Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Tricky said:

There's a great deal of incivility and bickering on this thread so I strongly advise you to cut out the sniping and sneering. Address the topic or this thread will be put on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Click to expand...

Yay for Tricky!

Michael Mozina said:

It's finally starting to quiet down now at work.

I suppose we need to talk about sunspots and how they relate then to "optical depth" of at least the visible spectrum before we can discuss the full spectrum of energy from the sun.

The sunspots IMO are key to this case, and I'll start rounding up images, starting with these images:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

The white light in these images ends a define "layer". The plasma in the umbra is upwelling from below and coming up and through that region. We can observe the bases of the penumbral filaments end at a specific depth that is measured in kilometers. The penumbral filaments are the key here and I'll comment more in a moment, but I need to find some other images first.

Click to expand...

Hi MM!

Again I am asking about the RD images that you claim show features on teh semi solid surface.

How deep are those features?
What layers are above them?
What is the opacity of those layers at the frequencies that are used in the RD imamges?

Thanks.

Michael Mozina said:

Here's the 'explanation' of that sunspot image. The "photosphere" IMO is only that "layer of white light" that ends and bottom of the penumbral filaments. All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma.

Click to expand...

And the spectroscopic analysis that confirms thi is?

Keep in mind there is a discharge process occurring between the solid surface below, and the heliosphere far out in space, and all the layers have "current flow" running through them. The neon is full of impurities due to the convection and turbulence of the solar atmosphere.

Click to expand...

So how does it keep the layers from mixing?

The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra.

Click to expand...

And are you saying that the silicon is visble as teh darker region?

As it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and starts to enter the chromosphere, the density change is too great, plasma starts to cool off, and it sinks back into the photosphere.

Click to expand...

It seems that you are!
So the spectroscopic confirmation of this being even a 40% silicon plasma layer is? Same for the 40% neon layers is?

There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate. There are two different types of plasma in this image, one that is "seen", and one that is "darker" that is upwelling in the umbra. The various plasmas tend to "stick together" so the penumbral filaments are simply the "sides" of the neon layer.

Click to expand...

And the spectroscopic wavelengths and proportions that support this are?

Coronal Heating & Solar Wind I

Reality Check said:

Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere?
MM keeps asking this question as well ... My understanding is that there is no thermodynamic problem with this because of one simple fact: the corona is physically different from the photosphere.

Click to expand...

That's the general idea. One must keep in mind the correct statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, namely that heat energy will always flow from high temperature to low temperature in any spontaneous process. However, the restriction goes away in principle, for any process that is not spontaneous.

Refrigerators do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but neither are they spontaneous in any sense of the word. Heat flows from the cold interior to the hot exterior because it is pumped out. There is a mechanism which does physical work (force applied over a distance) and expends energy in order to forcibly pump heat energy "uphill" and out of the refrigerator.

The temperature in the corona is in the millions of Kelvins, compared to the thousands of Kelvins in the photosphere because there is a pump that does mechanical work (force applied over a distance) and expends energy to forcibly pump heat energy "uphill" into the corona.

While the precise mechanism by which the corona is heated remains unknown, the notion that scientists literally have "no clue" as to what happens is unacceptably ignorant & naive. The real problem is that there are so many ways to pump heat into the corona that it is hard scientific work to figure out which mechanism(s) dominate the process. But is is known that the magnetic field connection between the photosphere and corona, through the transition region, is the primary key, and it is the focus of most research into the coronal heating problem. The basics are found, once again, in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (2nd, revised edition, 2004). However, in a heavily studied field like this, 2004 may be already getting old, even if the basics were already well known (Schrijver, et al., 1997 was a major breakthrough in understanding the truly dynamic nature of the photospheric magnetic field and its connection to the chromosphere; you can see by the extensive citation record that the work remains relevant today). A few examples of recent work on the coronal heating problem, as well as the associated problem of the acceleration of the solar wind are in order, arbitrarily chosen by me because they look most interesting & relevant: Antolin & Shibata, 2010; Cranmer, et al., 2010; Matsumoto & Shibata, 2010; McIntosh & De Pontieu, 2009; De Pontieu, et al., 2009; Chandran & Hollweg, 2009; Jess, et al., 2009; Suzuki, 2008; Nishizuka, et al., 2008.

Now allow me to quote myself:

Tim Thompson said:

The attentive reader should not let Mozina get away with fobbing off unsupported opinions as if they were anything other than just that. If he cannot produce arguments as detailed and scientifically complete as the science presented in this book, which science he claims to refute, then his arguments must be rejected in their entirety.

Click to expand...

Although Mozina's name is explicit for obvious reasons, substituting "anyone" in its place may be more appropriate. Here and elsewhere, I am presenting the reader with a solid foundation of scientific research, based on genuine observations of nature and well established physics. Take it or leave it, read it or not, believe it or not, but at least it is there in front of you. Uninformed & uneducated opinions, amateur level guesses, and arbitrary assumptions with no basis in fact or science should not be allowed to hold sway in the face of solid physics. I expect the same level of attention to scientific detail in response to me, as I provide. You, the attentive reader, should do likewise and expect no less.

phunk said:

Except that it's not a different material, and it is emitting light.

