface + "aether batteries").
The solid iron surface is ruled out as above.
Your "aether batteries" explain nothing because your explanations are basically "the aether did it". That is as valid as "the fairies did it" .
You need to state your actual theory of how the aether does it, what this explains and most importantly: the testable, falsifiable predictions of "aether batteries".

Neutrinos could be aether emissions.

Neutrinos could be pixy dust. So what?
The science shows that neutrinos are neutrinos !

 

[Reality Check]

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

Yes.

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"..

Your model does not work in the context of "simple thermodynamics" or even simple physics as explained many times before.
You think that blackbody spectrum are only emitted by solid objects. The Sun has a roughly blackbody spectum that you presumably agree is emitted by a body with a tempertaure of ~5777 K. That is the basic physics part - blackbody spectrum are determined only by the termpertaure of the emitting body. Thus the temperature at the surface of the Sun is in general greater than the boiling temperature of iron.

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

That is because the thermodynamics are not simple in that case!
The Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked! list has a post about this that you seem to have missed:

Why is this iron crust thermodynamically impossible (see the Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere? section).
​

Great example of circulus in probando.

Great example of pointing out that your list is based an in invalid assumption - that of a physically impossible iron surface.

Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm

That is really bad, brantc.
You should not link to a probably crank web* site in order to support your ideas. That just taints your ideas as being as bad as theirs.

* make that definitely a crank web site. I see the rather ignorant redefinition of the units of energy into units that are not energy

Energy has the conventional dimensions: m l^2 t^-2 (mass times length squared divided by time squared). By applying the mass-to-length transformation, this becomes: l^3 t^-2, denoting a volume of space synchronized with two resonant frequencies.

 

[Reality Check]

Again I believe this is a image of the surface of the sun. The bright spots at the loops footprints are where you would see a white light flare.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

That assertion is wrong in so many ways:

• Linking to an image in Wikipedia that is one of the millions of TRACE images is silly unless you find the original source so that people can check it out.
• TRACE tends to color code its images. Judging by the color this is a 171 A image of the million degree corona (see the confirmation below).
• We do not expect to see white light flares in the corona. You might. You again just assert this without any evidence.

P.S. I did the basic research that you should have done:
A collection of TRACE images (6) (close to the bottom of the page)

On 8 November 2000, a not so spectacular M7.4 flare went off around 22:42 UT in AR 9213, fading again by 00:05 UT, near the west limb of the Sun (a half-size 2.6MB Quicktime/Cinepak movie of the initial flare event is shown here (~20:00 - 23:50 UT); note that the deformation of the high coronal field begins prior to the main flare and continues well into the flare; note also the flaring that goes on in the distant region at the solar limb that may well be related to the main event in the nearby region through some magnetic coupling). The leftmost image is a TRACE 171Å image (~1 million degrees) of the rapidly cooling, postflare loop system, rotated so that north is to the left ...

(my emphasis)

I wish I had NSO, HINODE and TRACE to do a simultaneous observation at this angle.

Try STEREO.

 

[brantc]

Optical depth, brantc. How thick are those bubbles?

Tiny. 500 microns.
The bubbles demonstrate the principle of pressure broadening in the lab. And you can track the spectrum with changes in pressure that are not normally available in the lab. It was this that gave me the first clue that lead to an examination of blackbodies.
And they give you some number as to what to expect in the way of pressure vs continuum. 9000 atmospheres just to get a continuum, not even a blackbody..
The "bottom"(IR opacity 1) of the photosphere is nowhere near that pressure.

How thick is the photosphere?

According to your model measurements in the IR, 400km.

If you go by the IR measurements its the numbers in the above chart. Thats what I'm going by, minimum opacity by the wavelength that has the most penetration depth.

Why are you still unaware of the significance of optical depth to these problems?

I am aware of the significance of optical depth.
But all anybody has every shown me is calculations based on principles about blackbody and opacity that may be wrong. Especially in light of the new proton measurements. Also if you read why the opacity project was started, you get an idea of the floundering that went into solar models.

Accuracy of Stellar Opacities.
http://cassini.mps.ohio-state.edu/~nahar/papers/astspecdmihalas-op.pdf

Nobody has shown me any evidence that distance through a plasma will produce a blackbody.

