Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[brantc]

I looked at every single image you liked to. All of them. The photosphere is not visible at all in any of those images.

Are you sure?. Its this page right here.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2010/10-052.html

And then from the corresponding paper.

"The Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) of Hinode (Tsuneta et al. 2008; Suematsu et al. 2008; Shimizu et al. 2008; Ichimoto et al. 2008) makes observations in white light. Its broadband filter imager (BFI) take images in red (668.40 nm, width 0.4 nm), green (555.05 nm, width 0.4 nm) and blue (450.45 nm, width 0.4 nm) continuum ranges. Radiation at these – 3 – wavelengths comes from the photosphere and hence reflects the broadband continuum emission well. However, SOT normally obtains only infrequent images in these filters. More frequently, SOT takes images in the G-band (430.50 nm, width 0.83 nm), formed mainly from CH line opacity. Carlsson et al. (2007) show contribution functions for these filters; the G-band has a photospheric and an upper-photospheric contribution. It therefore serves well to define the morphology of white-light flares and it was also used in the Yohkoh observations (Hudson et al. 1992; Matthews et al. 2003)."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.4259v1.pdf

Not every flare has x-rays during the white light flare. Because of the wavelength that HINODE sees at, we know the location of the white light flares which take place on the "ghost limb". We know that the uncertainty is big enough to say that the white light flare could be happening under the photosphere. HINODE cannot place them with only a z observation. You need a limb observation.

The offset is 2 arcseconds not 2 degrees; I already corrected you on this once before (The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact IV).

Yep. I keep meaning to say arcseconds.

If the ghost limb is a ghosting of the 1500A band then it is an event taking place at 1500A below the transition layer bleeding into the 1216A channel.
If it is ghosting from the 2 degree wedge in the filter then its either from the upper limb or lower limb. Combine the 2 to get both effects..
Then the only issue with that is the the arc of the curve does not look like its from the transition layer or the true limb (solar surface). And it cant be the transition layer because thats ~192A.
But assuming that it is, if you correct down it is the solar surface, if you correct up then it is the transition layer.
HINODE says its below the transition layer if you consider all these events to be white light flares. So does TRACE at 1216A.
HINODE places such events lower in the solar atmosphere than TRACE does.
A white light flares by definition takes place in the area of the solar atmosphere where that wavelength is visible in "white light".

Right now it appears that the white light flares are very close to photosphere.
I have already said that the footprints of the loops should be visible in white light like an arc lamp. And once we have the ability to place the events on the limb with enough resolution we will see where they are; above or below the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] And once we have the ability to place the events on the limb with enough resolution we will see where they are; above or below the photosphere.

You cannot see below the photosphere. The photosphere is, by definition, the region where the Sun's atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. Is there some particular argument you're trying to form by insisting on being wrong about this simple issue?

 

[Tim Thompson]

The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact VIII

I looked at every single image you liked to. All of them. The photosphere is not visible at all in any of those images.

Are you sure? ...

On second look, no. I only noticed the TRACE images at the bottom of your post ...

Below Photosphere
Again this is the image from TRACE is the loops on the solar surface below the photosphere. Notice the footprints of the loops. Notice the longitudinal features under the loops!!
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive6.html
More interesting images.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000404_183228.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000317_114103.gif

Of course the TRACE images do not see the photosphere. And equally "of course" the Hinode images do see the photosphere. My mistake, but one might still ask, so what? Why does it matter? You said, for instance, ...

In this image here it shows how the white light flare kernel is correlated with the center of a sun spot. Yep.

But all flares are correlated with sunspots, that is already well known. So what is your point supposed to be? That flares start below the photosphere? But we already know that flares commonly start below the photosphere in episodes of magnetic reconnection, so you are still not making any new point.

I have no idea at this stage of the discussion what point you are trying to make. What is it?

However, I do believe that you are still making the serious mistake of thinking that the ghost limb is some kind of real limb on the sun, when it is in fact and entirely, without question, beyond any shadow of a doubt, an optical artifact. I made that clear in my last post (The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact VII) and I note that you did not respond at all.

So, tell us, do you or do you not agree that the ghost limb is an artifact?

Do you claim that we can see below the photosphere? If so, at what wavelengths, and how is it physically possible?

 

[Cuddles]

There was an interesting article on the BBC about the Planck telescope. While the physics is off topic for this thread, there's a particularly relevant comment from one of the researchers involved:

However, such has been the anticipation for Planck data that one or two groups have already tried to make unauthorised interpretations simply from the images released to the media like the one on this page.

