Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

There's a great deal of incivility and bickering on this thread so I strongly advise you to cut out the sniping and sneering. Address the topic or this thread will be put on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Yay for Tricky!

 

[Dancing David]

It's finally starting to quiet down now at work.

I suppose we need to talk about sunspots and how they relate then to "optical depth" of at least the visible spectrum before we can discuss the full spectrum of energy from the sun.

The sunspots IMO are key to this case, and I'll start rounding up images, starting with these images:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

The white light in these images ends a define "layer". The plasma in the umbra is upwelling from below and coming up and through that region. We can observe the bases of the penumbral filaments end at a specific depth that is measured in kilometers. The penumbral filaments are the key here and I'll comment more in a moment, but I need to find some other images first.

Hi MM!

Again I am asking about the RD images that you claim show features on teh semi solid surface.

How deep are those features?
What layers are above them?
What is the opacity of those layers at the frequencies that are used in the RD imamges?

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma.

And the spectroscopic analysis that confirms thi is?

Keep in mind there is a discharge process occurring between the solid surface below, and the heliosphere far out in space, and all the layers have "current flow" running through them. The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere.

So how does it keep the layers from mixing?

The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra.

And are you saying that the silicon is visble as teh darker region?

As it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and starts to enter the chromosphere, the density change is too great, plasma starts to cool off, and it sinks back into the photosphere.

It seems that you are!
So the spectroscopic confirmation of this being even a 40% silicon plasma layer is? Same for the 40% neon layers is?

There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate. There are two different types of plasma in this image, one that is "seen", and one that is "darker" that is upwelling in the umbra. The various plasmas tend to "stick together" so the penumbral filaments are simply the "sides" of the neon layer.

And the spectroscopic wavelengths and proportions that support this are?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Coronal Heating & Solar Wind I

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this question as well ... My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.

That's the general idea. One must keep in mind the correct statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, namely that heat energy will always flow from high temperature to low temperature in any spontaneous process. However, the restriction goes away in principle, for any process that is not spontaneous.

Refrigerators do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but neither are they spontaneous in any sense of the word. Heat flows from the cold interior to the hot exterior because it is pumped out. There is a mechanism which does physical work (force applied over a distance) and expends energy in order to forcibly pump heat energy "uphill" and out of the refrigerator.

The temperature in the corona is in the millions of Kelvins, compared to the thousands of Kelvins in the photosphere because there is a pump that does mechanical work (force applied over a distance) and expends energy to forcibly pump heat energy "uphill" into the corona.

While the precise mechanism by which the corona is heated remains unknown, the notion that scientists literally have "no clue" as to what happens is unacceptably ignorant & naive. The real problem is that there are so many ways to pump heat into the corona that it is hard scientific work to figure out which mechanism(s) dominate the process. But is is known that the magnetic field connection between the photosphere and corona, through the transition region, is the primary key, and it is the focus of most research into the coronal heating problem. The basics are found, once again, in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (2nd, revised edition, 2004). However, in a heavily studied field like this, 2004 may be already getting old, even if the basics were already well known (Schrijver, et al., 1997 was a major breakthrough in understanding the truly dynamic nature of the photospheric magnetic field and its connection to the chromosphere; you can see by the extensive citation record that the work remains relevant today). A few examples of recent work on the coronal heating problem, as well as the associated problem of the acceleration of the solar wind are in order, arbitrarily chosen by me because they look most interesting & relevant: Antolin & Shibata, 2010; Cranmer, et al., 2010; Matsumoto & Shibata, 2010; McIntosh & De Pontieu, 2009; De Pontieu, et al., 2009; Chandran & Hollweg, 2009; Jess, et al., 2009; Suzuki, 2008; Nishizuka, et al., 2008.

Now allow me to quote myself:

The attentive reader should not let Mozina get away with fobbing off unsupported opinions as if they were anything other than just that. If he cannot produce arguments as detailed and scientifically complete as the science presented in this book, which science he claims to refute, then his arguments must be rejected in their entirety.

Although Mozina's name is explicit for obvious reasons, substituting "anyone" in its place may be more appropriate. Here and elsewhere, I am presenting the reader with a solid foundation of scientific research, based on genuine observations of nature and well established physics. Take it or leave it, read it or not, believe it or not, but at least it is there in front of you. Uninformed & uneducated opinions, amateur level guesses, and arbitrary assumptions with no basis in fact or science should not be allowed to hold sway in the face of solid physics. I expect the same level of attention to scientific detail in response to me, as I provide. You, the attentive reader, should do likewise and expect no less.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except that it's not a different material, and it is emitting light.

