Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina · Aug 6, 2009

Reality Check said:
Er, it is not. It is a statement of the physics of the Sun as understood by scientists (and as interpreted by the Wikipedia authors!).

So your argument is "Scientists say that Michael is wrong, but that is not an appeal to authority fallacy." Is that it?

Your description seems to be "it is hot because it is hot and moving fast" which does not sound right.

No, my description is it hot because it is a "current carrying thread" and it is moving fast. Is the loop continuous, yes or no? Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no? If not, where is it "heating up"?

My impression that there is no heating in the coronal loop. Sorry if I did not state this clearly before.

Then if it's hot everywhere, including under the surface of the photosphere, why would we not observe it to at least 500KM again?

What we are talking about is the temperature of the plasma that is in the coronal loop.

Yes, and why it is OOM's hotter than the photosphere.

This plasma comes from the environment so it is temperature of the plasma in the photosphere (~6,000 K),

If that were true we would not see these loops in the 171A images at all. The loops must be a MINIMUM of 160,000K to be seen in iron ion wavelengths and most likely over 1 million degrees to be "bright" in any given image.

temperature minimum region (~4,100 K), chromosphere (risunbg to ~20,000 K),

Why is it rising and not falling as we move away from the photosphere? Where's that extra heat coming from?

transition region,

How can the "transition region" be 20,000 and emit bright points during solar moss events?

(rising to ~1,000,000 K) and corona (1–2 million kelvins, however, in the hottest regions it is 8–20 million kelvins).
A real astronomer will probably correct this.

Well, actually that is pretty much the "dogma" alright, but then there are all those unanswered questions. Shall I start my own thirty question list on the holes in standard theory?

That leads to the coronal heating problem (which is little to do with coronal loops) where mechanism behind the temperature of plasma at various heights is currently unknown.

That is because it is "unknown" to them that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same physical process. It is also "unknown' to them that the solar atmosphere is electrically active and experiences electrical discharges. The only "problem" is their unwillingness to embrace *ANY* of Alfven's solar theories, or *ANY* of Bruce's solar theories or *ANY* of Birkeland's solar theories. Anything with the word "current flow" or "electrical discharge" is never going to get published. Therefore it is a big 'mystery' even though Birkeland explained it over 100 years ago.

FYI, I understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" (compared to the sunspot with ~4000 K) and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the magnetic field exits upward, and also where it comes back through the photosphere on the other side.

It's "hot" compared to the whole photosphere too because it's "brighter" in the areas where the "current sheet" comes up and through the photosphere and back again.

Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point.

Er, no, I pointed to a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *DO NOT PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images.

If no loops paassed through the photosphere, why is the photosphere lit up like that? You have no such evidence.

I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *below* the photosphere.

Except the plasma that gets blown off the surface, except the LINES along the base of the current sheet that comes up and through the photosphere, and except for those NASA animations.

You are missing a key point here. The WL image proves that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop (i.e. visible in WL) has a temperature between 4,000 and 10,000 K.

Er, no. By that logic a lightening bolt is only 4-10,000 Kelvin. Is that your argument? Just because it happens to emit some white light doesn't mean it doesn't emit x-rays and gamma rays too.

Then the discharge theory is wrong. as my emphaisis shows. The temperature varies a lot in a small region of the coronal loop. Thus it is not an electrical arc.

Which small region? The loop is hot until it reaches the photosphere, it cools back down really fast until it hits a magic land called the "Transition region" where it suddenly heats back up again? What are you saying? Is the loop uniformly heated or not? If not, what is the heating mechanism?

But you can prove me wrong - just cite or show the calculation that an electric arc can change temperature from ~4000 K to ~1,000,000 K in a distance of about 15,000 km, retain that temperature for many 1000's of km and then drop back to ~4000 K.

Er, you don't want much do you?

http://www.prod.sandia.gov/zmachine/

Sorry, that's the best I could do.

It is the heating that they actually measure.

The heating from "what"?

One more time: No one is stating that coronal loops do not rise out of the photosphere as in the NASA conceptual animation.

At what temperature does it rise out of the photosphere and why is it rising? Where does it "heat up" and more importantly *WHAT* is the heating mechanism?

LMSAL do not assume that the loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere.

Er, yes they do. They assume that they are not visible in 171A until far *ABOVE* the photosphere. Why?

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

Their scientists know basic physics and so know that the 171A pass band is imaging radiation from heated plasma above the photosphere. The 171A pass band can never detect the photosphere.

No, but it can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the photosphere. That is my whole point. At these wavelengths is is likely even by standard theory that million degree loops would be visible at these wavelengths from many hundreds of kilometers under the surface of the photosphere. There is no reason to assume these loops suddenly "heat up" to millions of degrees at some magic point, high in the solar atmosphere.

Ziggurat · Aug 6, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Er, how do you define "thermal insulation" in the mist of million mile per hour "current flows"?

Easy: the solid surface cannot radiate heat into deep space.

Are you even going to admit that "magnetic reconnection" can be "translated" to "particle reconnection" yet so that it is congruent with QM and particle physics theory?

Your obsession with the semantics remains of no interest to me. Use whichever term if you want to, I don't care.

We also have a "current flow" that is one directional, always away from the sun.

And this provides refrigeration.... how?

So how is that chromosphere emitting at a higher temp than the photosphere? You thermodynamic requirements go up in smoke as we move away from the photosphere and into *HIGHER* temperature plasma.

No, Michael. I've pointed this out to you MANY times now. The chromosphere and corona are both largely transparent, and so do NOT insulate the layers beneath them. So no, my thermodynamic requirements do not go up in smoke. But you demonstrate your cluelessness yet again.

How does that photosphere remain cooler than the corona?

Easily: because the corona is largely transparent, it outputs very little radiative power (relatively speaking). So it doesn't heat the photosphere very quickly. The photosphere, in contrast, is able to radiate a LOT of power out into deep space. So the photosphere can (and does) lose heat far faster than the corona can heat it, because it can radiate through the corona. This has been explained to you before.

I'm afraid that is your own personal lingo. A quick search on Google would suggest that you are the only living human being on Earth to ever use that term.

Because nobody but you would think up such a stupid idea. Doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of your idea.

Did you mean "Thermionic Refrigeration"?

This is a more specific term. If you think that's the mechanism at work, then we can use that term instead. And we can redo the calculations based on this idea, and see what we get. Is that what you would like to do, Michael?

