|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2006 : 19:31:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Unless you're just too lazy to go through the effort, if you want to find out who at LMSAL created those images and get any kind of description of the specifications involved, ask them yourself.
I *did* go to all the trouble of figuring out who was the likely creator of the image, and I did ask them myself. So did Dr. Manuel, although Dr. Manuel was much more diplomatic about it. We both got exactly the same answer. "I dunno".
So inspite of your insistence it was all my fault, you can't get any better answers from them than I can. Got it.
quote:
quote:
Then Dave must be a lying idiot too eh? He agreed with me that areas marked in red are actually hotter, not cooler than the blue regions.
No I think it's much more likely, particularly considering Dave W. has not displayed a propensity for lying, as you regularly have, that he may have simply misunderstood the caption or description of those images. It's also highly possible, since you refuse to communicate clearly and concisely, that you either miscommunicated something to Dave W. or misunderstood one of his replies to you. But to cut through your renewed attempt at distraction and your continued avoidance of proving your crazy fantasy, it wouldn't matter if you and Dave W. were in agreement about that particular set of images and graphs. It still wouldn't provide any legitimate, quantitative support for your delusion.
So Dave and I are evidently both "delusional", when we say that the red areas (and brightest areas of the original image) are in fact the hottest regions. Even though this single filter sees things from 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin, the bright areas are cooler just because you say so? Evidently Dave is just easily swayed by something I said? Get real.
quote:
"Flying debris" could occur anywhere within the coronal region of the Sun. Where there might be flying debris, or to use the more accurate description, ejected material, doesn't indicate any kind of direct association with a solid surface.
It indicates that the ejected material is evidently heavier, and more dense than the stuff that isn't ejected and isn't simply "absorbed" in the corona. Of course to eject something, you need to something to eject, and someplace to eject it from and someplace for it to go afterwards.
quote:
Unless you can prove otherwise, that ejected material is likely to be plasma.
So what? Even by my definition it's probably plasma GeeMack. The key here is it is *heavier* plasma. More *dense* plasma than the plasma around it. That's why it falls back to the layer from whence it came.
You have "dense plasma" that ejected from somewhere, though you don't define where that somewhere is, and you don't have a clue how that material came to be heavier than the material it's falling through. You don't have a clue why it can reflect light but that can't be a whole dense layer that reflects light. As I said, you're a walking talking contradition, and you can't keep you story straight. You pull out stuff from a website that is loaded with misinformation from page one and act like it's "gospel" even though you can't explain anything beyond what the description says, or anything about the material that is ejected.
quote:
You're the one claiming the replies from LMSAL and NASA are wrong.
Dave agreed with me too as it relates to the labeling of the heat signature image.
quote:
We are all in agreement.
No you are not GeeMack. Dave agrees with me on some very *key* issues, whereas you are stuck in the mud.
quote:
If you think everyone else is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, but you won't take on that burden.
There is no "proof" of anything GeeMack, only "evidence" that favors a position. As I explained, "proof" is a very subjective choice based on subjectively weighing evidence. I can only give you evidence. It's not up to me to prove anything to you. You are actually rather irrelevant in fact.
quote:
I've given you a way to at least begin to show that what you're seeing might be given more consideration as being solid physical things, but you've refused to do the work necessary.
Oh bologna! You tossed out a handwave "optical illusion", and then contradicted yourself by claiming we could actualy "see" ejected dense plasma. You haven't a clue what you are looking at in RD images or how to explain any of the details of an RD image without contradicting yourself. You have a handwave "optical illusion" and that's the extend of the "effort" you made at satellite image interpretation. Yawn.
quote:
Until you can explain how certain angles of light at certain intensities shone against certain topologies might indicate that those images are showing any kind of genuine structures, your claim of running difference images supporting your crazy notion of a solid surfaced Sun remains completely unsupported.
Bologna again. If there is "ejected" material to be seen, then the source of the ejected material may also be seen in these images. You want to claim "some" things are "real" in this image but everything else is an optical illusion. That is pure BS!