FYI, I don't have the luxury of spending my whole day here today, but I did want to get to your questions and focus on your posts next.

It is a different material as the visible light emitting wiggling ends of the penumbral filaments reveal.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

It's the same material just a bit cooler.

IMO, that theory fails to explain the visual evidence of even a single gband image. Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon.

If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. They complained at me earlier, but I at least have some basis for a cooling process (including all those photons from the neon), whereas they claim the area under the photosphere is typically *HOTTER* than at the surface. How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No I ,asked you how opaque do you feel that the photosphere is?

There is a reason for it.

How deep do you feel the photosphere is?

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.

How opaque do you feel the photosphere is?

To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, I don't have the luxury of spending my whole day here today, but I did want to get to your questions and focus on your posts next.

It is a different material as the visible light emitting wiggling ends of the penumbral filaments reveal.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg




IMO, that theory fails to explain the visual evidence of even a single gband image. Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon.

If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. They complained at me earlier, but I at least have some basis for a cooling process (including all those photons from the neon), whereas they claim the area under the photosphere is typically *HOTTER* than at the surface. How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

For anyone not familiar with previous parts of this thread, understand that Michael's qualifications to understand and properly analyze solar imagery have been challenged, and he has so far been wholly unable to demonstrate that he does indeed possess any such qualifications. Anything he presents as "evidence" in the way of telescope or satellite images cannot be accepted as anything more than his unsubstantiated opinion. It is not evidence no matter how it was acquired or processed.

 

[GeeMack]

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

 

[Perpetual Student]

For anyone not familiar with previous parts of this thread, understand that Michael's qualifications to understand and properly analyze solar imagery have been challenged, and he has so far been wholly unable to demonstrate that he does indeed possess any such qualifications. Anything he presents as "evidence" in the way of telescope or satellite images cannot be accepted as anything more than his unsubstantiated opinion. It is not evidence no matter how it was acquired or processed.

As I follow this thread, I have attempted to understand why someone without qualifications and real knowledge would persist in debating in this manner. He is debating accomplished specialists in a genuinely complex field of which he has partial knowledge and harbors profound misconceptions. As a layman, I have debated areas of physics with specialists also. But my purpose has been to learn or enhance my understanding. My "debating" has had a purpose in exposing my struggle with some of the counter-intuitive aspects of modern physics. I don't aways succeed but in some cases I have managed to gain some insight.
But MM never learns; he persists in clinging to his misconceptions in spite of the many people who have tried to help him. He is like a petulant child who insists on clinging to and an uninformed opinion about some concept beyond a child's capabilities. I just don't get it.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sunspots and photospheric physics II

Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon. If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

We are correct, the filaments do as a matter of observed fact extend down into the photosphere, both along the inner rim of the penumbra, where the filaments rise out of the umbra, and along the outer edge of the penumbra, where the filaments turn and sink back down into the surrounding photosphere. Mozina has nothing to offer here except his own highly subjective & arbitrary interpretation of the motion of features in the movie, driven by bias and nothing more. The filaments do not "end abruptly", they "turn abruptly", and it is obviously not possible to tell the difference between the two if all you have to go by is the movie. It is absolutely not true that we would expect to see white light along the convection tube, under these circumstances, from deeper in the sun because the plasma is too opaque.

Instead of relying on amateur guess work and science by "pretty picture", we should expect real scientists to rely on more substantial information, and they do. For instance, I call the reader's attention to the paper The Velocity Field of Sunspot Penumbrae I: A Global View; Franz & Schlichenmaier, Astronomy and Astrophysics 508(3): 1453-1460, December 2009. Refer specifically to figure 5 on page 6 of the PDF via the arXiv link. That figure shows the measured velocity field of a sunspot as revealed by Doppler shifted iron spectral line observations. The real science here absolutely refutes everything Mozina has to say about sunspots.

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. ... How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

One must be aware that this is typical of Mozina's exasperating style of discourse. He knows quite well that these questions have already been answered, but simply ignores the fact, perhaps hoping that the reader will not notice. See, for instance ...

