Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Dancing David]

I get that you think you see these things in those images. Do you get that your interlocutors are not denying that sunspots actually have 3D properties?

He does, it is misdirection.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, both GM & Sol are correct, but certainly Sol's definition is more precise

Now, to some extent all light is blocked, but the percentage of light that gets through any substance is wavelength (or frequency) dependent.
The blocking is done by a combination of scattering and absorption.
Continuum opacity results from scattering of photons, mostly off of electrons, or from ionization, where any photon energetic enough will encounter an atom and lose energy, or be completely absorbed, in the act of kicking an electron away from the atom.
Line opacity results from complete absorption of a photon in the act of moving an electron bound to the atom from one energy to a higher energy.
It's the line opacity, or absorption, that creates the dark lines in the solar spectrum ( http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/chemcomp_i/solar_spectrum_big.jpg a big image 8192x5464 pixels might load slow).
So in detail opacity can be a complicated affair. I am sure that the general idea of the present exercise is to try to avoid as much of the complication as possible and keep it simple. A continuum opacity should do for that.

Thanks for your many posts!

 

[D'rok]

Believe it or not, I'm not even interested in wiggle room, I'm interested in facts and very interested in sols numbers.The "opacity" definition sol provided is correct. GM's definition is pathetically misleading, just like about every other statement that comes out of his mouth. A "layer" that blocks 90+ of the light isn't blocking all the light. If the light source is bright enough, it might still be able to be seen below that "depth" depending on the intensity of the light source. A lightening discharge lights up the clouds and that illumination can often be seen from space. Nothing is 100 SPF infinity as GM would have you believe.

Stick with sol. Even I trust his math and physics skills.



Yes. If the intensity is great enough, I might still be able to "see" something below that point (sol's definition), if only 'faintly". It would be like shining a flashlight through a sock in a dark room and blocking 90% of that light. You *would* still see a dim outline of the flashlight, even if at a reduced rate. If you played that sock game out in the darkest cave, you might see a light source where 99% of the light was blocked and only a few photons were reaching your eye. It all depends on the intensity of the light source and how much light is actually blocked and how much reaches your eye.

If that isn't wiggle room, I don't know what is. You're hung up on this 90% thing, and you think that Sol's numbers are somehow going to give you wiggle room to see through opaque plasma. This is Sol's definition of opacity:

"Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance."

I take this to mean that a substance in which 90% of the intensity is attenuated when passing through it is 90% opaque.

You are taking a fractional measure of opacity as the definition of opaque.

 

[tusenfem]

Which is pretty much what I have been claiming the whole time. Curl >0 and the whole bit. Flux ropes touch the magnetopause first(anchored on the iron solar surface, which supplies the current, no doubt) and then there is a reconnection.

The magnetic field comes from the current following the RIGHT HAND RULE.
"The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems,"[1]
There is a disturbance in the Force and "magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge."[1]
Bang!!! Reconnection!!!!

Plasmoids happen after reconnection in the magnetotail as well as an observed substorm and increase in Auroral brightness.

1 (Refs)Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma PRL 103, 105002 (2009)

So what do you say to that Tim and Tusenfem?

I have gone through this and described everything that happens in the plasma device, I am not going to go through it again, because you will not understand anyway. Go back to my posts pages and pages ago.

Plasmoids do not "happen" they are created by reconnection.
Part of a substorm (which is not just one thing it is a whole collection of procecces that successively take place in the magnetotail) is reconnection, basically the say second part in the substorm process (growth phase, current sheet thinning, reconnection with bursty bulk flow, generation of field aligned (now really) Birkeland currents and aurora generation, recovery phase, stretching of the magnetotail again)

 

[sol invictus]

"Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance."

I take this to meant that a substance in which 90% of the intensity is attenuated when passing through it is 90% opaque.

Opacity is usually defined as a quantity with units of length^2/mass. You multiply it by the density of the material and its thickness along the direction the light is traveling - that gives a pure number. The exponential of minus that number times the input intensity is the output intensity (i.e. the intensity of the light that makes it through).

It's an exponential for a simple reason - each little bit of material absorbs or scatters some definite fraction of the light, so the integrated effect is to decrease the intensity exponentially.