Reality Check · Aug 6, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
So your argument is "Scientists say that Michael is wrong, but that is not an appeal to authority fallacy." Is that it?

You have it right

! The appeal to authority fallacy requires that the source be authoritative. Wikipedia is definitely not that!

Michael Mozina said:
No, my description is it hot because it is a "current carrying thread" and it is moving fast. Is the loop continuous, yes or no? Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no? If not, where is it "heating up"?

That is your theory so you can answer the questions:

Is the loop continuous, yes or no?
Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no?
If not, where is it "heating up"?

Michael Mozina said:
Then if it's hot everywhere, including under the surface of the photosphere, why would we not observe it to at least 500KM again?

Because it has the same temperature as the plasma in the photosphere an outputs the same light.

Michael Mozina said:
Yes, and why it is OOM's hotter than the photosphere.

If that were true we would not see these loops in the 171A images at all. The loops must be a MINIMUM of 160,000K to be seen in iron ion wavelengths and most likely over 1 million degrees to be "bright" in any given image.

The plasma in the coronal loops is at the various temperatures of the levels of the atmosphere.

IMO: There are two resaons that the coronal loop is brighter than the Sun's atmosphere.

The light is brighter than the plasma because the plasma is concentrated in the coronal loop.
In hindsight saying that there was no heating was a mistake. If you squeeze a gas it heats. So the plasma is actually hotter than the surrounding plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
Why is it rising and not falling as we move away from the photosphere? Where's that extra heat coming from?

From coronal heating. Scientists do not know the mechanism for coronal heating yet but they do have a couple of possible mechanisms and are researching the issue.
You seem to think that the corona is created from coronal loops. It is correlated with sunspot activity and thus coronal loops but it does not vanish when there are no sunspots or coronal loops.

Michael Mozina said:
How can the "transition region" be 20,000 and emit bright points during solar moss events?

I do not know.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, actually that is pretty much the "dogma" alright, but then there are all those unanswered questions. Shall I start my own thirty question list on the holes in standard theory?

If you want to do this then do it in another thread. This is the "Electric universe theories thread". Remeber that evidence against theory A is not evidence for theory B unless you can prove that theories A and B are the only possible theories. Should I mention Bruce (theory C) , a guy called Oliver Manuel (theory D) and Wallace Thornhill (theory E)?

Michael Mozina said:
It's "hot" compared to the whole photosphere too because it's "brighter" in the areas where the "current sheet" comes up and through the photosphere and back again.

How much hotter?

Michael Mozina said:
Er, no, I pointed to a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

Er, no, You pointed to a specific observation that *YOU INTERPRETED AS" "DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

Michael Mozina said:
If no loops paassed through the photosphere, why is the photosphere lit up like that? You have no such evidence.

The loops pased through the photosphere. I (like you) interpret the pretty picture. as a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.
That is my evidence. This is as valid as your evidence. Which is of course not valid at all since neither of us has numbers.

Michael Mozina said:
Except the plasma that gets blown off the surface, except the LINES along the base of the current sheet that comes up and through the photosphere, and except for those NASA animations.

I see plasma being sucked off the surface of the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. By that logic a lightening bolt is only 4-10,000 Kelvin. Is that your argument? Just because it happens to emit some white light doesn't mean it doesn't emit x-rays and gamma rays too.

It does.
Now take a photo of a lightening bolt using white light. Do you see the x-rays and gamma rays?
Now take a photo of a lightening bolt using the 171A pass pand. Do you see the white light?

Coronal loops emit light along their length accodring to their temperature and that light is detacted accoring to teh filter applied to the detector. They emit white light, UV, EUV, emit x-rays and gamma rays too

Michael Mozina said:
Which small region? The loop is hot until it reaches the photosphere, it cools back down really fast until it hits a magic land called the "Transition region" where it suddenly heats back up again? What are you saying? Is the loop uniformly heated or not? If not, what is the heating mechanism?

The small region between the photosphere and the transition zone (~15,000 km out of 200,000? km).
The loop has no temperature. It is the plsama in it that has the temperature.

Is the electric arc uniformly heated or not?
If not, what is the heating mechanism?

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped inane heating mechanism rant...

Michael Mozina said:
Er, yes they do. They assume that they are not visible in 171A until far *ABOVE* the photosphere. Why?
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

You know why. You have been told about this basic physics for many years now and many times in this forum. I tis your failure to understand that the 171A pass band can only detect plasma at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. The phososphere is at ~6000 K and its optical depth means that you cannot not detect radiation from depths of more than a few hundred km depending on wavelength (and the sensitivity of your detector).

Solar moss is an interesting observation. No one is sure whay causes it. It seems to be some kind of local heating in the transition zone.
Moss on the limb

This composite TRACE image shows a layer of moss seen at the Solar limb. The yellow image is a visible light image of the Sun and shows the "solar surface" or photosphere. The blue image is a TRACE 171 Angstrom image showing 1 to 2 million degree coronal loops and a bright "layer" of moss just above the surface. The moss layer is located between about 1500 to 4000 km (1000 - 2500 miles) above the solar surface, much lower than the typical coronal loop apex heights.

Michael Mozina said:
No, but it can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the photosphere. That is my whole point. At these wavelengths is is likely even by standard theory that million degree loops would be visible at these wavelengths from many hundreds of kilometers under the surface of the photosphere. There is no reason to assume these loops suddenly "heat up" to millions of degrees at some magic point, high in the solar atmosphere.

Still wrong MM.
The 171A pass band can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the Sun's atmosphere above the photosphere.

You do get this correct:
If there was a million degree loop flowing through the photosphere then it would be detected for a few hundred km below the photosphere (not down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust at 4,800 km).
But astronomers are not dumb.
AFAIK: They do things like look at features on the limb of the Sun. They take images at various wavelengths and in short time intervals (e.g. minutes). They note that features are further out from the Sun whan they go to shorter wavelengths (higher temperatures).

ETA
It is actually good old spectrosopy that provides the evidence for the variation of temperature with distance, e.g.
New Light on the Heart of Darkness of the Solar Chromosphere

Solar carbon monoxide spectra indicate the existence of a cool (less than 4000 kelvin) component to the solar chromosphere coexisting with the hot, bright gas at 6000 to 7000 kelvin. However, both the existence and the location of the cool component have been controversial. New high-resolution spectra show that carbon monoxide goes into emission just beyond the limb, allowing it to be probed without photospheric contamination. The cool component has temperatures as low as 3000 to 3500 kelvin and appears to cover 50 to 85 percent of the quiet solar surface. There is a steep temperature rise to normal chromospheric temperatures at a height of 900 to 1100 kilometers. Large horizontal velocities are seen, suggesting that the cool component is maintained by the supersonic adiabatic expansion of upwelling gas in overshooting granules.