But Dr Tauber says this activity is pointless.

"The CMB is certainly visible but the image itself is colour-enhanced so you couldn't do any science with that," he explained.

"We have also reduced the resolution of the image to something which is more manageable for people to look at. Otherwise it would just be too big."

 

[dasmiller]

There was an interesting article on the BBC about the Planck telescope. While the physics is off topic for this thread, there's a particularly relevant comment from one of the researchers involved:
Quote:
However, such has been the anticipation for Planck data that one or two groups have already tried to make unauthorised interpretations simply from the images released to the media like the one on this page.

But Dr Tauber says this activity is pointless.

"The CMB is certainly visible but the image itself is colour-enhanced so you couldn't do any science with that," he explained.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that within the next day or so, someone will be posting on the JREF Forum claiming that this image proves, once and for all, that (select all that apply)
- the speed of light has been decreasing over time
- the big bang never happened
- there was no inflation
- general relativity is wrong
- special relativity is wrong
- there is no such thing as dark matter
- there is no such thing as dark energy
- redshift is not due to the Doppler effect
- Earth is at a 'special' location in the universe
- stars are powered by electric currents
- galaxies are held together by magnetic fields
- GRB sources are within our galaxy
- life on Earth originated elsewhere
- the rest of the universe is uninhabited
- the universe was tailored for life by an external intelligence

 

[brantc]

You cannot see below the photosphere. The photosphere is, by definition, the region where the Sun's atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. Is there some particular argument you're trying to form by insisting on being wrong about this simple issue?

In my model of the sun you can see below the cathode glow, which is equivalent in position in the solar atmosphere to your photosphere..

 

[brantc]

On second look, no. I only noticed the TRACE images at the bottom of your post ...

Of course the TRACE images do not see the photosphere. And equally "of course" the Hinode images do see the photosphere. My mistake, but one might still ask, so what? Why does it matter? You said, for instance, ...

But all flares are correlated with sunspots, that is already well known. So what is your point supposed to be? That flares start below the photosphere? But we already know that flares commonly start below the photosphere in episodes of magnetic reconnection, so you are still not making any new point.

I have no idea at this stage of the discussion what point you are trying to make. What is it?

However, I do believe that you are still making the serious mistake of thinking that the ghost limb is some kind of real limb on the sun, when it is in fact and entirely, without question, beyond any shadow of a doubt, an optical artifact. I made that clear in my last post (The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact VII) and I note that you did not respond at all.

There was an optical artifact that appears in the telescope. This optical artifact appears between the transition layer and the photosphere and this position is called the Ghost Limb whether it is on the sun or in the scope...

Handy says that they corrected for it but "What is left evidently must be some form of limb brightening".
So your saying that they did not know what they were talking about. And you implying that they could not correct for it and return an empirical value. Because we just agreed that limb brightening takes place on the sun and not in the telescope..

I dont believe they made a mistake.

Now if TRACE is seeing white light flares in the wrong position(due to wedge as you are claiming that they could not remove the artifact completely) then TRACE is seeing under the photosphere with the image shifted up at 1216, which by the way coincides with the reported temperature of ~9400K degrees..

So, tell us, do you or do you not agree that the ghost limb is an artifact?

I would have thought you would have said that they made the correction and that the ghost limb is where it is.

If you want to say that the artifact that was removed can be called the ghost limb. But it clear that there is a limb at that position in between the transition layer and the photosphere that TRACE sees at 1216A. And on that limb in another paper there is an event that is time correlated with a flare that takes place in the transition layer. And those people say that it takes place on Handys Ghost limb. So is it a place or an artifact. If its a place then it is located below the transition layer.
If it is an artifact, it is a real event(associated with another real event at another wavelength) at the wrong position due to an incorrect correction..

If those white light flares that TRACE sees are taking place under the photosphere according to HINODE, then we know the correction is wrong and TRACE is seeing under the photosphere at 1216A.

Do you claim that we can see below the photosphere? If so, at what wavelengths, and how is it physically possible?

Using your model it is not possible.

I dont know if its intensity of source, density of photosphere or the composition of the photosphere but at 192 I'm sure it is under the photosphere. Look at the structures underneath the loops.
That is supposed to be a plasma. NOT!
Under the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

 

[Reality Check]

In my model of the sun you can see below the cathode glow, which is equivalent in position in the solar atmosphere to your photosphere..