There's a formula for it here.

It would also be natural to refer to that entire exponential factor as the opacity of some object or layer, but it's less convenient since then opacity would depend on thickness, angle, etc. So instead it's defined as a per unit density per unit length quantity. Anyway, in the end we'll have a formula that tells us what fraction of the light emitted from some surface x km deep in the photosphere will make it out.

 

[sol invictus]

Hey tus, maybe you can help. Given a plasma at definite temperature and density, but with some bizarre composition (mostly Ne, some H), what's the quickest way to get the opacity? Is there a table or calculator available online that will do it, or a simple analytic approximation? At least for the moment we care about continuum opacity.

 

[tusenfem]

Weird. Where are the extra electrons coming from to make H^-? What's the ionization fraction? And didn't you just say above that the electron density is what matters most?

H^- is one of the most important ions in the outer layers.
The "extra" electrons just come from the plasma (electrons galore).
This ion is stable as it fills the 1st electron shell into a noble gas configuration.

 

[tusenfem]

Hey tus, maybe you can help. Given a plasma at definite temperature and density, but with some bizarre composition (mostly Ne, some H), what's the quickest way to get the opacity? Is there a table or calculator available online that will do it, or a simple analytic approximation? At least for the moment we care about continuum opacity.

Hey Sol!

The easiest way to get the opacity is by going to the opacity project and have them calculate it. Only then can you do calculation using "simple" radiative transport. Here is the page by Rob Rutten an expert on radiative transfer, and under "astronomy course" and "master level" you get to the lecture notes on "radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres."

There are many things coming into play. The link you put in to wiki does make a beginning. The easiest way is the Rosseland mean opacity and you see the I(x) = I0 * exp(- kappa x), where kappa is the "opacity," however, in a mixture like you want to use, you have to go to the project to get all the right numbers (I have never calculated something there myself, sorry, no help there), because there is all kinds of processes that you have to take along. Therefore, you basically cannot do it on paper, you need to go to the OP.

 

[D'rok]

Opacity is usually defined as a quantity with units of length^2/mass. You multiply it by the density of the material and its thickness along the direction the light is traveling - that gives a pure number. The exponential of minus that number times the input intensity is the output intensity (i.e. the intensity of the light that makes it through).

It's an exponential for a simple reason - each little bit of material absorbs or scatters some definite fraction of the light, so the integrated effect is to decrease the intensity exponentially.

There's a formula for it here.

It would also be natural to refer to that entire exponential factor as the opacity of some object or layer, but it's less convenient since then opacity would depend on thickness, angle, etc. So instead it's defined as a per unit density per unit length quantity. Anyway, in the end we'll have a formula that tells us what fraction of the light emitted from some surface x km deep in the photosphere will make it out.

Thanks. I look forward to where this exercise is going.

Lurk mode: engage

 

[sol invictus]

H^- is one of the most important ions in the outer layers.
The "extra" electrons just come from the plasma (electrons galore).
This ion is stable as it fills the 1st electron shell into a noble gas configuration.

If all the H ions are H^-, you'd need some positively charged ions of He or something else to supply the electrons. Instead, are you saying that some H is H⁺ and some is H^-? And than the H^- ends up in the outer layers?

The easiest way to get the opacity is by going to the opacity project and have them calculate it.

Excellent, thanks. This looks like it can handle what we need.

 

[GeeMack]

Stick with sol. Even I trust his math and physics skills.

And if sol tells you that you can't see a solid surface some 2100 to 3500 kilometers down into the solar atmosphere, you'll accept that, of course.

 

[tusenfem]

If all the H ions are H^-, you'd need some positively charged ions of He or something else to supply the electrons. Instead, are you saying that some H is H⁺ and some is H^-? And than the H^- ends up in the outer layers?

From the RHESSI page: The optical opacity of the photosphere and upper solar interior is mainly due to the negative hydrogen ion, where the second electron is only loosely attached. A photon with a large range of energies can hence remove the electron by absorption.