 

[brantc]

That assertion is wrong in so many ways:

• Linking to an image in Wikipedia that is one of the millions of TRACE images is silly unless you find the original source so that people can check it out.

• 
  
  Did you even look at that link???? You should know from the address in the link that is the TRACE site!!!!
  
  Have you ever been to the TRACE website???
  Here is the Home Page.
  
  http://trace.lmsal.com/
  
  I have. Downloaded gigs of movies and pictures. Spent many hours there. Looked at all the pictures and movies.
  
  http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
  
  
  Now I understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over.
  
  
  One of my favorite images.
  http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_001016_002538.gif
  Coincidences happen. Or at least, that is what we think we are seeing here. This TRACE image (171Å, showing emission of gas around 1 million degrees) was taken on 16 October 2000, at 00:25UT (rotated so that north is to the right). It shows a filament destabilization in which material is lifted up, and then slides down again as the magnetic field reorganizes. One of the footpoints is where the lines that are drawn on the image converge. These lines are drawn to guide the eye along a cluster of short streaks on the detector. These are most likely the result of an energetic particle bouncing off the satellite somewhere near the detector, causing a shower of less-energetic particles that leave a signal as they travel through the detector. The puzzling thing is that the streak paths seem to converge right at the location on the detector where the bright filament footpoint is imaged. A similar particle shower was observed on 15 September 2001, at 10:55:03 UT.
  http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive5.html

 

[brantc]

All you have done is keep on repeating your unsupported assertion of your idea of a solid iron surface without showing any understanding of the basic contradiction in that assertion.

So here it is again in simpler steps

• You have an idea that the Sun has a solid iron surface.
• That solid iron surface emits the light that we see from the Sun.
• The Sun's light has a roughly blackbody spectrum (which you think can only come from solid objects).
• So that blackbody spectrum coming as you believe from a solid object just happens to say that that solid object is at a temperature of ~5777 K.

Arcade(loop). At 171nm. That means you can see all light at 171nm, reflected or other wise. Arcades range from 20,000km to 5 arcsecond x 755KM in size.
These are about 50,000km high.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

Now look at the base of the arcades where the hot spots are. Those are loop footprints. Theses are the areas where white light flares occur. Look around the loop footprints. The glow that covers large ares is solar moss.

Notice under the arcades. The linear structures. You would say that its plasma but I would say those are solid structures. Plasma doesnt form into structures like that. Those structures are the result of coronal rain. Hyper velocity blobs are the result of iron melting at the loop footprints due to thermionic emission, and traveling up the loop which is composed of iron plasma.

At the loop foot prints many processes happen. The temperature of the iron climbs from below molten to ionized in a few hundred miles or less.

The surface is solid with patches of ionized iron. When you take a temperature reading you get an average of the cloud of ions and electrons above the surface and the glowing surface below as well as the plasma layer surface glow above. This average depending on the angle could be 5700K to 10,000K.

Think big Deuterium lamp with a hotter spectrum.

• The physical fact is that iron has a boiling point of 3114 K.
• The number 5777 is greater than 3114.
• The temperature of your solid iron surface must be greater than the boiling point of iron.
• Therefore your solid iron surface has vaporized and does not exist.
  This is a form of reductio ad absurdum.

The correlated color temperature (Tcp) is the temperature of the Planckian radiator whose perceived colour most closely resembles that of a given stimulus at the same brightness and under specified viewing conditions
— CIE/IEC 17.4:1987, International Lighting Vocabulary (ISBN 3900734070)[6]



The Detectability of Neon Fluorescence and Measurement of the Solar Photospheric Neon Abundance
Received 2007 May 22; accepted 2007 June 27; published 2007 August 7

<snip>
Faced with the prospect of coronal Ne fractionation by a process that is not yet firmly identified or understood, it is not clear that the neon content of any region of the solar outer atmosphere will be the same as that of the deeper layers.