The first problem is that your model of the sun is physically impossible as has been pointed out many times before.
This was usually refering to Micheal Mozina's equally impossible "iron sun" model but if you want we could just repost the simple physics involved with "brantc's iron sun model" substituted. I think that would need a moderator to adjudicate whether that is appropriate.

Alternately you could just read the posts:

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V

We could stop there but...


The second problem is that the photosphere does not emit a cathode glow ("The luminous glow that covers all or part of the cathode in a glow-discharge cold-cathode tube").

1. The photosphere emits a roughly blackbody spectrum with an effective temeratire of ~6000K. This rules out any solid surface (even if it is made of iron). So there is no solid cathode possible.
2. You have not provided any evidence that there is a cathode glow from a plasma like the photosphere.

The third problem is that you are still ignoring the actual defintion of the photosphere:

You cannot see below the photosphere. The photosphere is, by definition, the region where the Sun's atmosphere goes from being transparent to being opaque. Is there some particular argument you're trying to form by insisting on being wrong about this simple issue?

To make it clearer:

• We cannot see more deeply than a few hundred kilometers into the photosphere due to its optical depth.
• This is also a defintion of the thickness of the photosphere, i.e. the bottom of the photosphere is the deepest that we can see into the sun.
• Thus by definition we cannot see below the photosphere.

So even if you could show that there is a cathode glow, it would still be emitted from the photosphere, not from below it.

 

[Reality Check]

I dont know if its intensity of source, density of photosphere or the composition of the photosphere but at 192 I'm sure it is under the photosphere. Look at the structures underneath the loops.
That is supposed to be a plasma. NOT!
Under the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

A plasma YES!
Under the photosphere NOT!

Read the facts about the photosphere and understand that its definition is that it is where the light escapes the sun. By definition you cannot see under it.

Most of the TRACE filters are selected to detect light from the transition region and corona. In case you have forgotten or never known what TRACE stands for it is "Transition Region and Coronal Explorer".

Look at the "192" passband:
Trace passbands

http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

If you mean the 195A passband (perhaps you should give a link to the location where the image is described) then this is plasma at a temperature of 500,000K to 2,000,000K. That is not the photosphere.

But if you want the region below the photosphere to be at 500,000K to 2,000,000K and make your iron sun idea even more impossible than it already is at temperatures of > 9400K then who am I to deny you

It seems as if you are doing the same thing as Micheal Mozina - looking at the images without bothering to learn what they are showing.

 

[GeeMack]

In my model of the sun you can see below the cathode glow, which is equivalent in position in the solar atmosphere to your photosphere..

But there is no evidence to suggest that your model of the Sun is any more than a fantasy. None. And there is an abundance of evidence, from several very well developed areas of science such as general relativity, helioseismology, and thermodynamics, to support the notion that your model is wrong. And not just maybe wrong or a little bit wrong, but utterly, completely, and impossibly wrong. And the only way you can continue to argue for your fictionalized version of the Sun's construction is by blindly ignoring virtually all legitimate solar research done for at least the past half century, your rather transparent attempts at cherry picking and distorting bits and pieces of it notwithstanding.

 

[Tim Thompson]

The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact IX

There was an optical artifact that appears in the telescope. This optical artifact appears between the transition layer and the photosphere and this position is called the Ghost Limb whether it is on the sun or in the scope ...

OK. So you agree that the "ghost limb" is an optical artifact.

Handy says that they corrected for it but "What is left evidently must be some form of limb brightening".

No, that is not what Handy, et al., say. What they say is this: "The correction mechanism described in this paper is able to remove part of the ghosted limb, but it is evident that corrected limb images are still not right. What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method." (Handy, et al., 1999, page 360; this is the full text of the entire top paragraph on that page). You left off the first sentence, and cut the second one in half, putting a period at the end, as if that's where Handy, et al., actually stopped. You present a misleading view of what the paper actually says.

So your saying that they did not know what they were talking about. And you implying that they could not correct for it and return an empirical value.

In light of my statement above, this is all entirely wrong. I am simply repeating what the authors say. It is their correction algorithm, and it is their statement that it is incomplete. They should know better than either of us.