I'm not avoiding any of your questions GeeMack, I'm just bored as hell of you personally and all your stupid, useless, denial oriented insults. It's pointless even talking to you. Birkeland *only* experimented with a solid metal sphere, but somehow a solar model with a metal crust isn't a Birkeland model. Like I said, it's utterly pointless to deal with all the denials and handwaves you hide behind. You refuse to get real with anything.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, you wouldn't deal with any of the serious details of the image. The only detail you really dealt with (dust) blew your whole story out of the water. There are no optical illusions as i |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/11/2006 19:44:31 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 21:21:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
No I think it's much more likely, particularly considering Dave W. has not displayed a propensity for lying, as you regularly have, that he may have simply misunderstood the caption or description of those images. It's also highly possible, since you refuse to communicate clearly and concisely, that you either miscommunicated something to Dave W. or misunderstood one of his replies to you. But to cut through your renewed attempt at distraction and your continued avoidance of proving your crazy fantasy, it wouldn't matter if you and Dave W. were in agreement about that particular set of images and graphs. It still wouldn't provide any legitimate, quantitative support for your delusion.
Actually, I just realized it was my problem. When discussing that image, I'd forgotten about the cooling effect the magnetic fields have (which I'd mentioned both before and after the discussion of the Lockheed red/blue image). Lockheed's description is correct, the plasma surrounding the loops must be hotter than the loops themselves, otherwise the loops wouldn't emit photons indicative of (for example) FeXII.
(And that "tornado" image Mozina posted pages ago is a nice example of what happens when the plasma is in the process of heating up: as photons are absorbed by ions - kicking away electrons - we see shadows at the same wavelengths.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 21:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I *did* go to all the trouble of figuring out who was the likely creator of the image, and I did ask them myself. So did Dr. Manuel, although Dr. Manuel was much more diplomatic about it. We both got exactly the same answer. "I dunno".
So inspite of your insistence it was all my fault, you can't get any better answers from them than I can. Got it.
They gave me a better answer. The things that you mistakenly perceive to be structure in those running difference graphs aren't structure. You fool, you've been duped by an optical illusion. 
quote:
So Dave and I are evidently both "delusional", when we say that the red areas (and brightest areas of the original image) are in fact the hottest regions. Even though this single filter sees things from 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin, the bright areas are cooler just because you say so? Evidently Dave is just easily swayed by something I said? Get real.
I already said, but clearly you are just too stupid to have understood, it doesn't make any difference if you and Dave W. agree on that point. It doesn't prove your silly fantasy. And Dave W. hasn't acted delusional, like you do, so I have not, and certainly would not suggest he is. If you'd knock off your consistent effort to put words in other people's mouths, people would be less inclined to perceive you as such an asshole. Well, a little less inclined. 
quote:
It indicates that the ejected material is evidently heavier, and more dense than the stuff that isn't ejected and isn't simply "absorbed" in the corona. Of course to eject something, you need to something to eject, and someplace to eject it from and someplace for it to go afterwards.
[...]
So what? Even by my definition it's probably plasma GeeMack. The key here is it is *heavier* plasma. More *dense* plasma than the plasma around it. That's why it falls back to the layer from whence it came.
You have "dense plasma" that ejected from somewhere, though you don't define where that somewhere is, and you don't have a clue how that material came to be heavier than the material it's falling through. You don't have a clue why it can reflect light but that can't be a whole dense layer that reflects light. As I said, you're a walking talking contradition, and you can't keep you story straight. You pull out stuff from a website that is loaded with misinformation from page one and act like it's "gospel" even though you can't explain anything beyond what the description says, or anything about the material that is ejected.
I didn't say it reflected light, you did. So again you're trying to distort what I've said. You're a lying asshole, but you undoubtedly already know that. You haven't provided any evidence for the location of the origin of that plasma, other than to say, based on your faith, that you believe it comes from some solid surface which you have yet to even define. Oh, and plasma being ejected in a CME happens all the time. We know it happens. Even if the Sun is made from pig spit it happens. We can see it. It's not magic and it certainly doesn't prove your lunatic fantasy that the Sun has a solid surface.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Me...
You're the one claiming the replies from LMSAL and NASA are wrong.
Dave agreed with me too as it relates to the labeling of the heat signature image.
My comment was in regards to your ignorant misunderstanding of the fact that running difference images don't show any structure. But you've proven yourself to be a completely incompetent communicator, so the fact that it got past you doesn't surprise me in the least.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Me...
We are all in agreement.
No you are not GeeMack. Dave agrees with me on some very *key* issues, whereas you are stuck in the mud.