And I am failry sure that astronomers do the same thing for coronal loops.

IMO: The movie you are so fond of disproves this. If all of the loops that we see in the 171A pass band were at temperatures of a million degrees and penetrating the photosphere then the white light movie would demonstrate this. There would be holes all over the sunspots corresponding to the million degree loops entering and exiting the photosphere.

Michael Mozina · Aug 6, 2009

Reality Check said:
Coronal loops emit light along their length accodring to their temperature and that light is detacted accoring to teh filter applied to the detector. They emit white light, UV, EUV, emit x-rays and gamma rays too

Ok, fine. I think since my time is restricted, rather than go through your post line by line, I'd like for you and I to return for a moment to those 1600A images. These 1600A "green" images have a 'surface' which for sake of argument we are both willing to call that surface the photosphere. These images are "better" at showing the relationship between the surface of the photosphere and loops. During flare activities, it it clear that the loops come up and through the photosphere and leave their energy signature on the surface of the photosphere as 'bright patterns' where the loops and current sheets flow. The loops are also "bright lit" suggesting that they radiate at high temperatures relative to this wavelength's temperature sensitivities. Just like here on Earth, any discharge through the photosphere will leave it's mark on the plasma, and it could radiate a very high range of temperature related wavelengths. In other words we can be sure it's "hot" compared to the photosphere, but we can't say *how hot* it might be.

Would you agree or disagree that the 1600A images show a clear pattern of energetic coronal loops traversing the surface of these images?

Michael Mozina · Aug 6, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Easy: the solid surface cannot radiate heat into deep space.

Let's start with this idea first. Why not? Let's start with say a "cool" surface at 1200K and 'space' as defined by cooler plasma. Why can't such a solid surface radiate heat into the plasmas around the sun?

Your obsession with the semantics remains of no interest to me. Use whichever term if you want to, I don't care.

Fine. I will use the term "circuit reconnection" since it conveys the importance of the *entire* circuit, not just the kinetic energy at the point of particle 'reconnection'. It is also consistent with Alfven's use of wiring diagrams and other representations of "circuit" in plasma.

And this provides refrigeration.... how?

The process constantly moves heat away from the sun.

No, Michael. I've pointed this out to you MANY times now. The chromosphere and corona are both largely transparent,

So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?

and so do NOT insulate the layers beneath them.

So as long as the photosphere isn't fully "opaque" and it's thinner than the plasma under that layer, it may not fully insulate the layers under it either, correct?

So no, my thermodynamic requirements do not go up in smoke. But you demonstrate your cluelessness yet again.

You're simply *RANDOMLY* deciding what can and cannot be an "insulating" plasma and you are arbitrarily deciding that the whole photosphere must be 6000K, not just the particles flowing through it.

Easily: because the corona is largely transparent, it outputs very little radiative power (relatively speaking). So it doesn't heat the photosphere very quickly. The photosphere, in contrast, is able to radiate a LOT of power out into deep space. So the photosphere can (and does) lose heat far faster than the corona can heat it, because it can radiate through the corona. This has been explained to you before.

Yes, and I've also explained to you before that I don't believe that the photosphere is "opaque" as you claim too, and that the layer under the photosphere work just like the layers above it too, but you keep rejecting that idea with a handwave. All the plasma layers emit more heat than is reflected back at them.

Reality Check · Aug 6, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, fine. I think since my time is restricted, rather than go through your post line by line, I'd like for you and I to return for a moment to those 1600A images. These 1600A "green" images have a 'surface' which for sake of argument we are both willing to call that surface the photosphere. These images are "better" at showing the relationship between the surface of the photosphere and loops. During flare activities, it it clear that the loops come up and through the photosphere and leave their energy signature on the surface of the photosphere as 'bright patterns' where the loops and current sheets flow. The loops are also "bright lit" suggesting that they radiate at high temperatures relative to this wavelength's temperature sensitivities. Just like here on Earth, any discharge through the photosphere will leave it's mark on the plasma, and it could radiate a very high range of temperature related wavelengths. In other words we can be sure it's "hot" compared to the photosphere, but we can't say *how hot* it might be.

Would you agree or disagree that the 1600A images show a clear pattern of energetic coronal loops traversing the surface of these images?

That is what I see in the movie - lots of activity on the surface of the photosphere (actually the surface of the sunspots).
It is also what scientists say is really happening, i.e. magnetic flux tubes are floating to the surface of the Sun (the photosphere) and filling with plasma.
Did you know that astronomers have actually measured the movement of plasma into the coronal loop's magnetic flux?

Solar plasma feeding these structures is heated from under 6000K to well over 1×106K from the photosphere, through the transition region, and into the corona. Often, the solar plasma will fill these loops from one foot point and drain from the other (siphon flow due to a pressure difference, or asymmetric flow due to some other driver). This is known as chromospheric evaporation and chromospheric condensation respectively. There may also be symmetric flow from both loop foot points, causing a buildup of mass in the loop structure.

Ziggurat · Aug 6, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Let's start with this idea first. Why not? Let's start with say a "cool" surface at 1200K and 'space' as defined by cooler plasma. Why can't such a solid surface radiate heat into the plasmas around the sun?

You can't solve the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid layer by adding a thermodynamically impossible plasma layer. While the solid layer could indeed lose heat to such a plasma layer, the question simply becomes what keeps the cold plasma layer from heating up to around 6000 K? The fundamental problem of having something cold surrounded AND insulated by something hot remains.

The process constantly moves heat away from the sun.

That's not an answer, Michael. A blowtorch is constantly moving heat away from the nozzle, but you will find that the nozzle is not chilled when you turn it on and light it. Furthermore, how much heat do you think can be carried away like this?

So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?

What on earth are you talking about, Michael? X-rays are completely negligible for thermal radiation at 6000 K and below. Whatever emission, absorption, or transmission is going on, it won't make any difference to my thermodynamic arguments.

So as long as the photosphere isn't fully "opaque" and it's thinner than the plasma under that layer, it may not fully insulate the layers under it either, correct?