Now if TRACE is seeing white light flares in the wrong position (due to wedge as you are claiming that they could not remove the artifact completely) then TRACE is seeing under the photosphere with the image shifted up at 1216, which by the way coincides with the reported temperature of ~9400K degrees ..

Very wrong. You are making the same mistake Mozina made, which resulted in an extensive discussion of what should be obvious: The sun is not a 2-dimensional cross-section of itself. It is a fully 3-dimensional object (roughly spherical to first approximation). As seen from Earth, the chromosphere sits atop the transition region, which in turn sits atop the photosphere. This means that as seen from Earth, every physically possible line of sight will always intercept the chromosphere first, then the transition region, then the photosphere, except at the extreme limb, where your line of sight might pass above one or more of the lower layers.

So what actually happens is that the image of the sun at roughly 1550Å is shifted by 2 arcseconds relative to the image at 1216Å. The image at 1216Å is the desired H-alpha narrow-line emission, while the shifted image at roughly 1550Å is a broad band image that consists of UV continuum mixed with C_IV line emission. The latter can be corrected for with some precision, but the former is not predictable so it cannot be corrected for with equal precision (see, e.g., Handy, et al., 1999, page 353). This is why, as the authors themselves say (not me), their algorithm does not fully correct the ghost limb.

Now, the TRACE image will never see under the photosphere. The ghost limb is a UV image of the layers above the photosphere (the sun is 3-dimensional), shifted upwards by 2 arcseconds relative to the photosphere. That UV light never was "below" the photosphere.

I don't know if its intensity of source, density of photosphere or the composition of the photosphere but at 192 I'm sure it is under the photosphere. Look at the structures underneath the loops.
That is supposed to be a plasma. NOT Under the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

You are assuming that the dark base of the TRACE image is the photosphere, but absent corroborating evidence, it is only an arbitrary assumption. How do you know that the dark base of the image is not just the cooler base of the transition region?

But even if it actually is the photosphere, so what? As you like to say, look at the image. Let us suppose for the sake of argument, that the dark base of the image really is the photosphere. Where in that image do you see bright emission through the photosphere? The answer is "nowhere". The bright spots are all visible at the base of the valleys or depressions in the dark surface, all above the dark surface. So even if we give you every assumption you want, even your own image does not show any evidence of seeing UV emission through any appreciable or significant depth of photospheric material.

 

[brantc]

A plasma YES!
Under the photosphere NOT!

Read the facts about the photosphere and understand that its definition is that it is where the light escapes the sun. By definition you cannot see under it.

Dude!! I know what your definition of the photosphere is. Why do you keep assuming that I do not know. We already went over this. We are talking about my model. I use your words so that you can understand the location I'm talking about. Every time I use that word "photosphere" you must automatically substitute the words "surface glow".
As I said before my model is different than your model.
Why do you keep inserting your model into my discussion???

Most of the TRACE filters are selected to detect light from the transition region and corona. In case you have forgotten or never known what TRACE stands for it is "Transition Region and Coronal Explorer".

Look at the "192" passband:
Trace passbands

http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

If you mean the 195A passband (perhaps you should give a link to the location where the image is described) then this is plasma at a temperature of 500,000K to 2,000,000K. That is not the photosphere.

But if you want the region below the photosphere to be at 500,000K to 2,000,000K and make your iron sun idea even more impossible than it already is at temperatures of > 9400K then who am I to deny you

It seems as if you are doing the same thing as Micheal Mozina - looking at the images without bothering to learn what they are showing.

Check it out. The 195 passband is sensitive to LIGHT from plasma that is 500,000K to 2,000,000K. This same light REFLECTS off of surfaces like normal light.

Now if you look at that picture what do you see?????

The surface is dark. Not at 500,000K to 2,000,000K but still visible.
Why? because of the ambient light from the loop next to it emitting at 500,000K to 2,000,000K is reflecting off of the surface. Remember my drawing??

Look at the loop foot prints. The loop foot prints at the very base of the loop under the surface are hot solid iron. As you climb up the loop, the temperature goes from 3000K molten iron to 9400K boiling iron to 500,000K to 2,000,000K iron vapor/plasma within few hundred km. If the transition layer is only a few thousand km above the surface I'm sure its pretty bright to anyone sitting on the surface. So not only is TRACE looking through the transition layer but it is also seeing the reflected light from the highly luminous plasma in the loops..

