Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
sol invictus said:
"Spewing photons" is perfectly consistent with thermal equilibrium. In fact it's predicted by it.

Again, if you want to go that route, you'll have to tell me precisely how and why the plasma isn't in equilibrium. If it's because of a current I need to know what voltage to apply, at what frequency, and over what distance (and possibly more information).
Click to expand...

Well, now you finally understand a few of the complexities involved in the opacity calculation and why I jumped at the chance to get your help. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, now you finally understand a few of the complexities involved in the opacity calculation and why I jumped at the chance to get your help. :)
Click to expand...

Well, I can't help you until you give me that information - and probably more that will become apparent as we proceed.
 
Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)

Michael Mozina said:
Sure. All of those elements are ionized by the coronal loops.
Click to expand...
That is right - all those elements are ionized in coronal loops.

You may want to actually read the question (Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS as was C and a dozen more elements)? ) but here it is again slightly expanded:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

This is part of Michael Mozina fantasy* that sunspots are upwelling "mostly" silicon plasma in "mostly" neon plasma (as far as I can see).
The point emphasised below is that the SERTS database contained data on many ions of iron, silicon, potassium, oxygen, argon, nickel, helium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium, aluminuium, chronium. calcium, cobolt, sodium, manganese, titanium, neon and carbon. So why did MM pick out silicon and neon?


Why does this sound so familiar. I know!
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.
Click to expand...

The SERTS database does not seem to be accessible through the internet anymore.

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
*His idea ia a fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
sol invictus said:
Well, I can't help you until you give me that information - and probably more that will become apparent as we proceed.
Click to expand...

Well, that's "one" alternative. We could also assume for the time being that little or no ionization occurs in the neon plasma due to photo-ionization and calculate it that way. I knew you'd be a stickler for details however, so it's your call.
 
Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots

Another question evoked from
Michael Mozina said:
Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
This is a reply about sunspots where he parrots his fanatasy* about sunspots being "mostly" silicon plasma upwelling through "mostly" neon plasma.
But SERTS data is from the ions in the corona - it is UV light that is being recorded.

First asked 26 April 2010
Michael Mozina
Why is the SERTS data on the corona applicable to sunspots?

According to you the corona is layers of "mostly" H/He/Li/Be/B/C/N/O
(What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?).
So there should be little or no silicon or neon emission from the corona and if there were it would say nothing about the abundance of silicon or neon in the photosphere.

*His idea ia a fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Reality Check said:
That is right - all those elements are ionized in coronal loops.
Click to expand...

So now we have two legitimate scientific ways of falsifying this model and your model too in this case. According to you, we should expect to see only the neon in the loops in an Ne+4 tuned image (like an Fe image), whereas I would expect the whole sphere to be lit up and relate directly back to the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then we will have to assume it's not at equilibrium.
Click to expand...

That doesn't suffice, as I've said several times already. You have to tell me exactly how and why, otherwise we can't proceed. One way to tell me that is to tell me how you would create this plasma in a lab.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, that's "one" alternative. We could also assume for the time being that little or no ionization occurs in the neon plasma due to photo-ionization and calculate it that way. I knew you'd be a stickler for details however, so it's your call.
Click to expand...

No, we cannot "assume... that little or no ionization occurs". The same laws of physics we would use to proceed tell us that that assumption is incorrect, and so whatever we did from then on wouldn't be self-consistent, and the results meaningless.
 
Michael, here's an example of the kind of information I need.

"Take a mixture of 90%Ne, 10%H by mass with a 10^-7 g/cm^3 density. Heat to 6000K (in a chamber made from unmeltable unobtanium). Impose an electric field of X V/m on the plasma."

Given X - or its equivalent in some other setup - I'll try to calculate the opacity for you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So now we have two legitimate scientific ways of falsifying this model and your model too in this case. According to you, we should expect to see only the neon in the loops in an Ne+4 tuned image (like an Fe image), whereas I would expect the whole sphere to be lit up and relate directly back to the photosphere.
Click to expand...
No. Those elements are also ionized in the corona. They would not be seen just in loops.

The standard model predicts that you can see ionized light from iron, silicon, potassium, oxygen, argon, nickel, helium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium, aluminuium, chronium. calcium, cobolt, sodium, manganese, titanium, neon and carbon in any images of the Sun in the UV. That is what is seen, e.g. in the EIT SOHO UV images (and as you have admitted in SERTS).