Correct. But we KNOW that whatever is between your proposed solid surface and space is almost entirely opaque (this is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the blackbody spectrum that is produced), and so is an EXCELLENT insulator. Perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be. Whatever is under it cannot possibly radiate nearly enough through it to keep colder than it.

You're simply *RANDOMLY* deciding what can and cannot be an "insulating" plasma

Not at all. In fact, I've made the criteria explicit before. If it's opaque to the relevant wavelengths (in this case, UV to IR), it's insulating. If it's transparent to the relevant wavelengths, it's not insulating. The corona and the chromosphere are largely transparent at these wavelengths, therefore they are not insulating. Something between your proposed solid surface and the chromosphere is not transparent. It MUST be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody.

and you are arbitrarily deciding that the whole photosphere must be 6000K, not just the particles flowing through it.

No, I'm not arbitrarily deciding that. Rather, the distinction doesn't matter.

Yes, and I've also explained to you before that I don't believe that the photosphere is "opaque" as you claim too

It doesn't matter if it's the photosphere or not. It's SOMETHING, or (if you insist) some things. And yes, it must be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody. That, again, is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

All the plasma layers emit more heat than is reflected back at them.

Not possible if the inner layer is colder than the outer layer AND the outer layer is a blackbody.

Reality Check · Aug 6, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

You cannot tell from this compostite image whether "*something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop".

Firstly this is a 2D image. There is no way to tell by just looking how high the features in it are. To do that you have to analyze the two original images to extract numbers and compare them. I think that astronomers may have some method of extracting the heights from the images. Why don't you do some research and apply the technique to the images?

Secondly in general loops imaged in the soft X-rays that Yohkoh detects will start to be imaged above the same loops detected in the TRACE 171A pass band. You have been told this many times before before.

Thirdly note that the actual caption to the image (whic you never seem to post) does not mention anything blocking the Yohkoh x-rays.

The same image as "moss7" but with the co-temporal Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope image overlaid. Note that the patches of moss seen in the previous images (See Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun) occur only beneath areas of high intensity soft x-ray emission as imaged by the SXT instrument.

The caption does mention that the Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope image is overlaid.
What if they had reversed the overlay?
Would you then be talking about *something* blocking the TRACE EUV from lower down the loop?

brantc · Aug 6, 2009

Reality Check said:
You have it right ! The appeal to authority fallacy requires that the source be authoritative. Wikipedia is definitely not that!

That is your theory so you can answer the questions:

Is the loop continuous, yes or no?

Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no?

If not, where is it "heating up"?

Because it has the same temperature as the plasma in the photosphere an outputs the same light.

The plasma in the coronal loops is at the various temperatures of the levels of the atmosphere.

IMO: There are two resaons that the coronal loop is brighter than the Sun's atmosphere.

The light is brighter than the plasma because the plasma is concentrated in the coronal loop.

In hindsight saying that there was no heating was a mistake. If you squeeze a gas it heats. So the plasma is actually hotter than the surrounding plasma.

From coronal heating. Scientists do not know the mechanism for coronal heating yet but they do have a couple of possible mechanisms and are researching the issue.
You seem to think that the corona is created from coronal loops. It is correlated with sunspot activity and thus coronal loops but it does not vanish when there are no sunspots or coronal loops.

IMO: The movie you are so fond of disproves this. If all of the loops that we see in the 171A pass band were at temperatures of a million degrees and penetrating the photosphere then the white light movie would demonstrate this. There would be holes all over the sunspots corresponding to the million degree loops entering and exiting the photosphere.

Coronal heating in its most basic form is acceleration of electrons(ions) from a fraction of an eV to 100eV... Acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points.
Anything else is just blabber that does not recognize the root cause.

The light at 171 requires a certain energy to be produced. This energy is indicative of 100eV iron plasma. At 11,000 per eV that is 1million degrees. That is what 171A(almost EUV) is good at looking at!! You cannot see that wavelength in white light. Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity. I dont think you have to have a sunspot to have a coronal loop in 171?

From the TRACE website.

"On the left (top) is a TRACE image taken on 9 August 1999, around 23:00 UT, in the 171Å passband (characteristic of 1 million degree gas; shown as the square root of the measure intensity). High-arching loops stand out, to a height of appriximately 120,000 km, visible along their entire length. The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

If the temperature does not vary much along aloop, and lies around 1 million degrees along most of its length, the gas should sag into the bottom of the loops under the influence of gravity. Consequently, the gas density should decrease by a factor of almost three every 50,000 km; the emission (which scales as the square of the density) should drop by that factor every 25,000 km. The right-hand bar in the lower image on the left shows how radidly the emission should have dropped off in the case of such simple gravitational stratification; the observed situation is closer to the intensity profile in the left-hand bar, for which the scale height has been doubled. Clearly, the emission drops off much more slowly than expected from a simple static model. The assumptions that are generally made that solar coronal loops are essentially stationary (evolving slow compared to the time they can adjust to a new situation) and that they are uniformly heated have been demonstrated to be fundamentally untenable: many loops evolve very rapidly, and none of them is heated uniformly!"

brantc · Aug 6, 2009

Ziggurat said:
You can't solve the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid layer by adding a thermodynamically impossible plasma layer. While the solid layer could indeed lose heat to such a plasma layer, the question simply becomes what keeps the cold plasma layer from heating up to around 6000 K? The fundamental problem of having something cold surrounded AND insulated by something hot remains.

Correct. But we KNOW that whatever is between your proposed solid surface and space is almost entirely opaque (this is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the blackbody spectrum that is produced), and so is an EXCELLENT insulator. Perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be. Whatever is under it cannot possibly radiate nearly enough through it to keep colder than it.

Not at all. In fact, I've made the criteria explicit before. If it's opaque to the relevant wavelengths (in this case, UV to IR), it's insulating. If it's transparent to the relevant wavelengths, it's not insulating. The corona and the chromosphere are largely transparent at these wavelengths, therefore they are not insulating. Something between your proposed solid surface and the chromosphere is not transparent. It MUST be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody.

You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody. And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous. BB only comes from a dense plasma.

That is a logical fallacy. Solid matter emits as a blackbody. So the photosphere is thin enough to allow some of that blackbody curve to show through. It is not the intervening(between the photosphere and the solid surface) plasma that causes the BB. Its just not dense enough.

All the particles start out with a fraction of an eV at the surface and gain energy as the head towards the corona. If they go the other way the lose energy. 99% of the energy of the sun is traveling away. The rest is radiated through the better than the best vacuum on earth, called the photosphere at IR wavelengths from the solid surface of the sun.