You're lying again. That comment was also regarding your ignorant misunderstanding about running difference images. You'd do well to take a remedial reading class at your local high school. I'm not using vocabulary or phrasing beyond the comprehension level of a typical eighth grader, yet somehow you still seem to just not get it.
quote:
There is no "proof" of anything GeeMack, only "evidence" that favors a position. As I explained, "proof" is a very subjective choice based on subjectively weighing evidence. I can only give you evidence. It's not up to me to prove anything to you. You are actually rather irrelevant in fact.
So? Obviously your "evidence that favors a position" doesn't have legs. You have yet to provide a single iota of anything anyone here considers legitimate scientific "evidence" that the Sun has a solid surface. And when someone points that out to you, all you can do is cry like a little girl. If you had the scientific balls to back your claim you'd stop all the bawling and start making your case. Over 600 postings and you haven't even begun.
quote:
Oh bologna! You tossed out a handwave "optical illusion", and then contradicted yourself by claiming we could actualy "see" ejected dense plasma. You haven't a clue what you are looking at in RD images or how to explain any of the details of an RD image without contradicting yourself. You have a handwave "optical illusion" and that's the extend of the "effort" you made at satellite image interpretation. Yawn.
[...]
Bologna again. If there is "ejected" material to be seen, then the source of the ejected material may also be seen in these images. You want to claim "some" things are "real" in this image but everything else is an optical illusion. That is pure BS!
I'm not avoiding any of your questions GeeMack, I'm just bored as hell of you personally and all your stupid, useless, denial oriented insults. It's pointless even talking to you. Birkeland *only* experimented with a solid metal sphere, but somehow a solar model with a metal crust isn't a Birkeland model. Like I said, it's utterly pointless to deal with all the denials and handwaves you hide behind. You refuse to get real with anything.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, you wouldn't deal with any of the serious details of the image. The only detail you really dealt with (dust) blew your whole story out of the water. There are no optical illusions as it relates to seeing heavier particles reflect the light from that arcs. There are |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 03/11/2006 21:38:14 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 17:25:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
They gave me a better answer.
In spite of your previous claims about my attitude being an issue, Lockheed gave you the exact same run around that they gave me, and they gave you the exact same run around that they gave Dr. Manuel.
Lockheed never told you who created the image, the duration of the image, the cadence between shots, or how all the patterns remain the same. They never told you any useful specifics about this image, what timelines are involved, or the cadence between shots that was used in creating that image. They didn't tell you a single useful thing about that image that you didn't read on their website.
Quite ironically, the one thing you latched onto from their website blew your whole story about "optical illusions" out of the water. We can see moving objects that go through this image provided that any objects actually move through the image. We therefore can also see which objects *don't* move. Not only that, but the blowout from that event should have caused all sorts of surface movements from shockwaves if this layer was made of plasma, just as it ejected that heavy plasma that we see in the first place! Equal and opposite reactions should occur and would quite significantly influence plasma that is presumably 15 times (or more) lighter than aerogel.
After all your huffing and puffing and childish rantings and ravings are stripped from your post, what is left? Well, we quickly discover that you intentionally dodged and completely sidestepped the key point I made, namely that for this plasma to be "ejected" and be seen, it had to be "ejected" from something *more dense* (something mass separated) than the plasma that it is rising and falling through. This ejected material isn't reabsorbed into the light plasma, instead it falls back to *the surface* from whence it came. You utterly ignored the density difference and the fact we could "see it" and it was not "optical illusion" in any way. You totally and completely dodged the key point I made. Talk about lame and childish responses using sophmoric and rediculace ad hominems for cover.
Just as I predicted, you never once seriously addressed or explained the patterns we see in these images. You never explained how these patterns could come to exist *without* uniform movement. You have't explained what their cause is *without* uniform movement. You won't address that uniform movement issue with a 10 foot pole. It's all an "optical illusion" handwave and pure smoke and mirrors.
You refuse to acknowledge that Manuel's isotope analysis shows clear patterns of mass separation throughout the solar atmosphere which *fully* supports the mass separation aspects of my model. In fact his work is supported by this very image where we see rising and falling heavy 'ejected material' that goes up, and also comes back down.
You refuse to acknowledge that Birkeland *only* experimented with solid metallic spheres (they were actually silver coated spheres and alumimum spheres by the way) and you completely ignored the fact that I've described the surface of the sun as a complex alloy and rocky "surface", not simply an "iron" one. The point is the both involved a electrified elecromagnetic sphere of *solids*. The point I was making was that Birkeland *only* worked with *solid metallic* spheres. You completely ignored that point entirely and instead fixated on trivia to devise a stupid ad hominem.
You refuse to acknowledge that the TRACE 171A filter see a *range* of temperatures from about 160,000K to 20 Million K. Instead you intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented the capabilities of this filter by millions of degrees.
Your whole arguement is based on pure and utter denial covered up by pathetic childish and rude comments like this:
quote:
Again, fuck you, you lying piece of shit.
Grow up GeeMack. I'm utterly bored of your childish and pathetic bullying tactics and your incessant need to feed your ego in every single post. These childish tactics aren't going to work on me, not now, not ever. Get it?
Your ego posturing is really very sad. It's highly childish and downright boring at this point. Your incessant need to feed your frail little ego at other people's expense is growing quite obvious to everyone else but you at this point. Evidently your hungry little ego needs a regular "fix" to make itself feel better at other people's expense. You'll go to any lengths to get that fix regardless of how rude you have to get, or how childish you have to get, or how far down into the gutter you have to go. You're no scientist GeeMack, you are just a master of sleeze and verbal abuse.
Find someone else to pester for awhile great Oz of the ego. Your show is *totally* busted as far as I'm concerned. Just as I figured, you ignored every important detail of the image, from the patterns to the implications of mass separation in your ejected material, to the shading changes on the patterns, to the peeling we see on the right.
At this point GeeMack you might as well save your childish insults and blatent verbal abuse. You're just wasting your childish time and your childish breath as far as I'm concerned oh great master of verbal abuse. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 17:34:23 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:32:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
In spite of your previous claims about my attitude being an issue, Lockheed gave you the exact same run around that they gave me, and they gave you the exact same run around that they gave Dr. Manuel.
Lockheed never told you who created the image, the duration of the image, the cadence between shots, or how all the patterns remain the same. They never told you any useful specifics about this image, what timelines are involved, or the cadence between shots that was used in creating that image. They didn't tell you a single useful thing about that image that you didn't read on their website.
I actually learned a handful of very interesting things from the people at LMSAL, about the TRACE program, the kinds of images they acquire, and the kinds of processing they apply to those images to make them into more usable data for their research. And unless you can read minds, your claim that you know anything about what sort of information they may have given me is just another bald faced lie. The part of my conversation most pertinent to this discussion was the part I posted in regards your false claim of running difference images showing structure.
Another particularly relevant thing I've learned in my communications with LMSAL is that no TRACE imagery shows anything within thousands of kilometers of your fantasy solid surface at 0.995Rsun. And since all you've got behind your claim is, well, your faith, I think we'll go with the folks who have some real science behind their answers. Unless you can bring in some science to back your claim, if you can't get past your silly notion that looking at pictures constitutes an quantitative approach to science, all you'll ever amount to is a crackpot.
quote:
Quite ironically, the one thing you latched onto from their website blew your whole story about "optical illusions" out of the water. We can see moving objects that go through this image provided that any objects actually move through the image. We therefore can also see which objects *don't* move. Not only that, but the blowout from that event should have caused all sorts of surface movements from shockwaves if this layer was made of plasma, just as it ejected that heavy plasma that we see in the first place! Equal and opposite reactions should occur and would quite significantly influence plasma that is presumably 15 times (or more) lighter than aerogel.
Anything static or stationary in a running difference image would appear as a neutral gray and not be seen at all. Consequently the movement of ejected plasma will actually appear in a running difference image, because its location changes between one original image and the next. The general movement of the CME was steadily towards the right, a few pixels at a time, which can be clearly seen and measured in the original images. This created several areas which, in the running difference graph, show lighter pixels towards the right and darker pixels towards the left. The plasma which was ejected at significantly greater speeds and in different directions than the main areas of the CME, shows up as what you're calling dust. There's no mystery here, and nothing inconsistent in that explanation at all. But there are no static, structural elements in that video. If there were any, you wouldn't see them.
Oh, and again, don't forget I've given you a method to show that what you think is structure might actually meet the necessary criteria of light and shadow, height and depth. But once again I notice you'd rather lie and cry and accuse rather than thank me for pointing you in the right direction, getting off your lazy ass, and actually trying to support your nutty delusion.
quote:
After all your huffing and puffing and childish rantings and ravings are stripped from your post, what is left? Well, we quickly discover that you intentionally dodged and completely sidestepped the key point I made, namely that for this plasma to be "ejected" and be seen, it had to be "ejected" from something *more dense* (something mass separated) than the plasma that it is rising and falling through. This ejected material isn't reabsorbed into the light plasma, instead it falls back to *the surface* from whence it came. You utterly ignored the density difference and the fact we could "see it" and it was not "optical illusion" in any way. You totally and completely dodged the key point I made. Talk about lame and childish responses using sophmoric and rediculace ad hominems for cover.
Just as I predicted, you never once seriously addressed or explained the patterns we see in these images. You never explained how these patterns could come to exist *without* uniform movement. You have't explained what their cause is *without* uniform movement. You won't address that uniform movement issue with a 10 foot pole. It's all an "optical illusion" handwave and pure smoke and mirrors.
See above for the explanation, I mean, since after all, you're completely unwilling and/or incapable of explaining your own fantasy. And about your continued accusation that I'm denying anything, fuck you again, prick. Clearly I'm not. Do your own work you lazy, mouthy jerk.
quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that Manuel's isotope analysis shows clear patterns of mass separation throughout the solar atmosphere which *fully* supports the mass separation aspects of my model. In fact his work is supported by this very image where we see rising and falling heavy 'ejected material' that goes up, and also comes back down.
Holy smokes, you admit over and over again how your golden calf doesn't prove a solid surface on the Sun, but you act like you've got your lips pressed so tightly against Doc Manuel's rear end you just can't leave the irrelevant crap alone.
quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that Birkeland *only* experimented with solid metallic spheres (they were actually silver coated spheres and alumimum spheres by the way) and you completely ignored the fact that I've described the surface of the sun as a complex alloy and rocky "surface", not simply an "iron" one. The point is the both involved a electrified elecromagnetic sphere of *solids*. The point I was making was that Birkeland *only* worked with *solid metallic* spheres. You completely ignored that point entirely and instead fixated on trivia to devise a stupid ad hominem.
Kristian Birkeland used hollow brass spheres with electromagnets mounted inside, mostly to simulate Earth. He used those terrellas primarily to demonstrate his notions about the magnetic principles involved in the Aurora Borealis. If you believe he thought the Earth had a solid brass surface, you're not just just a nut case with a crazy fantasy, you're certifiably insane. If you believe he actually thought a spiral nebula was made of a brass |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 03/12/2006 19:41:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:51:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, I just realized it was my problem. When discussing that image, I'd forgotten about the cooling effect the magnetic fields have (which I'd mentioned both before and after the discussion of the Lockheed red/blue image). Lockheed's description is correct, the plasma surrounding the loops must be hotter than the loops themselves, otherwise the loops wouldn't emit photons indicative of (for example) FeXII.
Well, hot plasma is cetainly going to emit these kinds of high energy ion photons, and very hot plasma may emit ions photons from all sorts of Fe ions. Keep in mind that this filter is sensitive to temperatures from 160,000K to 20 Million Kelvin and sees photons from FeIX, to Calcium, to FeXX.
let's start with a similar image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
Here is the original image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034.gif
Here is the processed "colorized" image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T195171_990809_2300_clip.gif
Which is hotter, the blue regions or the green ones?
Now how can the brightest regions of this image be cooler than the darkest regions? How would magnetic fields in any way affect the bright areas of the original image, making them brighter and somehow cooler as well? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 19:55:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Which is hotter, the blue regions or the green ones?
I'm done answering your questions only to be ignored. I'll just keep asking questions which you can ignore again.
How is it that the "neon layer" in your model, given the convection and "boiling" which we can see going on, still manages to keep mass-separated (right down to the isotope) the 20Ne, 21Ne and 22Ne within it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:14:41 [Permalink]
|
Oh for crying out loud! You're *still* dodging the density issue of the ejected material GeeMack? How predictable you've become.
The only thing you seem to be for is hurling huge volumes of childish verbal abuse at those who won't agree with you. You certainly won't tackle any of the scientific issues that matter or the issues that are actually relevant to this discussion. Instead you handwave it all away as an optical illusion and then you immediately whip out a special pleading number about how "some" of the things we see are "real", but everything else is an "optical illusion". Get real!
The only way that you can count on the light areas having shadows to the left is to know for sure that the light areas will always move to the right in a uniform way. The only way for patterns to exist as you describe them is for there to be *uniform* rotation in static lighting conditions. The patterns in these images remains constant, while the lighting conditions on the patterns change dramatically. Therefore none of your answers add up, and you've never addressed the uniform movement necessary to prop up your handwave of an arguement in the first place! In fact you seem to be in complete denial of that fact as well.
I really see no point in doing another point by point retort with a child who's only goal seems to be ego gratification at all costs. Your gutter slumming really isn't my style, and your childish antics and ad hominems aren't fooling anyone but you. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 20:27:56 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:20:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Which is hotter, the blue regions or the green ones?
I'm done answering your questions only to be ignored. I'll just keep asking questions which you can ignore again.
How is it that the "neon layer" in your model, given the convection and "boiling" which we can see going on, still manages to keep mass-separated (right down to the isotope) the 20Ne, 21Ne and 22Ne within it?
Every single time I ask you a relevant question on this topic, or the RD topic, and ask you to epxlain these details, you refuse to give your "interpretation".
These are the kinds of direct observations that matter, the kinds of observations that tell us fact from bogus theory. Lockheed states matter of factly on their website:
quote:
The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.
If the temperature does not vary much along aloop, and lies around 1 million degrees along most of its length, the gas should sag into the bottom of the loops under the influence of gravity. Consequently, the gas density should decrease by a factor of almost three every 50,000 km; the emission (which scales as the square of the density) should drop by that factor every 25,000 km.
Why don't the loops sag, and grow dim with height as predicted by a gravitational models? What keeps the loops heated in a uniform way, and how in the world can the blue regions of this image be hotter than the green areas of this image? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 20:26:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How is it that the "neon layer" in your model, given the convection and "boiling" which we can see going on, still manages to keep mass-separated (right down to the isotope) the 20Ne, 21Ne and 22Ne within it?
Only the top part of the neon layers need "boil" in the first place. Secondly, I've consistantly stated that there is a "mixture" of elements in all the layers, particularly since the cornal loops come out of the photosphere, and push huge arcs through all the layers of the solar atmosphere, and hydrogen gas flows through all the layers. Even the motion of these "events" rearranges things in the short term. The sun is not a motionless object. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 21:00:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Every single time I ask you a relevant question on this topic, or the RD topic, and ask you to epxlain these details, you refuse to give your "interpretation".
Simply not true, and if you'd been reading my posts (like you didn't even bother to read my post at the bottom of page 11 of this thread), you'd know it. All you do by claiming that I haven't provided my interpretation (ever, no less!), is insult me more than you already had in the last two days combined, Michael. If you can't be bothered to read my posts, just say so instead of hypocritically patronizing me with nonsense about "relevancy" or sticking to some point or other.quote:
Only the top part of the neon layers need "boil" in the first place.
What mechanism makes the top portion "boil" while the rest does not? So is it just the 20Ne which is boiling? Or maybe it's not even all of that one isotope?quote:
Secondly, I've consistantly stated that there is a "mixture" of elements in all the layers...
Yes, and the point was that your model is mass separated "right down to the isotope" and not mass separated, both at the same time. What instrument(s) aboard STEREO will be able to look for evidence of mass separation by isotope, and where should it look?
Next question: If I've got a non-conductive sphere full of a mixed plasma (say it's a helium/iron 50/50 mix, one isotope each) halfway between two galaxies (so gravity is nullified), with a cathode at one point and an anode at the polar opposite point, and I run a charge large enough to cause a spark between cathode and anode, in which direction will the mass separation take place? Heavy atoms towards the cathode? Heavy atoms towards the anode? Atoms arranged in radial layers (by atomic weight) parallel to the direction of current (which will be closest to the spark, the heavist or lightest)? Some other arrangement? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 21:24:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
All you do by claiming that I haven't provided my interpretation (ever, no less!), is insult me more than you already had in the last two days combined, Michael.
You are a bit touchy if you ask me. I've done my best *not* to insult you while keeping the topic focused on the heat. It's a bit like the question "where's the heat". That is a critical issue as it relates to satellite interpretation, since the light source is following the heat source, particularly in the 171A images where the light is more often than not being emitted from the arcs themselves.
I've tried to allow you the latitude to change your opinions, and not gloat or freak out depending on which side you happen to take in the moment.
This however is a key issue IMO. I thought we were making at least *some* progress, but evidently you've had second thoughts. I'm simply trying to go back to the key points and the key images that demonstrate my case, and I'm trying to focus on the issues that I feel are the most important at the moment, namely the heat source and the light source. We can't get far if we can't agree to the light source and the heat source in these most basic of images.
These images are really not that different from Yohkoh images by the way. Both satellites show that the heat and the high energy light comes from the arcs/loops. As with the other colorized red/green/blue image, the blue areas certainly cannot be "hotter" than the loops since the loops are emitting the most light at the highest intensity. I'm simply looking at this from a side angle and asking you your opinion about whether the green areas or the blue areas are the hottest. It's a very simple and straight forward question and it is key to resolving this issue of heat distrubition in the solar atmosphere. Yohkoh and Trace Geos and Rhessi images all show that the high energy emissions and the high temperature concentrations are associated with the loops, not the whole solar atmosophere. We have to resolve this issue, since it relates to the light source of all the other images.
quote:
If you can't be bothered to read my posts, just say so instead of hypocritically patronizing me with nonsense about "relevancy" or sticking to some point or other.
That is not so. I read every word of all of your posts, even if I don't respond to each item in the order you'd like to tackle it.
quote:
What mechanism makes the top portion "boil" while the rest does not?
The hydrogen gas (and other plasmas) that comes from the surface below is what makes the top part "boil". All the layers experience this movement of lighter plasmas through the heavier plasmas, and the neon layer is no different.
quote:
So is it just the 20Ne which is boiling? Or maybe it's not even all of that one isotope?
There's no guarantee that every layer will be 100% mass separated. In fact the layers themselves have other lighter elements flowing through them, more specifically, they all contain hydrogen gas on its way to the surface.
quote:
Yes, and the point was that your model is mass separated "right down to the isotope" and not mass separated, both at the same time. What instrument(s) aboard STEREO will be able to look for evidence of mass separation by isotope, and where should it look?
STEREO's SECCHI instrument will not be able to assertain the location of the individual isotopes, but it should be able to assertain the location of individual *layers* of elements, and it certainly should be able to tell us if the base of these arcs originate above or below the photosophere.
quote:
Next question: If I've got a non-conductive sphere full of a mixed plasma (say it's a helium/iron 50/50 mix, one isotope each) halfway between two galaxies (so gravity is nullified), with a cathode at one point and an anode at the polar opposite point, and I run a charge large enough to cause a spark between cathode and anode, in which direction will the mass separation take place? Heavy atoms towards the cathode? Heavy atoms towards the anode? Atoms arranged in radial layers (by atomic weight) parallel to the direction of current (which will be closest to the spark, the heavist or lightest)? Some other arrangement?
You mean to tell me that you won't tell me which color "blue or green" represents the coolest temperatures in this single image, but you expect me to play along with questions from left field like this? How in the world does that question relate to the image I asked you about? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 21:34:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 21:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are a bit touchy if you ask me.
And you're a jerk if you ask me.quote:
I read every word of all of your posts, even if I don't respond to each item in the order you'd like to tackle it.
That's not the way it looks. What I see is (for example) me describing to you parts of the mechanisms which drive the magnetic field of the Sun in the standard model, and then later being asked by you, "what drives the magnetic field of the Sun in the standard model?" (not those exact words, of course). It's happened so many times under so many topics that I choose to no longer participate on your terms.
By the way, we had no agreement on anything other than that there are electrons in plasmas and that the top of the photosphere moves a lot. Oh, and that satellites are capable of taking images of the Sun. Apparently, however, you couldn't even agree with me that the Earth's magnetic field is not caused by sparks crossing the Earth's surface from point to point.quote:
You mean to tell me that you won't tell me which color "blue or green" represents the coolest temperatures in this single image...
That question is unanswerable without more data, anyay.quote:
...but you expect me to play along with questions from left field like this?
It's hardly out of left field. You said fairly recently that plasmas in an electric field will mass separate, this is a follow-up to that.quote:
How in the world does that question relate to the image I asked you about?
It doesn't. I'm asking about your assertion that plasmas in an electric field will mass separate. If you'd prefer to discuss just "the heat" then you go right ahead and do so, but it seems to me that the mass separation issue is even more basic than that. I want to understand the mechanism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 22:05:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Michael:You refuse to acknowledge that the TRACE 171A filter see a *range* of temperatures from about 160,000K to 20 Million K. Instead you intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented the capabilities of this filter by millions of degrees.
I also happen to realize that what appears the brightest through any of those particular filters will be the emissions generally closest to the center of the temperature range the filter was designed to see. That is simple science, yet seems to be completely beyond your capability to understand.
