Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Tim Thompson]

Using math & iron surface reflection

And using math to get from point A to B without an experiment to back it up is not good science, especially with computer models these days..

Absolutely false & absolutely unacceptable. Quite the contrary, using math to get from A to B, even without an experiment to back it up, is just as good science as using experiments. Just as good. And this is especially the case in light of highly advanced and capable computer models available today. Indeed, there are many scientific questions that cannot be answered at all except by computer model, such as the dynamical behavior of a billion particle galaxy, or the dynamical behavior of a climate system. You might work in a lab, but you obviously do not appreciate the full scope & full grasp of science.

And that the reflection factor depends on the intensity of the source and the intensity of the blackbody.

No, the reflection factor depends on the intensity & wavelength of the source, and the reflectivity at that wavelength of the surface; the reflection factor has nothing at all to do with the intensity of the blackbody. But aside from the reflection factor at the surface, you also have to consider the opacity or transparency of the material that the reflected radiation has to pass through before it gets to you or your measuring device. That's why I said ...

For one thing, if the surface is mostly iron, as Mozina and perhaps brantc seem to think, then I would expect very little reflection, simply because 171 Å is an iron emission line, and anything iron emits it will also absorb. I would expect the vast majority of any 171 Å radiation incident on an iron surface to disappear in the act of ionizing the iron, with only a small fraction being reflected back. And as DD points out, any of that reflected radiation is subject to being absorbed or scattered by the overlying plasma. The result is likely to be an un-observably small amount for us to see.

 

[Reality Check]

I think there is a whole history of science the relies on "bizarre inability to accept any argument that doesn't involve an "experiment" performed in a "real lab with real controls" on Earth."...

I hope that you follow the scientific usage of empirical and include observations as part of empirical evidence.

Extrapolating from known hard data from lab experiments gives us the laws of physics, e.g. those of thermodynamics. The data and the extrapolated laws though mean that any solid surface in the Sun is ruled out (it is too hot for solids to exist there).

 

[Reality Check]

That was my whole point. There are no true blackbodies. A mathematical figment not born out by reality.
And that the reflection factor depends on the intensity of the source and the intensity of the blackbody.

Yes: there are there are no "true" blackbodies that match the mathematical model exactly. That is physically impossible since we do not have measuring instruments with infinite precision.

Actual blackbodies though are real things borne out by reality. We do have an example of a real blackbody (the CMBR) that matches the mathematical model so closely that the error bars are obsured by the thickness of the line in the graph usually used.

And yes the reflection factor depends on the intensity of the source and the intensity of the blackbody.
Now all you have to do is take your idea and do the calculation for intensity of your source reflecting off your surface through the overlying plasma of the photosphere.

 

[CaveDave]

I think there is a whole history of science the relies on "bizarre inability to accept any argument that doesn't involve an "experiment" performed in a "real lab with real controls" on Earth."

But of course: those phenomena which are observed and possible to reproduce in the lab should be. In many cases, this will allow finer detail and more subtle effects to be noticed and quantified.

Some phenomena occur in nature only on scales that are impossible to replicate in any laboratory setting; Evolution (abiogenisis, natural selection and species differentiation) is limited by the time scale and sample size scale limitations, Geodynamics (plate tectonics and vulcanism) are also limited by time scale and mass scale.

Some things cannot be easily isolated and controlled; they can only be observed and modeled.

It really is a thought experiment(or calculations) if it doesnt involve a lab experiment. I work in a lab everyday. I guess that makes me crazy for sticking to good science.

Any craziness you exhibit is only due to the fact that you therefore actually blind yourself to vast areas of perfectly valid science that doesn't have any practical scalability to a lab environment.

Lots of people work in labs everyday without having the least modicum of scientific qualification, knowledge, or rigor of reasoning powers to even be trusted to accurately report if the sun is shining outside; I give you 0 points for even making that assertion.

You can extrapolate from known hard data from lab experiments.
Theres nothing wrong with that.

When that is valid, that is how it should be done. It is stunningly wrong, however, to disallow other means when scaling from lab scale is not applicable.

BTW, what do you think "extrapolate[ing] from known hard data" IS besides mathematical modeling and "thought experiment"?

However saying that a mathematical calculation is equivalent to a lab experiment is totally false.
And using math to get from point A to B without an experiment to back it up is not good science, especially with computer models these days..

I think you are suffering from the science-philosophy equivalent of total color blindness and tone deafness; you are not able to perceive what you are missing and believe everyone else is just making things up to mess with your head.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Tubbythin]

I think there is a whole history of science the relies on "bizarre inability to accept any argument that doesn't involve an "experiment" performed in a "real lab with real controls" on Earth."

It really is a thought experiment(or calculations) if it doesnt involve a lab experiment.

Why do you expect the laws of physics to be such that all aspects of it should be testable on the scale of a lab? There is no reason whatsoever for this to be the case.

I work in a lab everyday. I guess that makes me crazy for sticking to good science.