The whole story can be read in the book by Chandrashekar, but the negative H can only exist (if I remember correctly) in rather collisionless/poor environments, as the extra electron is only weakly bound. So it can only be "generated" in the solar atmosphere, not in the sun itself.

The thing is, you have in the solar atmosphere a large plasma, with lots of protons, electrons, alphas etc. and some of the electrons (I do not know the relative number) will bind to neutral H giving the negativ H ion. It is very important in the solar atmosphere in the calculation of the opacity or optical length or whatever you want to call it. Here is a freely available paper about the topic from 1942.

Here is a memorial paper for Chandrashekar about H-.

Excellent, thanks. This looks like it can handle what we need.

That seems to be a good place too.

However, with only 10% H you will never get the correct optical depths of the solar atmosphere, because you will be greatly lacking the H- concentration. But, give it a try, have fun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If that isn't wiggle room, I don't know what is. You're hung up on this 90% thing, and you think that Sol's numbers are somehow going to give you wiggle room to see through opaque plasma. This is Sol's definition of opacity:

"Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance."

I take this to mean that a substance in which 90% of the intensity is attenuated when passing through it is 90% opaque.

You are taking a fractional measure of opacity as the definition of opaque.

It not about "wiggle room", it's about scientific precision and accuracy.

http://www.brightestflashlightintheworld.com/

FYI, I think a candle is about 12 lumens.

Let's go back to that flashlight in a cave scenario with a really bright flashlight for a moment. We'll light a candle in one part of room and the flashlight on the other. According to sol's (accurate) definition of "opaque", I can put an 'opaque' sock over the flashlight, and cut down about 90% of that light. Even still, some 350 lumens of energy come through the sock. It's still by far the brightest thing in the cave, and I can still "see through it". I can add a second "opaque" sock on top of the first one, and now my flashlight and sock arrangement is putting out about 35 lumens. I notice that it is still the brightest thing in the cave, several times brighter than the candle at the other end of the cave. I can put even a third sock over that flashlight, and finally the candle is now brighter than the flashlight with 3 socks. If however I blow out the candle, I might *STILL* see a little bit of light from that flashlight with 3 "opaque" socks over it.

According to GM's definition, I'd be a "crackpot' for thinking I can see through a single sock, and he'd be jumping up and down after the first sock claiming we can't see light from the flashlight because the sock is "opaque", and the maximum "depth" I can see through is "less than a sock". That's pathetically misleading, and simply wrong. If I told him I could see light through 3 socks, he'd go ballistic. In terms of distance, GM's definition was off by a factor of at least two, and probably 3 in terms of how many opaque socks we can see through.

Sol's definition of "opaque" isn't magical like GM's definition. There isn't a "magic point" where *all* light is blocked. Sol's definition takes into account the intensity of the light source, and all the other relevant factors, whereas GM's definition is a "gross oversimplification" and scientifically inaccurate. According to GM we would should expect to see no light when the flashlight with one sock is putting out 350 lumens and is clearly much brighter than the candle. Sol's definition explains why I can see through 3 socks. Meanwhile GM would be jumping up and down, calling everyone a "crackpot" for believing they can see through even a single sock. GM is totally and utterly clueless IMO, and he intentionally misrepresents everything. Sol on the other hand is actually interested in science, and I am very interested in the numbers he comes up with. I know they will be "accurate" and "fair".

 

[Cuddles]

He he he...

And here we see exactly the problem Michael has. Maths is the language of science, and it's impossible to do anything other than the most basic things without using maths. Without maths, you can see that a ball falls and call it gravity, but you can't work out how strong it is, how it varies, or make any predictions about it. Without maths, you can see that hot things cool down and cold things heat up, but you can't work out how fast or why they might be doing it. When it comes to more complex things, such as the Sun for example, there is virtually nothing you can work out at all without maths. When you have a 2D picture taken from millions of away, of an object thousands of miles across and deep, involving an environment unlike any found on Earth, you need maths to even work out what the picture might be showing, let alone to come up with a theory of why it might be showing that.