The standard model also predicts the relative abundance of the elements that these images reveal. It gets these correct.

Your fantasy* predicts nothing. The best that you can do is guess that there are "mostly" H/He/Li/Be/B/C/N/O layers
(What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers?) above the photosphere. The fact is that
  • The abundance of Li/Be/B/C/N/O observed above the photosphere is a small percentage.
  • There is no evidence of the elements being "mass separated" into layers.
*His idea ia a fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.

We still need an answer to Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)?
 
Let me point something else out as well (apologies to Ben or Zig if they've already said this). The "opacity length" (is there a better term?) of Mozina plasma version 1.0 was 3.5m. That is, for every 3.5m of plasma the 171A radiation passes through, its intensity is attenuated by a factor of e=2.7.

That length is inversely proportional to the combined density of Ne, Ne+, and Ne++. So suppose the plasma is extremely highly ionized, to such an incredible degree that only .001 of the Ne is in any of those three states (as I said, I'm not even sure how to accomplish this, although sufficiently high T might do it). In that case the opacity length calculated using bound-free transitions is 3.5km instead of 3.5m. That again means that no matter what the source, no 171A radiation can pass through 1000km of this plasma. Through 100km of plasma, only about one in every trillion photons would make it through (i.e. the intensity will be reduced by a factor of 10^12).

Of course that's only taking into account one type of transition - it ignores the 99.9% of the plasma that's more highly ionized, as well as the contributions of electrons, hydrogen, bound-bound transitions, etc. All of those make the plasma more opaque.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No. Those elements are also ionized in the corona. They would not be seen just in loops.
Click to expand...

That doesn't help because that would be true of iron too. Would you expect it track with the coronal loops like an iron ion image, or be directly related to the photosphere, including being able so see sunspots on it's surface?
 
sol invictus said:
Let me point something else out as well (apologies to Ben or Zig if they've already said this). The "opacity length" (is there a better term?) of Mozina plasma version 1.0 was 3.5m. That is, for every 3.5m of plasma the 171A radiation passes through, its intensity is attenuated by a factor of e=2.7.

That length is inversely proportional to the combined density of Ne, Ne+, and Ne++. So suppose the plasma is extremely highly ionized, to such an incredible degree that only .001 of the Ne is in any of those three states (as I said, I'm not even sure how to accomplish this, although sufficiently high T might do it).
Click to expand...

You *cannot* assume a high *ION* temperature in a current carrying plasma! There are *NO* ions in those states *under* the photosphere, only in the chromosphere. I think I"m calling it a day for now.

I do think that the most interesting thing to come out of this opacity discussion is the differences we might expect to see in a wavelength tuned to Ne+4 or Ne+3. A single image should tell us which model is correct. I would expect to see the photosphere, sunspots and everything, but according to you folks almost *NONE* of the neon in the photosphere should "glow" in that wavelength, just stuff in the "transition region"/corona. That seems like a very significant difference in the two "predictions". It seems like a very important difference, and potentially something simple (single image) we could use to falsify either solar model and use to decide which solar model is correct. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You *cannot* assume a high *ION* temperature in a current carrying plasma!
Click to expand...

Why not, Michael? Electron and ion temperatures can only be different because equilibration times are faster for electrons than ions, so if you do things quick enough the electrons will heat up far faster than the ions. But wait long enough, and they will come into equilibrium at the same temperature. And "long enough" isn't very long. If you want to claim that they aren't in equilibrium, you need some mechanism to PREVENT them from reaching equilibrium. You have no such mechanism.
 
sol invictus said:
Of course that's only taking into account one type of transition - it ignores the 99.9% of the plasma that's more highly ionized, as well as the contributions of electrons, hydrogen, bound-bound transitions, etc. All of those make the plasma more opaque.
Click to expand...

Yep, I made this point and MM ignored it. And as a general rule there are more bound-bound absorption lines accessible in hotter plasmas. In the neighborhood of 171A there are lines from Mg III, Mg IV, Ne VIII, O VIII, Fe VII, Fe X. Keep turning up the temperature and you'll keep adding more.