Strawman. Nobody is saying that lab-based science is crazy or bad.

You can extrapolate from known hard data from lab experiments.
Theres nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with it per se, but you will often get it wrong.

However saying that a mathematical calculation is equivalent to a lab experiment is totally false.
And using math to get from point A to B without an experiment to back it up is not good science, especially with computer models these days..

People don't just make stuff up you know.

 

[Tubbythin]

That was my whole point. There are no true blackbodies. A mathematical figment not born out by reality.

There is also no such thing as a perfect sphere or a frictionless plain. We don't live in a Platonic universe, so what?

 

[brantc]

I think you are suffering from the science-philosophy equivalent of total color blindness and tone deafness; you are not able to perceive what you are missing and believe everyone else is just making things up to mess with your head.

Cheers,

Dave

Math is not experiment. You can calculate things all day. There is nothing wrong with that. It helps you figure out what you are going to do next.

Saying that math is equivalent to experiment or reality is wrong.
I can perceive that just fine.

People do whatever they want. I cant change them. And they can "try to mess with my head" all they want. I really dont care. Its the science thats important.

If I have a math problem I dont understand, I go to the next office and ask my math expert friend from MIT. I'm sure his degree is more advanced than 90% of the people here.

 

[brantc]

There is also no such thing as a perfect sphere or a frictionless plain. We don't live in a Platonic universe, so what?

Just like there is no spherical cow, math is only an approximation.
If that is the case then no theory is going to describe everything perfectly.
So there is always room for improvement.
We dont know everything and I'm sure the latest physics fad(pick one) will go the way of the Ptolemy's Solar system.

 

[brantc]

When that is valid, that is how it should be done. It is stunningly wrong, however, to disallow other means when scaling from lab scale is not applicable.

BTW, what do you think "extrapolate[ing] from known hard data" IS besides mathematical modeling and "thought experiment"?

Cheers,

Dave

Scaling from lab science is one thing, making up stuff based on mathematical excursions is another(dark matter, dark energy, bigbang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass blackholes, GRB).

All of these objects can be explained with laboratory experiments and physics that scale up.

 

[brantc]

So back to the TRACE images.

The upper limb brightening is the lower transition layer/upper chromosphere.

The limb is below the photosphere.

 

[Tubbythin]

Just like there is no spherical cow, math is only an approximation.
If that is the case then no theory is going to describe everything perfectly.
So there is always room for improvement.
We dont know everything and I'm sure the latest physics fad(pick one) will go the way of the Ptolemy's Solar system.

There's always room for improvement, doesn't give you the license to just make stuff up though.

 

[Tubbythin]

Scaling from lab science is one thing, making up stuff based on mathematical excursions is another(dark matter, dark energy, bigbang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass blackholes, GRB).

None of these are made up based on mathematical excursions.

All of these objects can be explained with laboratory experiments and physics that scale up.

They can probably explained with reference to invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't make the explanations right, however.
I'll ask again:
Why do you expect the laws of physics to be such that all aspects of it should be testable on the scale of a lab?

 

[Reality Check]

So back to the TRACE images.

The upper limb brightening is the lower transition layer/upper chromosphere.

The limb is below the photosphere.

So back to what TRACE images?


I hope that you do not mean the artifact of limb ghosting introduced by the detector in some TRACE images that has already been comprehensively addressed by Tim Thompson:

• Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact
• The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact II
• The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact III

Actual observations of the Sun (ignoring optical artifacts!) have always found that the photosphere is below the lower transition layer/upper chromosphere. Once again covered very well by Tim Thompson

• The Solar EUV Radius
• The Solar EUV Radius II
• The Solar EUV Radius III
• The Solar EUV Radius V

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Scaling from lab science is one thing, making up stuff based on mathematical excursions is another(dark matter, dark energy, bigbang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass blackholes, GRB).

All of these objects can be explained with laboratory experiments and physics that scale up.

Let's see the explanations then, the ones of each (and every) one of "these objects"!

Only such explanations which meet your (private, known only to you) criteria, of course.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So back to the TRACE images.

The upper limb brightening is the lower transition layer/upper chromosphere.

The limb is below the photosphere.

*Which* TRACE images?

Where, in these images you are referring to, are the various layers/surfaces? In terms of something quantitative, something that everyone can examine for themselves, and verify (or not) what you claim.

Oh, and definitions ("upper limb brightening", "lower transition layer/upper chromosphere", and "the photosphere") would be nice too. Especially the definitions you used (so we can see the extent that they are idiosyncratic, for example).

 

[Reality Check]

Scaling from lab science is one thing, making up stuff based on mathematical excursions is another(dark matter, dark energy, bigbang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass blackholes, GRB).

All of these objects can be explained with laboratory experiments and physics that scale up.

The post is a bit ambiguous since your list (dark matter, dark energy, big bang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass black holes, GRB) are all observations of things in the universe that are actually explained by "laboratory experiments and physics that scale up".