Reality Check · Aug 6, 2009

brantc said:
Coronal heating in its most basic form is acceleration of electrons(ions) from a fraction of an eV to 100eV... Acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points.
Anything else is just blabber that does not recognize the root cause.

That is right. In solid materials, acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points. That is how particle accelerators work.

It is a pity that there are no solid materials in the photosphere (~6000 K) or above the photosphere. The photosphere, etc. are plasma. Plasmas are behave differently from solid materials.

brantc said:
The light at 171 requires a certain energy to be produced. This energy is indicative of 100eV iron plasma. At 11,000 per eV that is 1million degrees. That is what 171A(almost EUV) is good at looking at!! You cannot see that wavelength in white light. Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity.

No one argues with this. The 171A pass band filter was chosen for the TRACE spacecraft to image plasma at tempertaures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K and so emission from detect Fe IX ions.

Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity that emits white light.
As MM would ask: Have you downloaded the FlareDVD.img and looked at the difference between the WL movies and other pass band movies?

The WL movies are actually very boring wrt coronal loops. The 1 to 3 frames that MM picked up are the only interesting ones in 1000's of frames in that WL movie. The other WL movies are even more boring wrt coronal loops.

brantc said:
I dont think you have to have a sunspot to have a coronal loop in 171?

Right - they are just found more often with sunspots as their footprints.

brantc said:
...snipped the well known and already posted a couple of times TRACE result temperatures are constant along most of a coroanl loop,,,

Reality Check · Aug 6, 2009

brantc said:
You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody. And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous. BB only comes from a dense plasma.

He is not assuming this.
A nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K is measured. This is means that the material emitting the light is at a temperature of 5777 K. Solids cannot exist at 5777 K. Liquids cannot exists at 5777 K. That leaves gas or plasma. The temperature means ionization so we have an ionized gas or a plasma.

You do not even need "all the process in the sun" to line up. All you need the the formation of H-, i.e. free electrons in an almost thermal distribution emitting photons as they join a H atom.
Photosphere

The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[56] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[56] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[57][58]

sol invictus · Aug 6, 2009

brantc said:
You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody.

Here's my understanding of this "debate". MM thinks (?) the sun has a solid iron surface, and that we can image it. The problem is, iron melts at 1800K and boils at 3000K, and the sun emits blackbody radiation with a temperature of nearly 6000K. Same problem for any other substance I know of.

So, how is this possible? Well it's obviously not, but let's be generous and examine the possibilities. Here's a list of facts:

The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.
That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).
That surface is either above or below this putative iron surface.
If it's above, we couldn't see the iron, because the surface is opaque.
If it's below, the iron would either melt or equilibrate at a temperature below 1800K.
Since solid (and molten) iron is opaque, if it didn't vaporize it would emit BB radation at a temperature below 6000K, which would mean sunlight would have a BB spectrum below 6000K, which it doesn't.
I think we're stuck....

And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous.

Eh? The sun does have a BB spectrum. Do you find the sun ridiculous?

Ziggurat · Aug 6, 2009

brantc said:
You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody.

No, I'm not. I'm observing that something is. Michael has claimed that the solid surface is not at 6000 K, and so cannot be the source of this blackbody radiation. Therefore, it MUST be something above his solid surface, according to Michael. I make no claims about what it is.

And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous.

Then it's a good thing nobody suggested that.

BB only comes from a dense plasma.

Is a substance which absorbs 1% of incident light per millimeter and transmits 99% of it going to emit close to a blackbody? Well, not if you've only got 1 mm of it. But what if you've got a meters of it? Then you're going to absorb over 99.99 % of any incident light, and it WILL act very close to a blackbody. What matters is the optical depth compared to the size of your material. It doesn't matter how dense a plasma is, if the optical depth is shorter than the plasma's volume, it will act as a blackbody. Tell me: what's the optical depth for plasma in the photosphere? And how thick is the photosphere? Those are the questions we need to answer if you want to determine whether or not the photosphere can act as a blackbody. Without answering those questions, you have no grounds on which to conclude it cannot act as a blackbody source.

That is a logical fallacy. Solid matter emits as a blackbody.

Well, no. Some solid matter does. Mirrors, for example, do not. But as has been demonstrated for you already, solids are not the only things capable of acting as blackbodies.

So the photosphere is thin enough to allow some of that blackbody curve to show through.

What you suggest contradicts what Michael has been saying. If the blackbody radiation we see comes from a solid surface of the sun (and BTW, it's not just the shape that matters in the current context, the absolute intensity does too), then that solid surface must be around 6000 K. Tell me, what material do you think can remain solid at that temperature? Even Michael recognizes that won't work.

All the particles start out with a fraction of an eV at the surface and gain energy as the head towards the corona. If they go the other way the lose energy. 99% of the energy of the sun is traveling away. The rest is radiated through the better than the best vacuum on earth, called the photosphere at IR wavelengths from the solid surface of the sun.

Are you claiming that the photosphere is a vacuum, or did you just have a brain fart when you wrote this?

Ziggurat · Aug 6, 2009

sol invictus said:
Eh? The sun does have a BB spectrum. Do you find the sun ridiculous?

brantc claimed before that plasmas can only emit light at atomic spectral lines. I spent a number of posts detailing how xenon plasma arc lamps falsified this claim (and where he continued to deny the evidence that was presented to him in a rather amusing fashion), but I'm not sure he really gets the implications of this yet.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Reality Check said:
That is right. In solid materials, acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points. That is how particle accelerators work.

Plasma form "circuits" and z-pinch filaments that act like conductors. What's the difference? As long as there is a charge difference between them the discharge process occurs. Birkeland did this with his cathode sphere and took images of that process. It's not a "mystery" as to what might heat plasma to millions of degrees, it's called an "electrical discharge". We see them here on Earth all the time. The areas inside that discharge process are all hot.

It is a pity that there are no solid materials in the photosphere (~6000 K) or above the photosphere.

In suspot activity they routinely find temperatures less than 4000K.

The photosphere, etc. are plasma. Plasmas are behave differently from solid materials.

Plasma is a conductor like many solids. It's "different", but it has similar properties to liquids.

No one argues with this. The 171A pass band filter was chosen for the TRACE spacecraft to image plasma at tempertaures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K and so emission from detect Fe IX ions.

The point is that you wouldn't see such emissions were it not for the electrical discharge that heats the plasma! You keep sort glossing over the heat source issue in a big way.

Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity that emits white light.
As MM would ask: Have you downloaded the FlareDVD.img and looked at the difference between the WL movies and other pass band movies?

Yes. I'm wondering if Zig will ever do that. Note those 1600A images also show the loops come from under the photosphere. There is no way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

The WL movies are actually very boring wrt coronal loops. The 1 to 3 frames that MM picked up are the only interesting ones in 1000's of frames in that WL movie. The other WL movies are even more boring wrt coronal loops.

Ya, I sat through the whole video for you and picked out the three images that showed us anything useful in WL that related to this conversation.

Right - they are just found more often with sunspots as their footprints.

Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

I really want you to look at those 1600A images and notice that the plasma is *hot* as it traverses the surface of these images. It's "hot", not cold as it passes through the photosphere. There is no "heating mechanism" above the photosphere as LMSAL claims. All the heating takes place as a result of the discharge process, but most of those discharge processes occur completely under the photosphere and typically never rise up through the photosphere. Only the "big loops" do that and they leave a definite mark on the photosphere as they pass through that is indicative of a hot plasma discharge.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Ziggurat said:
brantc claimed before that plasmas can only emit light at atomic spectral lines. I spent a number of posts detailing how xenon plasma arc lamps falsified this claim (and where he continued to deny the evidence that was presented to him in a rather amusing fashion), but I'm not sure he really gets the implications of this yet.

If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Ziggurat said:
That's not an answer, Michael. A blowtorch is constantly moving heat away from the nozzle, but you will find that the nozzle is not chilled when you turn it on and light it. Furthermore, how much heat do you think can be carried away like this?

Plenty. Would you rather have your finger sitting 1/4 inch in front of the flame for two or three seconds, or 1/4 inch behind the nozzle?

GeeMack · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

So it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot, eh? I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest. You couldn't possibly have actually meant to say that, Michael.

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Plasma form "circuits" and z-pinch filaments that act like conductors. What's the difference? As long as there is a charge difference between them the discharge process occurs. Birkeland did this with his cathode sphere and took images of that process. It's not a "mystery" as to what might heat plasma to millions of degrees, it's called an "electrical discharge". We see them here on Earth all the time. The areas inside that discharge process are all hot.

The difference is the scale upon which charge separation happens in the solar plasma.
The difference is that Sun is not the Earth.

Michael Mozina said:
In suspot activity they routinely find temperatures less than 4000K.

They might (citation needed) - the usual tempertaure quoted is 4,000 K to 1,500K. Still no solids at ~4,000 K.

Michael Mozina said:
Plasma is a conductor like many solids. It's "different", but it has similar properties to liquids.

That is right. It is even treated as a fluid in magnetohydrodynamics.

Michael Mozina said:
The point is that you wouldn't see such emissions were it not for the electrical discharge that heats the plasma! You keep sort glossing over the heat source issue in a big way.

I have been quite clear aboout the source of coronal heating. No one knows what it is. That is not "glossing over" - that is stating what the situation is.
You cannot have electrical discharges from a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust that does not exist. You cannot have

Michael Mozina said:
Yes. I'm wondering if Zig will ever do that. Note those 1600A images also show the loops come from under the photosphere. There is no way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

There is every way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

Michael Mozina said:
I really want you to look at those 1600A images and notice that the plasma is *hot* as it traverses the surface of these images. It's "hot", not cold as it passes through the photosphere. There is no "heating mechanism" above the photosphere as LMSAL claims. All the heating takes place as a result of the discharge process, but most of those discharge processes occur completely under the photosphere and typically never rise up through the photosphere. Only the "big loops" do that and they leave a definite mark on the photosphere as they pass through that is indicative of a hot plasma discharge.

The plasma is as "hot" as the 1600A filter allows - a maximum of 10,000 K.

LMSAL claim is:

The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

(emphasis added)
and the pass bands are:

Thus the minimum plasma temperature that LMSAL are talking about is 160,000 K (anything cooler than this is not in the 2 images).

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

GeeMack said:
So it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot, eh? I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents

Plural? You mean you've changed your mind, and suddenly I'm not the only one who supports a solid surface model eh? I suppose I should consider that progress.

say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest.

You really are incapable of responding to me without the crutch of ad homs. You really are incapable of honest dialog.

You couldn't possibly have actually meant to say that, Michael.

I'm sometimes stunned at how little you really comprehend about solar physics and science in general. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sunspots are *CAUSED BY* discharge activity? What discharge activity? Sheesh.

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

(emphasis added)
I did not notice this before.
Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

This would be a bad sign for your coronal loops are electrical arcs idea. Sunspots are intensely magnetic.

P.S. Did you know that the central umbrae of sunspots are depressions in the photosphere (the Wilson effect observed in 1769!).

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Reality Check said:
The difference is the scale upon which charge separation happens in the solar plasma.
The difference is that Sun is not the Earth.

But they both experience discharge processes in their atmospheres. They aren't exactly the same, but IMO they are more alike than you realize or accept.

They might (citation needed) - the usual tempertaure quoted is 4,000 K to 1,500K. Still no solids at ~4,000 K.

Carbon can form solids at around 4000K. 1500K is plenty cool for solids to form. The photosphere is just another mass separated layer, and cooler layer (like 1500K) reside below the photosphere.

That is right. It is even treated as a fluid in magnetohydrodynamics.

And that fluid like behavior is obvious in that wave in Kosovichev's video in the wave on the surface of the photosphere. Underneath that wave are mass flows around rigid/solid surface features in the form of small discharges all along the surface. We can see the patterns of that solid surface too in Kosovichev's video in the mass flow patterns I circled in his video. Kosovichev was correct to state that they were "mass flows", but the angular persistence is due to the surface crust and the discharge patterns form around the contours of the surface.

I have been quite clear aboout the source of coronal heating. No one knows what it is. That is not "glossing over" - that is stating what the situation is.

I do. Alfven did. Bruce did. Birkeland certainly did.

You cannot have electrical discharges from a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust that does not exist.

This "thermodynamically impossible chromosphere and corona solar model" you put faith in suffers from similar shortcomings.

There is every way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

How? We can observe the FEII ions traverse the surface at 1600A to some depth. I'm sure that higher energy wavelengths would penetrate even further into the photosphere.

The plasma is as "hot" as the 1600A filter allows - a maximum of 10,000 K.