Again, Mozina rants & talks trash, but has nothing intelligent to say. The ability of magnetic fields to inhibit convective heat transport is well known & well established, and indeed fairly obvious: Plasma does not cross magnetic field lines. The physics is well described in any number of sources, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004 2nd revised edition), section 8.2.2 "Why Spots Are Cool" ...

The most promising explanation of the spots coolness, and the fate of the missing energy, seems to lie in the blocking of convection by intense vertical magnetic fields. This explanation was first put forward by Biermann in 1941, and some recent evidence tends to strengthen the argument. The basic idea is that the horizontal motions of overturning convection are inhibited by the magnetic volume force jxB in the presence of a strong vertical magnetic field. ... In this explanation of the spot coolness, an equilibrium would be reached in which the convective heat flux blocked below the spot would simply flow around it ...
Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, 2nd ed. 2004, page 250. See the book for complete details.
​

But the situation for sunspots is much different. The density of material inside a sunspot is not significantly different from the density outside the sunspot. But the sunspot remains relatively cool because the surrounding magnetic field inhibits convective energy transport into the sunspot. But this magnetic field does not interfere with radiative heat transport at all. That's why sunspots can't get cooler than about 3200 Kelvins. And note that your 3180 K is still 46 K in excess of the boiling point of iron, so this does not help your cause if your cause is a solid & rigid shell.

Primitive cultures cannot distinguish between "science" and "magic". Perhaps it is the primitive state of Mr. Mozina's intellectual development that likewise causes him to confuse "science" and "magic", always preferring the latter it would seem.

 

[GeeMack]

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

Your source, you say? Well that would clearly be, from looking at the bolded parts, your own inexpert opinion based on what you believe you see in some images. And as a reminder, you were asked to demonstrate that you are qualified to understand what you're seeing in solar images, and you refused. Also, all evidence shows that you do not possess those qualifications. Your opinion, as support for your argument, is worthless.

The photosphere is most appropriately measured according to opaqueness, so in a way your question is a lot like asking how tall is that bunny in the clouds. The deepest point in the photosphere is the place where it becomes opaque. (Wow, like nobody already said that.) And although you've made it abundantly clear that you won't accept their expertise, the source is NASA.

If you want a depth of the photosphere in kilometers, it is estimated to become opaque to almost all light at around 400 kilometers, and with the most sophisticated currently available technology, around the 1.56 micron infrared wavelength, the absolute deepest we can see is about 450 kilometers. The source? Haimin Wang, professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, from his paper Near-Infrared Observations at 1.56 Microns of the 2003 October 29 X10 White-Light Flare.

So, we could say the photosphere is 450 kilometers deep, if we really, really stretch. And that physically impossible solid surface of yours, Michael, you claim exists at 0.995R to 0.997R? That's about 2000 to 3500 kilometers deep, or over a thousand miles deeper than any light at any wavelength is known to escape. You are not seeing a surface of any sort in any solar image, no matter where it was obtained and regardless of how it is processed. It's impossible.

So if you want to continue to assert that you, unique among all people, are able to see anything through a thousand or more miles of totally opaque material, take it to the General Skepticism and The Paranormal category, because it is no longer a matter of astrophysics. It is truly a supernatural ability you are claiming.

 

[Toke]

As I follow this thread, I have attempted to understand why someone without qualifications and real knowledge would persist in debating in this manner. He is debating accomplished specialists in a genuinely complex field of which he has partial knowledge and harbors profound misconceptions. As a layman, I have debated areas of physics with specialists also. But my purpose has been to learn or enhance my understanding. My "debating" has had a purpose in exposing my struggle with some of the counter-intuitive aspects of modern physics. I don't aways succeed but in some cases I have managed to gain some insight.
But MM never learns; he persists in clinging to his misconceptions in spite of the many people who have tried to help him. He is like a petulant child who insists on clinging to and an uninformed opinion about some concept beyond a child's capabilities. I just don't get it.

Quite well put.
This tread does give a poor impression of MM.

 

[Reality Check]

Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)

Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.

This is part of Michael Mozina fantasy that sunspots are upwelling "mostly" silicon plasma in "mostly" neon plasma (as far as I can see).

Why does this sound so familiar. I know!

• Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  First asked 30 July 2009
• What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  First asked 7 August 2009

Let's start by stating what the SERTS is:

Solar Extreme-Ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph

The Solar Extreme-ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph (SERTS) instrument obtains spatially resolved spectra and spectroheliograms over a wide range of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelengths characteristic of temperatures between 5x10^4-3x10^7K, providing information about the Sun's corona and upper transition region. Wavelength coverage is 170-450A with spectral resolution near 10000, spatial resolution as good as 5arcsec, and relative photometric accuracy within +/- 20% over most of its range. This page contains links to information about the instrument, a solar EUV line list between 170 and 450 A from the SERTS-89 flight, and a list of SERTS-related publications. Soon to be added is information about upcoming launches. Also included are links to other WWW servers relevant to solar astronomers.

I do not know how many flights were made or if they are still going on.

For a more technical article: Extreme ultraviolet spectrum of a solar active region from SERTS.

The SERTS data contains many of the elements detected in the Sun. See table 3 in the above citation. This includes iron, silicon, potassium, oxygen, argon, nickel, helium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium, aluminuium, chronium. calcium, cobolt, sodium, manganese, titanium, neon and carbon.

First asked 18 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (also detected by SERTS)?

And why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" XX plasma where XX is any of

• potassium
• oxygen
• argon
• nickel
• helium
• sulfur
• zinc
• magnesium,
• aluminuium
• chronium
• calcium
• cobolt
• sodium
• manganese
• titanium
• carbon
• or even neon

 

[Dancing David]

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

Um, I am asking about the photosphere above the 'mountains' you allege are in the RD images.

So you are saying that the photosphere is roughly 3-3,750 km deep, does this apply to the area above the 'mountains' in the RD images?

 

[Dancing David]

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

'Based upon the Swedish 1m telescope image' is not a citation of a source, do you care to cite the text?

It is a citation of an image, who do you arrive at the depth and does this apply to the photosphere about the mountains in the RD image?

 

[Dancing David]

The photosphere is most appropriately measured according to opaqueness, so in a way your question is a lot like asking how tall is that bunny in the clouds. The deepest point in the photosphere is the place where it becomes opaque. (Wow, like nobody already said that.) And although you've made it abundantly clear that you won't accept their expertise, the source is NASA.

If you want a depth of the photosphere in kilometers, it is estimated to become opaque to almost all light at around 400 kilometers, and with the most sophisticated currently available technology, around the 1.56 micron infrared wavelength, the absolute deepest we can see is about 450 kilometers. The source? Haimin Wang, professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, from his paper Near-Infrared Observations at 1.56 Microns of the 2003 October 29 X10 White-Light Flare.

So, we could say the photosphere is 450 kilometers deep, if we really, really stretch. And that physically impossible solid surface of yours, Michael, you claim exists at 0.995R to 0.997R? That's about 2000 to 3500 kilometers deep, or over a thousand miles deeper than any light at any wavelength is known to escape. You are not seeing a surface of any sort in any solar image, no matter where it was obtained and regardless of how it is processed. It's impossible.

Thanks Gee Mack

ETA: I had already found this:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html

 

[Reality Check]

Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.

First asked 18 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for depth of the photosphere using the filaments in the Swedish 1M image?

I am also not sure which image is the Swedish 1M telescope image. Can you post a link to the original source of the image?

 

[jhunter1163]

Tim Thompson, puttin' the E in JREF since 2008.

Excellent posts. Kudos to GeeMack and Ziggurat as well for their work on this subject. That's why I love this place; no matter what the subject, there's someone here with relevant expertise.

 

[tusenfem]

The difference is that Birkeland didn't know the empirical cause at first, he had a empirical idea which he played with and which actually worked in a lab. He also actually "predicted" a number of things in terms of actual physics, all sorts of things that he "learned" from "experimentation". You folks don't even do experiments with real control mechanisms.

He also explained how those currents get there, where they come from, why they form the patterns they do, etc. You folks just play round with software and "pretend/hope like hell" it actually works in a real lab, or nobody notices it doesn't.

Dark energy doesn't "work in the lab", just on paper.

Yes, and he was wrong about how the currents get there and how they flow and how they are generated, as we now know. The "ansatz" was okay.

And who the frak cares about "dark energy" when we are discussing the stupid iron sun idea and electric currents either on the sun or in the Earth's magnetosphere. Nice diversion MM, but stay on topic please.