A bit of mind reading but I suspect that the only laboratory experiments and physics that you regard as scaling up are those of plasma physics. Plasma physics experiments do scale up. So do other physics experiments.

As an example, the observation of dark matter was the result of the evidence that Newtonian gravity is valid and scales up by both observation and laboratory experiments. This lead to the measurement in the 1930's that galaxy clusters were missing most of the matter needed to explain the dynamics of their galaxies. At the time it was hoped that advances in the detection of visible matter would find this "missing matter". This proved not to be so. Other observations then gave strong evidence for dark matter.
We then observed the separation of dark matter from normal matter in the collisions of galaxy clusters. That involves GR and electromagnetism which also scale up. See my signature for the observations.

 

[GeeMack]

So back to the TRACE images.

The upper limb brightening is the lower transition layer/upper chromosphere.

The limb is below the photosphere.

Oh, and definitions ("upper limb brightening", "lower transition layer/upper chromosphere", and "the photosphere") would be nice too. Especially the definitions you used (so we can see the extent that they are idiosyncratic, for example).

Indeed. The photosphere is, by definition, the region where the solar atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. You cannot see anything "below the photosphere". Since Michael and brantc have developed their own glossary of terms, quite different from each other's as far as I can tell, but refuse to define their terms, I don't see how either of them could reasonably expect anyone else to ever understand anything they try to communicate.

Brantc, you cannot see anything below the photosphere.

 

[brantc]

Indeed. The photosphere is, by definition, the region where the solar atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. You cannot see anything "below the photosphere". Since Michael and brantc have developed their own glossary of terms, quite different from each other's as far as I can tell, but refuse to define their terms, I don't see how either of them could reasonably expect anyone else to ever understand anything they try to communicate.

Brantc, you cannot see anything below the photosphere.

You guys are right. I should be more consistent and use the actual terms from my model.

So if you ask questions then you have to ask in the context of my model. Otherwise I have to use your terms so that you know which areas I'm talking about.

So when I say "photosphere" I am using that term to describe the same surface that you reference.

In my model it would be the "cathode glow". That is the layer you call the photosphere.
Above the cathode glow is chromosphere or the cathode dark space ect..
http://www.glow-discharge.com/Index.php?Physical_background:Glow_Discharges

I think that this is that correct interpretation of the various solar layers.

This paper below gives a good summary of some of the processes happening on the surface.
The Cold Cathode Arc.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1962AuJPh..15..289E&classic=YES

The cathode glow has some extent and is probably opaque at its emission temperature. But that doesnt mean it has to be opaque to all wavelengths.

The solar emission temperature is actually closer to a blue-white as opposed to the yellow that everyone draws.
And the UV hump says that emissions are high in that range which indicates that there may be some transparency at those wavelengths. There is also transparency at IR wavelengths.

In my model I would expect that you would to see to the surface through the cathode glow(photosphere)at some wavelength at some intensity due to the finite extent of the layer..

The Handy et al paper shows this is possible at the right combination of wavelengths.

 

[brantc]

The post is a bit ambiguous since your list (dark matter, dark energy, big bang, neutron stars, merging billion solar mass black holes, GRB) are all observations of things in the universe that are actually explained by "laboratory experiments and physics that scale up".

A bit of mind reading but I suspect that the only laboratory experiments and physics that you regard as scaling up are those of plasma physics. Plasma physics experiments do scale up. So do other physics experiments.

As an example, the observation of dark matter was the result of the evidence that Newtonian gravity is valid and scales up by both observation and laboratory experiments. This lead to the measurement in the 1930's that galaxy clusters were missing most of the matter needed to explain the dynamics of their galaxies. At the time it was hoped that advances in the detection of visible matter would find this "missing matter". This proved not to be so. Other observations then gave strong evidence for dark matter.
We then observed the separation of dark matter from normal matter in the collisions of galaxy clusters. That involves GR and electromagnetism which also scale up. See my signature for the observations.

Gravity is by no means a done deal. There are enough gravitational anomalies(Pioneer, mars, Titan landings, galaxy rotation, sun to earth transit time, Dayton Miller) as well as sidereal variations in data, to warrant the investigation in terms of a new model.
Just check the variations in CODATA through the years. I am personally in favor of a push type of gravity.

Variation evidence from readings spanning over 200 years Scroll down.
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

So I personally dont think the all the stuff introduced to fix a theory, that cant be detected on earth, is a viable solution. I think throwing out the Aether was the wrong thing to do. Only The MM model was disproved.

The Aether would solve alot of problems as well as power the sun for trillions and trillions of years..

 

[brantc]

None of these are made up based on mathematical excursions.
They can probably explained with reference to invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't make the explanations right, however.
I'll ask again:
Why do you expect the laws of physics to be such that all aspects of it should be testable on the scale of a lab?

Why not??? Do you think that our physics is complete??