Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

A great deal of Michael's argument is built on his propensity for asking others to do his homework,

No, in this case sol offered to put this theory "to the test" on it's own terms. Isn't that what science is all about? I'm even willing to do this real time, not in some "paper" where I can play with my wording for months on end. I'm even willing to eat a little public crow along the way when I say stupid things. No credit at all eh?

 

[ben m]

Where did you get that idea? All plasmas have at least two two "temperatures", the "ion temperature" and the "electron temperature". Please do not confuse the factors two in a "current carrying plasma". The ion temperature need not be the anywhere near the electron temperatures, in fact during discharges processes they can sometimes vary by a whole order of magnitude or more.

That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.

There is no "black body" inside the neon and the excess heat is released as "light". That blackbody concept relates to your model not mine. You can't compare apples to oranges.

 

[GeeMack]

No, in this case sol offered to put this theory "to the test" on it's own terms. Isn't that what science is all about? I'm even willing to do this real time, not in some "paper" where I can play with my wording for months on end. I'm even willing to eat a little public crow along the way when I say stupid things. No credit at all eh?

And on it's own terms, in any conditions that are remotely like what we know of the solar atmosphere (one of those conditions being, by the way, that it's impossible for your crazy solid surface to even exist, but that's being left aside for the moment to indulge your fantasy), it's been determined that you can't see 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque.

Your argument about the opacity was shown to be your unsubstantiated and unqualified opinion, and it has failed. So where exactly have you acknowledged that, or thanked anyone for determining that, or given anyone any credit for demonstrating that to be true?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And on it's own terms, in any conditions that are remotely like what we know of the solar atmosphere (one of those conditions being, by the way, that it's impossible for your crazy solid surface to even exist, but that's being left aside for the moment to indulge your fantasy), it's been determined that you can't see 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere. It's opaque.

The irony of course is that my energized neon layer must eventually also be "opaque", and yet I could still see underneath of whatever number sol comes up with as it relates to "opacity". You are so clueless about scientific terms that you're actually comedic relief.

 

[GeeMack]

The irony of course is that my energized neon layer must eventually also be "opaque", and yet I could still see underneath of whatever number sol comes up with as it relates to "opacity". You are so clueless about scientific terms that you're actually comedic relief.

Apparently you're using your own made up definition of the word irony. The irony is, of course, that you haven't yet shown that your own personal fantasy energized neon layer even exists. For the time being let's agree to use your own standards of evidence, shall we?

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [energized neon layer] out of your ^ss.

Oh, what sol came up with? He determined that for a single photon to make it through a kilometer of your made up neon plasma it would require "vastly more energy than there is in the entire observable universe". He concluded that what you claim about opacity would be impossible.

Necessary intensity of source for visibility: Therefore, for one photon to make it through a 1km thickness of Mozina plasma, we'd need about 10^124 photons to be emitted by the source. Each photon carries 10^-17J of energy. So that's 10^107J of energy emitted by the source, which is vastly more energy than there is in the entire observable universe. In other words it is impossible for even one photon of 171A radiation to propagate through 1km of the Mozina plasma, no matter what the source.

Of course you agree.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's in tenuous and/or short-lived plasmas. The photosphere is at high density and there's plenty of time for the ions and electrons to equilibrate. In any case, the blackbody radiation will depend mostly on the electron temperature---the one you just said is >10^6 K.

Ok, let's say we take your criticism to heart and try modifying the model here and see it's more to your liking, because frankly it's not critical to the theory. We'll simply put a tighter constraint on the neon layer and assume that all emissions of Ne+6 and higher relate to the coronal loop activity. Would that remove your objection?

 

[dasmiller]

The peak intensity of neon is nowhere near neutral neon. In fact neutral neon is so weakly represented in the spectrum as to be almost invisible. Only *ionized* and mostly *highly ionized* ions are represented in the spectrum. We can assume that some neon is going to reach the surface, enter the chromosphere and emit some amount of light as it cools off and then reenters the neon layer. We can assume that some coronal loops also ionize neon as they "pass through" the neon layer, and excite the already highly energized neon. What's is also clear is that most of the neon is *VERY* ionized, far beyond the reach of 171A in terms of further ionization.

So, as I understand it, you're saying that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption and that the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in that paper do not represent the photosphere?

I'm not suggesting you ignore them, nor did I ever suggest that. Originally I gave sol 10% of any and all the elements in standard theory percentages to play with. He's still welcome to add in the oxygen and/or any element he wishes and I encourage him to do so. I was simply trying to "simplify" the model a bit (and he was too at the time) so that it would be "easier" to calculate. I appreciated his offer, but I didn't want him to have to turn it into a month long project. Sol is welcome to add back in the elements from standard model percentages all he wants.

The paper is about relative abundances of oxygen, neon, etc. It says that the O:Ne ratio is ~6; how do we assume that the ratio is less than 0.1 without ignoring the paper's conclusions?

Seriously - You quoted ionization data from paper on element abundances to support your model of the photosphere, but you don't believe the paper's conclusion on abundances and don't think the ionization data applies to the photosphere? (FWIW, I didn't notice anything in the paper that implied that the ionization data should apply to the photosphere)

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, as I understand it, you're saying that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption and that the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in that paper do not represent the photosphere?

Some neon emissions, particularly the highest energy emissions must relate to the coronal loop activity. Ben could in fact be correct that the Ne+6 relates to that activity too. In order for this model to be correct, loops have to penetrate the neon and excite it to higher states. Likewise this model would predict that some light comes from less energetic ions from the chromosphere. Some of the Ne light however does relate directly to the neon "layer", and even that layer *must* be highly energized to explain why the spectrum is so loaded with highly ionized neon, and yet there is virtually no non ionized neon present.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact I don't buy mainstream abundance numbers, but I would not at all be surprised to find out that they are "correct" as it relates to the emissions related specifically to that neon layer and ratio other elements present in that layer. That is why I encouraged sol to start with mainstream abundance figures and simply "assume" they are embedded inside the neon layer. The solar wind number might 'better' represent impurity percentages, but with all the activity in the atmosphere, I have to believe some heavier elements are present in that layer, and I have to believe you folks didn't just pull numbers out of thin air.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then likely the temperature would be higher than 6,000 F.

The electron temperature is likely to be higher, but not necessarily the ion temperature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And on it's own terms, in any conditions that are remotely like what we think we know of the solar atmosphere ......

Fixed that for you.

 

[dasmiller]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact I don't buy mainstream abundance number . . .

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm baffled by the fact that you cited the paper at all. As far as I can tell, you (MM), Ben, the authors, and I agree that the ionizations that you quoted from that paper don't apply to the photosphere. By your standards, it's an irrelevant piece of data from a fundamentally flawed paper, and you're using it to support your model?

 

[ben m]

Ok, let's say we take your criticism to heart and try modifying the model here and see it's more to your liking, because frankly it's not critical to the theory. We'll simply put a tighter constraint on the neon layer and assume that all emissions of Ne+6 and higher relate to the coronal loop activity. Would that remove your objection?

Sure, that's what the mainstream model is, and that's what the paper you cited is about. The (energetic, tenuous) corona plasma above the surface is very hot, possibly far from equilibrium. Fine. It's hot enough to ionize everything including Ne, fine. We see the Ne emissions because there's not much of anything, ionized or otherwise, between these emissions and our instruments. All fine.

Meanwhile, this is all happening above a cool, dense, thick 6000K plasma---remember? No matter what that plasma is made of (H/He/trace metals? Ne+H? Pure gadolinium?) it's opaque to VUV. That opacity (not some detail about the corona) is what makes your "these 17nm emissions are from below the photosphere" claim so horribly nonsensical.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So where are we? Michael Mozina and brantc have proposed a crackpot conjecture about a solid iron surface on the Sun. And so far they have insisted that everyone else defend the standard solar model to their satisfaction, even though they have both demonstrated repeatedly that they don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand the explanations.

And yet, even though it is they who are making a claim that a physically impossible situation exists, they haven't even attempted to satisfy their burden of proof with anything other than unsupported assertions, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and seriously misunderstood looks-like-a-bunny interpretations of various solar imagery.

Neither has offered a single piece of objective or quantitative evidence, yet they are still here more or less demanding that other people disprove their silly claim. (Which, by the way, has been disproven several times over in this thread alone.) I know for a fact that the burden of proof issue has been explained to Michael dozens of times over many years. It's almost baffling that he still thinks the right way to do science is to require other people to do all his homework and disprove his whacked out notion.

Have I missed anything?

That fairly well sums it up!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Still waiting:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm baffled by the fact that you cited the paper at all. As far as I can tell, you (MM), Ben, the authors, and I agree that the ionizations that you quoted from that paper don't apply to the photosphere. By your standards, it's an irrelevant piece of data from a fundamentally flawed paper, and you're using it to support your model?

My preference would have been to post the link to the quiet and active spectral data from SERTS, but evidently it's been taken offline. The only reason I cited the work was to show all the various ionization states present in the spectrum, all of which are skewed toward the higher energy ionization states. Virtually no non ionized neon appears in the spectrum and yet all the higher ionization states are clearly present in the data and peak in intensity at the higher end of the spectrum, not the lower end.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still waiting:

Oh just be patient. Timing is everything. We need to first agree on the NEON opacity numbers and agree upon a "method" that we might use to calculate silicon opacity next, otherwise my presentation won't be worth a hill of beans.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure, that's what the mainstream model is, and that's what the paper you cited is about. The (energetic, tenuous) corona plasma above the surface is very hot, possibly far from equilibrium. Fine. It's hot enough to ionize everything including Ne, fine. We see the Ne emissions because there's not much of anything, ionized or otherwise, between these emissions and our instruments. All fine.

Meanwhile, this is all happening above a cool, dense, thick 6000K plasma---remember? No matter what that plasma is made of (H/He/trace metals? Ne+H? Pure gadolinium?) it's opaque to VUV.

No Ben, it's not. The neon layer is *already ionized* beyond the point that 171A is going to do anything. The constant "current flow" through the layer creates two temperatures, the ion temperatures and the electrons temperatures. The layer is already in at least a +4 energy state so what is 171A light going to do to it?

 

[dasmiller]

My preference would have been to post the link to the quiet and active spectral data from SERTS, but evidently it's been taken offline. The only reason I cited the work was to show all the various ionization states present in the spectrum, all of which are skewed toward the higher energy ionization states. Virtually no non ionized neon appears in the spectrum and yet all the higher ionization states are clearly present in the data and peak in intensity at the higher end of the spectrum, not the lower end.

But if it doesn't represent the ionization of the photosphere, why-

oh, I give up.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh just be patient. Timing is everything. We need to first agree on the NEON opacity numbers and agree upon a "method" that we might use to calculate silicon opacity next, otherwise my presentation won't be worth a hill of beans.

From which it follows that:
If Michael Mozina does not agree on the neon opacity numbers calculated by sol invictus, then Michael Mozina's presentation won't be worth a hill of beans.

Sounds about right to me.