Click to expand...

FYI, I don't have the luxury of spending my whole day here today, but I did want to get to your questions and focus on your posts next.

It is a different material as the visible light emitting wiggling ends of the penumbral filaments reveal.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

It's the same material just a bit cooler.

Click to expand...

IMO, that theory fails to explain the visual evidence of even a single gband image. Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon.

If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. They complained at me earlier, but I at least have some basis for a cooling process (including all those photons from the neon), whereas they claim the area under the photosphere is typically *HOTTER* than at the surface. How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

Dancing David said:

No I ,asked you how opaque do you feel that the photosphere is?

There is a reason for it.

How deep do you feel the photosphere is?

Click to expand...

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.

How opaque do you feel the photosphere is?

Click to expand...

To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

Michael Mozina said:

FYI, I don't have the luxury of spending my whole day here today, but I did want to get to your questions and focus on your posts next.

It is a different material as the visible light emitting wiggling ends of the penumbral filaments reveal.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/dot_ar8704_20sep99_sunspot.mpeg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg




IMO, that theory fails to explain the visual evidence of even a single gband image. Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon.

If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. They complained at me earlier, but I at least have some basis for a cooling process (including all those photons from the neon), whereas they claim the area under the photosphere is typically *HOTTER* than at the surface. How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

Click to expand...

For anyone not familiar with previous parts of this thread, understand that Michael's qualifications to understand and properly analyze solar imagery have been challenged, and he has so far been wholly unable to demonstrate that he does indeed possess any such qualifications. Anything he presents as "evidence" in the way of telescope or satellite images cannot be accepted as anything more than his unsubstantiated opinion. It is not evidence no matter how it was acquired or processed.

Michael Mozina said:

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

Click to expand...

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

GeeMack said:

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

Click to expand...

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

GeeMack said:

For anyone not familiar with previous parts of this thread, understand that Michael's qualifications to understand and properly analyze solar imagery have been challenged, and he has so far been wholly unable to demonstrate that he does indeed possess any such qualifications. Anything he presents as "evidence" in the way of telescope or satellite images cannot be accepted as anything more than his unsubstantiated opinion. It is not evidence no matter how it was acquired or processed.

Click to expand...

As I follow this thread, I have attempted to understand why someone without qualifications and real knowledge would persist in debating in this manner. He is debating accomplished specialists in a genuinely complex field of which he has partial knowledge and harbors profound misconceptions. As a layman, I have debated areas of physics with specialists also. But my purpose has been to learn or enhance my understanding. My "debating" has had a purpose in exposing my struggle with some of the counter-intuitive aspects of modern physics. I don't aways succeed but in some cases I have managed to gain some insight.
But MM never learns; he persists in clinging to his misconceptions in spite of the many people who have tried to help him. He is like a petulant child who insists on clinging to and an uninformed opinion about some concept beyond a child's capabilities. I just don't get it.

Sunspots and photospheric physics II

Michael Mozina said:

Look at the bottom of the penumbral filaments in the first two images I posted for a moment. First we should note that there seems to be little or no visible degradation of that light and the filaments extend into the umbra. The filaments do not become blurry or show any signs of visual degradation. When we reach the ends of the filaments, they wiggle around, we can see them clearly, but they lose continuity at the end of the filament. The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, and no white light is visible down any sort of "continuous tube" that might be associated with a tubular convection process, where hot and cold plasma streamss are right next to each other. In no way do we see any sign of the white light extending further into the sunspot once it reaches the bottom of the penumbral filament "layer" of neon. If they were correct, those lit filaments would continue to extend down into the photosphere. They don't. They all end abruptly at a very specific depth that is revealed by the ends of the penumbral filaments.

Click to expand...

We are correct, the filaments do as a matter of observed fact extend down into the photosphere, both along the inner rim of the penumbra, where the filaments rise out of the umbra, and along the outer edge of the penumbra, where the filaments turn and sink back down into the surrounding photosphere. Mozina has nothing to offer here except his own highly subjective & arbitrary interpretation of the motion of features in the movie, driven by bias and nothing more. The filaments do not "end abruptly", they "turn abruptly", and it is obviously not possible to tell the difference between the two if all you have to go by is the movie. It is absolutely not true that we would expect to see white light along the convection tube, under these circumstances, from deeper in the sun because the plasma is too opaque.

Instead of relying on amateur guess work and science by "pretty picture", we should expect real scientists to rely on more substantial information, and they do. For instance, I call the reader's attention to the paper The Velocity Field of Sunspot Penumbrae I: A Global View; Franz & Schlichenmaier, Astronomy and Astrophysics 508(3): 1453-1460, December 2009. Refer specifically to figure 5 on page 6 of the PDF via the arXiv link. That figure shows the measured velocity field of a sunspot as revealed by Doppler shifted iron spectral line observations. The real science here absolutely refutes everything Mozina has to say about sunspots.