Notice how the loop foot prints have space between then. If you take an average temperature reading of that surface from a distance the temperature will not be that of solid iron it will be somewhat higher depending on the average between the number of footprints(high temp) and solid surface area(low temp). Part of this is due to the solar moss(plage).

The black body of the sun is due to the combination of solid surface and surface glow discharge, just like a plasma(solid electrode) arc lamp.

As an aside.
Water cannot be treated as a blackbody both in microwave and white light.

"The emissivity of the water surface changes with the nadir angle of the sensor."
http://books.google.com/books?id=iC...wBA#v=onepage&q=nadir blackbody water&f=false

 

[brantc]

No, that is not what Handy, et al., say. What they say is this: "The correction mechanism described in this paper is able to remove part of the ghosted limb, but it is evident that corrected limb images are still not right. What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method." (Handy, et al., 1999, page 360; this is the full text of the entire top paragraph on that page). You left off the first sentence, and cut the second one in half, putting a period at the end, as if that's where Handy, et al., actually stopped. You present a misleading view of what the paper actually says.

I only did that for brevity.

"What is left is evidently some form of limb brightening that is not corrected by this method."

Let us focus on this sentence for a moment.

"What is left is" So after all of their corrections there is still something left, that was apparently not corrected.
The corrected image are still not right, they have some form of limb brightening, which we have agreed takes place on the sun..

"evidently some form of" Here they are not sure what it is that is left, but they seems as though they are ruling out the instrument..

"limb brightening" then instead of saying something like, We may need to examine the optical correction for errors or you may need to apply a 10% higher correction factor, or you may need to take an average of the brightness of you image and subtract that, they say it's "limb brightening"!!!
They dont even mention the instrument!!

Its happening on the sun, not in the telescope. Unless you're saying they did not know that limb brightening implied that the phenomena was taking place on the sun.

"that is not corrected by this method." So they must have tried a correction factor more extreme than the empirical one from the Viking probe but it did not go away, the limb brightening.

 

[Tim Thompson]

The Solar "Ghost Limb" Is An Optical Artifact X

Its happening on the sun, not in the telescope. Unless you're saying they did not know that limb brightening implied that the phenomena was taking place on the sun.

Of course the limb brightening is happening on the sun, I already said that ...

Limb brightening is a phenomenon of the sun, not of the telescope.

So what's your point?

I have no idea at this stage of the discussion what point you are trying to make. What is it?

 

[GeeMack]

Dude!! I know what your definition of the photosphere is. Why do you keep assuming that I do not know. We already went over this. We are talking about my model. I use your words so that you can understand the location I'm talking about. Every time I use that word "photosphere" you must automatically substitute the words "surface glow".
As I said before my model is different than your model.
Why do you keep inserting your model into my discussion???

Why do you and Mozina continue to insist that other people should accommodate your lack of ability and/or willingness to use proper terminology? The word "photosphere" already has a perfectly good definition which has nothing to do with a "surface glow" on a physically impossible iron surfaced Sun.

 

[The Man]

Dude!! I know what your definition of the photosphere is. Why do you keep assuming that I do not know. We already went over this. We are talking about my model. I use your words so that you can understand the location I'm talking about. Every time I use that word "photosphere" you must automatically substitute the words "surface glow".

No, if you mean "surface glow" then you must say "surface glow". See how easy that is?

As I said before my model is different than your model.

Then don’t try to obfuscate those differences by using the wrong terms and insisting we “must” acknowledge your difference, by substitution, for you.

Why do you keep inserting your model into my discussion???

Why do you keep interesting your model into the terminology of another model? No one here is insisting that when they say “surface glow” “you must automatically substitute the” word “photosphere".


I always find it a very telling sign of crank “models” when they insist on their differences from other models, but want to use the same terms with different meanings.

I imagine it is perceived as some kind of pseudo-validation of their “model”. That they use the same technical terms that appear in the other models. However this shtick always backfires when they insist that the meaning of the word must change to accommodate their “model”. Not surprising though as for the most part they also insist the whole of physics (or whatever the topic is) must also change in order to accommodate their “model”.

 

[Reality Check]

Dude!! I know what your definition of the photosphere is. Why do you keep assuming that I do not know. We already went over this. We are talking about my model. I use your words so that you can understand the location I'm talking about. Every time I use that word "photosphere" you must automatically substitute the words "surface glow".
As I said before my model is different than your model.
Why do you keep inserting your model into my discussion???