In 5 or 6 years of promoting his religion, Michael has not attempted do any maths, not even once. Yet his response to the suggestion that maybe trying to work with real maths and real numbers can be seen above. He just laughs. He doesn't even rise to the standard of average kooks who try to science but fail to understand it. Michael is apparently just not capable of taking science seriously at all. After all this time of trying to pretend that his nonsense is scientific, he still discounts any hint of reality or science with a bit of dismissive laughter.

This is why it's really not worth engaging with him for anything other than your own amusement. Michael's problem isn't that he doesn't understand science, it's that he knows perfectly well that he is not capable of doing anything scientific, and thinks that his own lack of ability is funny. As long as we're all aware that this is just a joke, that's fair enough. But if Michael actually wants to carry on the façade, he's going to have to try taking things a little more seriously.

 

[D'rok]

According to sol's (accurate) definition of "opaque", I can put an 'opaque' sock over the flashlight, and cut down about 90% of that light.

Argh, Michael. Seriously. That's Sol's definition of opacity. A sock with 90% opacity is not necessarily an opaque sock. Sol did not define "opaque" to be a substance exhibiting 90% opacity. Sheesh.

A sock with 100% opacity, assuming such a thing is possible, is definitely an opaque sock. There's probably some measure of opacity below 100% that is de facto opaque, although you will no doubt grasp at anything less than 100% opacity as evidence for your claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK.

I still need to know whether you mean 90%Ne by mass or by number. In other words, you might mean that if I weigh some plasma, 90% of the weight comes from Ne and 10% from H. Or, you might mean that if I count atoms, 90% will be Ne and 10% will be H. Those are very different, because a typical Ne atom weighs 20x as much as an H atom (i.e. a proton).

I meant mass assuming other elements present so use mass. It might be a bit heavy on the hydrogen since we're not including other (heavier) elements, but that's fine IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And here we see exactly the problem Michael has. Maths is the language of science, and it's impossible to do anything other than the most basic things without using maths.

Well, IMO you folks failed to notice even the "basics" in terms of satellite imagery so most of your "maths" are completely pointless. You have the "transition region' in the wrong place. Most of the "coronal loops" never make into the corona to begin with. "Coronal rain" often happens under the photosphere. The photosphere isn't "opaque". None of your terminology even makes sense given the visual facts.

What's the point of talking about the math when you don't have the "physics" right?

Without maths, you can see that a ball falls and call it gravity, but you can't work out how strong it is, how it varies, or make any predictions about it.

Actually that's false too. I can jump up and down a few times, notice I always come back to the planet, and I can "predict" it will happen again. You guys actually have gravity doing repulsive tricks at a distance and no logical empirical way to demonstrate your claims. Your fixation on math exclusively is pointless because your physical premises are entirely "off the wall". You "assume" for instance that the all the mass and energy of the universe was concentrated to a single point in spacetime. You then "assume' something called "inflation" causes "space" to expand and leads to "faster than light expansion". None of your math bunnies have any empirical merit whatsoever but you go on and on and on creating "maths" out of make believe entities. Honestly, you guys IMO are *SO* fixated on math, you ignore "empirical physics" altogether.

Without maths, you can see that hot things cool down and cold things heat up, but you can't work out how fast or why they might be doing it.

Ya, but then you might want to conceptually grasp how and why it "heated up" from the standpoint of empirical physics. "Electrical discharges" do that "naturally" right here on Earth in our own atmosphere, but you guys go on and on and on creating mathematical presentations about something Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience".

Your maths are meaningless IMO because they ignore empirical physics.

When it comes to more complex things, such as the Sun for example, there is virtually nothing you can work out at all without maths.

There is truth in that statement because it takes maths to create the satellites, maths to launch them, etc. On the other hand not all forms of knowledge about the sun is "math" related. I can understand and know that it is "hot" without knowing "how hot". I can know that it is "bright" without knowing "how bright". I can know that the transition layer is under the photosphere, not up in the upper atmosphere without knowing "how deep'' too. I can tell by the mass flows where things are located without having to know every single detail related to location.

When you have a 2D picture taken from millions of away, of an object thousands of miles across and deep, involving an environment unlike any found on Earth, you need maths to even work out what the picture might be showing, let alone to come up with a theory of why it might be showing that.

Sure. You have to understand something about the images, but sooner or later a "physical interpretation' is still necessary. It is still going to be a "subjective" process because we can't "experiment" with the sun directly, we can only measure it remotely. Our math has to jive with the observations too.

In 5 or 6 years of promoting his religion,

Oh please! I believe in empirical physics and things that work in the lab. You folks promote pure blind faith in methaphysical entities galore, starting with Guth's never been seen before dead "inflation" genie. Don't even get me started.

Michael has not attempted do any maths, not even once.

Actually that's not true. I've even done math publicly on these message boards. Nereid leaned on me one day to calculate the density of the materials that were not in the crust and not in the core. It seemed like reasonable thing to do so I spent a little time playing with the numbers on paper, and I even built a cute little spreadsheet to play with different variables related to core size and crust thickness. I don't really know how long I spent on her little project, but after posting the results she trivially and flippantly ignored the information entirely.

I realized then and there that doing mathematical "busy work" was pointless with you folks. I have a real life too, a wife, children, a business. Barking math on command for you folks isn't really a high priority to me to be honest because you folks ignore the math to the point of ignoring your own supercomputer models entirely! Hell, if your own computer models don't convince you a sunspot is a 3D feature, what math will?

But if Michael actually wants to carry on the façade, he's going to have to try taking things a little more seriously.

Oh, I do take it seriously and I do intend to present some numbers with the solar images when I'm ready. I do however have things to do, like run a business, and help my children with their algebra homework (last night in fact) and things that actually have a much higher priority in my life.

Let's be real. My pictures and my math won't change your mind. Probably nothing will ever change your mind short of NASA coming out with SDO images of the iron lines coming up through your "opaque" layer, and admitting it themselves, and even that won't convince you of this solar model. Many of you may live and die and never accept this solar model. I understand that too.

When I'm good and ready, I'll demonstrate that the umbra is a 3D feature using satellite images. It was only a couple of days ago that I found out that you folks even believed that the umbra was "opaque' to begin with. That actually was quite a "revelation" from my perspective. I always "assumed" that folks would handwave away that claim of opacity in the umbra just to stay consistent with images. I had no idea how clueless this crew was until a few days ago. Now that I finally "get it", I will spend some time blowing away your claims with satellite imagery, but it will have to be on my terms on my timing as it works for me and based on images of my choosing.

I'm serious enough to have downloaded all of the SOHO and TRACE solarsoft routines and I'll be downloading all the Hinode routines this weekend and probably into next week. When I'm ready, I'll start working on images, but I have about 50 GB of downloading to do, so don't expect to see Hinode demonstrations anytime soon. In the mean time I will work on the gband images and that shouldn't take nearly as long because I'll use that Swedish 1M image go from there. Even that won't be the highest thing on my priority list this weekend.

Frankly, disproving your solar theories really wasn't what I expected to get into in this thread, but that seems to be a necessary next step due to your claim about "opacity". That bizarre claim simply doesn't jive with any of the the satellite imagery or even ground based photosphere images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Argh, Michael. Seriously. That's Sol's definition of opacity. A sock with 90% opacity is not necessarily an opaque sock.

Actually, assuming that the sock blocks 90% of the light, yes, it would in fact be "opaque" according to sol's (accurate) definition of opacity. In GM's mind that somehow translates to "we can't see *ANY* light" through one sock, let alone two of them.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I looked around and found some tables, but they're intended for stars, so I didn't see anything with anywhere near that much neon.

What's the point of talking about the math when you don't have the "physics" right?

So that's why Michael Mozina doesn't talk about the math.

You "assume" for instance that the all the mass and energy of the universe was concentrated to a single point in spacetime.

So I didn't really have to read the first 7 chapters of Hawking and Ellis? Bummer.

Your maths are meaningless IMO because they ignore empirical physics.

Since when did empirical physics exclude thermodynamics?

 

[Ziggurat]

You'll eventually need the metals and other elements to explain the "white light', but I doubt they'd have much effect on the opacity in any relevant way

Michael reveals once again that he doesn't have a clue about thermodynamics and black body radiation.

Absorptivity and emissivity are equal, Michael. Always. But I bet you don't even understand why that's relevant to your statement.