I'm also amused that, after five+ (?) years of doing his "iron sun" image analysis, MM learned from this thread that the photosphere isn't transparent. And within about 24 hours of learning this, he suddenly "realized", and is quite confident, that there's no such thing as continuum photoionization that his model's entire photosphere is obviously super-ultra-hyper-ionized. That's some premature confidence, to say the least.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You *cannot* assume a high *ION* temperature in a current carrying plasma! There are *NO* ions in those states *under* the photosphere, only in the chromosphere. I think I"m calling it a day for now.

I do think that the most interesting thing to come out of this opacity discussion is the differences we might expect to see in a wavelength tuned to Ne+4 or Ne+3. A single image should tell us which model is correct. I would expect to see the photosphere, sunspots and everything, but according to you folks almost *NONE* of the neon in the photosphere should "glow" in that wavelength, just stuff in the "transition region"/corona. That seems like a very significant difference in the two "predictions". It seems like a very important difference, and potentially something simple (single image) we could use to falsify either solar model and use to decide which solar model is correct. :)
Click to expand...


Of course one of the interesting things to come out of this discussion on opacity is that we found (though most all of us already knew) you can't possibly see anything 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere, so all your claims about seeing a solid surface in any solar image of any type processed in any way have been debunked, totally and completely.

One of the interesting results of that will be the fact that you'll ignore it like it was never mentioned. You'll leave all that fraudulent information right up there at the top of your web site, and next time the issue of solar imagery comes up you'll still claim, even after having been proven wrong, that you can actually see things 3000+ kilometers into the photosphere.

So much for your respect for other people's honesty and ability to take a serious scientific approach, eh Michael? Onward for another loop in your argument by misdirection...

GeeMack said:
That's his argument by misdirection. Here's how he typically applies it: Troll some knowledgeable people into doing a bunch of work he's clearly not qualified to do himself, only to spit on them in the end by adding a couple more impossible assumptions to the mix and expecting them to start over. I've seen him use this technique to take people on rides for pages and pages, then literally ignore all their responses and jump to another topic as if it never happened.

It's a rework of the old stand-by, argument by shifting the burden of proof, but with the addition of kicking people in the teeth after they've invested a lot of time and effort into trying to help him. Like a good con man he'll toss in an occasional insincere thank-you or coy apology, but unlike a good con man, Michael's use of this method to milk a failed argument is pretty transparent. It's a dishonest and manipulative way to work an argument, and one of his most often employed. It might be second only to his preferred method, argument by looks-like-a-bunny.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
You *cannot* assume a high *ION* temperature in a current carrying plasma!
Click to expand...

What?

There are *NO* ions in those states *under* the photosphere, only in the chromosphere. I think I"m calling it a day for now.
Click to expand...

Good idea.

I'm not talking about the sun, remember? Are you going to answer my questions, or are we done?

I do think that the most interesting thing to come out of this opacity discussion is the differences we might expect to see in a wavelength tuned to Ne+4 or Ne+3. A single image should tell us which model is correct. I would expect to see the photosphere, sunspots and everything, but according to you folks almost *NONE* of the neon in the photosphere should "glow" in that wavelength, just stuff in the "transition region"/corona.

That seems like a very significant difference in the two "predictions". It seems like a very important difference, and potentially something simple (single image) we could use to falsify either solar model and use to decide which solar model is correct. :)
Click to expand...

In the standard solar model, Ne is a tiny fraction of the mass. It's not hard to tell something that's 90% neon from something that's .05% neon, regardless of ionization fraction.

But I really don't want to talk about the sun - that always seems to go in useless circles.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That doesn't help because that would be true of iron too. Would you expect it track with the coronal loops like an iron ion image, or be directly related to the photosphere, including being able so see sunspots on it's surface?
Click to expand...
That does not help your fantasy* because it is also true of iron, silicon, potassium, oxygen, argon, nickel, helium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium, aluminuium, chronium. calcium, cobolt, sodium, manganese, titanium, neon and carbon in the SERTS data.

This means that you really have to answer Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)?

Otherwise the conclusion is good old crank madness:
  1. Michael Mozina asserts that sunspot umbra are made of "mostly" silicon.
  2. His "evidence" is the SERTS data.
  3. The SERTS data is not of sunspots and includes many other elements (Fe, K, O, etc.).
  4. Ignore the physical facts and go to 1.
What would "track" what, where and when?
Basic physics states that all ions of Fe, Si, K, O, etc. will emit light that will be detected by SERTS and similiar observations, e.g. TRACE. So the ions will be detected in both the corona and coronal loops as is seen.

*A fanatsy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutley nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom