I'm interested in getting critical reviews of the theoretical work that I've been doing in astrophysics, and especially in solar theory.
By "critical" I don't mean a pedagogic smack-down. If I wanted my work to be graded on its consistency with the existing literature, I'd take a class and hand it in as a term paper to see what I got back. Rather, I'm speaking of a (true) scientific analysis. I definitely disagree with a lot of the mainstream literature, but I think that I can back up my contentions.
My reason for messaging you is because I liked a lot of your comments on one of the "Peratt" threads. EM figures centrally in my work, but it has nothing in common with plasma cosmology or with the Electric Universe. I think that their work is as flawed as the mainstream's. So I agree that the Universe is electric, but the Electric Universe folks will be the last to find out.
Anyway, if you care to have a look, here's the link:
Yeah, the sun which has a hot internal core should follow ideal gas law: no.
The sun has at least two layers of different charges, because something keep them apart: no.
Assertions about unsupported densities that lead to a liquid state of plasma, what?
"There's really only one possibility here â to get more mass packed into a tighter space, we have to go with matter that has already been compacted beyond the Coulomb barrier and fused into heavier elements that no longer need pressure to stay at that density.'"
Sorry Charles this is nonsense.
Oh no! Not an iron sun.
'13-07-20, 13:47 catsmate1
Hmmm, another IT PM trying to teach physicists how physics really works.
He also wants to fix global warming (which he seems to be on the fence about) by burning vast amounts of sulphur, using a sulphur enriched aviation fuel.
'13-07-20, 13:59 Perpetual Student
Alas, where is Mozina when we need his wisdom?
'13-07-20, 19:12 ben m
I don't have time to read more of this, but the first thing I clicked on is already dull and regrettable nonsense. The discussion of the core of the sUn makes the nonsensical statement that there's something particularly difficult about compressing a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material---there's not, this is a routine process in shock-physics laboratories---and supports this with a completely nonsensical non-physics-based pseudo-calculation, taking some random atomic force numbers and multiplying them by numbers of atoms to get "large-looking" numbers which ther author claims correspond to the "large" incompressiblity of solids and liquids.
Nope. There are people on this planet who understand the forces need to compress a plasma; they use equations they use that actually include Coulomb's Law, not vague attempts to scale from cold atomic hydrogen; their equations are correct and yours are incorrect.
'13-07-20, 20:04 dasmiller
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Alas, where is Mozina when we need his wisdom?
There's certainly something very mozinish about it, although Chandler and Mozina come to somewhat different conclusions.
Interestingly, Chandler also has a software business, albeit in a different state.
'13-07-21, 02:46 catsmate1
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Alas, where is Mozina when we need his wisdom?
Originally Posted by dasmiller
There's certainly something very mozinish about it, although Chandler and Mozina come to somewhat different conclusions.
Interestingly, Chandler also has a software business, albeit in a different state.
Mozina is quoted extensively on Chandler's site.
It's curious how many IT people (without science qualifications or with a very basic level) are pontificating on advanced physics.
'13-07-21, 04:39 Stomatopoda
Originally Posted by catsmate1
It's curious how many IT people (without science qualifications or with a very basic level) are pontificating on advanced physics.
D-K
'13-07-21, 07:13 blutoski
Originally Posted by catsmate1
Mozina is quoted extensively on Chandler's site.
It's curious how many IT people (without science qualifications or with a very basic level) are pontificating on advanced physics.
I've been trying to locate any objective numbers about this. My personal impression is that there's a disproportionately high attraction of technical graduates (engineering, computer science, nursing) who propose revolutionary scientific models but are over their heads.
However: I'm willing to admit that this impression may be incorrect and just a confirmation bias.
Is there any independent research?
'13-07-21, 12:36 catsmate1
Originally Posted by blutoski
I've been trying to locate any objective numbers about this. My personal impression is that there's a disproportionately high attraction of technical graduates (engineering, computer science, nursing) who propose revolutionary scientific models but are over their heads.
However: I'm willing to admit that this impression may be incorrect and just a confirmation bias.
Is there any independent research?
The 'Salem Hypothesis' was formulated at talk.origins years ago based on the relative abundance of engineers amongst creationists; "In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree"
I believe you're on the correct track; those whose study is on the periphery of science (engineers, PMs, IT pros) seem to have acquired enough knowledge to be wrong, but not enough to know that they're wrong. A variation on Dunning-Kreuger perhaps?
Proper research seems to be rare though two sociologists (Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog) published a paper on "Engineers of Jihad", looking at the proportionate over-representation of engineers alone (out of scientists, physicians, and engineers) amongst graduates in violent Islamist groups in both realms, which may be relevant.
Anyway if anyone is interested in another physics crackpot try William Newtspeare and his 'Squish Theory'.
'13-07-22, 07:06 ben m
Read two more pages of the site. More details: the author doesn't like quantum mechanics for some reason, so attempts to cite a crackpot-friendly theory of black body radiation before allowing himself to discuss radiation from the Sun.
The author attempts to draw a picture in which gravity causes the Sun to separate into charged layers; he then draws pictures of gravity forcing matter to move through around between layers, and labels the motion as an energy source. Sorry, no, those statements are opposites. You just drew a perpetual motion machine, in which gravity pulls the an towards an equilibrium, but also gravity drives energy-releasing excursions from that equilibrium. Nope. Nonsense.
Dancing David, do you think the author plans to show up in this thread?
'13-07-22, 08:02 dasmiller
Originally Posted by ben m
More details: the author doesn't like quantum mechanics for some reason,
Oh, hey, I can understand that part - the math is just awful, the fundamentals are all counterintuitive, etc etc. If it didn't have such marvelous predictive power . . .
'13-07-22, 09:59 Dancing David
Originally Posted by ben m
Read two more pages of the site. More details: the author doesn't like quantum mechanics for some reason, so attempts to cite a crackpot-friendly theory of black body radiation before allowing himself to discuss radiation from the Sun.
The author attempts to draw a picture in which gravity causes the Sun to separate into charged layers; he then draws pictures of gravity forcing matter to move through around between layers, and labels the motion as an energy source. Sorry, no, those statements are opposites. You just drew a perpetual motion machine, in which gravity pulls the an towards an equilibrium, but also gravity drives energy-releasing excursions from that equilibrium. Nope. Nonsense.
Dancing David, do you think the author plans to show up in this thread?
I doubt it, something about pedantic rejection.
Oops
"By "critical" I don't mean a pedagogic smack-down."
'13-07-22, 20:01 Charles Chandler
Here is an introduction to the solar model that I'm developing, posted here to encourage critical reviews.
----------------------------------------
The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. For example, we can tell from spectroscopy that at its visible surface, the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of heavier elements. Figure 1 shows the surface of the Sun on the limb, and in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen. Notice that the edge of the photosphere is very distinct, topped by the tenuous plasma in the chromosphere and transition region.1 Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm.
Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 à ), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes.
...
Edited by LashL:Â
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.
'13-07-23, 00:58 edd
You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying what determines opacity in the widely accepted model.
'13-07-23, 01:00 tusenfem
OMG another electric sun guy who does not know that line-of-sight integration is important at calculating optical depth. Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts.
ETA: Seems Mr. Edd had the same insight (or should that be throughsight in this case?)
'13-07-23, 01:11 Skwinty
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts.
I suspect that Mr Chandler is quite familiar with Mr Mozina.
There seems to a be a lot of dismissing involved in Charles' model. For that reason alone I'm skeptical (and having read the Mozina threads previously, the large lump of deja vu is not exactly generating any warm fuzzy feelings towards this theory, either).
'13-07-23, 02:46 Belz...
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Here is an introduction to the solar model that I'm developing, posted here to encourage critical reviews.
----------------------------------------
The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations.
Another Gallileo !
Good luck overturning the conclusions of all those idiot scientists.
So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
'13-07-23, 03:56 catsmate1
Mr. Chandler, your "theory" has been discussed in this thread. The consensus, with which I fully agree, is that it's complete rubbish.
Your website is littered with unsupported assertions, or those "supported" only by other physics crackpots (such as Mozina). Specifically your attempt to avoid quantum mechanics (a well proven branch of physics) using some crackpottery derived from black body radiation, your gravity based separation of charge layers in the sun (which, if your "mechanism" were followed, would lead to perpetual motion) and your nonsensical assertions about the difficulty of compression plasmas to greater than liquid density, which appears to be based on numerology.
My personal take is: another IT PM trying to teach physicists how physics really works.
'13-07-23, 04:35 paiute
Originally Posted by catsmate1
...another IT PM trying to teach physicists how physics really works.
Reminds me of:
ÂIn Paris they just simply opened their eyes and stared when we spoke to them in French! We never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language.Â
â Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad
Yes. Dancing David didn't tell me that he started this thread, and I didn't realize that this was targeted at me just from the title. (I wouldn't ordinarily think that the topic of one of my PMs would show up as a thread on a forum.) So I started another thread. Since this thread starts with a PM, followed by a bunch of pot-shots, while the other starts with a bunch of my own assertions, followed by pot-shots where some of the people are actually aiming I think that we could have a more focused discussion there.
'13-07-23, 08:00 Charles Chandler
Originally Posted by edd
You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying what determines opacity in the widely accepted model.
Originally Posted by tusenfem
OMG another electric sun guy who does not know that line-of-sight integration is important at calculating optical depth.
Ummm, how does line-of-sight integration result in a distinct limb? A density gradient is just that — it's a gradient, and the opacity/luminosity should be directly proportional to the density of the plasma (i.e., "like headlights in the fog").
To get a distinct limb in a smooth density gradient, you really need to say that some sort of threshold is being crossed, where plasma above this precise density is opaque/luminous, and plasma below that density is not. Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons. But that would put the transparency on the inside of the Sun, where it's hotter, not on the outside. So I don't understand how the "widely accepted model" actually accounts for the observations.
Furthermore, I'm not asserting that the density gradient is non-Newtonian just on the basis of opacity. The second paragraph of the OP calls attention to the hydrodynamic behaviors of the photosphere (e.g., s-waves) that would not be possible in a smooth density gradient. (Another example is the hydrodynamics of photospheric granules.)
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts.
While I'm very familiar with Mozina's work, we agree on little, and your dismissals of him aren't going to work on me, due to the radical differences in our models.
Originally Posted by Kid Eager
There seems to a be a lot of dismissing involved in Charles' model. For that reason alone I'm skeptical (and having read the Mozina threads previously, the large lump of deja vu is not exactly generating any warm fuzzy feelings towards this theory, either).
And that seems to be the fallacy of consensus, plus the fallacy of association. This makes me skeptical of your capacity for rigorous reasoning, and I will waste little time responding to such comments. Sorry.
Originally Posted by Dancing David
So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
There isn't a fixed limit — it varies with temperature. At room temperature, hydrogen becomes incompressible at roughly 70 kg/m3. At 6000 K, the limit is something like 600 kg/m3. If the solar density gradient was Newtonian (i.e., if the Coulomb barrier wasn't a factor), the first limit would be hit at about 0.85 Râ, and the second would be hit at about 0.55 Râ. If forces other than gravity are compressing the plasma, these limits are hit closer to the surface.
Originally Posted by catsmate1
...your gravity based separation of charge layers in the sun (which, if your "mechanism" were followed, would lead to perpetual motion)...
In what sense? I'm saying that there is a force feedback loop, involving gravity and the electric force. Are you thinking that a force feedback loop is the same as a perpetual motion machine?
'13-07-23, 08:34 Captain_Swoop
Where's the Math?
'13-07-23, 09:24 sol invictus
Charles, it seems you are making two logically distinct claims:
(1) Standard solar models cannot explain observations of the sun. Specifically, you think limb darkening indicates the existence of a sharp transition in density that cannot be explained by standard physics.
(2) Your model can successfully account for these observations, while not conflicting with anything else.
Is that correct? If so, it might be useful to focus on one or the other.
For example, take (1). You seem to think the standard solar model is the ideal gas law plus gravity. Is that right?
'13-07-23, 09:28 DeiRenDopa
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Quote:
So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
There isn't a fixed limit — it varies with temperature. At room temperature, hydrogen becomes incompressible at roughly 70 kg/m3. At 6000 K, the limit is something like 600 kg/m3. If the solar density gradient was Newtonian (i.e., if the Coulomb barrier wasn't a factor), the first limit would be hit at about 0.85 Râ, and the second would be hit at about 0.55 Râ. If forces other than gravity are compressing the plasma, these limits are hit closer to the surface.
I can see assertions - statements by you, CC - but no data. Nor any evidence.
In one of his posts, ben m referred to experiments done with shocks, in which the density of hydrogen was far greater than either of the values you mentioned. Are you familiar with this work?
In an H-bomb, the hydrogen (whether ordinary, deuterium, tritium or some mixture) is compressed by the A-bomb trigger. This process is - obviously - well-understood. What densities does the hydrogen reach, in such a bomb?
One kind of the 'controlled fusion' experiments involves blasting pellets of hydrogen with intense lasers, from all sides simultaneously. One goal is to compress the hydrogen. In such experiments, what densities have been achieved?
My guess - and it's only a guess at this stage - is that you were aware of these things, but never investigated them, as part of a sanity check of one of the key parts of your idea. If so, why not?
'13-07-23, 09:54 DeiRenDopa
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Quote:
You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying what determines opacity in the widely accepted model.
Quote:
OMG another electric sun guy who does not know that line-of-sight integration is important at calculating optical depth.
Ummm, how does line-of-sight integration result in a distinct limb? A density gradient is just that — it's a gradient, and the opacity/luminosity should be directly proportional to the density of the plasma (i.e., "like headlights in the fog").
To get a distinct limb in a smooth density gradient, you really need to say that some sort of threshold is being crossed, where plasma above this precise density is opaque/luminous, and plasma below that density is not. Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons. But that would put the transparency on the inside of the Sun, where it's hotter, not on the outside. So I don't understand how the "widely accepted model" actually accounts for the observations.
Furthermore, I'm not asserting that the density gradient is non-Newtonian just on the basis of opacity. The second paragraph of the OP calls attention to the hydrodynamic behaviors of the photosphere (e.g., s-waves) that would not be possible in a smooth density gradient. (Another example is the hydrodynamics of photospheric granules.)
What standard astrophysics textbooks did you read, to ensure that you had a good understanding of the mainstream explanation/description of the solar limb (including limb darkening), opacity, and the density/temperature/pressure/composition profile of the Sun?
In light of what's in those standard textbooks, how, ummm, accurate would you say your characterization is? More specifically, can you share with us some of the work you did, to try to "understand how the "widely accepted model" actually accounts for the observations"?
'13-07-23, 10:28 phunk
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Ummm, how does line-of-sight integration result in a distinct limb? A density gradient is just that — it's a gradient, and the opacity/luminosity should be directly proportional to the density of the plasma (i.e., "like headlights in the fog").
The sun is a 1.4 million km wide sphere. When you look at edge of the limb, you're looking across the top of thousands of miles of plasma. If you look just slightly "deeper" than the edge, you're looking through thousands of miles of plasma. This makes the limb gradient appear significantly sharper than it would if you could look at a cross section.
'13-07-23, 12:20 Charles Chandler
OK, so the two threads have been merged, which is good, but now I guess I have to go back and respond to the questions on this thread.
Originally Posted by Dancing David
Yeah, the sun which has a hot internal core should follow ideal gas law: no.
Then you disagree with Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, author of the standard model. That's OK — so do I. What is your reasoning?
Originally Posted by Dancing David
The sun has at least two layers of different charges, because something keep them apart: no.
Actually, I'm saying that the Sun has 5 layers (3 positive and 2 negative), as current-free double-layers (CFDLs). The charge separation mechanism is compressive ionization, which in this case is a function of gravity. In a perfectly quiet Sun, they would be true CFDLs, but anything that disrupts the pressure will alter the ionization, and thus drive electric currents.
Originally Posted by Dancing David
Assertions about unsupported densities that lead to a liquid state of plasma, what?
It's not exactly liquid. "Supercritical fluid" is more accurate.
Originally Posted by Dancing David
"There's really only one possibility here  to get more mass packed into a tighter space, we have to go with matter that has already been compacted beyond the Coulomb barrier and fused into heavier elements that no longer need pressure to stay at that density." Sorry Charles this is nonsense.
The Dalsgaard model doesn't take the Coulomb barrier into account, which means that the density due just to the force of gravity is grossly overestimated. That begs the question of how so much mass can be packed into that volume, to get a density of 1408 kg/m3. There are few possibilities — a heavy-element model is one of them. A force feedback loop between gravity and the electric force is another, and I employ this also. But layers of heavy elements also account for the helioseismic boundaries inside the Sun (i.e., core, radiative zone, and convective zone). The "hydrogen fusion furnace" model cannot account for these. So I'm going with heavy elements.
He also wants to fix global warming (which he seems to be on the fence about) by burning vast amounts of sulphur, using a sulphur enriched aviation fuel.
This is OT, but just for the record, I'm actually saying that "global dimming" (as it is called) via "ice-house gases" (as they are called) would certainly have an effect, but sulfur in the stratosphere depletes the ozone layer, which would probably be a bad idea. Misquoting me serves no useful purpose.
Originally Posted by ben m
The discussion of the core of the sUn makes the nonsensical statement that there's something particularly difficult about compressing a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material---there's not, this is a routine process in shock-physics laboratories...
In a shock wave, the instantaneous pressures are enormous, but in the Sun, we're talking about static pressures. That takes force. How much force? Could gravity do the job? No.
Originally Posted by ben m
...and supports this with a completely nonsensical non-physics-based pseudo-calculation, taking some random atomic force numbers and multiplying them by numbers of atoms to get "large-looking" numbers which ther author claims correspond to the "large" incompressiblity of solids and liquids. Nope. There are people on this planet who understand the forces need to compress a plasma; they use equations they use that actually include Coulomb's Law, not vague attempts to scale from cold atomic hydrogen; their equations are correct and yours are incorrect.
Such people have yet to inform Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, author of the standard model, who still uses just the ideal gas laws. But I'd love to see those formulas, so please post a link. Thanks!
Originally Posted by catsmate1
Proper research seems to be rare though two sociologists (Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog) published a paper on "Engineers of Jihad", looking at the proportionate over-representation of engineers alone (out of scientists, physicians, and engineers) amongst graduates in violent Islamist groups in both realms, which may be relevant.
Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Shame on you.
Originally Posted by ben m
The author doesn't like quantum mechanics for some reason, so attempts to cite a crackpot-friendly theory of black body radiation before allowing himself to discuss radiation from the Sun.
It isn't my fault that the standard model doesn't identify the physical forces responsible for black-body radiation.
Originally Posted by ben m
The author attempts to draw a picture in which gravity causes the Sun to separate into charged layers; he then draws pictures of gravity forcing matter to move through around between layers, and labels the motion as an energy source. Sorry, no, those statements are opposites. You just drew a perpetual motion machine, in which gravity pulls the an towards an equilibrium, but also gravity drives energy-releasing excursions from that equilibrium. Nope. Nonsense.
In the bolded words, I "think" that you're referring to the proposed s-waves deep in the convective zone, as described in the Heat section. If so, gravity causes the stratification, but inertial forces set up the s-waves. I do say that the s-waves are self-perpetuating (at least at the equator). But to call it a perpetual motion machine wouldn't be correct. All of the heat generated within the Sun eventually radiates out into space, leaving the Sun with a net loss of potential energy.
Originally Posted by dasmiller
Oh, hey, I can understand that part - the math is just awful, the fundamentals are all counterintuitive, etc etc. If it didn't have such marvelous predictive power...
Really?
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop
Where's the Math?
See Calculations for the math and programming code. The biggest part of it is the finite element analysis engine that I'm developing. Asserting a force feedback loop involving gravity, hydrostatic pressure, and EM forces makes it a 4th order tensor, which I guess is why no one who has proposed such things has ever done it before. Then, if you throw in a mix of heavy elements, it starts to look like it's all over the top. Still, I "think" that something can be accomplished. I'm going with FEA for its conceptual transparency, and so that I can query the model at specific points to get values without having to do anything fancy. You can find the description and code for that project here.
Originally Posted by sol invictus
You think limb darkening indicates the existence of a sharp transition in density that cannot be explained by standard physics.
No, it isn't limb darkening that indicates a sharp transition — it's the fact that there's a limb at all. By Newtonian standards, it should be just a fuzzy fall-off.
Originally Posted by sol invictus
You seem to think the standard solar model is the ideal gas law plus gravity. Is that right?
Yes, the standard model of the Sun's density gradient (i.e., the Dalsgaard model) is the ideal gas law plus gravity.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
I can see assertions - statements by you, CC - but no data. Nor any evidence.
Ummm, is the solar limb evidence of something? I think that it is.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
In an H-bomb, the hydrogen (whether ordinary, deuterium, tritium or some mixture) is compressed by the A-bomb trigger. This process is - obviously - well-understood. What densities does the hydrogen reach, in such a bomb?
I don't know — I don't do bombs. Only scientists and terrorists do bombs, and I am neither. Maybe catsmate1 knows somebody.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
My guess - and it's only a guess at this stage - is that you were aware of these things, but never investigated them, as part of a sanity check of one of the key parts of your idea. If so, why not?
Instead of guessing that I didn't do my homework, and asking me why I didn't, you can either 1) defend the standard model, on scientific grounds, or 2) refute the assertions in my model, again on scientific grounds.
Originally Posted by phunk
The sun is a 1.4 million km wide sphere. When you look at edge of the limb, you're looking across the top of thousands of miles of plasma. If you look just slightly "deeper" than the edge, you're looking through thousands of miles of plasma. This makes the limb gradient appear significantly sharper than it would if you could look at a cross section.
No, you don't understand. In a smooth gradient, the opacity should increase smoothly. Sure, opacity is a linear function of the amount of opaque matter in question, and if you look at the geometry of how a line of sight intersects a sphere, at & below the surface, the opacity increases faster than the density at the tangent. But that still doesn't give you a distinct edge.
Furthermore, the hydrodynamic behaviors of the photosphere (s-waves, Benard cells, etc.) prove that there is a sharp change in density that isn't supposed to be there, independent of optics.
'13-07-23, 12:49 DeiRenDopa
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
OK, so the two threads have been merged, which is good, but now I guess I have to go back and respond to the questions on this thread.
Good to see that you're taking this seriously.
Quote:
In a shock wave, the instantaneous pressures are enormous, but in the Sun, we're talking about static pressures. That takes force. How much force? Could gravity do the job? No.
Oh no! Will it be necessary to engage in a lengthy series of posts on the difference between pressure and force?
In any case, how about a follow-on? Something like: "Could gravity do the job? No, and here are the calculations to support my claim"?
Quote:
No, it isn't limb darkening that indicates a sharp transition — it's the fact that there's a limb at all. By Newtonian standards, it should be just a fuzzy fall-off.
Which is, of course, just what you see. As is described in the relevant textbooks. Can you list for us, please, which textbooks you read?
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I can see assertions - statements by you, CC - but no data. Nor any evidence.
Ummm, is the solar limb evidence of something? I think that it is.
Earlier you mentioned "the fallacy of consensus, plus the fallacy of association", yet here you seem to have given us a perfect example of the Mozina tactic of not actually answering the question asked!
Here's where it began (DD's question): So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
And here's your answer: There isn't a fixed limit — it varies with temperature. At room temperature, hydrogen becomes incompressible at roughly 70 kg/m3. At 6000 K, the limit is something like 600 kg/m3. If the solar density gradient was Newtonian (i.e., if the Coulomb barrier wasn't a factor), the first limit would be hit at about 0.85 Râ, and the second would be hit at about 0.55 Râ. If forces other than gravity are compressing the plasma, these limits are hit closer to the surface.
So, how is "is the solar limb evidence of something? I think that it is" evidence you used to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
In an H-bomb, the hydrogen (whether ordinary, deuterium, tritium or some mixture) is compressed by the A-bomb trigger. This process is - obviously - well-understood. What densities does the hydrogen reach, in such a bomb?
I don't know — I don't do bombs. Only scientists and terrorists do bombs, and I am neither. Maybe catsmate1 knows somebody.
Oh dear, two for two, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
My guess - and it's only a guess at this stage - is that you were aware of these things, but never investigated them, as part of a sanity check of one of the key parts of your idea. If so, why not?
Instead of guessing that I didn't do my homework, and asking me why I didn't, you can either 1) defend the standard model, on scientific grounds, or 2) refute the assertions in my model, again on scientific grounds.
Let me see if I understand you: evidence that hydrogen can be compressed to a density greater than 600 kg/m3 is sufficient to "refute the assertions in my model, [...] on scientific grounds"? Particularly if it's 'as observed in the lab' evidence.
Oh, and as for defending the standard model: if you can't (or won't) tell us what standard textbooks you read (and - obviously - misunderstood), I'll sit that discussion out thank you. Willful ignorance is not pretty.
'13-07-23, 12:53 phunk
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
No, you don't understand. In a smooth gradient, the opacity should increase smoothly. Sure, opacity is a linear function of the amount of opaque matter in question, and if you look at the geometry of how a line of sight intersects a sphere, at & below the surface, the opacity increases faster than the density at the tangent. But that still doesn't give you a distinct edge.
Could you show a picture of this distinct edge?
'13-07-23, 13:18 catsmate1
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Shame on you.
Poisoning the Well fallacy.
'13-07-23, 13:46 godless dave
Hydrogen bombs involve compression of hydrogen, a phenomenon that seems to be a critical component of your ideas. I would think you'd want to read up on it. Actually, I'd think you would have already read up on it before presenting your ideas to others.
'13-07-23, 14:42 edd
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons.
Ummm.... that. That might be one of your problems.
'13-07-23, 16:01 Charles Chandler
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
In any case, how about a follow-on? Something like: "Could gravity do the job? No, and here are the calculations to support my claim"?
I don't have to. The Dalsgaard model gets the density right, but it only acknowledges the ideal gas laws. Given the model temperatures, those are the densities you're going to get. But if you add in the Coulomb force (or any force at all that is repulsive) you're... wait for it... not going to get the same densities, because the repulsion is going to disperse the matter. You could lower the temperature to get the target densities, but then the energy budget wouldn't work. So no matter what you do to try to fix the standard model, it breaks some other aspect of it.
Now, how much will the matter be dispersed by the Coulomb force? That's a legitimate question, and one that I'm currently working on. I know for a fact that I won't be able to prove the answer, because it isn't a one-dimensional problem. To know the Coulomb force, you need to know the elements in question, and the degree of ionization. If you knew those, you could estimate the force, and then derive the internal temperatures from that, since all of the remaining repulsion will come from hydrostatic pressure. For that matter, if you knew the temps, you could find the hydrostatic pressure, and then the Coulomb force would be whatever was left over. But if the existing model temps return an exact solution only taking the ideal gas laws into account, and you know that the Coulomb force is a respectable force, then you already know that the temps are wrong, which by extension means that the energy budget is wrong. This means that there aren't enough 'knowns' to find the single 'unknown', and thus proof is beyond reach. Nevertheless, we can still come up with a best-fit model, that respects the relevant laws of physics, and accounts for all of the observations. The FEA engine that I'm developing will give me the ability to jiggle the variables, to determine the ranges within which exact solutions are possible. That might be the best that we'll ever be able to achieve, without there ever being a way of obtaining direct evidence from inside the Sun. So I'm currently working on the boundary conditions for each variable.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Which is, of course, just what you see.
No, a fuzzy fall-off of luminosity is not what we see at all. To also answer phunk's question, take a look. Note that in other wavelengths, the edge is even more distinct.
Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 à ), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
As is described in the relevant textbooks. Can you list for us, please, which textbooks you read?
I didn't read textbooks — I read journals, because they're more current. So here are the citations that I'm using so far. Note that this isn't just a reading list — all of these are cited in the text somewhere. So I had a specific reason for citing all of these. Now I suppose you'll ask me if I read all of them, and if not, why not?
Anders, E.; Grevesse, N., 1989: Abundances of the elements: Meteoritic and solar. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53 (1): 197-214
Arp, H.; Fulton, C.; Carosati, D., 2013: Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies.
Aspden, H., 2003: The Physics of Creation. Southampton, England: Sabberton Publications
Basu, S.; Antia, H. M., 2003: Changes in Solar Dynamics from 1995 to 2002. The Astrophysical Journal, 585: 553-565
Beck, J. G., 2000: A comparison of differential rotation measurements  (Invited Review). Solar Physics, 191 (1): 47
Beck, R., 2000: Magnetic fields in normal galaxies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358 (1767): 777-796
Bergman, D. L., 2001: The Universe in Motion. Common Sense Science, 4 (3)
Bhatnagar, S., 2001: Radio Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Pune, India
Birkeland, K., 1908: The Norwegian aurora polaris expedition, 1902-1903. H. Aschehoug & Co.
Bohr, N., 1913: On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules. Philosophical Magazine, 26: 1-25
Borrero, J. M.; Ichimoto, K., 2011: Magnetic Structure of Sunspots. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8
Borrero, J. M.; Lites, B. W.; Solanki, S. K., 2008: Evidence of magnetic field wrapping around penumbral filaments. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 481 (1): L13-L16
Brusa, M.; Gilli, R.; Comastri, A., 2005: The Iron Line Background. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 621: L5-L8
Caflisch, R. et al., 2008: Accelerated Monte Carlo Methods for Coulomb Collisions. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 53 (14)
Cameron, A. G., 1988: The World Book Encyclopedia. Field Enterprises Educational Corp.
Carlqvist, P., 1988: Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation. Astrophysics and Space Science, 144 (1-2): 73-84
Chandrasekhar, S., 1960: The stability of non-dissipative Couette flow in hydromagnetics. Proceedings of the NAS-USA, 46 (2):253-257
Charbonneau, P. et al., 1999: Helioseismic Constraints on the Structure of the Solar Tachocline. The Astrophysical Journal, 527: 445-460
Compton, K. T.; Langmuir, I., 1930: Electrical Discharges in Gases. Part I. Survey of Fundamental Processes. Reviews of Modern Physics, 2 (2): 123-242
Cranmer, S. R., 2009: Testing and Refining Models of Slow Solar Wind Acceleration. SHINE 2009 Workshop
de Felice, F., 1971: On the gravitational field acting as an optical medium. General Relativity and Gravitation, 2: 347-357
Delgado-Serrano, R. et al., 2010: How was the Hubble sequence 6 Gyr ago? Astronomy and Astrophysics, 509 (A78): 1-11
Dobbin, R. A.; Fulton, C. C., 1859: The Aurora Borealis. Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, 120 (19,654): pg. 2, col. 2
Dowdye, E. H., Jr., 2007: Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328: 186
Eddington, A. S., 1920: Space, time and gravitation: an outline of the general relativity theory. Cambridge University Press
Einstein, A., 1905: Ãber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik, 322 (6): 132-148
Fälthammar, C., 2004: Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas  a brief review. GeofÃsica Internacional, 43 (2): 225-239
Fernie, J. D., 1967: The intrinsic colors of classical Cepheids in the galaxy. Astronomical Journal, 72 (3): 422-428
Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M., 1970: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley
Fleck, B., 2001: SOHOÂs latest surprise: Gas near the Sun heading the wrong way.
Foukal, P.; Hinata, S., 1991: Electric fields in the solar atmosphere: A review. Solar Physics, 132 (2): 307-334
Freedman, R. A.; Kaufmann, W. J., 2008: Universe, Chapter 16 (8th Edition). W. H. Freeman & Company, 414-428
Fröhlich, C.; Lean, J., 2004: Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms. Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12: 273-320
Gaensler, B. M., 1999: Morphological Studies of Extragalactic Supernova Remnants. Perspectives on Radio Astronomy: Science with Large Antenna Arrays, 271-274
Gizon, L.; Birch, A. C., 2005: Local Helioseismology. Living Reviews in Solar Physics
Gizon, L.; Duvall, T. L., Jr.; Schou, J., 2003: Wave-like properties of solar supergranulation. Nature, 421: 43-44
Gurevich, A. V. et al., 2012: Strong Flux of Low-Energy Neutrons Produced by Thunderstorms. Physical Review Letters, 108 (12): 125001
Hanasoge, S.; Duvall Jr, T. L.; Sreenivasan, K. R., 2012: Anomalously Weak Solar Convection. arxiv.org, 1206.3173
Hantzsche, E., 2003: Mysteries of the Arc Cathode Spot: A Retrospective Glance. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (5): 799-808
Hathaway, D. H., 2012: Photospheric Features. NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
Henning, T.; Li, H., 2011: The alignment of molecular cloud magnetic fields with the spiral arms in M33. Nature, 479 (7374): 499-501
Hung, C.; Ebeling, H., 2012: Galaxy Alignments in Very X-ray Luminous Clusters at z>0.5. arXiv, 1201.2727v1
Iglesias, C. A.; Rogers, F. J., 1996: Updated Opal Opacities. The Astrophysical Journal, 464: 943
Israelevich, P. L. et al., 2001: MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 376: 288-291
Johnson, R., 2013: The Nature of the Sun Revisited. Electric Universe Conference (Albuquerque)
Karlsson, K. G., 1971: Possible Discretization of Quasar Redshifts. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13: 333
Kennewell, J.; McDonald, A., 2012: The Solar Photosphere. IPS Radio and Space Services
Kirchhoff, G., 1860: Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht. Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 109: 275-301
Koester, D.; Chanmugam, G., 1990: Physics of white dwarf stars. Reports on Progress in Physics, 53 (7): 837-915
Korzennik, S.; Thompson, M. J.; Toomre, J., 1997: Internal rotation and dynamics of the Sun from GONG data. Proceedings of the 181st Symposium of the International Astronomical Union
Koshiba, M., 2003: Nobel Lecture: Birth of neutrino astrophysics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75 (3): 1011-1020
Kosovichev, A. G., 2002: Subsurface structure of sunspots. Astronomische Nachrichten, 323 (3â4): 186-191
Kosovichev, A. G.; Zharkova, V. V., 1998: X-ray flare sparks quake inside Sun. Nature, 393: 317-318
Kronberg, P. P.; E. Lovelace, R. V.; Lapenta, G.; Colgate, S. A., 2011: Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet. arXiv, 1106.1397v3
Kuhn, J. R.; Bush, R.; Emilio, M.; Scholl, I. F., 2012: The Precise Solar Shape and Its Variability. Science, 337 (6102): 1638-1640
Kuhn, T. S., 1987: Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Langmuir, I.; Compton, K. T., 1931: Electrical Discharges in Gases Part II. Fundamental Phenomena in Electrical Discharges. Reviews of Modern Physics, 3 (2): 191-257
Lanza, A. F., 2007: Angular momentum conservation and torsional oscillations in the Sun and solar-like stars. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 471 (3): 1011-1022
Lee, T. N., 1974: Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena. Astrophysical Journal, 190: 467-479
Li, K. L. et al., 2012: A Luminous Be+White Dwarf Supersoft Source in the Wing of the SMC: MAXI J0158-744. arxiv, 1207.5023
Lin, C. C.; Shu, F. H., 1964: On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal, 140: 646
Lin, R., 2005: A New Kind of Solar Storm. NASA
Livio, M.; Soker, N., 2001: The "Twin Jet" Planetary Nebula M2-9. The Astrophysical Journal, 552: 685-691
Lockman, F. J.; Free, N. L.; Shields, J. C., 2012: The Neutral Hydrogen Bridge between M31 and M33. arXiv, 1205.5235
Lucas, C. W., 2003: A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Part 4: Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect. Foundations of Science, 6 (3)
Manuel, O.; Kamat, S. A.; Mozina, M., 2006: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 69 (11): 1847-1856
May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879
McCook, G. P.; Sion, E. M., 1999: A Catalog of Spectroscopically Identified White Dwarfs. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 121: 1-130
McDonald, A. B.; Klein, J. R.; Wark, D. L., 2003: Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem. Scientific American, 288 (4): 40-49
Michaud, G.; Richard, O.; Richer, J.; VandenBerg, D. A., 2004: Models for Solar Abundance Stars with Gravitational Settling and Radiative Accelerations: Application to M67 and NGC 188. The Astrophysical Journal, 606: 452-465
Miesch, M. S., 2005: Large-Scale Dynamics of the Convection Zone and Tachocline. Living Reviews in Solar Physics
Mozina, M.; Ratcliffe, H.; Manuel, O., 2006: Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle. Journal of Fusion Energy, 25: 107-114
Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306
Narlikar, J. V.; Arp, H. C., 1997: Time Dilation in the Supernova Light Curve and the Variable Mass Hypothesis. The Astrophysical Journal, 482: L119-L120
Neckel, H.; Labs, D., 1994: Solar limb darkening 1986-1990 (lambda lambda 303 to 1099nm). Solar Physics, 153: 91-114
Nemmen, R. S. et al., 2012: A Universal Scaling for the Energetics of Relativistic Jets from Black Hole Systems. Science, 338 (6113): 1445-1448
NesluÂan, L., 2001: On the global electrostatic charge of stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 372: 913-915
Peratt, A. L.; Verschuur, G. L., 2000: Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: a speculation on the physical mechanism for their existence. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 28 (6): 2122-2127
Peretto, N. et al., 2012: The Pipe Nebula as seen with Herschel: Formation of filamentary structures by large-scale compression?
Phillips, J. L. et al., 1995: Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (23): 3301-3304
Picone, J. M.; E. Hedin, A.; Drob, D. P.; Aikin, A. C., 2002: NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107 (A12): 1468
Planck, M.; Masius, M., 1914: The theory of heat radiation. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston's Son & Co
Pojoga, S.; Huang, T. S., 2003: On the sudden disappearances of solar filaments and their relationship with coronal mass ejections. Advances in Space Research, 32 (12): 2641-2646
Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419
Prialnik, D., 2000: An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution. Cambridge University Press
Rezzolla, L. et al., 2011: The missing link: Merging neutron stars naturally produce jet-like structures and can power short Gamma-Ray Bursts. arXiv, 1101.4298
Richardson, J. D., 2000: The Solar Wind: Probing the Heliosphere with Multiple Spacecraft. COSPAR Colloquium on The Outer Heliosphere: The Next Frontier, Potsdam
Rieutord, M.; Rincon, F., 2010: The Sun's Supergranulation. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7
Robitaille, P. M., 2003: On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (6): 1263-1267
Robitaille, P. M., 2007: A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. Progress in Physics, 1: 70-81
Robitaille, P. M., 2008: Blackbody Radiation and the Carbon Particle. Progress in Physics, 3: 36-55
Robitaille, P. M., 2009: Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck's Formulation and Boltzman's Constant. Progress in Physics, 4: 14-16
Robitaille, P. M., 2011: Stellar Opacity: The Achilles' Heel of the Gaseous Sun. Progress in Physics, 3: 93-99
Rosenberg, H., 1910: On the Relation Between Brightness and Spectral Type in the Pleiades. Astronomische Nachrichten, 186 (4445): 71
Ryutova, M. P.; Frank, Z.; Hagenaar, H.; Berger, T., 2011: Flares Producing Well-organized Post-flare Arcades (Slinkies) Have Early Precursors. The Astrophysical Journal, 733 (2): 125
Ryutova, M., 2006: Coupling effects throughout the solar atmosphere: 2. Model of energetically open circuit. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111 (A9): A09102
Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100
Sheeley, N. R., Jr.; Wang, Y., 2001: Coronal Inflows and Sector Magnetism. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 562 (1): L107
Shukurov, A.; Moss, D., 1996: Turbulence and magnetic fields in elliptical galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 279 (1): 229-239
Simon, G. W.; Leighton, R. B., 1964: Velocity Fields in the Solar Atmosphere. III. Large-Scale Motions, the Chromospheric Network, and Magnetic Fields. The Astrophysical Journal, 140: 1120-1149
Smid, T., 2010: Gravitational Energy of the Sun explains "Coronal Heating".
Soru-Escaut, I.; Mouradian, Z., 1990: Sudden disappearance and reappearance of solar filaments by heating and cooling. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 230: 474-478
Swartz, M. et al., 1999: The SERTSÂ97 Rocket Experiment to Study Activity on the Sun: Flight 36.167ÂGS on 1997 November 18. NASA, 1999-208640
Taliashvili, L.; Mouradian, Z.; Páez, J., 2010: Dynamic disappearance of prominences and their geoeffectiveness. GeofÃsica Internacional, 47 (3)
Thomas, H. et al., 1994: Plasma Crystal: Coulomb Crystallization in a Dusty Plasma. Physical Review Letters, 73: 652-655
Trujillo, I.; Carretero, C.; Patiri, S. G., 2006: Detection of the effect of cosmological large-scale structure on the orientation of galaxies. arxiv, L111-L114
Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413
Verschuur, G. L., 1995: Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch. Astrophysics and Space Science, 227 (1-2): 187-198
Veselovsky, I., 2008: Universal and important physical process in space plasmas: electric charge separation. 37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 37: 3332
Vorontsov, S. V. et al., 2002: Helioseismic Measurement of Solar Torsional Oscillations. Science, 296 (5565): 101-103
Watanabe, K. et al., 2010: G-band and Hard X-ray Emissions of the 2006 December 14 flare observed by Hinode/SOT and RHESSI. arXiv.org, 1004.4259
Wien, W.; Lummer, O., 1895: Methode zur Prüfung des Strahlungsgesetzes absolut schwarzer Körper. Annalen der Physik, 292 (11): 451-456
Williams, J. P.; Blitz, L.; McKee, C. F., 1999: The Structure and Evolution of Molecular Clouds: from Clumps to Cores to the IMF. arXiv:astro-ph
Willson, R. C.; Hudson, H. S., 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature, 351 (6321): 42-44
Zhao, J.; Kosovichev, A. G., 2004: Torsional Oscillation, Meridional Flows, and Vorticity Inferred in the Upper Convection Zone of the Sun by Time-Distance Helioseismology. The Astrophysical Journal, 603: 776
Zhao, Q.; Coult, J.; Pollack, G. H., 2010: Long-range attraction in aqueous colloidal suspensions. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation, 7376: 73761C1-73761C13
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
So, how is "is the solar limb evidence of something? I think that it is" evidence you used to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
It wasn't. If you want a specific answer, you have to ask a specific question. Your generalized comment, "I can see assertions - statements by you, CC - but no data. Nor any evidence." didn't refer to the preceding quote.
As concerns the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma, the figures I quoted are commonly known, and I suspect that Dancing David knew that, which is why he didn't question them.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Let me see if I understand you: evidence that hydrogen can be compressed to a density greater than 600 kg/m3 is sufficient to "refute the assertions in my model, [...] on scientific grounds"? Particularly if it's 'as observed in the lab' evidence.
In what sense does that refute my model? You need to make clearer statements if you want me to directly address them.
Originally Posted by godless dave
Hydrogen bombs involve compression hydrogen, a phenomenon that seems to be a critical component of your ideas. I would think you'd want to read up on it. Actually, I'd think you would have already read up on it before presenting your ideas to others.
Isn't all of that literature classified? If it isn't, it should be. I didn't check, but I doubt I'd find specific pressures, energy densities, etc.
Originally Posted by Charles
Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons.
Originally Posted by edd
Ummm.... that. That might be one of your problems.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not clairvoyant.
'13-07-23, 16:30 DeiRenDopa
Just this one for now ...
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
[...]
Originally Posted by you
Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons.
Originally Posted by edd
Ummm.... that. That might be one of your problems.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not clairvoyant.
Hmm, maybe if you spent some time reading a standard textbook, or even learning the basic physics used in the relevant parts of them, you might not need to be clairvoyant?
Let's take the Earth's atmosphere; it's pretty transparent, down to sea level, in the 'optical', but quite opaque in the UV and in the IR (with windows of varying transparency and width). Why is that? If you were to heat it up, how would that change? Would the 'windows' change, both in transparency and (frequency/wavelength) width? Why? What basic physics explains these changes?
If the Sun's 'metals' (i.e. all elements other than H and He) were to be removed - in the standard model - how would the Sun be different?
Given standard models of the density and temperature profile of the Sun's photosphere (and its element composition), how does the opacity change? In the standard model.
'13-07-23, 16:40 DeiRenDopa
OK, another quickie ...
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
No, a fuzzy fall-off of luminosity is not what we see at all. To also answer phunk's question, take a look. Note that in other wavelengths, the edge is even more distinct.
Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 à ), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes.
Ah yes, the old Mozina trick, "look at the picture!!"
No scale, no numbers, no calculations, just a bald assertion. Michael would be proud of you.
OK, so I'm going to guess: one pixel in that image is ~10k km, so 'the edge' is ~>30k km thick (in the image its fuzziness extends over ~3+ pixels). Yep, that's really sharp; razor sharp in fact.
'13-07-23, 16:46 DeiRenDopa
Doh! How could I have missed this one!
Originally Posted by Charles Chandler
Originally Posted by me
So, how is "is the solar limb evidence of something? I think that it is" evidence you used to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
It wasn't. If you want a specific answer, you have to ask a specific question.
OK, so far you're doing MM really proud (or as another, now-no-longer-posting-here member would say, "no need to be coy!"). But I'll play along for a bit longer ...
CC, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
I think that we could have a more focused discussion there.
Oh no! Will it be necessary to engage in a lengthy series of posts on the difference between pressure and force?Quote:
