IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th June 2009, 12:47 AM   #241
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Try using a text editor

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI Tim, I started a response to you after work, stepped away for awhile to eat and finished it later. When I went to post it, evidently my "token had expired" and it ate my post. I will respond to you again. Please be patient.
I have had similar experiences, losing much work. That's why I now often save copies in a text editor, or compose the entire message off line in a text editor, and just cut & paste when the time comes. You might try that.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 03:41 AM   #242
Vermonter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,017
I know this is late into the game, but here goes. Solid iron cannot possibly exist on the surface of the sun. The melting point is simply too low.

Iron melts at 1800 K and boils at less than 3200 K. The surface of the sun is at nearly 5800 K. There. Empirical, observed evidence. There are no rigid surfaces on the sun because they do not exist. It is physically impossible. I told MM this years ago on Bad Astronomy, and I doubt he'll acknowledge it now.
Vermonter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 10:13 AM   #243
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's not what I asked you. I asked you (others actually): "What is the light source of the *ORIGINAL* 171A images?"

Uh, the "light source" in the source images would be the 171 emissions from the approximately million degree ejection in the Sun's corona. They call it a coronal mass ejection (CME). I thought you knew that.

Quote:
Bull. Not only do the 171A standard and RD images allow us to see deeply enough into the solar atmosphere, so do Kosovichev's doppler techniques which is why we observe persistent features and structures in both images. RD images of clouds change over time. That's what these sorts of images show us in fact. They also demonstrate which regions are NOT changing. In a light plasma, during a CME event, we would expect light plasma to blow around all over the place and for nothing to remain "stable or persistent" for any lengthy duration. Instead we find persistence in these images that is unlike the lifetimes of structures in the photosphere that come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, but rather we find persistent structures that remain for hours on end in angular patterns like the small angular block at the top of the RD image.

There are no structures. There is no small angular block at the top of the image. It just looks like one to you. There are no bunnies in the clouds. They just look like bunnies. When you ask where the bunny comes from, and people tell you there is no bunny, and you continue to demand that people tell you where the bunny comes from, you look like an idiot.

Also, without helioseismology, we can't see anything deeper than about 400 to 500 kilometers into the photosphere. With helioseismology we can create a chart of the density and movement of mass below that, but it's not a picture in the conventional sense. No light at any wavelength escapes from deeper than that, so we can't optically see it at all. And interestingly enough, Kosovichev's research showed us that there is mass moving at thousands of kilometers per hour upwards, downwards, and sideways, right through your supposedly solid surface, Michael.

Quote:
They also show us what did not change, even in the middle of significant CME event as witnessed in that video. Plasma ebbs and flows, much like those particles flow in the atmosphere after the CME event.

Anything that didn't change from one source image to the next won't show up in the running difference output. Take an aerial photo of a great bigass mountain like Everest with a little bitty wispy cloud passing over it. Take another photo a few seconds later after that tiny cloud moves a couple hundred meters. Make a running difference image from the two photos. Guess what? That big old mountain, one of the largest geophysical structures on Earth, won't show up in the running difference output because it didn't change or move between the photos.

What will show up is a graphical representation of the change in location of that cloud. There will be a brighter area at the front of the cloud's movement, and a dimmer area behind it. (Or vice-versa, or similar, depending on the actual program producing the output.) It might very well look like a little shaded bump or a piece of rough texture. But sure as you're sittin' there, that cloud isn't solid, and that image doesn't show a bump or feature on the Earth's surface. Certainly no more so than that coronal loop/CME that was the source of your revered running difference image.

Get it? No? Didn't think so.

Quote:
You did not. You never addressed or explained a single specific detail of this image, not the rigidness or persistence of any of the features in the image, not the "dust in the wind", not the CME itself, not the peeling effect along the right, nothing. Not one single specific detail within the actual image was addressed. If that's his best "analysis" of multimillion dollar satellite images you are capable of, that is completely pathetic. Some "pixel by pixel" analysis.

There are no rigid "features". There is no dust. Nothing is peeling. I addressed every single specific detail. I told you how each pixel is determined in a running difference image. You can't get any more detailed than that. You are a liar.

And... you haven't offered a plausible, rational explanation of the image yourself, yet.

Now if you're right and I'm wrong, Michael, why is it that absolutely nobody accepts your feeble claim that there are solid physical structures showing in the image, and everyone seems quite comfortable with my explanation that there aren't? Could it be that you're just a completely incompetent communicator? Could it be that everyone who reads these threads is too stupid to understand you? Or how about the most plausible possibility, that you are simply wrong?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 11:05 AM   #244
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Vermonter View Post
I know this is late into the game, but here goes. Solid iron cannot possibly exist on the surface of the sun. The melting point is simply too low.
The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.

Quote:
Iron melts at 1800 K and boils at less than 3200 K. The surface of the sun is at nearly 5800 K. There. Empirical, observed evidence. There are no rigid surfaces on the sun because they do not exist. It is physically impossible. I told MM this years ago on Bad Astronomy, and I doubt he'll acknowledge it now.
I don't think any of you have ever acknowledged that I have always insisted that the double layers under the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere which is why we often find cooler (and hotter) material rising through the photosphere during sunspot events. When the silicon layer is hot enough, it squirts through the neon plasma of the photosphere and we get sunspots. Never have I suggested that iron is stable at 6K degrees. I wonder if you folks will *EVER* acknowledge that point? How many years has it been now?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 11:40 AM   #245
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,620
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin.
Uh, no. No it isn't. That's impossible. It must be at least as hot as the part we see, which is around 6000 K. Any cooler and it would be forever heating up, which, well, even you should be able to see why that can't go on forever.

Quote:
Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere.
No. There is a fundamental difference. Both the chromosphere and the corona are mostly transparent. This means that heat from the photosphere can escape past the chromosphere and the corona at a faster rate than heat is absorbed from them. But since the photosphere is NOT transparent, anything under the photosphere CANNOT radiate through the photosphere. So whatever is under the photosphere must be at least as hot as the photosphere.

Quote:
The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.
Except that this is impossible (unless you want to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics) because the photosphere is opaque. So it cannot be cooler than 6000 K, and it cannot be solid.

Quote:
I don't think any of you have ever acknowledged that I have always insisted that the double layers under the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere
I'm acknowledging it now. And I'm also describing to you why such a scenario is physically impossible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If people haven't acknowledged it to your satisfaction previously, it's because everyone else already understood why such a thing is impossible. The photosphere is opaque. The chromosphere and the corona are transparent. Transparency of the outer surface is a requirement for the inside to be cooler. Unless you want to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 01:04 PM   #246
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's not what I asked you. I asked you (others actually): "What is the light source of the *ORIGINAL* 171A images?"
In case I am one of the "others actually":
The "light source" for the images from which the running difference AVI was constructed was the corona in general, the loops & the CME.

The flares & CME are hotter (brighter in UV) than the general corona and changing temperature.
Thus when the running difference is calculated, you see the loops & the CME (i.e. the differences).

Remember that calculating the running differences removes anything that does not change temperature or position from the images. I expect that the original images were taken so that they were of the same area. So features in the original images would not move with the rotation of the Sun or motion of the TRACE spacecraft.
Therefore the features in the resulting running difference are changes in temperature and position. This is mostly changes in temperature (your mythical "mountain ranges") with the addition of the moving CME.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 01:28 PM   #247
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Uh, the "light source" in the source images would be the 171 emissions from the approximately million degree ejection in the Sun's corona. They call it a coronal mass ejection (CME). I thought you knew that.
I thought you were mentally capable of keeping up with our conversation and watching the animations I have provided you with from NASA's website. I have no doubt that *SOME* of these emissions originate in the corona, but no evidence (in fact some evidence to the contrary) that *all* these photons originate in the corona. You are simply *ASSUMING* this to be the case. It's not necessarily the case as the NASA animation demonstrates. If the loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere as in the NASA animation, then it is entirely possible that the loops are visible for many thousands of kilometers below the surface of the photosphere. This is the whole debate.

Quote:
There are no structures. There is no small angular block at the top of the image.
What would you like to call all those rigid/persistent outlines then?

Quote:
It just looks like one to you. There are no bunnies in the clouds. They just look like bunnies.
Cloud bunnies move around over time whereas these features remained fixed *throughout* a whole CME event. Some clouds.

Quote:
Also, without helioseismology, we can't see anything deeper than about 400 to 500 kilometers into the photosphere.
Where do you get that number from as it relate to *THESE SPECIFIC WAVELENGTHS*? Are you claiming *ALL* wavelengths are limited to 400 to 500 KM or just some?

Quote:
With helioseismology we can create a chart of the density and movement of mass below that, but it's not a picture in the conventional sense.
We also seem to be capable of finding rigid features in these images at a very shallow depth under the photosphere. That is supposed to be an open convection zone, not a rigid layer. What's that angular feature in Kosovichev's Doppler image?


Quote:
No light at any wavelength escapes from deeper than that, so we can't optically see it at all.
This seems to be "ASSUMED" rather than verified. How about this image?



How come we can see the base of the loops in 171A whereas the x-ray spectrum is limited to the tops of the loops?

http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

Quote:
And interestingly enough, Kosovichev's research showed us that there is mass moving at thousands of kilometers per hour upwards, downwards, and sideways, right through your supposedly solid surface, Michael.
Well, during our first conversation, I did not realize the importance of volcanic activity. That particular observation does not surprise me in the least. You have electrified tornado like downdrafts and volcanic updrafts through all layers of the sun.

Quote:
Anything that didn't change from one source image to the next won't show up in the running difference output.
Every area experiences some change from one frame to the next, and the sun itself is rotating between images. You won't get a empty image in a difference image composed of trace images. That is because the sun is rotating between shots, the lighting is shifting slightly between images, and nothing stays exactly the same.

It's getting busy so I'll have to stop here for now. Comparing these images to clouds is silly because there is obvious movement of gases and clouds between images, whereas rigid surface features have a much longer lifetime. The same is true of the sun's atmosphere and surface. The structures in the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so. The surface features we see in the RD image are consistent throughout this video and the Doppler video even in the middle of a massive CME event. The mountains will survive such an event whereas plasma gets blown around dramatically as we can observe in that RD image. After the CME we can see "stuff" flying up and to the left. That's the behavior of plasma. It's not solid. It moves in a fluid-like (MHD like) way, as Kosovichev's wave in the photosphere video demonstrates. The rigid features under the wave are angular and irregular and remain consistent and persistent throughout that image just as they remains consistent in the RD image. Why?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 25th June 2009 at 01:33 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 01:57 PM   #248
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Uh, no. No it isn't. That's impossible.
Yes it is and it's possible.

Quote:
It must be at least as hot as the part we see, which is around 6000 K.
That's false. By your logic the photosphere cannot be cooler than the chromosphere.

Quote:
Any cooler and it would be forever heating up, which, well, even you should be able to see why that can't go on forever.
Why isn't the photosphere "heating up" due to the chromosphere? Hint: It's related to density and current flow as well as temperature.

Quote:
No. There is a fundamental difference. Both the chromosphere and the corona are mostly transparent.
So is the photosphere at some wavelengths, particularly the iron ion wavelengths as that trace/yohkoh images demonstrates.

Quote:
This means that heat from the photosphere can escape past the chromosphere and the corona at a faster rate than heat is absorbed from them.
Ditto for the more dense silicon layer under the photosphere and the calcium layer under both of those double layers.

Quote:
But since the photosphere is NOT transparent,
It is transparent to some wavelengths and it's density is much less than layers below the photosphere.

Quote:
anything under the photosphere CANNOT radiate through the photosphere.
Sure it can. Any more dense layer under the photosphere can interact with the photosphere just like the photosphere acts with the chromosphere. Heat can and does pass through the photosphere from the layers below. Since the photosphere is very light in comparison to deeper plasma layers, heat passes right through it.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 02:01 PM   #249
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
I have had similar experiences, losing much work. That's why I now often save copies in a text editor, or compose the entire message off line in a text editor, and just cut & paste when the time comes. You might try that.
This site has never eaten a post before. I got lazy. I'll take a whack at your posts next.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 02:15 PM   #250
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,620
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's false. By your logic the photosphere cannot be cooler than the chromosphere.
Wrong. An inner layer can be cooler only if the layer above it is transparent to the wavelength the inner layer thermally emits at. The chromosphere is transparent to wavelengths the photosphere emits at. The photosphere is not transparent to the wavelengths of thermal radiation below 6000 K.

Quote:
Why isn't the photosphere "heating up" due to the chromosphere?
It is. But because it can radiate through the chromosphere (because the chromosphere is transparent), it can also cool off. The same is NOT true for anything underneath the photosphere.

Quote:
So is the photosphere at some wavelengths, particularly the iron ion wavelengths as that trace/yohkoh images demonstrates.
So it's transparent in a range which is relevant if the radiating body is at megakelvin temperatures. Which doesn't help cool something that is below 6000 K. Yeah, um... no. Not gonna do it.

Quote:
Ditto for the more dense silicon layer under the photosphere and the calcium layer under both of those double layers.
So not only is the silicon going to radiate through the photosphere, despite it being opaque in the relevant bands, but calcium is going to radiate through silicon? No, I don't think so.

Quote:
It is transparent to some wavelengths and it's density is much less than layers below the photosphere.
Density is irrelevant. It's thick enough that it's opaque throughout the IR, optical, and UV spectrum. Which is the only relevant spectrum for cooling for anything below 6000 K, which you're claiming is the case. So no, the photosphere is not transparent for the relevant frequencies.

Quote:
Sure it can. Any more dense layer under the photosphere can interact with the photosphere just like the photosphere acts with the chromosphere. Heat can and does pass through the photosphere from the layers below. Since the photosphere is very light in comparison to deeper plasma layers, heat passes right through it.
No. The chromosphere is transparent in the wavelengths that the photosphere emits at. The photosphere is not transparent to wavelength for anything below 6000 K.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 02:20 PM   #251
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,085
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Points to the link then runs like a good night out on the vindaloo

NASA IBEX Spacecraft Detects Neutral Hydrogen Bouncing Off Moon

snip

Cool can't wait

Tusenfem?
I see as usual no answer to my questions.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 04:28 PM   #252
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.
Michael - that is about the silliest thing that you have ever written.

Empirical measurements in controlled experiments here on Earth have shown that the radiation given off by objects peak at a frequency that depends on the temperature. Astronomers use this fact to measure the temperature of the visible surface of the Sun (and other stars). They find that the Sun has a radiation spectrum that is roughly that of a black body with a peak of ~550 nanometers corresponding to a temperature of ~6000 K. That radiation is produced by the visible surface of the Sun (the photosphere).

What makes the statement really silly is the "less than" bit. Is the Sun's surface at a temperature of 0 K? What about 273 K?
What is your evidence for < 2000 K other than wishful thinking?

Your last sentence reveals why you are ignoring the empirical measurements in controlled experiments that show that the photosphere has a temperature of ~6000 K: You want solids to exist on the surface of the Sun.
This is typical crackpot behavior. A crackpot says: I have an idea that is obviously right according to me (solid iron on the surface of the Sun). Therefore I will change the universe to fit my idea (ignore the science and assign the photosphere an unknown temperature of < 2000 K).
A scientist says: the universe has presented me with this measurement (the photosphere has a temperature of ~6000 K) and from this I can create a theory to explain the data (stellar model).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 06:42 PM   #253
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I thought you were mentally capable of keeping up with our conversation and watching the animations I have provided you with from NASA's website. I have no doubt that *SOME* of these emissions originate in the corona, but no evidence (in fact some evidence to the contrary) that *all* these photons originate in the corona. You are simply *ASSUMING* this to be the case. It's not necessarily the case as the NASA animation demonstrates. If the loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere as in the NASA animation, then it is entirely possible that the loops are visible for many thousands of kilometers below the surface of the photosphere. This is the whole debate.

We understand where the 171 emissions are in the solar atmosphere. You have been given at least a couple methods for determining this. Apparently you don't get it. And you're wrong about seeing anything thousands of kilometers below the photosphere. If there ever was a debate, it's long over, and you lost.

Quote:
What would you like to call all those rigid/persistent outlines then?

Well, for one thing there isn't any rigid anything in that image. It's not a picture of something. I'd call them the results of a graphical comparison between two or more images, created for the purpose of visualizing a change over time.

Quote:
Cloud bunnies move around over time whereas these features remained fixed *throughout* a whole CME event. Some clouds.

Again you misunderstand what you're looking at. First, these CME events are on a huge scale. Second, they can last for days. And third, even though the details of this event have been discussed at length, because of your often demonstrated ignorance of the actual science involved, it seems pretty likely that you don't have the slightest idea what constitutes "fixed throughout a whole CME event" or why it might appear that way in the images.

Quote:
Where do you get that number from as it relate to *THESE SPECIFIC WAVELENGTHS*? Are you claiming *ALL* wavelengths are limited to 400 to 500 KM or just some?

Yes, all. Near-Infrared imaging can see maybe 400 to 500 kilometers into the photosphere. You need to use helioseismology to "see" any deeper.

Quote:
We also seem to be capable of finding rigid features in these images at a very shallow depth under the photosphere. That is supposed to be an open convection zone, not a rigid layer. What's that angular feature in Kosovichev's Doppler image?

Yes, it is supposed to be an open convection zone, and nothing leads us (those of us not suffering from your crackpot delusion) to believe it's not. Only you see rigid features where there are none. It's like a bad habit with you. There are explanations for it, but they aren't very flattering. There is also help available for your problem, but you'll probably have to recognize that it is a problem first.

Quote:
This seems to be "ASSUMED" rather than verified. How about this image?



How come we can see the base of the loops in 171A whereas the x-ray spectrum is limited to the tops of the loops?

http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

That's a 2 dimensional image, Michael. You've been asked to describe how you determine various depths in the 2 dimensional images you wave around. You've never been able to do it. (There are ways. They've been described. You didn't understand.) You're only guessing about tops of loops and bases of loops and the location in the Sun's atmosphere of anything in that picture.

Quote:
Well, during our first conversation, I did not realize the importance of volcanic activity. That particular observation does not surprise me in the least. You have electrified tornado like downdrafts and volcanic updrafts through all layers of the sun.

Hmmm. Volcanic activity and electrified tornado-like downdrafts now, eh? And just when we though you couldn't get any crazier. If I didn't know you, I'd think you're making this stuff up. But sadly, it's pretty certain you actually believe that nonsense.

Quote:
Every area experiences some change from one frame to the next, and the sun itself is rotating between images. You won't get a empty image in a difference image composed of trace images. That is because the sun is rotating between shots, the lighting is shifting slightly between images, and nothing stays exactly the same.

Your opinion on running difference images is not supported by reality. Every time you mention them or talk about them you make yourself look like a moron. Please, for the sake of your own dignity, stop.

Quote:
It's getting busy so I'll have to stop here for now. Comparing these images to clouds is silly because there is obvious movement of gases and clouds between images, whereas rigid surface features have a much longer lifetime. The same is true of the sun's atmosphere and surface. The structures in the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so. The surface features we see in the RD image are consistent throughout this video and the Doppler video even in the middle of a massive CME event. The mountains will survive such an event whereas plasma gets blown around dramatically as we can observe in that RD image. After the CME we can see "stuff" flying up and to the left. That's the behavior of plasma. It's not solid. It moves in a fluid-like (MHD like) way, as Kosovichev's wave in the photosphere video demonstrates. The rigid features under the wave are angular and irregular and remain consistent and persistent throughout that image just as they remains consistent in the RD image. Why?

Why is there a bunny in the clouds? There's not a bunny in the clouds, Michael. Remember I told you how you look like an idiot whenever you ask that? Well, you're asking again. There are no bunnies in the clouds and there are no rigid surface features in your precious images.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 07:23 PM   #254
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
This seems to be "ASSUMED" rather than verified. How about this image?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

How come we can see the base of the loops in 171A whereas the x-ray spectrum is limited to the tops of the loops?
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
You have probably been given the answer to this many times before. But here is mine.
Firstly you need to realize that that image is a composite image:
Quote:
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.
Here is the moss7 image and caption:



Quote:
This image of the solar "moss" was taken by NASA's Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft May 30, 1998. The image is false color, looking almost directly down over coronal loops, immense magnetic arches of hot gas that are anchored in the Sun's visible surface and could span dozens of Earths laid end to end. The bases of the coronal loops appear as white, feathery objects on the right and left of this image. The moss is the blue, black and white spongy structure between the bases of the coronal loops.
Solar moss consists of hot gas at about two million degrees Fahrenheit which emits extreme ultraviolet light observed by the TRACE instrument. It occurs in large patches, about 6,000 - 12,000 miles in extent, and appears between 1,000 - 1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface, sometimes reaching more than 3,000 miles high. It looks "spongy" because the patches are composed of small bright elements interlaced with dark voids in the TRACE images. These voids are caused by jets of cooler gas from the Sun's lower atmosphere, the chromosphere, which is at about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The solar moss appears only below high pressure coronal loops in active regions, typically persisting for tens of hours, but has been seen to form rapidly and spread in association with loops that arise after a solar explosion, called a flare.
So the answer is simple.
We can see the "base" of the loops because they are emitting light within the 171 Angstrom filter, i.e. the material at the "base" in this image of the loops is at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.
The tops of the loops emit x-rays because they are hot enough to emit X-rays.

Now think about what the image means: coronal loops are hot at their tops and cool down closer to the photosphere. That means at some point they cool down to < 160,000 K and cannot be seen by the TRACE detector. Therefore the "bases" in the image are not the real bases of the loops!
This is where my knowledge of solar physics runs out. I have seen diagrams where the loops cool down to 6000 K at the photosphere. I assume that there other images recording the temperature lower in the loops (maybe on the TRACE web site with different filters used on the instrument).

It seems as you want the "bases" to be at the surface. But this means that there is material on the surface of the Sun at a temperature of at least 160,000 K. This has nasty consequences for your "iron sun" idea, e.g. what is heating the iron up to 160,000 K and how does it remain solid? Alternately these are the "volcanoes" you mention - and your solid iron surface is supported by 160,000 K plasma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th June 2009 at 07:24 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:05 PM   #255
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Let's start here.

Reference: http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
To start with, I simply note that Bruce does not mention gamma rays at all. So I have no idea what he thought they should look like, or even if he thought about it at all.
I'm not sure they have been observed during his lifetime so for now I guess we'll have to assume that to be the case.

Quote:
Now, right at the top of the page Bruce says (emphasis mine) ... "The object is to show that all cosmic atmospheric phenomena can be explained as deriving from electrical discharges, resulting from the breakdown of electric fields generated by the asymmetrical impacts between dust particles, such as are effective in terrestrial electrical sand and dust storms and in thunderstorms." What, exactly is the bolded phrase supposed to mean? Does it mean literally everything that happens in the atmosphere? or does it mean only electromagnetic things that happen in the atmosphere? Or perhaps "cosmic" is supposed to refer to connections between processes in the atmosphere and processes in space? I find Bruce's very first sentence rather cryptic.
I find it cryptic as well, and the term "cosmic" seems misplaced, at least at first glance. I guess the only thing I can say is that he realized there were cosmic rays that could in fact impact with the atmosphere. It could mean he expects to observe very large inbound as well as outbound 'rays' like the outbound rays that Birkeland created with his sphere. Presumably these rays could connect with other physical bodies in space.

Quote:
But clearly he thinks that the same dust mechanism is at the root of the sun's electrical activity, because he says so: (emphasis mine again) ... "It is thus fortunate that we are able to see the details of the sun's atmospheric structure in sunspots, and verify that it conforms to the picture which the discharge theory had led us to expect; that is, a general background atmospheric temperature of around 4,000K in which electric fields can be built up by asymmetrical impacts between solid particles, just as occurs in terrestrial sand and dust storms and in the ejectamenta above volcanoes."

In answer to your question, I know that Bruce is wrong because his proposed mechanism for generating electric charge is not physically possible.
Quite the contrary IMO, he hit the nail on the head as I see it. IMO those "active regions" are often triggered by volcanic activity. I don't think he actually believed that the sun had volcanoes or a crust, but IMO his words are prophetic none the less.

Quote:
The maximum temperature that dust grains ("solid particles") can survive is about 2000 Kelvins, half of Bruce's optimistically low 4000 Kelvin background temperature. At photospheric temperatures solid particles would be smashed apart by the high speed collisions, or broken apart by the high ultraviolet photon flux. So I will say that Bruce's hypothesis is simply impossible.
I see signs that it is not only possible, but actually quite probable. Birkeland's arcs were typically congregated at the "bumps" of his sphere, and volcanic activity usually sets off electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. CME's are often "point like" in their emissions of particles, including the one that set off the wave in Kosovichev's video.

Quote:
Now let us go on.

I do acknowledge that it is one known and verified way to generate gamma rays. But there are other known and verified ways to generate gamma rays too, so why not acknowledge them as well?
Which ones naturally occur in the atmosphere? Cosmic rays and discharges are the two most likely culprits are they not?

Quote:
It is not reasonable to simply assume that all or most of the gamma rays are generated by one and only one mechanism, that's the process of trying to force nature to bow to our pre-conceptions.
I would say it's more of a matter of watching how nature functions here and applying it there. There is nothing "new under the sun" about discharges in the atmosphere of spheres in space, and those million mile per hour charge particles flying off the sun are a form of "electrical current".

Quote:
Rather, the reasonable thing to do is look at the gamma rays and let them tell you, by their physical characteristics (line width & line shape, band center & band width, spectral energy distribution, relative line strengths & etc.) how they were generated. Let nature lead the investigation, not prejudice.
Ok, but then we do know of two likely culprits, so there is no need to start making up options on the fly is there?

Quote:
When we do that we find that the sun generates gamma rays from all manner of sources. There is of course the ubiquitous e-/e+ annihilation line at 511 keV, the neutron capture line at 2.223 MeV, nuclear de-excitation line emission from C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe, as well as bremsstrahlung from accelerated electrons. The bremsstrahlung is the component that you would assign to "electric discharge", since the narrow line emission obviously is not.
Woah. Wouldn't a powerful discharge through these elements create these specific emissions lines particularly in a z-pinch scenario? Again, I think we should look at the obvious candidate before *assuming* it's due to something exotic and foreign to our own atmosphere?

Quote:
Electric discharge, as I understand the words, is not physically reasonable. In order to have "electric discharge", you have to mechanically separate charges to build up a strong electric field (that's what Bruce tries to do).
That's what the sun does too IMO.

Quote:
Then you get breakdown and discharge arcs. Then you have to do it all over again.
Active cycles are full of volcanic events, and the discharge in Birkeland's experiments is *constant* and not only occurs at surface point to point discharges, but also as a discharge process between the sphere (crust) and the heliosphere (sides of his experiment).

Quote:
It's pretty hard to tell the difference between that scenario and a perpetual motion machine. If the energy we see is all supposed to come from the discharges, then where does the energy come from, and what is the mechanism, that produces charge separation in the first place?
Well, according to Bruce it's a fission process in the core. It could be fusion too I suppose. The sun could have a core that spin significantly faster than the crust and generates induction currents. It could be a lot of things.

Quote:
And since you are separating charges in an electrically conductive environment, how do you prevent quick discharge, and manage to build up strong electric fields?
You don't prevent it which is why we observe CME's that discharge toward the heliosphere in huge bursts.

Quote:
It makes far better physical sense to realize that magnetic reconnection will transfer a great deal of kinetic energy directly to the plasma,
This makes absolutely no sense to me. We already know that a discharge will transfer a great deal of kinetic energy to plasma. Why do we need something "exotic" to explain something that is naturally occurring right in our own atmosphere?

Quote:
and that Faraday's Law will also generate strong (but temporary) electric fields as a result of the ubiquitous and unavoidable dynamo magnetic fields in the photosphere.
That solar wind acceleration process isn't "temporary", it's constant and affects the entire surface.

Quote:
This completely avoids all of the physical difficulties related to discharge mechanisms, is all completely consistent with known basic physics, and is all completely consistent with the wide variety of observed properties of the sun.
It's rather a funny to hear you say it avoids difficulties. It's difficult for me to imagine why you would select something that does not occur in our own atmosphere naturally over something that does occur naturally and fits all the necessary requirements.

Electrical discharges:

A) Heat plasma to millions of degrees
B) pinch free neutrons from plasma
C) cause plasma in the atmosphere of earth to emit gamma rays.
D) cause plasma in our atmosphere to emit x-ray and other high energy signatures.
E) can generate explosive double layers.
F) generates z-pinch spiraling filaments.
G) generates "Birkeland currents" inside plasma.
H) create "loops" in the atmosphere of a sphere in a vacuum.
I) accelerate particles from the sphere and generate "rays" from the sphere.
J) create jets from Birkeland's sphere.

Why do we need an exotic sort of energy exchange when nature has already provided a "simpler"" explanation that occur in our own atmosphere and we know for a fact it works in a lab?

Quote:
In short, the mainstream models work well and make physical sense, whereas the electrical discharge mechanism does not work and does not make physical sense.
Not only do Birkeland's ideas "make sense", they actually work in a lab and produces many if not all of the same basic observations, including jets, full sphere particle accleration, high energy atmospheric discharges, etc. Birkeland left nothing to chance. It works and it makes sense.

Mainstream theory on the other hand begins with a foreign process that does not occur in our atmosphere naturally nor any other planet we've visited or studied. Mainstream theory makes no sense unless you describe MR as a 'current' running through the "magnetic line'. That's probably why Alfven called the whole idea of magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience". It "sort of" conveys the actual process, but it's easily misunderstood as being separate from a standard discharge process when it fact it is a discharge phenomenon.

Quote:
Hence, unless you can come up with far stronger arguments than you have managed to muster thus far, I will stick to the mainstream.
Well Tim, all I can say is that the mainstream theory is *NOT* lab tested, it really doesn't explain why solar wind continues to accelerate as it leaves the surface and it doesn't explain a constant full sphere release of accelerating charged particles. It has all the math of course but the same was true of Chapman's theories and they turned out to be wrong mainly because he never "tested" them in the real world. I'll stick with what I *KNOW FOR A FACT* works in a lab.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:28 PM   #256
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So the density of the photosphere is significantly less than the density of air at sea level and less than the density of plasma in the plasma ball on my desk if I'm not mistaken. What makes you think you would not see high energy wavelengths inside of such a light plasma?
Just noticed this question so:
What are "high energy wavelengths" and what have they got to do with the density of the plasma?

You may mean the wavelengths of light corresponding to high temperatures such as the million degree corona or 6000 K photosphere.

In that case density has not much to do with the temperature. Temperature is a measure of how fast the electrons and ions in the plasma are moving. A dense plasma can have fast moving electrons and ions, e.g. stellar cores with temperatures of ~10,000,000 K. A diffuse plasma can have slow moving electrons and ions, e.g. aurora have temperature of ~100 K.

It looks like plasma physics is something else you need to learn.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:34 PM   #257
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You have probably been given the answer to this many times before. But here is mine.
Firstly you need to realize that that image is a composite image:
Your guys posture and act condescending in absolutely bizarre ways. I'm the one that *TOLD *****YOU**** it was a composite Trace/Yohkoh image and I provided the links for you to read all about it. I even identified the color scheme for you. How could I *NOT* realize it's a composite image? Sheesh. What's the point of being condescending at inappropriate times? You look ridiculous.

Quote:
Here is the moss7 image and caption:
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/sun/moss7.jpg

Quote:
This image of the solar "moss" was taken by NASA's Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft May 30, 1998. The image is false color, looking almost directly down over coronal loops, immense magnetic arches of hot gas that are anchored in the Sun's visible surface.....
Emphasis mine. Notice that the loops are anchored into, or begin below the photosphere just like the NASA animation I provide you with? What is the average density of the photosphere and what makes you think it blocks all 171A light exactly at the surface of the photosphere?

Quote:
and could span dozens of Earths laid end to end. The bases of the coronal loops appear as white, feathery objects on the right and left of this image. The moss is the blue, black and white spongy structure between the bases of the coronal loops.
So wherever this peeling moss stuff is taking place it is located at the *BASES* of the arcs/loops which extend down into the photosphere.

Quote:
Solar moss consists of hot gas at about two million degrees Fahrenheit which emits extreme ultraviolet light observed by the TRACE instrument.
Electrical current would be required to heat it to that temperature too.

Quote:
It occurs in large patches, about 6,000 - 12,000 miles in extent, and appears between 1,000 - 1,500 miles above the Sun's visible surface,
Ooops. They just got through saying that the bases of the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss process takes place at the *BASES* of the loops. It can't occur 1000 miles above the photosphere because the base of the loops begin *UNDER* the photosphere according to NASA.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

Something here doesn't add up. If the loops originate under the photosphere, the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss occurs at the bases of the loops, then all these moss events occur *UNDER* not over the photosphere.

Quote:
So the answer is simple.
We can see the "base" of the loops because they are emitting light within the 171 Angstrom filter, i.e. the material at the "base" in this image of the loops is at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.
The tops of the loops emit x-rays because they are hot enough to emit X-rays.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html


If you notice, the temperature does not drop off with distance as expected, but rather it extends throughout the arc, with the brightest regions being the base of the arc. The loops are "hot" because they are electrically active, particularly at the bases of loops where parts of the surface are being ionized by the discharge process.

Quote:
Now think about what the image means: coronal loops are hot at their tops and cool down closer to the photosphere.
Or they are hot everywhere, but the bases extend down into the photosphere and therefore the photosphere blocks some of the x-rays. When the tops of the loops reach the corona, they pick up heat from the corona and the light from the loops is not blocked by the photosphere. Your explanation requires the tops of the loops to necessarily be hotter than the bottoms but that other image I provided shows that the brightest and hottest regions are at the based of the loops not the tops. The composite image shows us where the layers of the atmosphere of the sun begin and end. 171A light is visible deep into the photosphere whereas x-rays do not penetrate the photosphere easily and therefore we do not see many x-rays once the arcs are below the photosphere.

Quote:
That means at some point they cool down to < 160,000 K and cannot be seen by the TRACE detector. Therefore the "bases" in the image are not the real bases of the loops!
How do you know that?

Quote:
This is where my knowledge of solar physics runs out. I have seen diagrams where the loops cool down to 6000 K at the photosphere. I assume that there other images recording the temperature lower in the loops (maybe on the TRACE web site with different filters used on the instrument).
If that were true, the bases of the arcs would not be the brightest parts of the image.

Quote:
It seems as you want the "bases" to be at the surface. But this means that there is material on the surface of the Sun at a temperature of at least 160,000 K.
There are pieces of the surface being peeled (melted) away from the surface and ionized in the electrical current. That ionization process is what we observe in these solar moss images and the same thing can be seen in the peeling process we observe in the RD image.

Quote:
This has nasty consequences for your "iron sun" idea, e.g. what is heating the iron up to 160,000 K and how does it remain solid?
This is like looking at a arc welder from a distance and seeing a hot wavelength and assuming the whole arc welder is at that temperature. It doesn't work that way. Only the material being ionized in the discharge is heated to these temperatures, not the entire surface.

Quote:
Alternately these are the "volcanoes" you mention - and your solid iron surface is supported by 160,000 K plasma.
Volcanic events on Earth typically trigger discharges in the plume. That's true on the sun too, except it's atmosphere is almost fully ionized so when a plume come up, it's almost instantly ionized.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 25th June 2009 at 09:38 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:40 PM   #258
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


Birkeland actually "predicted" and "simulated' these same loops. His loops originate at the surface of the sphere and rise high into the atmosphere. That's exactly the same process that the sun experiences.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:46 PM   #259
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wrong. An inner layer can be cooler only if the layer above it is transparent to the wavelength the inner layer thermally emits at.
What makes you think a neon photosphere is going to absorb silicon emissions?

Quote:
So not only is the silicon going to radiate through the photosphere, despite it being opaque in the relevant bands,
Why did you assume it was opaque in those specific bands?

Quote:
but calcium is going to radiate through silicon? No, I don't think so.
Electrons are flowing through all these layers and carrying heat with them. I think so.

Quote:
Density is irrelevant.
No way. It's certainly relevant. The photosphere is *THIN*. It's not even atmospheric pressure and it's supposedly 75 percent hydrogen according to you folks. There is no way it's going to block all wavelengths of light. Not even a more dense neon layer would block all wavelengths.

Quote:
It's thick enough that it's opaque throughout the IR, optical, and UV spectrum.
How did you determine this?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 09:54 PM   #260
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Michael - that is about the silliest thing that you have ever written.
Ah, the old argument by ridicule routine. Yawn....

Quote:
Empirical measurements in controlled experiments here on Earth have shown that the radiation given off by objects peak at a frequency that depends on the temperature.
Where does any experiment show that a plasma, particularly a very light and flimsy plasma acts like a black body and emits and absorbs all wavelengths? You surely must realize that this is *GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION* don't you?

Quote:
What makes the statement really silly is the "less than" bit. Is the Sun's surface at a temperature of 0 K? What about 273 K?
What is your evidence for < 2000 K other than wishful thinking?
Well, for one thing it's solid/rigid. That requires a solid and solids wont stay solid much above 2000K. It therefore must be less than 2000K.

Quote:
Your last sentence reveals why you are ignoring the empirical measurements in controlled experiments that show that the photosphere has a temperature of ~6000 K: You want solids to exist on the surface of the Sun.
I'm not arguing that the photosphere is not 6000K. I don't 'want' solids to be there, I observe them in Doppler and RD images. I'm only seeking to explain these solids.

Quote:
This is typical crackpot behavior. A crackpot says: I have an idea that is obviously right according to me (solid iron on the surface of the Sun). Therefore I will change the universe to fit my idea (ignore the science and assign the photosphere an unknown temperature of < 2000 K).
Fortunately I didn't go about it that way. Instead I *OBSERVED* solids under the photosphere that form a "stratification subsurface" that is visible in Doppler and RD images. I observe the suns layers are arranged with the highest density and coolest layers below hotter, less dense layers. I see no reason to believe that this process begins or ends at the photosphere. I simply seek to explain what I observe.

Quote:
A scientist says: the universe has presented me with this measurement (the photosphere has a temperature of ~6000 K) and from this I can create a theory to explain the data (stellar model).
A "scientist" would notice that angular shape in the Doppler image and those rigid angular features in the RD image too, and they'd attempt to explain these details. A crackpot ignores all the details and regurgitates what they've been told regardless of the visual evidence.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 10:15 PM   #261
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,620
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Why did you assume it was opaque in those specific bands?
I don't. This is known from measurements.

Quote:
Electrons are flowing through all these layers and carrying heat with them. I think so.
Conduction is not radiation. And electrons will only carry heat from a higher-temperature source to a lower-temperature source, so that doesn't help you either.

Quote:
No way. It's certainly relevant. The photosphere is *THIN*.
Compared to the size of the sun, yes. Compared to the penetration depth of radiation, no.

Quote:
How did you determine this?
By looking at it.

We see radiation at about 6000 K. If the photosphere is opaque, then that light is coming from the photosphere. If the photosphere is transparent, as you claim, then that light is coming from under it, and that underlying surface is at 6000 K. Blackbody radiation can only come from something opaque, and in this case that something is at 6000 K. So even if everyone is wrong about the photosphere being the source of that radiation (yeah, right), that doesn't allow you to have anything below it cooler than 6000 K.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 04:51 AM   #262
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ah, the old argument by ridicule routine. Yawn....
Yawn... indeed. If an comment is ridiculous then it deserves ridicule.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Where does any experiment show that a plasma, particularly a very light and flimsy plasma acts like a black body and emits and absorbs all wavelengths? You surely must realize that this is *GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION* don't you?
That is beyond ignorant.
Astronomers actually measure a near black body spectrum from the Sun.
Plasmas scientist actually measure a near black body spectrum from plasmas.
Experimental scientists measure that heated materials emit a near black body spectrum.
And since you are obsessed by iron - have you ever asked a blacksmith what color iron is when it is cold, warm or hot?
Have you ever heard of the term "red hot"? Hint: What is the glowing color of a heated object between about 950 F and 1500 F (510 C to 816 C)?
Have you ever heard the term "white hot"?

Only someone truly ignorant of physics and the real world can be deluded that the light emitted by a heated body is not characteristic of its temperature.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Well, for one thing it's solid/rigid. That requires a solid and solids wont stay solid much above 2000K. It therefore must be less than 2000K.
You assume this without stating any evidence.
Thank you for confirming one more time that you are a total crackpot!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm not arguing that the photosphere is not 6000K. I don't 'want' solids to be there, I observe them in Doppler and RD images. I'm only seeking to explain these solids.
Fortunately I didn't go about it that way. Instead I *OBSERVED* solids under the photosphere that form a "stratification subsurface" that is visible in Doppler and RD images. I observe the suns layers are arranged with the highest density and coolest layers below hotter, less dense layers. I see no reason to believe that this process begins or ends at the photosphere. I simply seek to explain what I observe.
You have not "observed" this.
You have grossly misinterpreted the RD images display of changes in the temperature of the corona around coronal loops and CME as "mountain ranges".
In addition you are ignorant enough to think that the TRACE images can even see the photosphere and so these mythical "mountain ranges" are on the surface. You are persistently ignoring the fact that the 173A pass band TRACE instrument only detects material with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. Thus your "mountain ranges" have a temperature of more than 160,000 K.

However your web site does have one bit of honesty in it with this quote from an email from Alexander G. Kosovichev about the Doppler images
Quote:
The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4.
Emphasis added - see my above comment about your ignorance anout RD images.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
A "scientist" would notice that angular shape in the Doppler image and those rigid angular features in the RD image too, and they'd attempt to explain these details. A crackpot ignores all the details and regurgitates what they've been told regardless of the visual evidence.
I like the last sentence. That is exactly what you are doing.

A scientist will measure the actual temperature of the photosphere, see that this is ~6000 K and notice that this means that there is nothing solid at that temperature.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 05:17 AM   #263
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm not arguing that the photosphere is not 6000K. I don't 'want' solids to be there, I observe them in Doppler and RD images. I'm only seeking to explain these solids.
There is no known theory in physics that allows there to be solids at the 6000 K you now agree that the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun) has.

Maybe we have misinterpreted this post:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The surface of the sun is less than 2000 Kelvin. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona, so too the layers under the photosphere (silicon and calcium layers) are cooler and more dense than the photosphere. The surface itself is rather cool compared to the photosphere and it would need to be cool enough for solids to form given the gravity conditions that exist at the surface.
Emphasis added.
I suspect it is your nonsense about an subsurface that is actually at 2000 K - which is physically impossible because the photosphere (above the subsurface) is where the Sun's plasma cools enough to let energy escape the Sun. If there was a cooler subsurface then the photosphere would not exist!
See the earlier posts by Ziggurat.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 06:07 AM   #264
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Emphasis mine. Notice that the loops are anchored into, or begin below the photosphere just like the NASA animation I provide you with? What is the average density of the photosphere and what makes you think it blocks all 171A light exactly at the surface of the photosphere?
The photosphere does not block all all 171A light. It is the point at which visible light can escape the Sun. Given that the Sun's spectrum nearly black body then a tiny bit of the spectrum is all 171A light.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So wherever this peeling moss stuff is taking place it is located at the *BASES* of the arcs/loops which extend down into the photosphere.
Electrical current would be required to heat it to that temperature too

Ooops. They just got through saying that the bases of the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss process takes place at the *BASES* of the loops. It can't occur 1000 miles above the photosphere because the base of the loops begin *UNDER* the photosphere according to NASA.
They are talking about the *BASES* of the coronal loops in the images.
Coronal loops do not have bases - they are loops ("A coronal loop is magnetic flux fixed at both ends, threading through the solar body, protruding into the solar atmosphere."). If they had bases they would be coronal hoops.
And a fuller description from the corona article:
Quote:
Coronal loops are the basic structures of the magnetic solar corona. These loops are the closed-magnetic flux cousins of the open-magnetic flux that can be found in coronal hole (polar) regions and the solar wind. Loops of magnetic flux well up from the solar body and fill with hot solar plasma. Due to the heightened magnetic activity in these coronal loop regions, coronal loops can often be the precursor to solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Solar plasma feeding these structures is heated from under 6000K to well over 1106K from the photosphere, through the transition region, and into the corona.
The highlighted sentence is what the NASA movie is showing.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000...074/index.html

Something here doesn't add up. If the loops originate under the photosphere, the loops are rooted in the photosphere and the moss occurs at the bases of the loops, then all these moss events occur *UNDER* not over the photosphere.
That is the problem with depending on cartoons and animations for your science education. You do not see the bits thay miss out, e.g. the NASA animation shows only half part of the magnetic loops when it goes under the photosphere (about a third of the way through the movie).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...4_bar_clip.gif

If you notice, the temperature does not drop off with distance as expected, but rather it extends throughout the arc, with the brightest regions being the base of the arc. The loops are "hot" because they are electrically active, particularly at the bases of loops where parts of the surface are being ionized by the discharge process.

Or they are hot everywhere, but the bases extend down into the photosphere and therefore the photosphere blocks some of the x-rays. When the tops of the loops reach the corona, they pick up heat from the corona and the light from the loops is not blocked by the photosphere. Your explanation requires the tops of the loops to necessarily be hotter than the bottoms but that other image I provided shows that the brightest and hottest regions are at the based of the loops not the tops. The composite image shows us where the layers of the atmosphere of the sun begin and end. 171A light is visible deep into the photosphere whereas x-rays do not penetrate the photosphere easily and therefore we do not see many x-rays once the arcs are below the photosphere.
You think that the bars are temperature? Try reading the description for once:
Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How do you know that?
Because I know basic physics and how to read.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If that were true, the bases of the arcs would not be the brightest parts of the image.
Bright does not equal hot. Bright equals intensity.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
There are pieces of the surface being peeled (melted) away from the surface and ionized in the electrical current. That ionization process is what we observe in these solar moss images and the same thing can be seen in the peeling process we observe in the RD image.
The surface of the Sun (photosphere) is at 6000 K as you have agreed - no material to be peeled off and ionized.
In addition there are magnetic fields - no electric current.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th June 2009 at 06:09 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 07:19 AM   #265
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...4_bar_clip.gif

If you notice, the temperature does not drop off with distance as expected, but rather it extends throughout the arc, with the brightest regions being the base of the arc. The loops are "hot" because they are electrically active, particularly at the bases of loops where parts of the surface are being ionized by the discharge process.
The image you included is a form of quote mining since it does not show temperature.

The web page has:
The image on the right is a ratio of 195 to 171, 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 171 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."
Here is the actual image that indicates the temperature:

The analysis of the actual data unfortunately does not look at the bottom of the loops ("an area near the base of the loop (roughly 1/5 of the distance to the loop top)"): Temperature and Emission-Measure Profiles along Long-lived Solar Coronal Loops Observed with the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer. This is about 20 pixels in the image or ~19,000 km of the 120,000 km height of the loops in the image.

There does appear to be a blue gap between the surface and the loops but as you know images are not always what they look like.

I cannot find any observations that concentrate on the interaction between the base of coronal loops and the photosphere.
The coronal loops may or may not be at a temperature of at least 160,000 K on the photosphere. They also may or may not be at least 160,000 K as they continue down through the photosphere for another 120,000 km (if they are symmetrical).

Also:
Looking back at the solar moss composite image it appears that the X-rays are being emitted from a wider region than the TRACE image loops. So what we have is an volume of hotter (X-ray emitting) plasma whose height cannot be determined (since we are looking down on the loops) and that volume is wider than the UV emitting region of the loops.
Quote:
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
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 09:37 AM   #266
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The photosphere does not block all all 171A light.
Then it's likely we could see electrified loops emitting these wavelengths deep into the solar atmosphere.

Quote:
It is the point at which visible light can escape the Sun.
We agree on that point too. Of course IMO the fact this specific layer radiates in the visible spectrum is as much due to it's composition as any other influence.

Quote:
Given that the Sun's spectrum nearly black body then a tiny bit of the spectrum is all 171A light.
The BB concept is a *GROSS* oversimplification of the energy release process. The sun releases energy at different temperatures from different double layers. The photosphere is much cooler than the chromosphere and both of these layers are cooler than the corona. There no "black body", that's just a handy mathematical device in *SOME* (not all) circumstances.

Quote:
They are talking about the *BASES* of the coronal loops in the images.
Coronal loops do not have bases - they are loops ("A coronal loop is magnetic flux fixed at both ends, threading through the solar body, protruding into the solar atmosphere."). If they had bases they would be coronal hoops.
That is incorrect. They have both a beginning and ending point that can be observed in solar moss observations. The solar moss event occurs at the bases of these loops. The loops even move material in a directional fashion. The certainly have a visible beginning and ending point and the bases of the loops are always brighter than the loop itself. Like any ordinary current carrying filament however, it's 'lit' (emits these wavelengths) the entire lengths of the filament.

And a fuller description from the corona article:

Quote:
Quote:
The highlighted sentence is what the NASA movie is showing.
Loops of magnetic flux well up from the solar body and fill with hot solar plasma.
So these "hot loops" form deep inside the solar body. That's exactly what I'm telling you as well. The base of the loop is *DEEP* under the photosphere, not somewhere out in the corona. Yes the coronal loops get large enough to poke through the photosphere and reach well into the corona, but the base of the loops begin inside the body of the sun, or underneath the photosphere. You evidently aren't comprehending what they are trying to tell you.

Quote:
That is the problem with depending on cartoons and animations for your science education.
I'm simply providing you with NASA materials so we aren't arguing over who made them, their validity, etc. Evidently you can't grasp a basic concept, even when it is presented in a cartoon format. A child could comprehend the idea based on that animation. The loops begin *DEEP INSIDE* the photosphere.

Quote:
You do not see the bits thay miss out, e.g. the NASA animation shows only half part of the magnetic loops when it goes under the photosphere (about a third of the way through the movie).
I think you're the one that's missing the point of what they show and left out. The loops have a base, in fact a brightly lit base that is visible in all 171A images. That is where solar moss activity occurs. The base however is not located in the corona. Yes, these loops reach into the corona, but they are rooted inside the body of the sun (under the photosphere), not far out into the corona. The light from these electrically heated loops is visible deep under the photosphere.

Quote:
You think that the bars are temperature? Try reading the description for once: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."
Er, you need to try reading it again. The temperature of the loop is nearly constant along the length. That is due to the current flow inside the loop. It heats the entire thread. The heating process (solar moss process as well) is concentrated at the base of the loop. I wanted you to notice the bright footprints of the loop and the fact that the whole loop is essentially radiating at the same temperature. The x-rays we observe in that composite image (yellow) are visible once they reach the corona because the corona is too thin to absorb the x-rays. The temperature of the loops at that location is not necessarily any greater in the corona than at the base of the loops. It's just that the bases of the loops are located underneath the photosphere, not high in the corona, and the photosphere does absorb x-rays. The 171A wavelength however see *DEEPLY* into the photosphere which is why we can follow the loops further in blue than we can in yellow.

Quote:
Because I know basic physics and how to read.
I have no doubt as to the former, but the latter is still in question. You seem to be missing several key points of the animation and the descriptions. The loops remains at a nearly constant temp over the whole loop. The bases of the loops are hot. That's where the heating process of these ions is concentrated and taking place. The bases of the loops however are not located in the corona, but deep inside the body of the sun, deep under the photosphere as that animation demonstrates. You're completely missing key points that are visible in the animation and clearly written in English. What's up with that?

Quote:
Bright does not equal hot. Bright equals intensity.
Bright equals hot too. A discharge is bright because it's hot and the ions start to emit photons at all sorts of wavelengths, depending on the material in question and the valence shells that are involved. Bright certainly is hot in these images. The bright regions often exceed a million degrees.

Quote:
The surface of the Sun (photosphere) is at 6000 K as you have agreed - no material to be peeled off and ionized.
In addition there are magnetic fields - no electric current.
It's not the photosphere that is being ionized, it is the crust of the surface that is being peeled off and ionized at the bases of the coronal loops. That "peeling'' we observe is also clearly visible in the original images as "solar moss" activity. There is no doubt that the bases of the loops originate *under* the photosphere, they are hot through the entire length of the loop, and heating takes place at the bases of the loops. NASA has clearly explained all of this to you in animations, and in English.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 09:55 AM   #267
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,620
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The BB concept is a *GROSS* oversimplification of the energy release process. The sun releases energy at different temperatures from different double layers. The photosphere is much cooler than the chromosphere and both of these layers are cooler than the corona. There no "black body", that's just a handy mathematical device in *SOME* (not all) circumstances.
This is simply false. First off, a blackbody spectrum constrains radiation from ANY thermal source, be it black or not. A spectrum can release less radiation than the blackbody spectrum at a given temperature, but it can never release more. Furthermore, if it can emit at a certain frequency, it can also absorb at that frequency. These are hard constraints, and have nothing to do with oversimplifications OR mathematical devices, whatever you mean by that. Any violation of these hard constraints is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now, the chromosphere and the corona are not close to blackbodies: they only emit significantly at a few frequencies. They are transparent at all other frequencies. In contrast, the photosphere is close to a blackbody spectrum: it emits across a very broad range of frequencies, and therefore MUST absorb across those broad frequencies as well. It is, therefore, opaque across the relevant part of the spectrum (IR, visible, and UV). Whatever is underneath the photosphere therefore MUST be at temperatures at least as high as the photosphere itself, because it is not in effective thermal contact with anything outside the photosphere.

In contrast, because the chromosphere and corona are transparent for most of the IR, visible, and UV spectrum, the photosphere IS in effective thermal contact with space. Therefore the photosphere can cool down to temperatures lower than the chromosphere and the corona. Once again, Michael: that option is not available to anything underneath the photosphere: if whatever is under it is going to lose heat, it must transfer that heat to the photosphere, which is only possible if it's at higher temperatures than the photosphere. The opacity of the photosphere (which we can measure via its radiation spectra) is therefore proof that whatever is under it is at least as hot. The ONLY possible way around that is if the sun is continually violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, well, you won't find anyone but nutjobs who would accept that proposition.

You are desparately trying to rescue a failed theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how any surface underneath the photosphere can possibly remain cooler than the photosphere. And you won't be able to, because it's not possible. It's elementary physics, and you're failing it. Badly.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 10:03 AM   #268
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
It seems to me RC that you are overlooking the obvious. The loops are heated over their entire length because they are like any ordinary current carrying thread in plasma. They form filamentary shapes due to the current flow and the magnetic field created by the flow "pinches" these flows into tightly spiraling "ropes". It's not just a part of the loop that is lit and very hot, the whole thing is lit from one base to the other. The bases of the loops however do not "start" or become visible *ONLY* after the reach the corona. They are emitting these high energy wavelengths far below the photosphere and we are able to see them far below the photosphere. The yellow x-ray part of composite image shows us where the loops reach into the corona. While we can only observe the tops of the loops when they reach the corona, we can observe the bases of the loops far underneath the photosphere, deep *INSIDE* the sun. The loops are just as hot below the photosphere and they are also emitting x-rays under the photosphere, but the photosphere absorbs the x-rays, whereas it does not absorb all the photons in 171A.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 10:14 AM   #269
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is simply false. First off, a blackbody spectrum constrains radiation from ANY thermal source, be it black or not.
The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place. The BB concept is a handy device and all, but the photosphere is made of light plasma, not solid carbon, so it's very unlikely to act as a "black body". Which test of *extremely light* plasma was shown to act as a "black body" here on Earth?

It should be noted that photons are generally related to specific valence shells of very specific elements. The SERTS data for instance will allow us to identify exactly which elements are emitting light based upon the specific wavelength observed. A light hydrogen plasma cannot emit all these wavelengths so any calculation you come up will will necessarily require that you *ASSUME* that elements stay mixed together and the iron and nickel ions are mixed with hydrogen and helium at the photosphere. That's the second major problem with standard theory. You have a "stratification subsurface" blocking the flow of plasma sitting smack dab in what is supposed to be an open convection zone that mixes and keeps all these elements mixed together.

You are "assuming" that light hydrogen plasma can form a "black body". Where can I see this actually demonstrated in a real experiment with a real control mechanisms and light plasma?


Quote:
A spectrum can release less radiation than the blackbody spectrum at a given temperature, but it can never release more. Furthermore, if it can emit at a certain frequency, it can also absorb at that frequency. These are hard constraints, and have nothing to do with oversimplifications OR mathematical devices, whatever you mean by that. Any violation of these hard constraints is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The problem here between us is that we're using completely different models and concepts. You *assume* that the elements stay *mixed*. I *assume* they do not and that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element. You *assume* that a layer above must absorb the wavelengths from below, whereas I do not.

Quote:
Now, the chromosphere and the corona are not close to blackbodies: they only emit significantly at a few frequencies.
So what exactly is the magic density point that makes light plasma emit like a black body?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 10:18 AM   #270
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There is no known theory in physics that allows there to be solids at the 6000 K you now agree that the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun) has.

Maybe we have misinterpreted this post:
The surface of the photosphere is not the surface of the sun that my website describes. The surface of the photosphere is simply another atmospheric layer of the sun, not unlike the chromosphere nor more unique than the chromosphere. It's simply the top of the neon layer of plasma, whereas the chromosphere is mostly helium and emits in Helium wavelengths. The actual surface crust is located at around .995R.

You fixating on the temperature of the top of the photosphere is like you fixating on the top of the chromosphere and claiming the photosphere must be at least the same temperature as the chromosphere. In reality, the top of the chromosphere is much hotter than the top of the photosphere. Likewise the top of the silicon layer is significantly more dense and cool than the top of the photosphere.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 26th June 2009 at 10:20 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 10:39 AM   #271
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Even skimming the links GeeMack provided is painful ...

For those JREF Forum member who are reading this thread and who have also read the thread started by MM earlier, it's like 'the Casimir effect discussion' on steroids.

From that other JREF Forum thread, it is obvious that MM has only a 'word level' grasp of physics; however, the combined 'Sun has a solid (iron) surface' material shows a different, deeper, and much more disturbing aspect ... MM treats his own, personal, interpretations of data presented as images as being *far* more reliable than any other interpretations (including those from the PI's of the instruments which produced them!), irrespective of just how inconsistent those intretations are with simple, straight-forward applications of very basic physics.

One corollary: unless and until some common ground can be established concerning the relationship between data - whether presented in the form of 'images' or not - and physics, I think no meaningful discussion with MM will be possible (we saw this, in a more limited form, with his 'gravity, as a force of nature, exists' demonstration using a plasma ball from Tesco).

MM: the road from sensory experiences (what one 'sees', or 'hears', for example) to 'force of nature' is a very, very long one. It took the collective smarts of our species many dozens of centuries to travel, with lots of false turns that closely resemble your deep misunderstandings. However, that road was travelled, and today it is possible to retrace the steps of our brilliant forebears in a matter of years, if not months.

HOWEVER, an absolutely critical part of this journey involves math, starting with the ability to think *quantitatively*. It is clear that this essential foundation is all but entirely missing, for you.

So why not take some time off from the Sun and the data you are so in love with, and acquire at least a basic familiarity with the maths on which classical physics is based?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 10:57 AM   #272
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,620
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.
Since it's giving off a close to blackbody spectrum, that's quite clearly not true.

Quote:
The BB concept is a handy device and all, but the photosphere is made of light plasma, not solid carbon
And the ocean is made of water. And yet what happens when you go to the bottom?

Quote:
so it's very unlikely to act as a "black body".
Very unlikely? No. We can see that it acts like a blackbody. Therefore it does. If your understanding cannot accommodate observations, then it's your understanding which must change, not reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ef...e_300dpi_e.png

Quote:
It should be noted that photons are generally related to specific valence shells of very specific elements.
They can be. But free electrons (hmmm... where might I find such things?) can be broadband emitters and absorbers.

Quote:
The SERTS data for instance will allow us to identify exactly which elements are emitting light based upon the specific wavelength observed.
Because you get either emission or absorption lines on top of the blackbody spectrum.

Quote:
You are "assuming" that light hydrogen plasma can form a "black body".
No, I'm not assuming it. I'm observing it. Look, if you don't want to believe that this blackbody spectrum is coming from plasma, fine, I don't care (though for the record, the photosphere is defined as the outermost region of the sun which is opaque). But the spectrum is there, and whatever the source is, it's hot and opaque. So whatever is underneath it must be at least as hot. Since solid calcium, iron, and silicon are not transparent, the source of this radiation cannot be underneath your proposed surface. Your surface must either be the source of this radiation, or be under it. In no case is it physically possible for your solid surface to be cooler than the roughly 6000 K temperature we see. The conclusion is inescapable: even if you refuse to believe that plasma could act like a blackbody, any solid surface of the sun must be at least 6000 K, if not hotter.

Quote:
The problem here between us is that we're using completely different models and concepts. You *assume* that the elements stay *mixed*.
No, I don't. I don't care what the photosphere is made of, it's visibly opaque. By definition.

Quote:
So what exactly is the magic density point that makes light plasma emit like a black body?
There is no magic density. It's a continuous transition of decreasing penetration depth. If the penetration depth is much shorter than the layer thickness, then it's opaque. If the penetration depth is much longer than the layer thickness, then it's transparent.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 26th June 2009 at 10:59 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 11:02 AM   #273
Vermonter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,017
Michael, you are hopelessly lost. Your biggest failure as a scientist is coming up with a conclusion and then interpreting the data to fit that conclusion and ignore anything that disagrees, and then insulting those who disagree with your methods or results.

Saying "the surface HAS TO BE less than 2000 K" just to fit your theory is a failure of epic proportions. Observational evidence shows that the photosphere is much hotter than that, but you ignore decades of direct observation in favor of a solid surface. At the temperatures observed, solids simply don't exist on the Sun. But you ignore that because you think the picture looks different. You lack the basic understanding of highschool physics, much less high-level physics found in astronomy.

To quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman." And you'll never see why. Go take a first-year college physics class and get back to us in a year. Or hell, go take some intro astronomy courses.
Vermonter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 12:22 PM   #274
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,085
One of the interesting things about Birkeland is, is that he was a wonderful experimentalist and knew how to interpret the measurements that he made. And indeed he inferred that there had to be charged corpuscules coming from the sun (like in MM's signature). However, as anyone can see (except maybe for MM and Sol88) the solar wind can never be created with the Sun being a cathode, like in Birkies experiments. I am sure Birkie would have realized that too, because the solar wind consists of both electrons and positive ions, which cannot be generated by a cathode.

By the way, I wonder if Sol88 is the Mr. Hyde to MM's Dr. Jackyll. S disappears as M pops up ...

So, can we stop this rediculous notion of the iron sun (or rather MM not understanding what pictures in different spectral bands mean and how the Sun creates a black body spectrum through local thermal equlibrium) and get to the real stuff here. The electric universe, there are many questions left that have never been answered:
  • comments like "the original charge separation", what does that mean
  • the problem with creating water from machined oxygen ions in the solar wind
  • what maintains the enormous currents that create the stars in a z-pinch, and how much current is actually needed

But now that MM has come to stage, it seems we only get ***WORDS*** with never anything qualitatively let along quantitative. Suddenly 5 pages of "it too" - "is not" with really a nerve wracking and annoying self-interpretation of physics by MM. This goes no where, it would be best to close this thread.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 02:07 PM   #275
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Photosphere Temperature Profile

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.
That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant. It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body. The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0 where it has a mass density of only 2.78x10-7 gm/cm3 (but an electron number density 7.7x1013/cm3 and a hydrogen atom number density 1.2x1017/cm3). An optical depth that high guarantees a black body spectral energy distribution.

It is well known that the emission from the solar photosphere is an approximate black body. It is in fact a superposition of multiple black bodies at multiple temperatures, since we can see emission from throughout the depth of the photosphere. The temperature profile shows 6520 Kelvins at optical depth 1, down to a minimum 4400 Kelvins at optical depth 4x10-4, after which the temperature increases again to 5160 Kelvins at optical depth 5x10-6. The base of the photosphere, about optical depth 24, has a temperature 9400 Kelvins. The region around optical depth 1 contributes most strongly to the black body shape; lower regions of higher optical depth are more opaque, and higher regions of lower optical depth emit less thermal energy. That's why the best fit single temperature black body for the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins.

I am using the profile given in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition), page 153. The inversion technique for building the temperature profile is briefly described in section 5.2.2, but far more detailed descriptions & explanations can be found in any book on atmospheric modeling, where inversions are long standing techniques.

The shape of the photosphere SED is well represented in the diagrams on the Wikipedia page for solar radiation. Foukal's book gives far more detailed information for the curious reader.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 02:14 PM   #276
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Vermonter View Post
Michael, you are hopelessly lost. Your biggest failure as a scientist is coming up with a conclusion and then interpreting the data to fit that conclusion and ignore anything that disagrees, and then insulting those who disagree with your methods or results.
First off, your side is hurling 10 times the insults my way. Secondly, it's your side that has it in their head that this image *must* in some way be associated with gas model solar theory. I'm more than happy to listen to your responses, but they MUST be attentive to details within the actual image if you expect me to take you seriously.

Quote:
Saying "the surface HAS TO BE less than 2000 K" just to fit your theory is a failure of epic proportions. Observational evidence shows that the photosphere is much hotter than that,
I am not talking about the surface of the photosphere, I'm talking about the crust underneath the photosphere.

Quote:
but you ignore decades of direct observation in favor of a solid surface.
No, I did not. I embraced a decade worth of SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh images. That Doppler image shows a rigid feature in the photosphere. I didn't expect to find it, it's just there. Those persistent features of the RD image are just there too. I didn't make them up and you haven't explained their cause.

Quote:
At the temperatures observed, solids simply don't exist on the Sun. But you ignore that because you think the picture looks different.
It's not just *ONE* image that convinced me, it *EVERY* one of the 17 Gigabytes of RD image, Doppler images, composite images, etc that convinced me. Note that at the time I was blissfully unaware of Birkeland's model, I assumed the gas model solar theory was accurate and I was simply trying to 'explain' these images.

Your the one insisting standard solar theory offers us an explanation, so let's hear it? Let's see you explain the details of these images for us?

Quote:
You lack the basic understanding of highschool physics, much less high-level physics found in astronomy.
And to think you folks accuse me of insults. Get real. You folks belittle and attack individuals, not ideas. You also rely *HEAVILY* upon personal insult.

Quote:
To quote Ghostbusters, "You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman." And you'll never see why. Go take a first-year college physics class and get back to us in a year. Or hell, go take some intro astronomy courses.
Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided. Take a few course and let me know when you've got an explanation that is attentive to detail.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 26th June 2009 at 02:32 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 02:19 PM   #277
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Even skimming the links GeeMack provided is painful ...
What's really painful IMO is watching all of you run from every single specific detail in that image and continue to fixate on individuals rather than the details of the image itself. The fact that you won't address the details in the images in question, that fact you refuse to discuss any of the details in the images and the fact you fixate on an individual serve to demonstrate to me that you don't actually have an explanation. All you've got are petty insults. Yawn. You folks are absolutely pathetic.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 26th June 2009 at 02:20 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 02:32 PM   #278
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Since it's giving off a close to blackbody spectrum, that's quite clearly not true.
That spectrum tells you nothing at all about what the top of the photosphere emits. Get real. All you know is that the *WHOLE THING* emits a lot of wavelengths. You know absolutely nothing about the photosphere from that data.

Quote:
And the ocean is made of water. And yet what happens when you go to the bottom?
The same thing that happens when you go to the bottom of the atmosphere on the sun. You find a "crust".

Quote:
Very unlikely? No. We can see that it acts like a blackbody. Therefore it does.
The *WHOLE* sun may indeed emit a lot of wavelengths. That tells you absolutely nothing about the surface of the photosphere. You're simply *ASSUMING* that this *WHOLE SUN* observation relates to a single atmospheric layer of the sun. Why?

Quote:
If your understanding cannot accommodate observations, then it's your understanding which must change, not reality.
The problem is that my understanding can accommodate and explain the various details of both those images and every image on my website in fact. You can't even handle two freaking images with any detail based on your understand of these images. Not one of you has touched a specific detail of that specific image! What does that tell us?


Quote:
They can be. But free electrons (hmmm... where might I find such things?) can be broadband emitters and absorbers.
You'll find them flying out of the whole sun 24/7. They are found in something called "solar wind".

Most of the rest is rehash, so I won't bother. The fact you see a lot of different wavelengths from the whole sun does not tell us squat about the output of the photosphere. What you observe in a total spectrum are *ALL* the various parts of the sun emitting light. With the exception of a very few wavelengths like k-band or white light, you can't tell which of those various wavelengths is directly related to the photosphere. You simply *ASSUME* the elements stay mixed to the photosphere. I see no evidence of that. I see a simple layer of neon in the photosphere and I observe hotter helium and hydrogen layers as well. I also observe calcium and silicon emissions from deeper layer of the sun too. You simply use the BB idea as a handy way of calculating energy and opacity, but these things *ASSUME* things that simply are not true, including the notion that iron and nickel stay mixed with hydrogen. Sure. Like that is really going happen.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 02:35 PM   #279
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yawn. None of you have touched a single specific detail in the that RD image, the Doppler image or any image I've provided.

Liar.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 03:12 PM   #280
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant.
Come on. You can't start by claiming that density is irrelevant when it comes to absorption and scattering, etc.

Quote:
It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body.
How did you intend to even attempt to calculate it's optical depth to any specific wavelength if you don't know it's elemental composition and density?

Quote:
The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0
Er, you measured that directly somehow, or you calculated without any sort of understanding of it's makeup and density?

Let's start with the basics. How did you determine that number 1.0 without knowing either it's elemental composition or it's density?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.