The solar neon content represents a potentially large source of uncertainty for understanding the oscillation spectrum of the Sun. Models employing a recently advanced solar chemical composition based on three-dimensional (3D) non-LTE hydrodynamic photospheric modeling (Asplund et al. 2005 ) lead to predictions of the depth of the convection zone, helium abundance, density, and sound speed in serious disagreement with helioseismology measurements (Basu & Antia 2004; Bahcall et al. 2005a). The Asplund et al. (2005) mixture contains less of the elements C, N, O, and Ne that are important for the opacity of the solar interior by 25%–35% compared to earlier assessments (e.g., Anders & Grevesse 1989; Grevesse & Sauval 1998). Antia & Basu (2005) and Bahcall et al. (2005b) suggested the uncertain solar Ne abundance might be raised to compensate. While enthusiasm for this solution has been dampened by a study of solar parameter uncertainties inferred from oscillation data that appear to exclude such large Ne abundance revisions (Delahaye & Pinsonneault 2006), Drake & Testa (2005) found empirical support from Chandra high-resolution X-ray spectra of mostly magnetically active stars for which the Ne/O abundance ratio appears consistently higher by a factor of ∼2 or more than the currently recommended solar value of Ne/O = 0.15 by number.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/665/2/L175/21824.text.html

Really? All stars are the same????

Maybe you think that the Sun is a hollow sphere of iron with all of the light emitted from above the surface of the sphere. That is easily debunked:

The light is emitted from plasma in all directions. The heat from the plasma above the surface is also directed inwards. So the temperature of your iron will be greater than ~5777K and vaporizes yet again.
​

The heat capacity of a thin plasma is lower than a solid like iron. It also radiates less(same thing).

Also the neutrino types and flux measured means that the Sun is powered by fusion. Fusion also produces gamma rays (e.g. see the CNO cycle). If the fusion were happening on the surface of the Sun then we would fry in gamma rays. The fact that we measure the neutrinos frim fusion and not the specific gamma rays from fusion means that the fusion is happening in the core of the Sun where the gamma rays can be absorbed and converted into other parts of the spectrum. N.B. We do detect gamma rays from the Sun - just not the right ones or enough.

Your confusing two different models here. My model is using electrons derived from the aether to power the sun. There is some fusion that happens on the surface in loops as evidenced by the gamma observations as well as every other frequency of radiation. and there are temperatures hot enough for the CNO cycle in pinches (reconnections) that happen in loops.

The model you describe is an EU model.

You do not have a model. A model predicts stuff.
You have a couple of ideas (solid iron surface + "aether batteries").
The solid iron surface is ruled out as above.
Your "aether batteries" explain nothing because your explanations are basically "the aether did it". That is as valid as "the fairies did it" .
You need to state your actual theory of how the aether does it, what this explains and most importantly: the testable, falsifiable predictions of "aether batteries".

Your right about that. However it is built from observations. I am still building a frame work.
The remarkable thing I think is that I have a laboratory example to back up every process that I am describing.

Neutrinos could be pixy dust. So what?
The science shows that neutrinos are neutrinos !

Thats right!!! My model, idea, hypothesis is just as good. We just know that some energy went some where when some thing happened.

 

[Reality Check]

Did you even look at that link???? You should know from the address in the link that is the TRACE site!!!!

Yes I did - that lead to me to TRACE site which I have known about for years.

Try reading what the image is actually :
A collection of TRACE images (6) (close to the bottom of the page)

On 8 November 2000, a not so spectacular M7.4 flare went off around 22:42 UT in AR 9213, fading again by 00:05 UT, near the west limb of the Sun (a half-size 2.6MB Quicktime/Cinepak movie of the initial flare event is shown here (~20:00 - 23:50 UT); note that the deformation of the high coronal field begins prior to the main flare and continues well into the flare; note also the flaring that goes on in the distant region at the solar limb that may well be related to the main event in the nearby region through some magnetic coupling). The leftmost image is a TRACE 171Å image (~1 million degrees) of the rapidly cooling, postflare loop system, rotated so that north is to the left ...

(my emphasis added)

One of my favorite images.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_001016_002538.gif
...
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive5.html

Nice image.
So what?

 

[Reality Check]

As you requested I supplied this list of 8 questions dating from 7 April 2010.
Any answers or links to where you answered them??

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped the obvious to get to the woo...
Notice under the arcades. The linear structures. You would say t hat its plasma but I would say those are solid structures.

I see no "linear structures", That is a bit of "bunny in the clouds" logic.
I know it is plasma because the 171nm pass band detects light emitted primarily from Fe IX which forms at temperatures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.

...
The surface is solid with patches of ionized iron....

That is really wrong brantc. Debunked by one simple fact:
A collection of TRACE images (6) ... "(~1 million degrees)" (my emphasis)

The correlated color temperature (Tcp) is the temperature of the Planckian radiator whose perceived colour most closely resembles that of a given stimulus at the same brightness and under specified viewing conditions
— CIE/IEC 17.4:1987, International Lighting Vocabulary (ISBN 3900734070)[6]

The Plankian radiator that is your solid iron surface is measured to have a temperature of ~5777 K and as I stated:

• The physical fact is that iron has a boiling point of 3114 K.
• The number 5777 is greater than 3114.
• The temperature of your solid iron surface must be greater than the boiling point of iron.
• Therefore your solid iron surface has vaporized and does not exist.

Really? All stars are the same????

Really? A random paper (The Detectability of Neon Fluorescence and Measurement of the Solar Photospheric Neon Abundance) with nothing to do with the thread topic?
P.S. The authors cite a paper that states that stars are different, i.e. magnetically active stars hava a different Ne/O abundance ratio than the Sun.
How you get "all stars are the same" from this is a bit mind-boggling.

The heat capacity of a thin plasma is lower than a solid like iron. It also radiates less(same thing).

And your point is?
Your iron surface still heats up to > 5777 K and the boiling point of iron is still 3114 K. A little point for you to forget - your physically impossible iron surface has been immersed in a ~5777 K plasma for 4.6 billion years.

Your confusing two different models here.

What I stated was:

Also the neutrino types and flux measured means that the Sun is powered by fusion. Fusion also produces gamma rays (e.g. see the CNO cycle). If the fusion were happening on the surface of the Sun then we would fry in gamma rays. The fact that we measure the neutrinos frim fusion and not the specific gamma rays from fusion means that the fusion is happening in the core of the Sun where the gamma rays can be absorbed and converted into other parts of the spectrum. N.B. We do detect gamma rays from the Sun - just not the right ones or enough.

It is a statement of the observational evidence that the standard model explains and that your idea will have to match:

1. The observed neutrino flux.
2. The observed type of neutrinos.
3. The fact that the gamma rays expected from the fusion are missing.

My model is using electrons derived from the aether to power the sun.

My model is using electrons derived from pixie dust to power the sun and is much better then yours !

That reminds me:

Please list the empirical controlled experiments for "aether based" reactions.
First asked 7 April 2010

Add your evidence for "electrons derived from the aether"
or should this be a separate question?
​

There is some fusion that happens on the surface in loops as evidenced by the gamma observations as well as every other frequency of radiation. and there are temperatures hot enough for the CNO cycle in pinches (reconnections) that happen in loops.

You are wrong: Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. IV

The same analysis is valid for all of the reactions in each of the CNO reaction chains. So all of the narrow-line gamma ray emission features from each chain should be emitted by the sun, simultaneously, if that CNO chain is in effect at or above the photosphere of the sun. This spectrum of narrow line gamma ray emission is not seen and that fact by itself is sufficient to rule out any CNO reaction chain at or above the photosphere of the sun. The complete absence of all narrow line features from the CNO chains is sufficient by itself to rule out all CNO reactions. The only limit here is the threshold of observability. So we can say with confidence in physics that there a not enough CNO reactions at or above the photosphere of the sun to produce any observable evidence. And that clearly means that CNO processes at or above the photosphere of the sun cannot have any significant impact on solar energy generation.

Your right about that. However it is built from observations. I am still building a frame work.
The remarkable thing I think is that I have a laboratory example to back up every process that I am describing.

Start by listing the laboratory example that shows that the observed neutrinos can be produced without the gamma rays needed to conserve energy.

Thats right!!! My model, idea, hypothesis is just as good. We just know that some energy went some where when some thing happened.

Thats wrong!!

Your idea starts with a physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun. This is debunked because of two simple physical facts:

1. The Sun has a measured temperature of ~5777 K and
2. Iron has a boiling point of 3114 K.

But it looks like you are now stating that neutrinos do not exist. This is rather ignorant given that they have been detected for decades in 1000's of experiments. But maybe you just do not know about neutrino detectors.