Michael Mozina said:

The second major problem with the mainstreams claim is that they need a "magic refrigeration" process. ... How exactly does plasma get separated into "hot and cold" plasma below the photosphere and what makes their "refrigeration process" plausible?

Click to expand...

One must be aware that this is typical of Mozina's exasperating style of discourse. He knows quite well that these questions have already been answered, but simply ignores the fact, perhaps hoping that the reader will not notice. See, for instance ...

Tim Thompson said:

Again, Mozina rants & talks trash, but has nothing intelligent to say. The ability of magnetic fields to inhibit convective heat transport is well known & well established, and indeed fairly obvious: Plasma does not cross magnetic field lines. The physics is well described in any number of sources, e.g., Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004 2nd revised edition), section 8.2.2 "Why Spots Are Cool" ...

The most promising explanation of the spots coolness, and the fate of the missing energy, seems to lie in the blocking of convection by intense vertical magnetic fields. This explanation was first put forward by Biermann in 1941, and some recent evidence tends to strengthen the argument. The basic idea is that the horizontal motions of overturning convection are inhibited by the magnetic volume force jxB in the presence of a strong vertical magnetic field. ... In this explanation of the spot coolness, an equilibrium would be reached in which the convective heat flux blocked below the spot would simply flow around it ...
Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, 2nd ed. 2004, page 250. See the book for complete details.
​

Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said:

But the situation for sunspots is much different. The density of material inside a sunspot is not significantly different from the density outside the sunspot. But the sunspot remains relatively cool because the surrounding magnetic field inhibits convective energy transport into the sunspot. But this magnetic field does not interfere with radiative heat transport at all. That's why sunspots can't get cooler than about 3200 Kelvins. And note that your 3180 K is still 46 K in excess of the boiling point of iron, so this does not help your cause if your cause is a solid & rigid shell.

Click to expand...

Primitive cultures cannot distinguish between "science" and "magic". Perhaps it is the primitive state of Mr. Mozina's intellectual development that likewise causes him to confuse "science" and "magic", always preferring the latter it would seem.

Michael Mozina said:

GeeMack said:

Michael Mozina said:

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

Click to expand...

The comment above is an unsubstantiated opinion and is blatantly incorrect. The Sun's photosphere is the region where the atmosphere transitions from being transparent to where the plasma becomes so dense that it is opaque. By definition the photosphere is, at its densest deepest point, opaque to the transfer of light at any wavelength.

Click to expand...

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

Click to expand...

Your source, you say? Well that would clearly be, from looking at the bolded parts, your own inexpert opinion based on what you believe you see in some images. And as a reminder, you were asked to demonstrate that you are qualified to understand what you're seeing in solar images, and you refused. Also, all evidence shows that you do not possess those qualifications. Your opinion, as support for your argument, is worthless.

The photosphere is most appropriately measured according to opaqueness, so in a way your question is a lot like asking how tall is that bunny in the clouds. The deepest point in the photosphere is the place where it becomes opaque. (Wow, like nobody already said that.) And although you've made it abundantly clear that you won't accept their expertise, the source is NASA.

If you want a depth of the photosphere in kilometers, it is estimated to become opaque to almost all light at around 400 kilometers, and with the most sophisticated currently available technology, around the 1.56 micron infrared wavelength, the absolute deepest we can see is about 450 kilometers. The source? Haimin Wang, professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, from his paper Near-Infrared Observations at 1.56 Microns of the 2003 October 29 X10 White-Light Flare.

So, we could say the photosphere is 450 kilometers deep, if we really, really stretch. And that physically impossible solid surface of yours, Michael, you claim exists at 0.995R to 0.997R? That's about 2000 to 3500 kilometers deep, or over a thousand miles deeper than any light at any wavelength is known to escape. You are not seeing a surface of any sort in any solar image, no matter where it was obtained and regardless of how it is processed. It's impossible.

So if you want to continue to assert that you, unique among all people, are able to see anything through a thousand or more miles of totally opaque material, take it to the General Skepticism and The Paranormal category, because it is no longer a matter of astrophysics. It is truly a supernatural ability you are claiming.

Perpetual Student said:

As I follow this thread, I have attempted to understand why someone without qualifications and real knowledge would persist in debating in this manner. He is debating accomplished specialists in a genuinely complex field of which he has partial knowledge and harbors profound misconceptions. As a layman, I have debated areas of physics with specialists also. But my purpose has been to learn or enhance my understanding. My "debating" has had a purpose in exposing my struggle with some of the counter-intuitive aspects of modern physics. I don't aways succeed but in some cases I have managed to gain some insight.
But MM never learns; he persists in clinging to his misconceptions in spite of the many people who have tried to help him. He is like a petulant child who insists on clinging to and an uninformed opinion about some concept beyond a child's capabilities. I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

Quite well put.
This tread does give a poor impression of MM.

Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (Fe was also detected by SERTS)

Michael Mozina said:

Because they are both in the SERTS data and both must be present in the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

This is part of Michael Mozina fantasy that sunspots are upwelling "mostly" silicon plasma in "mostly" neon plasma (as far as I can see).

Why does this sound so familiar. I know!

• Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere?
  First asked 30 July 2009
• What is your physical evidence for the silicon in sunspots?
  First asked 7 August 2009

Let's start by stating what the SERTS is:

Solar Extreme-Ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph

The Solar Extreme-ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph (SERTS) instrument obtains spatially resolved spectra and spectroheliograms over a wide range of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelengths characteristic of temperatures between 5x10^4-3x10^7K, providing information about the Sun's corona and upper transition region. Wavelength coverage is 170-450A with spectral resolution near 10000, spatial resolution as good as 5arcsec, and relative photometric accuracy within +/- 20% over most of its range. This page contains links to information about the instrument, a solar EUV line list between 170 and 450 A from the SERTS-89 flight, and a list of SERTS-related publications. Soon to be added is information about upcoming launches. Also included are links to other WWW servers relevant to solar astronomers.

Click to expand...

I do not know how many flights were made or if they are still going on.

For a more technical article: Extreme ultraviolet spectrum of a solar active region from SERTS.

The SERTS data contains many of the elements detected in the Sun. See table 3 in the above citation. This includes iron, silicon, potassium, oxygen, argon, nickel, helium, sulfur, zinc, magnesium, aluminuium, chronium. calcium, cobolt, sodium, manganese, titanium, neon and carbon.

First asked 18 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" iron plasma (also detected by SERTS)?

And why are the sunspot umbra not "mostly" XX plasma where XX is any of

• potassium
• oxygen
• argon
• nickel
• helium
• sulfur
• zinc
• magnesium,
• aluminuium
• chronium
• calcium
• cobolt
• sodium
• manganese
• titanium
• carbon
• or even neon

Michael Mozina said:

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.



To what wavelength, and which part? The umbras in those sunspot images do not even seem to block white light to the depth of the photosphere.

Click to expand...

Um, I am asking about the photosphere above the 'mountains' you allege are in the RD images.

So you are saying that the photosphere is roughly 3-3,750 km deep, does this apply to the area above the 'mountains' in the RD images?

Michael Mozina said:

Quantify that for us in Kilometers please. State your source as I did.

Click to expand...

'Based upon the Swedish 1m telescope image' is not a citation of a source, do you care to cite the text?

It is a citation of an image, who do you arrive at the depth and does this apply to the photosphere about the mountains in the RD image?

GeeMack said:

The photosphere is most appropriately measured according to opaqueness, so in a way your question is a lot like asking how tall is that bunny in the clouds. The deepest point in the photosphere is the place where it becomes opaque. (Wow, like nobody already said that.) And although you've made it abundantly clear that you won't accept their expertise, the source is NASA.

If you want a depth of the photosphere in kilometers, it is estimated to become opaque to almost all light at around 400 kilometers, and with the most sophisticated currently available technology, around the 1.56 micron infrared wavelength, the absolute deepest we can see is about 450 kilometers. The source? Haimin Wang, professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, from his paper Near-Infrared Observations at 1.56 Microns of the 2003 October 29 X10 White-Light Flare.

So, we could say the photosphere is 450 kilometers deep, if we really, really stretch. And that physically impossible solid surface of yours, Michael, you claim exists at 0.995R to 0.997R? That's about 2000 to 3500 kilometers deep, or over a thousand miles deeper than any light at any wavelength is known to escape. You are not seeing a surface of any sort in any solar image, no matter where it was obtained and regardless of how it is processed. It's impossible.

Click to expand...

Thanks Gee Mack

ETA: I had already found this:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html

Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for the photosphere depth

Michael Mozina said:

Based on the Swedish 1M telescope image, it looks to be around 3000-3750 KM depending on how you attempt to measure it, and which filaments you select.

Click to expand...

First asked 18 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Can you show how you calculated that "3000-3750 KM" figure for depth of the photosphere using the filaments in the Swedish 1M image?

I am also not sure which image is the Swedish 1M telescope image. Can you post a link to the original source of the image?

Tim Thompson, puttin' the E in JREF since 2008.

Excellent posts. Kudos to GeeMack and Ziggurat as well for their work on this subject. That's why I love this place; no matter what the subject, there's someone here with relevant expertise.

Michael Mozina said:

The difference is that Birkeland didn't know the empirical cause at first, he had a empirical idea which he played with and which actually worked in a lab. He also actually "predicted" a number of things in terms of actual physics, all sorts of things that he "learned" from "experimentation". You folks don't even do experiments with real control mechanisms.