Dude!!
I keep telling you the definition of the phososphere because yiou keep ignoring it.
Your "model" is that there is a physically impossible iron? surface.

The first problem is that your model of the sun is physically impossible as has been pointed out many times before.
This was usually refering to Micheal Mozina's equally impossible "iron sun" model but if you want we could just repost the simple physics involved with "brantc's iron sun model" substituted. I think that would need a moderator to adjudicate whether that is appropriate.


Alternately you could just read the posts:

• Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009. See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
• Why this iron crust is thermodynamically impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V

So there is not point in discussing it.

If you want to discuss an impossible idea then I suggest that you ask for the thread to be moved out of the Science area, e.g. into the Religion and Philosophy area.

Check it out. The 195 passband is sensitive to LIGHT from plasma that is 500,000K to 2,000,000K. This same light REFLECTS off of surfaces like normal light.

There is no reflection off a physically impossible surface.

Now if you look at that picture what do you see?????
...snipped...

I see an image of light emitted from material at a temperature of 500,000K to 2,000,000K. That is the quite basic physics involved in taking these images. A passband that only detects light from material at a certain temperature .... only detects light from material at the temperature !

 

[brantc]

I see an image of light emitted from material at a temperature of 500,000K to 2,000,000K. That is the quite basic physics involved in taking these images. A passband that only detects light from material at a certain temperature .... only detects light from material at the temperature !

Or it will detect 192/5A light from reflections off of solid material at a lower temperature. Like the mirror in TRACE'S telescope.
That mirror is no where near 1 million degrees. Same with the solar surface.

Basic physics.

So if the surface did exist then there is no problem with the reflection part.

We will get to the thermodynamic considerations.

It is your contention using your photosphere model that not enough energy escapes to allow a solid iron surface to exist under "your photosphere model".
And I'm sure your model requires complete coverage of the lower surface to achieve your goals(molten iron/plasma).

It is my contention that enough energy escapes from under the surface glow to allow a solid surface to exist in my surface glow model.

Your assumption is that the photosphere is the only surface that is emitting energy.
And there are various energy release mechanisms to prevent the iron surface from heating up..
Sun spots(holes), CME, coronal loops, IR from the solid surface below the glow, Solar wind, polar plumes, and not all of the visible comes from the photosphere. And neither does the UV which is the most energetic and variable part of the solar spectrum.

 

[Reality Check]

Or it will detect 192/5A light from reflections off of solid material at a lower temperature. Like the mirror in TRACE'S telescope.
That mirror is no where near 1 million degrees. Same with the solar surface.

Basic physics.

So if the surface did exist then there is no problem with the reflection part.

We will get to the thermodynamic considerations.

So we are on the same page at last: Any light can reflect off a reflective surface.
The problem is that the Sun is too hot for any such surface to exist.

It is your contention using your photosphere model that not enough energy escapes to allow a solid iron surface to exist under "your photosphere model".
And I'm sure your model requires complete coverage of the lower surface to achieve your goals(molten iron/plasma).

I have no "contention".
The facts are that

1. There is overwhelming evidence that Sun is internally heated through fusion. The observed neutrinos types are a fingerprint of fusion. The observed neutrino flux matches enough fusion to produce the energy output of the Sun.
   This means that the temperature of the photosphere is the minimum temperature of the Sun before light escapes from it. This is simple thermodynamics - the closer you get to a source of heat the hotter you get.
2. The photosphere is at a temperature of ~6000 K. The temperature increases with depth to ~9400 K at a depth of a few hundred kilometers. This supports pont 1.

Thus the Sun is too hot for any solid surface to exist.

So that finishes the thermodynamic considerations.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VI

Dude!!I see an image of light emitted from material at a temperature of 500,000K to 2,000,000K. That is the quite basic physics involved in taking these images. A passband that only detects light from material at a certain temperature .... only detects light from material at the temperature !

Or it will detect 192/5A light from reflections off of solid material at a lower temperature. Like the mirror in TRACE'S telescope.
That mirror is no where near 1 million degrees. Same with the solar surface.

Basic physics.

So if the surface did exist then there is no problem with the reflection part.

Well, now, let's talk about basic physics and see if there really is "no problem".

First, what about "just like the mirror in TRACE'S telescope". The mirrors in TRACE, like any other astronomical mirror, are highly polished to enhance reflectivity. Is the "surface" of the sun (whatever it might be made of) highly polished? Unlikely, I think. And in the case of TRACE, the primary mirror is coated with special, normal incidence coatings that further enhance reflectivity at UV & EUV wavelengths, and to narrow the passband. Are there any reflectivity enhancing coatings on the surface of the sun? I think that too is unlikely.