This error on your part warranted a response. This is not "simple science" as you alledge, this is called "oversimplied sience". This 171A filter actually sees a *range of wavelengths* that are emitted by plasma over a wide temperature range from 160,000K up to 20 Million degrees Kelvin. FeXX photons will show up more "brightly" than FeIX ions, provided that there are more FeXX ion photons than FeIX photons. There is no guarantee that the brightest areas of this image will represent FeIX/X photons in the million degree range, calcium photons in the 4 million degree range or FeXX photons in the 20 million degree range or even a combination of all three! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 22:26:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 22:21:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you're a jerk if you ask me.
Fortunately I didn't ask you. :)
quote:
That's not the way it looks. What I see is (for example) me describing to you parts of the mechanisms which drive the magnetic field of the Sun in the standard model, and then later being asked by you, "what drives the magnetic field of the Sun in the standard model?" (not those exact words, of course). It's happened so many times under so many topics that I choose to no longer participate on your terms.
Well, you've made me repeat myself, and give more in depth answers plenty of times as well. You are not alone in feeling that way.
I'm not asking you any trick questions at the moment, or even difficult questions for that matter. I asked you a single question that relates to the heat signature of a standard 171A image. I asked you specifically to identify whether the green region or the blue regions of the processed image represented the areas of greatest temperature. It's really a very straight forward question and it relates directly to the light source in all 171A images.
quote:
By the way, we had no agreement on anything other than that there are electrons in plasmas and that the top of the photosphere moves a lot.
For a while at least, I thought we also agreed on the heat signature of the coronal loops and that the base of the coronal loops, where the 171A images shine the brightest were also the hottest areas of the loop. I recognize your right to change your mind and back again a dozen times if you like, but I can't really proceed on satellite image interpretation with you until we come to some agreement on this point.
quote:
Oh, and that satellites are capable of taking images of the Sun. Apparently, however, you couldn't even agree with me that the Earth's magnetic field is not caused by sparks crossing the Earth's surface from point to point.
You are really amazing at time. You accuse me of something in one paragraph and do it yourself in the next one. I explained myself pretty clearly on this point Dave, and I even took responsibility for any previous confusion. The least you could do is recognize when I agree with you and have explained myself, expecially if you intend to accuse *me* of not listening to *you*.
quote:
That question is unanswerable without more data, anyay.
You have a plethora of other kinds of data to choose from. The Yohkoh SXT images are "better" at answering that question if you ask me since it has a much higher sensitivity to high energy photons than a single filter on TRACE. Yohkoh clearly shows that all the highest temperatures concentrations, and the high energy photons are concentrated in and around the coronal loops. Geos shows the same thing. Rhessi does too, and it agrees with the Yokhoh data that shows gamma rays that are indicative of positron anihilation are present in the footprints of these very large arcs. Positron anihilation is indicative of the highest energy photons we see from the sun, and they occur along the base of the arcs. The neutron capture emissions happen in and around the arcs. The arcs are definitely the hottest things in the solar atmosphere. Period. You can corroborate that statement any number of ways, by any number of various satellite systems. It should not be a complicated question.
quote:
It's hardly out of left field. You said fairly recently that plasmas in an electric field will mass separate, this is a follow-up to that.
It's not related to the two images in question, not the RD image or the heat signature images. It's another of those "what if" things that you seem to want to throw at me instead of discussing things we know exist in reality and we can see with our eyes.
quote:
It doesn't. I'm asking about your assertion that plasmas in an electric field will mass separate. If you'd prefer to discuss just "the heat" then you go right ahead and do so, but it seems to me that the mass separation issue is even more basic than that. I want to understand the mechanism.
I've spend many thread discussing topics you wished to talk about. I'd like to actually focus on the satellite images that brought me to these conclusions so you can do this with me methodically and scientifically. I can't do that if we skip all over the place and we never agree what the light source is in these basic satellite images. I'll be happy to discuss theoretical physics with you when we've actually tackled an image or two that I would like to discuss.
The reason I'm harping on this point is because it's a key issue. I though you and I had already agreed on the heat signatures we see. Evidently you've changed you mind. I certainly respect your right to do that, and in fact I'm hoping you'll do it at least one more time as we discuss the details of these images a bit more. I've seen you give and take on issues, and I trust you'll do the "right thing" but only if we go about this in a logical and methodical manner, but not if we go about this process haphazzardly and we skip all over the place. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 22:34:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