He also explained how those currents get there, where they come from, why they form the patterns they do, etc. You folks just play round with software and "pretend/hope like hell" it actually works in a real lab, or nobody notices it doesn't.

Dark energy doesn't "work in the lab", just on paper.

Click to expand...

Yes, and he was wrong about how the currents get there and how they flow and how they are generated, as we now know. The "ansatz" was okay.

And who the frak cares about "dark energy" when we are discussing the stupid iron sun idea and electric currents either on the sun or in the Earth's magnetosphere. Nice diversion MM, but stay on topic please.

Michael Mozina said:

All the regions below that "layer" is composed of silicon plasma rather than neon plasma.

Click to expand...

The shape of the sunspot is related to the upwelling silicon plasma in the umbra.

Click to expand...

There is "convection" happening in the umbra region too, but since it's composed of a different type of plasma it doesn't emit white light at the rate.

Click to expand...

If the photosphere is neon plasma, and sunspots are silicon plasma, then the sunspots would have to be much hotter than the surrounding neon in order to have buoyancy and convection, not colder as we observe. They wouldn't be darker, they would be brighter.

Perpetual Student said:

As I follow this thread, I have attempted to understand why someone without qualifications and real knowledge would persist in debating in this manner. He is debating accomplished specialists... .

Click to expand...

Who? Mr. "What flying stuff?" The only thing he seems to be 'accomplished at' is character assassination and personal attacks. If he's such the expert, have him actually *EXPLAIN* something in the RD image in terms of solar physics.

jhunter1163 said:

Tim Thompson, puttin' the E in JREF since 2008.

Excellent posts. Kudos to GeeMack and Ziggurat as well for their work on this subject. That's why I love this place; no matter what the subject, there's someone here with relevant expertise.

Click to expand...

What expertise? All I hear from these guys is "What flying stuff?" and "What white light images"? Lets see them explain the flying stuff and other details of the RD image, and/or the white light image I cited earlier. The coronal loops come up and through the photosphere as the white light image demonstrates so LMSAL's claim about the location of the bottom of the loops cannot be correct.

phunk said:

If the photosphere is neon plasma, and sunspots are silicon plasma, then the sunspots would have to be much hotter than the surrounding neon in order to have buoyancy and convection, not colder as we observe. They wouldn't be darker, they would be brighter.

Click to expand...

No because the silicon layer is cooler to start with. As it "heats up" from the activity near the surface, it expands. The temperature however was lower to start with, so it's still "cooler" than the layer above it just as parts of the photosphere plasma might reach say 7000K causing that plasma to expand, but it is still not "hotter than" the chromosphere.

phunk said:

If the photosphere is neon plasma, and sunspots are silicon plasma, then the sunspots would have to be much hotter than the surrounding neon in order to have buoyancy and convection, not colder as we observe. They wouldn't be darker, they would be brighter.

Click to expand...

Look at the images again and notice the bottoms of the penumbral filaments. They "wiggle around" at the bottom where they "meet up" with the plasma in the umbra. If there really were a series of "convecting streams", the filament should extend down the sides down into the sunspot till we can't see them anymore, and the light in the filaments should either become lighter or darker depending on their "Explaination" at the bottom of the filament. Neither of those things happen. The "layer" simply ends at a specific 'depth' and none of the filaments extend down below about 3000KM into the umbra. The edges of the bottom of the filaments are sharp, clear and unhampered by the plasma in the umbra in terms of visually distorting the penumbral filaments. The image doesn't "blur" the bottoms of the filaments and they are not darker near the bottom as Tim's suggestion would require, not do they "extend down" into the umbra on the side as they would if that plasma was "hot" and only the plasma in the umbra were cool.

Michael Mozina said:

What expertise? All I hear from these guys is "What flying stuff?" and "What white light images"? Lets see them explain the flying stuff and other details of the RD image, and/or the white light image I cited earlier. The coronal loops come up and through the photosphere as the white light image demonstrates so LMSAL's claim about the location of the bottom of the loops cannot be correct.

Click to expand...

I know you've got an axe to grind with GeeMack, and he with you, but this from him is right on point:

If you want a depth of the photosphere in kilometers, it is estimated to become opaque to almost all light at around 400 kilometers, and with the most sophisticated currently available technology, around the 1.56 micron infrared wavelength, the absolute deepest we can see is about 450 kilometers. The source? Haimin Wang, professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, from his paper Near-Infrared Observations at 1.56 Microns of the 2003 October 29 X10 White-Light Flare.

So, we could say the photosphere is 450 kilometers deep, if we really, really stretch. And that physically impossible solid surface of yours, Michael, you claim exists at 0.995R to 0.997R? That's about 2000 to 3500 kilometers deep, or over a thousand miles deeper than any light at any wavelength is known to escape. You are not seeing a surface of any sort in any solar image, no matter where it was obtained and regardless of how it is processed. It's impossible.