So the iron ions in those loops is *AT LEAST* 10,000K and much hotter than the photosphere even before it gets to the surface of the photosphere. Lots of different ions of iron are inside those loops and the 171A images simply show us a different ion inside the same discharge event.

LMSAL claim is:

(emphasis added)
and the pass bands are:
[qimg]http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif[/qimg]

Thus the minimum plasma temperature that LMSAL are talking about is 160,000 K (anything cooler than this is not in the 2 images).

First of all, there is no mention in that article of Thompson scattering. Why? Not all the ions need to be a million degrees. Notice how they claimed that the heating occurs *LOW* in the loop? That is because it's heated by the time it becomes visible *UNDER* the photosphere.

There is no magic heating or mysterious heating mechanism involved in these discharge events. Bruce explained all this stuff 50+ years ago. Alfven added the whole field of MHD theory to support the idea and he personally supported the idea of a z-pinch "magnetic rope".

Circuit reconnection is what occurs inside these plasma discharge events. The entire circuit energy of both circuits determines the rate of "reconnection" and what happens of the point of reconnection where *PARTICLES* actually do the physical reconnection process.

The discharge events however are ongoing and continuous and the primary discharge process is between the surface and the heliosphere.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Reality Check said:
(emphasis added)
I did not notice this before.
Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

Show me one sunspot event where intense 171/195A activity was nowhere near the sunspot.

This would be a bad sign for your coronal loops are electrical arcs idea. Sunspots are intensely magnetic.

The discharge activity comes up and through the photosphere but the photosphere is simply a mostly neon layer of plasma. Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

P.S. Did you know that the central umbrae of sunspots are depressions in the photosphere (the Wilson effect observed in 1769!).

Yes. There are some nice links to the photosphere from the Swedish 1M telescope on my website. You could also think of the eye of a hurricane as a "depression" in the cloud layer.

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one sunspot event where intense 171/195A activity was nowhere near the sunspot.

First you give me a citation for your assertion.

Michael Mozina said:
The discharge activity comes up and through the photosphere but the photosphere is simply a mostly neon layer of plasma. Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

Is it about time for another edition of the many questions that you have not answered except for unsupported assertions?
Nah - not yet.
But the layer questions still need answering (only 5 out of 29 and counting)!

How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009
Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere? First asked 30 July 2009
Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer? First asked 30 July 2009
What is your physical evidence for "mostly Li/Be/B/C/N/O" layers? First asked 30 July 2009
What is your physical evidence for the "mostly deuterium" layer? First asked 30 July 2009

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina stated

Michael Mozina said:
Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

What is your physical evidence for an elevated level of silicon in sunspots?

For example spectroscopy should show more intense silicon lines from sunspots than from other areas of the photosphere.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Reality Check said:
Could you cite your source for the assertion that sunspots are created by coronal loops?

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

I thought you agreed with this animation.

sol invictus · Aug 7, 2009

By the way, Michael, I'm mildly curious as to which (if any) of my items 1-7 you disagree with.

sol invictus said:
Here's a list of facts:

The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.

That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).

That surface is either above or below this putative iron surface.

If it's above, we couldn't see the iron, because the surface is opaque.

If it's below, the iron would either melt or equilibrate at a temperature below 1800K.

Since solid (and molten) iron is opaque, if it didn't vaporize it would emit BB radation at a temperature below 6000K, which would mean sunlight would have a BB spectrum below 6000K, which it doesn't.

I think we're stuck....

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

I thought you agreed with this animation.

I do. The animation looks pretty.
But a conceptual animation is not a citation. A citation is to a book or paper.

The caption is

New studies show that the Sun's active regions -- areas of intense eruptions -- are formed from many small magnetic structures (white loops) that rise from deep within the interior, then pierce the surface to form sunspots (dark areas). These structures appear as giant arches when electrified gas (plasma) passes through their magnetic fields.

So sunspots are created by magnetic loops just as they say.

The question is do all of these loops fill with plasma that is hot enough to show up in the 171A & 195A pass bands as you say?

IMO: You are right. I cannot think of a mechanism that would stop the loops filling with plasma. But there are a lot brighter and knowledgeable people out there who may have the actual answer!

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

How does the Iron Sun idea explain sunspot pairing and groups?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina, Your Iron Sun model has

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

(I assume that sunspot is actually photosphere).
This means that sunspots are independent of each other according to the Iron Sun idea.
But ...
Sunspot

The Wilson effect tells us that sunspots are actually depressions on the sun's surface. This model is supported by observations using the Zeeman effect that show that prototypical sunspots come in pairs with opposite magnetic polarity. From cycle to cycle, the polarities of leading and trailing (with respect to the solar rotation) sunspots change from north/south to south/north and back. Sunspots usually appear in groups.

How does the rising heated silicon plasma create pairs of sunspots with opposite magnetic polarity?

Why does the rising heated silicon plasma usually form groups of sunspots?

Reality Check · Aug 7, 2009

How does the Iron Sun idea explain the sunspot cycle?

First asked 7 August 2009
Michael Mozina, Your Iron Sun model has

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Sunspots form when heated silicon plasma from below rises up and through the sunspot, and when electrical activity creates hurricane like formations at the surface of the photosphere, the the eye of a hurricane from space.

(I assume that sunspot is actually photosphere).

Sunspot activity cycles about every eleven years. This is explained conventionally by magnetic fields starting with the Babcock Model in 1961.

How does the Iron Sun idea explain the sunspot cycle?

Ziggurat · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

Whether electrical discharges are the source of the heat for the observed blackbody radiation is irrelevant to my argument. Only the radiation itself matters, and that is a quantity we know with certainty from observations.

Michael Mozina said:
Plenty.

"Plenty" is not a sufficient answer. How much? Give me a number.

Would you rather have your finger sitting 1/4 inch in front of the flame for two or three seconds, or 1/4 inch behind the nozzle?

This too is irrelevant. While it is cooler behind the nozzle than in front of it, the flame does no cooling. But in your model, your discharge must be actively cooling the solid surface, or else the surface will heat up from absorbed radiation from the much hotter region above it.

tusenfem · Aug 7, 2009

brantc said:
The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

Well, that basically destroys the Z-pinch heating model at the top of the loops. Thank brantc, you just cut another leg under the electric sun model!

Dancing David · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

Because you are violating thermodynamics and haven't stated how much thermionic cooling occurs.

GeeMack · Aug 7, 2009

I'll ask this at the top, Michael, because evidence suggests you might have a reading or attention span problem that prevents you from seeing it when I ask at the end of a posting...

Why on Earth do you continue to cry like a little kid instead of actually coughing up some legitimate responses to questions that might actually support your insane delusion?

Michael Mozina said:
Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

That's exactly what you wrote, Michael. I said, "I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest." Multiple supporters of your crackpottery? Possibly. I think I've seen two, maybe three of them in all these years. But I contend that there aren't any legitimate physicists who agree with you. And none of those people who have seemed to agree with you were actually physicists or legitimate scientists at any level. None of them could help you with any quantitative support, math, or necessary calculations. None of them could communicate well enough to present your crazy ideas any more cogently than you. And interestingly enough, none of them stuck around for more than a handful of responses, either.

But would you rather next time I say that's one of the stupidest things you've ever said? Because it is.

Michael Mozina said:
Plural? You mean you've changed your mind, and suddenly I'm not the only one who supports a solid surface model eh? I suppose I should consider that progress.

Progress? Not one single professional, legitimate scientist on Earth agrees with your insane assertion that the Sun has a solid surface. If you want to call that progress, you know, four years of banging your head on a wall blathering ridiculous, wholly unsupportable nonsense on various Internet forums, and in all that time not being able to acquire a single supporter from the entire world's population of physicists, you go, boy.

You really are incapable of responding to me without the crutch of ad homs. You really are incapable of honest dialog.

You still don't understand what an ad hominem is. Try again. If I say you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar, that's an ad hominem. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

I'm sometimes stunned at how little you really comprehend about solar physics and science in general. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sunspots are *CAUSED BY* discharge activity? What discharge activity? Sheesh.

Wow. You're still whining about that "flying stuff" you've never been able to explain? Just exactly why does each pixel in the running difference graph have the color that it has, Michael? Just exactly how is it you can see something through over 4000 kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at a graphic representation of a series of mathematical calculations created from source data that was obtained several thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma? Why is it you've never been able to support your harebrained notion about running difference graphs, Michael? Never in all these years. You've never shown that you understand the construction of running difference images, how they're made and what they actually show. In fact, you continue to demonstrate that your notions about them are very, very wrong. If you ever do get it, only then will you understand just how ridiculous it is for you to keep throwing tantrums about "flying stuff".

And now, how about you bring in the citations that show that "it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot", or have the honesty to acknowledge that that wasn't what you really meant.

Oh, and once more, why on Earth do you continue to get all pissed off at me for simply asking straight forward questions and calling a spade a spade, when you could, if your crazy conjecture was supportable in any way, be actually offering up legitimate, scientific explanations to support all those nutty things you claim?

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

tusenfem said:
Well, that basically destroys the Z-pinch heating model at the top of the loops. Thank brantc, you just cut another leg under the electric sun model!

The loops are hot *all over* due to the discharge inside the loop. Whatever "heating" takes place, takes place along the surface where the loop meet up with the surface. The "base" of these loops are located along the surface.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Reality Check said:
I do. The animation looks pretty.
But a conceptual animation is not a citation. A citation is to a book or paper.

The caption is

So sunspots are created by magnetic loops just as they say.

You'll notice in the animation that as the loop passes the photosphere it creates the sunspot in the photosphere, in fact two of them where the loops comes up through and back again. That's not actually how it works. The loops generate heat that ultimate lead to sunspot activity, but a the loops pass through the photosphere they actually tend to 'light it up' around the loop or sheet.

The question is do all of these loops fill with plasma that is hot enough to show up in the 171A & 195A pass bands as you say?

Whatever the heating mechanism might be, it occurs low in the loop, and the loops are hot over the entire length of the loop. This is not unlike any normal electrical discharge.

IMO: You are right. I cannot think of a mechanism that would stop the loops filling with plasma. But there are a lot brighter and knowledgeable people out there who may have the actual answer!

The are not any more knowledgeable than you. They can't answer these questions either. Those that can or might are prevented from discussing the actual "cause", because 'electricity' is the forbidden heresy that may not be discussed.

Ziggurat · Aug 7, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Those that can or might are prevented from discussing the actual "cause", because 'electricity' is the forbidden heresy that may not be discussed.

And what, they'll be burned at the stake for doing so? Uh, no. Science is not a giant conspiracy theory.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

Ziggurat said:
And what, they'll be burned at the stake for doing so?

No, they most likely get the "GeeMack treatment" were they are verbally abused and ostracized.

Uh, no. Science is not a giant conspiracy theory.

Well, in most branches of science there is no conspiracy. In astronomy however, EU theory is the "heresy" that will not be tolerated. Go look at the rule system posted over at BAUT. Plasma is an *EXCELLENT* conductor, but any and all electrically oriented theories are treated as "Against The Mainstream" and the rules applied to electrically oriented theories are absurd.

Instead of sticking with a logical and consistent terminology to describe electrical activity in plasma, you guy invented your own pseudoscientific lingo to describe electrical activity in plasma. Instead of calling that process "particle reconnection" to keep in consistent with QM and particle physics theory, or "circuit reconnection" to keep in consistent with MHD theory as Alfven described it, you folk literally invented a whole new term that is intentionally confusing. Magnetic lines form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are incapable of "reconnecting" to another "magnetic lines". Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time in nature. You folks go *WAY* out of your way to avoid using the term "current flow" and to oversimplify an *electro*magnetic process to call it a "magnetic" process.

Michael Mozina · Aug 7, 2009

sol invictus said:
Here's my understanding of this "debate". MM thinks (?) the sun has a solid iron surface, and that we can image it. The problem is, iron melts at 1800K and boils at 3000K, and the sun emits blackbody radiation with a temperature of nearly 6000K. Same problem for any other substance I know of.

So, how is this possible? Well it's obviously not, but let's be generous and examine the possibilities. Here's a list of facts:

The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.

Well, light comes from all the plasma in and around the sun, not simply a single surface.

That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).

Click to expand...

Again, there is no evidence that any single surface emits all these wavelengths of light. It emits a combination of wavelengths from many plasmas at many different temperatures, from a few thousand degrees, up to millions of degrees. It's not a "perfect" black body.

It seems to me that the basic disconnect is that your side insists we calculate all energy based on a "black body" perspective which is itself a gross oversimplification of what is actually going on in term of energy releases from the sun. We observe million degree plasmas in the solar atmosphere that should not be there in a pure "black body" spectrum.

Electric universe theories here.

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned