No.. first of all.. im not actually argueing im asking, and pointing out that i dont see an arguement.. and i still don't..

everyone agrees that the arcs, as uplifted matter from the surface is hotter..
Gets hotter...

we all know this and agree... and the x-ray filters would suggest that alot of hot action takes place in the emitted gas arc stuff.. of this i think we all agree.

Now...

So where is the arguement? and does lockhead have its picture backwards?
-MT

Read the title of the thread. It is about blackbody radiation, but the pictures used to make the point have almost nothing to do with black body radiation.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

As in the spectrum of radiation emitted from a body? or the lack there of?
-MT

Aside the fact that the images are taken with very narrow filters I don't think that those arcs will emit blackbody radiation:
(from here)
It seems to me that the low density of those arcs qualifies them mostly as 'excited gas' than 'solid body'. Maybe someone could clarify this question...

The Sun's photosphere approximates a black body. The light it
emits approximates blackbody radiation. That is, a continuous
spectrum, with intensity at different wavelengths dependant on
temperature. The intensity of a blackbody spectrum at any
wavelength, over the entire continuum, is given by Plank's
radiation law. The peak wavelength of that intensity curve is
given by the simpler Wien's displacement law.

The Sun's photosphere is hottest at the bottom and cooler at the
top. The chromosphere, above the photosphere, is even cooler.
Cooler ions in and above the photosphere absorb some of the
emitted blackbody radiation at specific wavelengths. The result
is dark lines in the otherwise continuous spectrum:

http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/suny.jpg

Different ions absorb different wavelengths, and each different
ion absorbs many specific wavelengths, so there is a very large
number of dark lines in the Sun's spectrum. The image above
shows just the visible light part of the spectrum. There are
similar lines in the infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray portions
of the spectrum.

If the ions are hotter, rather than cooler, they can emit more
light than they absorb, causing bright lines instead of dark
lines. Ions in the Sun's upper atmosphere are often heated by
extremely powerful magnetic fields to very high temperature,
causing them to emit light in specific bright lines. The higher
the temperature, the shorter the wavelength of the specific
lines which are bright. Wavelengths which are shorter or longer
than those specific wavelengths will have dark lines.

Emissions given off by the Sun's photosphere, a lightbulb, a
burning candle, your body, and an ice cube all resemble blackbody
curves fairly closely.

The sun's chromosphere, emission nebulae, fluorescent lights,
neon lights, LEDs, lasers, dental X-ray machines, TV screens,
and computer monitors all give off light with spectral curves
completely unlike blackbody curves, instead conststing mostly
of bright line emission at specific wavelengths. That is what
you see in the narrow-passband images from the TRACE spacecraft:
Mostly light from bright-line emission, plus some light from
blackbody emission at the same wavelength.

What has confused you is the fact that bright-line emission
does not occur at a specific wavelength if the temperature
is too high. You are attempting to ascribe a property of
blackbody emission to bright-line emission.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Thank you by the way for the explanation about the processing technique used on the image. As you noted, it would be easy to get the color scheme backwards.

IMO, you also just gave the one line answer as to why Lockheed has this labeled backwards, that blue background is 6000K.

Let me try this purely from a gas model perpective so you understand my motives here and why I think this is so critically important.

The surface of the penumbral filaments has been measured at 6000K. That is the average temp of the "surface" of the photosphere. Somewhere deep in the core of the sun, a magnetic flux occurs and sends a streaming column of superheated plasma that rises through the surface of the photosphere and sometimes far into the corona. Whatever the processes in play that bring that superheated plasma through the penumbral filaments, that superheated column comes from below the photosphere.

The reason we know the coronal loop has superheated plasma in it, is because it emits photons that are consistent with very high temperatures. These superheated columns of plasma pump huge amounts of heat into the sun's outer atmospheres, and even pick up some of that heat from the corona, if they rise that far.

We can even see the three dimensional rise of this plasma column in the composite image from Yohkoh/Trace. In the lower regions, the base of the coronal loop is relatively cool, and relatively invisible to Yohkoh. As the superheated column reaches the corona, it picks up a lot of heat, and the plasma glows in x-ray that Yohkoh sees quite easily.

So why is this so important that I would question Lockheed?

It strikes to the very heart of the placement problem Lockheed has with the transition layer IMO. Alexander Kosovichev's work suggests that about 4800km below the surface of the photosphere, there is a distinct layer with a temperature/density change, where sound begins to travel much faster than it does through the first 4800km of the photosphere. We know this from heliosciesmology, and I trust Dr. Kosovichev's work. I'm impressed with it in fact. I trust that this sound transition layer exists at this location.

If this superheated column of plasma is the heat source and rising through the photosphere, the Lockheed has this image backwords. The green plasma columns themselves are absolutely a higher temperature the then photosphere they are rising through, and a much higher temperature than the chromosophere as well. It is likely that the heat from these superheated columns of plasma are what pump heat into the corona and help heat the plasma one it reaches the corona.

So how does all this apply? That blue area is dark in the original image because it's the outer photosphere. Several columns of superheated plasma are rising from the transition layer, through the photosphere, into the corona, where the columns glow in x-ray. The columns however are at a much, much, much higher temperature than anything else around it until it reaches the corona. Even then it is not clear how much of the heat originate from the coronal loops and simply ends up in the corona to begin with. The implication here is that the coronal loops, these superheated columns of plasma are much hotter the most of the medium they traverse.

That Trace/Yohkoh image is increadibly revealing IMO as it shows the layer where x-rays are visible very clearly and shows a cooler plasma region below.

Lockheed missed the boat here IMO since the blue areas are not superheated plasma, but are dark to both satellites. They are the visible photosphere and chromosphere. This is critically important IMO because it suggests that the transition layer is not above the photosphere, but underneath it. That transition layer we see at 4800km is where see these superheated columns originate, far below the photosphere. The rise up, through the photosphere and into the outer regions where Yohkoh sees the x-ray energy from these columns.

You of course explained why Lockheed is wrong in a single sentence. I actually liked your explanation better, but I wanted to explain the significance of this image from my perspective, and why I believe it is critical. It has very important ramifications for the gas model. If that transition layer is below the photosphere, then the implications for the gas model must also be profound. The work of Dr. Kosivichev strongly suggests the transition layer is beneath the visible photosphere, not above it IMO.

I was really hoping you would join this discussion Baloo. Based on my last post to Nereid, specifically from a gas model perspective, how do you know the transition layer that Lockheed images is not the same transition layer that Dr. Kosovichev is imaging?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm

More than ever, large chunks, if not all, of this thread belong in Against the Mainstream.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I specifically argued this point from a gas model perspective. It makes no difference how I approach the issue. I will stick to basic gas model assumptions, I and I will say nothing at all related to my other ideas.

I wasn't joining anything; this a Q&A thread, I've just pointed out that in my opinion the images provided by you in the first post are not related to a blackbody spectrum, therefore your original question "does Lockheed Martin understand blackbody radiation?" is meaningless in the context of those images.

How do I know? Well, let see: Lockheed images are depicting a phenomena happening in the chromosphere and above it, at a 1.000.000 °K temperature; dr. Kosovichev is imaging a layer 4000km deep inside a sunspot at a 4000-6000 °K temperature.
More than that, Lockeed says that their "image shows Active Region 8939 near the central meridian" which apparently is not conected with any sunspot.

And Maksutov has a very good point; if you want to adress other issues please do it in an appropriate thread.

I disagree. LMSAL is using two wavelengths to create a "mini" black body spectrum. That is in fact the whole idea of a 'heat signature'. The problem here is they got everything right in the software, but didn't recognize what they were looking at, or misunderstood their own software. That coronal loop is and must be "hotter" than the "surface" of the photosphere. The cool areas in the composite image make it clear that the heat is concentrated in the coronal loops. Any and all images x-ray images of the sun show these emissions are concentrated in the coronal loops. This superheated plasma from below rises through the surface of the 6000K photosphere. If that blue background were truely 'hotter' than the superheated plasma columns, they too would glow, presumably brighter, than the coronal loops themselves. The composite image shows the affect of these loops extending into the corona where they pick up heat and emit soft x-rays. This is "mini" black body spectrum. Lockheed even got the color scheme correct. Red is typically associated with hot, and blue and black with cold. That does in fact suggest the software was written properly, but the interpretation was incorrect.

Only the yellow region of the composite imag shows what is above the chromosphere. Their is a atmospheric range depicted in the comoposite image that shows coronal loops coming from the transition layer Dr. Kosovichev images in sound wave, reaches through the plasma layers, and into the corona, where soft x-rays are emitted.

If the iron in the dark areas was really a million degrees like the loop, then the backround would also emit a LOT MORE photons than the coronal loops. That is not what we see. We see a cold photosphere and hot coronal loops.

I will only argue this issue from a standard gas model perspective. It does not matter how I argue the point, and it has significant implications for the gas model if I am correct.

In the original image, why is the background dark, if it is hotter than the brightest areas of coronal loops, and why is it also invisible to Yohkoh?

Just so we're all clear on what I'm doing ... this thread has now moved way, way beyond answering a question (the question was, in fact, answered), and has become a discussion of Michael's idea (or, rather, his interpretation of certain jpg images in the public domain).

So, off to ATM it goes.

I will also be locking the main thread discussing Michael's idea there.

Your arguments are nevertheless based on your "iron Sun" speculations. Therefore your contributions belong in the ATM forum, rather than the Q&A forum, which has been defined as being exclusively the realm of standard physics and mainstream astronomy.

In addition, your cherry-picking of (rather meager) supporting data and selective avoidance of relevant questions don't belong in either of the two fora.

Note: It appears I was composing this reply while Nereid was posting about the not unanticipated move of the thread. One day I'll learn to type faster!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Please say we're through playing hopscotch with the threads? [grin]

MOZINA:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp....age/index.html

I personally believe that iron is in "great" abundance. Hydrogen is also in great abundance and is a byproduct of the stars. I am suggesting that mostly the sun is iron and heavy elements. There is probably a layer of Xenon plasma in there somewhere, and I have no idea as to its density or temperatures on the inside. Overall however, most of a sun looks to be iron. There is a lot of hydrogen as well, but only because that is essentially what stars "exhale".


The link is to an article that says there is more iron that we previously thought in the early universe, so maybe the universe is older than we think.

It does not say anything in comparison to the amount of hydrogen in the early universe or even now. It says nothing about how much iron was thought to be in those clouds before. If the ratio of iron to hydrogen atoms in the ISM was estimated at 1:10,000 before, and then you triple it, it become 3:10,000. Not exactly iron abundant.

This is qualitative data (words), not quaNTitative data (numbers). Words are hard to check for accuracy, thats why we ask for numbers instead.

MOZINA:
I am first of all puzzled by the your concept of "embedding" a fast moving stream of mostly iron particles into a predominantly hydrogen cloud. It seems to me like there is little or no mathematical evidence to support a relatively thin cloud of hydrogen would capture the iron and survive the shockwaves of a supernova. I do not grasp why you put so much faith in the idea that a mostly hydrogen cloud is going to stop and capture a supernova fragment wizzing by at several thousand miles an hour.

It doesn't work the same way as a bullet getting imbedded in a sand bag. It's gravity at work, not friction. Gravity isn't affecting one atom of iron or hydrogen at a time. The entire mass cloud, bigger but less dense than the solar system, acts like a single gravitational body. Even hydrogen has a big gravitational field when it is that size. Particles from supernova will get swept into them because the mass of the incoming particles is far less than the mass of the cloud, since they left a supernova light-years away, they have spread out and become thin and dispersed as per the inverse square law.

Also, I answered your question on the solar quakes. I believe it is posted here in this thread.

But the main focus of this should be as Tim put it. We must get the biggest problems, the fundamentals, established as right or wrong before trying to nit pick any details. If the fundamental laws say it is impossible, the details are worthless.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Since the thread has been moved, it sort of a moot point, but I will continue to argue this point via standard gas model theory so you will see that it makes no difference how I argue it, the results are exactly the same.

I'll have that discussion in the iron sun thread with you, but not until we finish this discussion. Be patient. I'm juggling a lot right now. The point of the article is that it demonstrates the these is little or no evidence that our universe was ever iron poor, and while the RELATIVE precentages are meaningful at showing a lack of universal iron evolution, it again does not indicate the actual abundance of the elements. If you wish to respond to this post, please do so in the iron sun thread so we aren't getting off track in this discussion.

I think that is probably the nature of the mistake Lockheed made as well frankly.

If you do get such information out of Lockheed, please post it since I would be most interested in duplicating their work myself, but no such information was forthcoming in my repeated emails to Lockheed.

Because the corona is the lit up part in the composite Yohkoh/Trace image. I can see where the coronal loops enter the corona from this image. The corona is actually quite a bit higher in the atmosphere than the based of the coronal loops.

In the other composite image, you can see the coronal loops emitting green light from below the plasma layer, and we see it also rising through the plasma layer.

If the corona was the hottest part, rather than the heated plasma column, the heat would show up one or more of these frequencies. It's not there.

If it's a million degrees K, where are the photons from it? We don't see any photons in 171A, 195A or Yohkoh images for that matter. If the background it hotter, where is the evidene of it in "standard" 171a or Yokhoh images? These images show all the heated plasma is contained within the coronal loops. When these loops reach the corona, they glow in soft xray. The base of these loops however originate much LOWER in the atmosphere based on these composite images.

Typically the top of the penumbral filaments is considered the top of the photosphere. If you prefer photosphere to penumbral filaments, that's ok by me. The arguement applies either way.

I don't own reality Nereid, and I will continue to argue the point from a gas model perspective so you can see it makes no difference how I appoach it. The superheated plasma column still originates from below the photosphere in standard gas models. It is irrelevant whether this is argued via the gas model or a solid surface model.

What is a coronal loop in your opinion? Where does this superheated plasma come from, and how does it form? How does it get from the photosphere into the corona? What is the heat source for this loop?

Before we go any further, I want to understand your answers to these questions. I was not aware there was any debate that coronal loops originate from the core, or from beneath the visible photosphere.

I had posted my reply to Michael before the original thread was closed, but in light of keeping the discussion on-topic and avoiding hopscotch, I'm moving my post to an appropriate thread.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Hey Vermonter! I'm very much enjoying our discussion, but I first wish to finish this one. I will eventually post a reply to you in the iron sun thread since I would like to keep this thread focused on a very specific topic. I would encourage everyone else to post their comments to me in the iron sun thread. I will eventually catch up in that thread, but probably not today.

Hmmm, if that's the case, I'll move my posts over to that thread, Moderators permitting.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Never mind. I missed Nereid's last post. Let me finish the coronal loop discussion and I'll just repond to you here. Any other posts besides the discussion of coronal loops will probably take a back burner today. I will try to catch up over the weekend.

Here's on snippet I have:

With a diameter of 1,390,000 km (and a radius of 695000), the Sun has a volume of 1.406e18 km^3. With an estimated mass of 1.989e30 kg, the density of the sun is 1.41e12 kg/km^3. Using a bit of unit conversion we finally arrive at 1.41 g/cm^3. Iron, by comparison, has a density of 7.87 g/cm^3. That's a BIG difference. If you compress it even more, the density would be even greater. Accoriding to WebElements, Iron has a melting point of 1811 K, and will be vaporized at 3134 K. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin.../sunspots.html
Says that sunspots have a temperature of 4000 K, while the photosphere around them has a temperature of 5800 K. What does this data tell me? It tells me that iron will be vaporized even in the coolest regions on the sun, so no solid iron. It tells me that a Sun composed primarily of iron will have a much, much higher density than 1.41 g/mc^3. Even vaporized iron will have a higher density, especially if it's in the core.

I think that's the most appropriate arguement I have for this particular thread. I'll continue my other arguements here if the moderators are willing, but I'll keep the rest unposted, since I'm not sure where to move it to.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

The Lockheed photos can be a little misleading, because they don't spell out how the ratio between the two peaks were obtained.

If I am interpreting what IMO said correctly, the color on the differential image is an indication of how fast the temperature is changing at the two different wavelengths, not absolute temperature. You cannot compare a set of differential data with non- differentiated data: It is like looking out the window of jet plane, and watching your jet slowly overtake the one by the next cloud, and concluding the other jet is only traveling 5km/hr.

Lockheed has applied an arbitrary scale to this differentiation, color coding the slope, not the absolute color. The color is only meaningful when the Lockheed interpretation is applied. Without raw images in both bands it is impossible to determine if they have interpreted the spectra correctly. It is reasonable to assume they have.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I will ultimately take a stab at the math related to RANGES of possiblities as it relates to density. It may be a while before I'm ready, but I will ask Nereid to reopen that thread when I am ready. It's not my first priority however. First I'd like to demonstrate what I can actually demonstrate with real data. Then I will take a stab the density problem. I'm still debating movement models in my own mind at the moment. When I've picked a "favorite", I'll work on that again for you.

The surface is an alloy, not raw iron. I say this because it holds a magnetic alignment indicating it's a calcium ferrite and probably magnesium alloy. I'm not precisely sure what the melting point of they alloy might be under these electromagnetic and gravitational conditions. My guess is the surface is approximately 2000K. There is likely to be a mixture of granite as well as various mixtures of alloys in the crust. The first page of my website has some pictures of meteorites that I believe are indicative of the range of surface crust features. If you notice I used multiple meteorites to show a range of possible mixtures. I think the surface is not homogenous. More likely the higher iron content is near the poles where it is cooler, and the one with more granite is more than likely from the equator where things get "hot" and stay hot from the electrical activity.

It is only reasonable to assume they have intrepreted the spectra correctly *IF* and only if it jives with logic and direct obseration.

If the background was "hot" as they imply, it too would be "lit", not dark. In fact if it's hotter than the coronal loops, we should see something in Yohkoh images. We do not. We do see some evidence in the Yohkoh overlay that the coronal loops that are already hot, pick up additional heat in the corona, but the base of the coronal loops begins underneath the photosophere. In fact in all gas models I've ever read, the heated coronal loops always originate under the photosphere. Here we see direct evidence of it. The loops come through the cooler photosphere and extend into the corona where they pick up additional, or simply glow hotter with the density change. In either case, the blue background of that image must be the photosphere, not the corona. Even if it were in the corona, it it were hot, we'd see evidence of it in Yohkoh's images. We do not. All the photons and therefore all the heat are/is concentrated in the coronal loop. The heat comes from the loop that contains superheated plasma.

This whole discussion is going in circles, and over several different threads to boot. I and several others have mentioned this before, but Michael will not take the hint!!!

MICHAEL--YOU NEED TO REFRESH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC PHYSICS AND THEN LEARN ABOUT SOLAR PHYSICS BEFORE YOU COME BACK HERE TO DISCUSS THIS THEORY!!!!!

K, I can't be any more specific than that. I too, now remove myself from further discussions.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I've been studying solar physics my whole life Duane. If I've somehow misrepresented coronal loops and how they get from the photosphere to the corona, perhaps others will take the time to actually explain what I misrepsented based on standard gas model theory. In this case it does not matter one iota whether we look at it from a gas model persective or a solid surface perspective, it's clear that Lockheed botched the explanation. I say that, because I see nothing wrong with the color scheme of showing hot areas in red and cool areas in blue and black. Make no mistake about it however, the blue areas are not emitting photons and they are not hotter than the million degree plasmas within the coronal loop. Even in gas model theory, their coloring explanation is wrong. I can't help that fact Duane. I'd love to ignore it, but it's too important to ignore IMO.

I do however appreciate the fact that you may not want to continue to discuss this since we have had our differences in the past. I was hoping to have bought you a beer by now, or collected one, but alas, I can't find anyone left who can answer our questions about that image.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=36998

Here is one more piece of the puzzle that suggest that solar moss activity, and coronal loops originate "below" the surface of the photosphere.

When you add this evidence to Dr. Kosovichev's evidence of a transitional layer at 4800km, and the satellite image evidence all together, it sure would seem like the transitional layer must be underneath and not above the visible photosphere. It matches the heat signatures from the satellite images, it matches the helisciesmic evidence, it matches the ESA findings related to the source of the solar wind. All of this evidence suggests that the transitional layer is not located in the corona, but underneath the visible photosphere.

http://eu.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=6497

In this article the talk about seeing this event begin very far beneath the visible photosphere. Within a half a day, the would see changes to the photosphere itself.