Click to expand...

So is the link from Dancing David:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html

Plain fact: we can't capture light from below ~450km of the sun's atmosphere with any imaging technology we currently possess, period. You cannot claim to see below that in any of the images you present.

Michael Mozina said:

No because the silicon layer is cooler to start with. As it "heats up" from the activity near the surface, it expands. The temperature however was lower to start with, so it's still "cooler" than the layer above it

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it expands. It needs to be lower density than the neon in order to convect up THROUGH the neon. And in your model, it wouldn't be. Even at the same temperature as the neon. Even at considerably higher temperature. Really, Michael, this is a basic physics fail.

Tim Thompson said:

We are correct, the filaments do as a matter of observed fact extend down into the photosphere, both along the inner rim of the penumbra, where the filaments rise out of the umbra, and along the outer edge of the penumbra, where the filaments turn and sink back down into the surrounding photosphere.

Click to expand...

That much we actually seem to agree on.

The filaments do not "end abruptly", they "turn abruptly", and it is obviously not possible to tell the difference between the two if all you have to go by is the movie.

Click to expand...

Actually you can see the bottom of the filaments move during the movie and some of them "turn" a little, but some of them don't do anything of the sort as the top section of the sunspot in that second image demonstrates. The filaments don't extend down in the "light parts" the way they would if we were looking to two streams of plasma, hot and cold. Instead the whole layer *ENDS* by about a depth of 3000KM. There's no "magic point" where the filaments become opaque either. Some of them are pulled far down into the umbra by the sinking plasma, whereas some of them do not. We can see the bottom of all the filaments, even the longest ones just as well as the ends of the shortest ones.

It is absolutely not true that we would expect to see white light along the convection tube, under these circumstances, from deeper in the sun because the plasma is too opaque.

Click to expand...

No, it's not "opaque" to white light in that umbra. We can see the filaments extend down into the umbra very clearly, and we can observe the ends of the filaments very clearly. They don't "Fade" to either black or white, they simply "terminate" at a specific "depth".

Instead of relying on amateur guess work and science by "pretty picture",

Click to expand...

...you decided to utterly ignore the million dollar images, and toss out some "pretty math" that fails the very first visual "test" we put it to.

Dancing David said:

Thanks Gee Mack

ETA: I had already found this:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html

Click to expand...

That reference agrees with other sources putting the photosphere at ~400 kilometers thick. Using that data...


... and Michael's claim that his mythical solid iron surface begins somewhere between 2100 and 3500 kilometers down, approximately .997R to .995R, we can see from this chart that there is minimally 1500 kilometers, and much as 3000 kilometers of opaque plasma between the bottom of the photosphere and the top of Michael's claimed surface.


The left portion of the chart above shows the percentage of transparency through about the top 500 kilometers of the photosphere. The chart is reproduced on the right side and scaled to show the depth to 3500 kilometers. The dark red portion at the bottom starts around 2100 kilometers deep, or about .997R. That is the shallow end of where Michael claims the solid surface begins. The red area goes to the bottom of the chart at 3500 kilometers, or .995R, the depth Michael usually claims as the location of his mythical iron surface.

No solar imaging techinique or any method used to process the images can possibly allow one to see anything at the depth of Michael's claimed solid surface. Seeing any such surface (the existence of which, by the way, has been shown to be impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics, shown to be nonexistent using the science of helioseismology, and shown to be impossible according to general relativity) would require some sort of paranormal ability like x-ray vision to see through that 900 to 1800 mile thick layer of opaque plasma.

Michael Mozina said:

What expertise? All I hear from these guys is "What flying stuff?" and "What white light images"? Lets see them explain the flying stuff and other details of the RD image, and/or the white light image I cited earlier. The coronal loops come up and through the photosphere as the white light image demonstrates so LMSAL's claim about the location of the bottom of the loops cannot be correct.

Click to expand...

The "flying stuff" in any image you use to support your crackpot claim is irrelevant. That is my position now, and has always been my position. Your continuing to use that issue as the foundation of your temper tantrums is childish and dishonest.

Here are the facts, Michael: You cannot see any solid surface in any solar image. Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged, and you have refused to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. The evidence clearly shows that you do not know what you're talking about. Your argument has failed. Deal with it.

Michael Mozina said:

Actually you can see the bottom of the filaments move during the movie and some of them "turn" a little, but some of them don't do anything of the sort as the top section of the sunspot in that second image demonstrates. The filaments don't extend down in the "light parts" the way they would if we were looking to two streams of plasma, hot and cold. Instead the whole layer *ENDS* by about a depth of 3000KM.

Click to expand...

... in your unsubstantiated opinion. Your opinion, however, has been shown to be unqualified. You do not understand solar imagery, so your opinion, as evidence, is worthless. And in this case, it looks like you're making up that 3000 kilometer number. As Tim already mentioned, you don't get to make up crap as you go along. That's not how science works. Your argument has failed, on every level.

Michael Mozina said:

No, it's not "opaque" to white light in that umbra. We can see the filaments extend down into the umbra very clearly, and we can observe the ends of the filaments very clearly. They don't "Fade" to either black or white, they simply "terminate" at a specific "depth".

Click to expand...

A "specific depth" would be a quantitative measurement. You have never offered legitimate quantitative support for anything you claim as evidence, and in this case, as usual, you have no such measurement. You're making this up. It's fiction. Your argument here is crap.

Michael Mozina said:

What expertise? All I hear from these guys is "What flying stuff?" and "What white light images"? Lets see them explain the flying stuff and other details of the RD image, and/or the white light image I cited earlier. The coronal loops come up and through the photosphere as the white light image demonstrates so LMSAL's claim about the location of the bottom of the loops cannot be correct.

Click to expand...

I certainly claim no expertise in solar science, but I do understand the posts of the three posters I mentioned. They are clear, concise, and demonstrate quite conclusively that there is not, nor can there be, a solid surface on the sun.

I can follow your posts as well, but in my (again, admittedly unschooled) opinion your proposal obviously violates the second law of thermodynamics, not to mention the problem that the lowest temperature ever observed on the sun still exceeds the boiling point of iron.

Even my high-school science background gives me enough information to see that your theory is untenable.

Photosphere, Sunspots and Bright Points

Tim Thompson said:

It is absolutely not true that we would expect to see white light along the convection tube, under these circumstances, from deeper in the sun because the plasma is too opaque.

Click to expand...

I said it this way, "under these circumstances", so I could lead into a related topic, which I will present here. Mozina assumes that the sun below the photosphere must be cooler than the photosphere, partly out of unreasonable preconception, and partly by seriously misinterpreting the images & physics of sunspots. As I have already shown extensively elsewhere, scientists can derive the temperature profile with depth of the photosphere, primarily through observations of the bright solar limb projected against the dark background of empty space (Post 915 and links therein). This is enough by itself to refute Mozina's claims, but the high temperature of the subphotosphere is revealed in other ways as well.

Photospheric Bright Points
See Astronomy Picture of the Day for April 16 2010 and the associated research paper Magnetic bright points in the quiet sun; Sanchez Almeida, et al., 2010, accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters. In a field of view 68.5 x 68.5 arcseconds the authors count 2380 bright points concentrated in the dark lanes of relatively cool downwelling plasma between the bright upwelling granular cores. These intergranular bright points were discovered in 1974 (Mehltretter, 1974) and are thought to represent a significant fraction of the unresolved photospheric magnetic flux, where "unresolved" refers to magnetic structures of angular size below the spatial resolution capabilities of solar telescopes. The bright points are thought to represent the ends of spaghetti like magnetic structures that reach into the hotter subphotosphere. While the dark lane material around the points is downwelling, the material inside the magnetic filaments is upwelling, hot subphotosphere plasma, which explains why the bright points are bright.

We have known for quite a while that there are magnetic structures, supporting kilo-Gauss magnetic fields, that have not been spatially resolved (Beckers, 1977; Solanki, 1993). It has been assumed, because it makes perfectly good sense and is consistent with observations and plasma physics, that the bright points are magnetic structures, despite their being below the spatial resolution of photospheric magnetic field measurements (e.g., de Wijn, et al., 2008). Furthermore, recent higher spatial resolution photospheric magnetic field studies continue to correlate the bright points with still unresolved magnetic structures (e.g., Viticchie, et al., 2009). So the assumption that bright points represent magnetic structures that reach into the subphotosphere is not simply an arbitrary assumption, but rather an assumption based on a combination of increasingly high resolution observations of the solar photosphere and well known plasma physics.

So these bright points represent yet another line of evidence pointing to a subphotosphere that is hotter, not cooler, than the observed photosphere. This is also consistent with the independent derivation of the photospheric temperature profile based on solar limb observations.

Umbral Bright points
Bright points, much the same as those discussed above, are not relegated only to the dark lanes between photospheric granules. They also occur in the dark umbra and penumbra of sunspots (e.g., Prasad Choudhary & Shimizu, 2010). These bright points are also associated with small spatial scale magnetic fields and are also hotter than the surrounding material. There is no reason to believe that these bright points are any different than the bright points found in the quiet photosphere. These bright points are also windows into the deeper & hotter photosphere. Note that umbral bright points are consistently hotter with increasing distance from the center of the umbra, exactly what one would expect given the standard model of sunspots.