Next, let's ask what this reflective surface is made of. In keeping with the primary consideration of this thread, let's just assume the surface is iron (or at least mostly iron). I don't know how iron reflects EUV wavelengths, but in a moment I will guess. Meanwhile, I do know that iron reflects visible light about 62% at the red end (7000Å) down to 52% at the blue end (4000Å). If we simply assume a linear trend to shorter wavelengths, we would get about 35% reflectivity around 192Å or 195Å. But that does assume a specular surface and we know that dispersion off of a non-specular surface will degrade the reflectivity, so 35% would be a best-case scenario guess.

But here comes that basic physics. Photons that ionize iron don't reflect off of an iron surface, they ionize it and disappear in the process. Likewise, photons that carry enough energy to melt iron don't reflect off of an iron surface, they melt it and disappear in the process. The 192/5Å passband represents Fe XII (11-times ionized iron). So we would expect photons at that wavelength to preferentially not reflect off of an iron surface, but rather to ionize it. Furthermore, the 192/5Å passband represents the peak of thermal emission in the broad range of temperatures 500,000 - 2,000,000 Kelvins. Since the melting point of iron is 1811 Kelvins, and its boiling point is 3134 Kelvins, we would expect photons in the 192/5Å passband to melt & vaporize the iron surface and disappear in the process, and not to reflect off of the surface.

So, why does the mirror on TRACE not melt in the face of melting photons in the 192/5Å passband? It's all about intensity. The TRACE mirror has to deal with a few photons. One at a time, we don't necessarily expect the photons to ionize or melt anything (although the coatings are intended in part to prevent degradation of the primary mirror). But when photons gang up on a surface, they can and will provide enough thermal energy to melt & vaporize that surface, and then ionize the resulting vapor. Here at Earth, where we find TRACE, the incident solar EUV flux will be about 2 erg cm^-2 sec^-1, whereas at the sun we are looking at roughly 600,000 erg cm^-2 sec^-1 (which will be much higher near active regions). And do note this is EUV flux only, the bolometric flux at the photosphere is about 60,000,000,000 erg cm^-2 sec^-1. That's a lot of photons, and we cannot simply pretend that any solid surface is immune to the effect of that kind of photon bath.

So basic physics presents a problem after all. No, TRACE should not see any photons in the 192/5Å passband reflecting off of any iron surface. Rather, all of those photons should disappear in the process of melting, vaporizing and ionizing that surface. Furthermore, a little consideration shows that this should be the case no matter what the surface is made out of, since the temperature range 500,000 - 2,000,000 Kelvins vastly exceeds the boiling point of all known materials. So photons of the 192/5Å passband should not reflect off of any surface on the sun, regardless of its chemical/physical makeup.

We will get to the thermodynamic considerations.

It is your contention using your photosphere model that not enough energy escapes to allow a solid iron surface to exist under "your photosphere model". And I'm sure your model requires complete coverage of the lower surface to achieve your goals(molten iron/plasma).

You may be sure, but you are still wrong. The only thing required is that enough incident radiation falls on the surface to prevent it from being solid, and that radiation can come from any direction. So ever if the hot stuff is "way over there", if it covers a sufficient fraction of the sky, it will melt the surface.

It is my contention that enough energy escapes from under the surface glow to allow a solid surface to exist in my surface glow model.

Earth's atmosphere emits rather less radiation upwards than it does downwards, because the upper layers are cooler then the lower layers (the average annual Earth surface temperature is 288 Kelvins, but the radiative temperature of the top of the atmosphere is 254 Kelvins). We know from limb observations of the sun that, as deep as we can make direct measurements, the solar plasma is warmer at the bottom than at the top; the photosphere, to the extent that we can see it, reaches almost 10,000 Kelvins at the bottom, which is already well in excess of the vaporizing temperature of iron. So, as is the case for Earth, the photosphere of the sun is brighter & hotter at the bottom than at the top.

No spontaneous thermal process can cool the surface under that plasma to a temperature cooler than the plasma without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You need a non-thermal heat pump (like a refrigerator) to pull that off. So what is the non-thrmal heat pump that you hypothesize as a "cooling mechanism" for your iron surface?