About the Photosphere
Let me briefly summarize the standard science of the solar photosphere. We derive a temperature profile with depth from limb observations and conclude that the temperature increases with depth, all the way to the limit of observability. This conclusion is supported by independent observations of bright points in the quiet solar photosphere, as well as the umbrae & penumbrae of sunspots. This conclusion is further supported by simple, ordinary physics; if you compress something, it heats up. The subphotosphere must be warmer than the photosphere because it has all the weight of the photosphere pressing down on it. Hence, even if the sun had no internal heat source, it would still be required by physics that the subphotosphere be hotter, not cooler. However, if we add the obvious internal heat source by nuclear fusion (or any other internal mechanism), then once again the outflow of energy from the deep interior requires that the subphotosphere be hotter, not cooler. Against this impressive array of scientific evidence, Mr. Mozina offers no science or physics based argument of any kind; rather, he has only his subjective & biased interpretation of qualitative (non-numeric) image data to offer. I think there can be no doubt at this point but that the Mozina argument concerning the nature of the solar photosphere is as completely refuted as an argument can be.

Self Consistency

Michael Mozina said:

The filament doesn't extend down into the photosphere, it ends abruptly, ...

Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said:

... the filaments do as a matter of observed fact extend down into the photosphere, ...

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:

That much we actually seem to agree on.

Click to expand...

A little self consistency would be nice.

Michael Mozina said:

No because the silicon layer is cooler to start with. As it "heats up" from the activity near the surface, it expands. The temperature however was lower to start with, so it's still "cooler" than the layer above it just as parts of the photosphere plasma might reach say 7000K causing that plasma to expand, but it is still not "hotter than" the chromosphere.

Click to expand...

I didn't say hotter than the chromosphere. I said hotter than the neon layer that you claim it's "upwelling" through.

If the lower silicon layer is denser and cooler than the upper neon layer, why does it rise in your model?

Tim Thompson said:

A little self consistency would be nice.

Click to expand...

The filaments extend to a depth of anywhere from 2000 (typically 3000) to 3750 KM and then abruptly end right there. There's no dimming or brightening going on along the filament as it descends into the umbra and no blurriness either. There is no magic point where the filaments all blur to nothing, in fact some of them extend a long way (twice as far?) into the umbra compared to others. There's no indication of "hot and cold running convection zones" where the bright regions extend *ALL THE WAY DOWN THE HOLE*. Instead the filaments all terminate at a specific point, no blurriness, no dimming, no single location where they all go dark. We can clearly see the ends of the filaments wiggling around at the bottom where they meet up with not BRIGHTER plasma, but simply "dark plasma".

phunk said:

I didn't say hotter than the chromosphere. I said hotter than the neon layer that you claim it's "upwelling" through.

If the lower silicon layer is denser and cooler than the upper neon layer, why does it rise in your model?

Click to expand...

It is being heated by the discharge process in the lower atmosphere and typically by volcanic activity from the surface. That extra heat is transferred to the silicon plasma and causes it to become less dense and rise up into the upper atmosphere. If there is enough heat (typically volcanic activity is required) then the plasma becomes hotter (than the ambient temp of say 3-4 thousand Kelvin, and thins out and rises up quickly in the atmosphere. The density gradient between the hot silicon and neon isn't great enough to stop the upwelling of the hot silicon plasma. Once it reaches the lighter helium chromosphere however, it has no where to go but to "fan out" which is why we see angular indentations in the sunspot, where the silicon plasma has displaced the neon. Along the sides of the sunspot however, the plasma eventually cools off and slides back down along the filaments. That second video is extremely interesting, particularly along the sides of the umbra. Lots of action going on there.

Eventually the surface volcanic activity ends, the discharge process "settles down" and the heat is more evenly distributed around the atmosphere and the neon layer closes up again.

The point here is that the mainstream's position doesn't even jive with *ONE* sunspot image, and I haven't even gotten out the "good stuff" where Hinode images show the same exact pattern of "layering" in various wavelengths.

http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_pfi_gband_20061113.mpg

FYI, I still haven't heard even one of you comment on the fact that when the coronal loops are overlaid on a sunspot image, the loops and penumbral filaments line up perfectly, angles and everything with flow of coronal loops. If the loops are located under the photosphere, that makes perfect sense, and we have an excellent physical alignment between the loops and the filaments, most likely related to which "path" provided the least resistance and the effect that has on the photosphere. If however the loops all originate *ABOVE* the photosphere as LMSAL claims, there's no reason for the loops to follow the contours of the filaments. Are you all saying that this alignment of angles and loops with the penumbral filament angles is purely a coincidence?

GeeMack said:

The "flying stuff" in any image you use to support your crackpot claim is irrelevant. That is my position now, and has always been my position. Your continuing to use that issue as the foundation of your temper tantrums is childish and dishonest..

Click to expand...

The only thing that is "dishonest" is the fact that you run like hell from every detail of that RD image as it relates to solar physics. The other side of your "dishonesty" is having claimed to have "explained every pixel" of the LMSAL RD movie when in fact you haven't "explained" anything except the light source, something I personally had to tell you over five years ago. Let's hear your "explanation" in terms of solar processes and see how your relate those solar processes to the "flying stuff" and the "persistent patterns" in the image.