|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 23:15:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
Then prove I'm a liar GeeMack and answer the questions I asked of you. *Who* created that particular image? Who posted that image to their website and when? *What* is the cadence used between RD images? What is the start time and the end time of the image in question, and exactly which of the raw frames were used to create that particular image? Was the subroutine you posted earlier used to create this particular RD image, and if not, which one *was* used? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/12/2006 23:20:58 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:24:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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'd apologize if I thought I'd ever asked you to repeat yourself without acknowledging that I was asking you to repeat yourself.quote:
I'm not asking you any trick questions at the moment, or even difficult questions for that matter.
No, just an impossible question.quote:
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.
...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.
None of that data answers the question you asked. Instead, I would need to have the original 195A image, as well as the algorithm Lockheed used to map intensity ratios to colors and the algorithm for determining temperature from the color data. Or can you tell me those things?quote:
It's really a very straight forward question and it relates directly to the light source in all 171A images.
A ratio of 171A light intensity to 195A light intensity "relates directly to the light source in all 171A images?" Do tell.quote:
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.
I haven't changed my mind at all, you've simply ignored me when (for example) I've said that the Yohkoh soft x-ray data suggests that the tops of the loops are hotter than the base. The intensity of ion photon emission suggests only that there's a lot of ions cooling down (shedding kinetic energy as photons) in the area.quote:
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*.
I see nothing of the sort. Would you please quote yourself from page 11? I'll apologize as soon as you confirm that you've done what you've said here.quote:
Positron anihilation is indicative of the highest energy photons we see from the sun, and they occur along the base of the arcs.
You've got that precisely backwards. Gamma ray photons are indicative of electron-positron annihilation, which can occur with electrons (and positrons) of any temperature.quote:
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.
None of that answers the question you posed, since it in no way relates to the algorithm which determined the blue and green coloration of that one image.quote:
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.
You could have just answered the question and been done with it, but I see it's more important to you to argue about it. And given what you've written here (and below), it sure looks like you're admitting that you've got no clue as to how an electric field mass separates plasmas, so now I can do nothing but question if they actually do.quote:
I've spend many thread discussing topics you wished to talk about.
As if you weren't demanding that we answer your red herrings and strawmen all the time.quote:
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.
Okay, let's do it scientifically: what is the algorithm used by Lockheed to determine temperature from a ratio of the intensity of light captured by TRACE's 171A and 195A filters?quote:
|
- 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 - 03/13/2006 : 12:47:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd apologize if I thought I'd ever asked you to repeat yourself without acknowledging that I was asking you to repeat yourself.
I'm not asking you to apologize, simply be aware of the fact that sometimes your answers aren't going to be specific enough. Explaining that a magnetic field can occur in a gas model is not the same as explaining how it remains fixed to a specific pixel while the source of the magnetic field is tens if not hundreds of thousands of kilometers away.
quote:
No, just an impossible question.
I find that hard to believe, expecially since you said this earlier:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5620&whichpage=11
quote:
I agreed with you that the coronal loops are the hottest part of the corona days ago.
You also said this a few posts earlier:
quote:
Gee, I've even agreed to that (although you persist in your denial that I have not). Perhaps the image was mislabeled, and the blue should have been coolest, and red hottest.
You agreed with me some time ago that the loops are the hottest part of the image. While we may disagree about which part of the loop is the hottest, I fail to see why you would now have any problem discerning which part of that 171A image is the hottest region. If the loops are teh hottest regions of the corona, then the loops in green *must* be hotter than the blue regions.
I admit I'm a bit confused at this point as to where you stand exactly, but I fail to see how you can expect me to believe that it's an "impossible" question to answer, since you've answered it yourself in the past. I respect the fact you have the right to change your mind at any point, and I support you for being open minded enough to do so regardless of whether it works for or against me in this case. You will however have to admit, that from my perspective (based on what you've said in the past) this did not seem like a tough question to answer, expecially since I asked nothing about the red (brown) zones (yet).
quote:
None of that data answers the question you asked. Instead, I would need to have the original 195A image,
I'm sure we could find it. I predict the light in the 195A image is also concentrated in the arcs.
quote:
as well as the algorithm Lockheed used to map intensity ratios to colors and the algorithm for determining temperature from the color data.
What makes you think an algorithm related to intensities is going to change the fact that the light is concentrated in the arcs in both images? Again, I can see where you might feel how this affects the "base" of the arc issue, but not the arc vs. the corona temp issue.
quote:
A ratio of 171A light intensity to 195A light intensity "relates directly to the light source in all 171A images?"
A heat concentration issue is directly related to a light concentration issue, in *both* the 171A and 295A images. In each case the heat and the light is concentrated in the loop itself.
quote:
I haven't changed my mind at all, you've simply ignored me when (for example) I've said that the Yohkoh soft x-ray data suggests that the tops of the loops are hotter than the base.
That is not what Yohkoh images suggest IMO. Yohkoh sees x-rays once the arc passes through the photosphere and into the corona because less of the x-rays are absorbed by the corona, vs what are absorbed by the photosphere. Even in the composite image I showed you earlier however, Yohkhoh *can* see the base of the arcs, even through the photosphere because of the intensity of the arc at the base. This is also where anihilation occurs. That same paper you cite talks about the Bastille day flare and notes that both satellites see the same event.
quote:
The intensity of ion photon emission suggests only that there's a lot of ions cooling down (shedding kinetic energy as photons) in the area.
In any electrical arc, and any lightning bolt, we see a lot of ions "cooling down" as well, shedding kinetic energy that was created by the flow of electrons through arc. That does not suggest the arc is cool, nor does it suggest the base of the arc is cooler than anywhere else in the arc. There is no one to one correlation between "bright" areas and "cool" areas, in fact it typically works just the opposite, paticularly in any black body calculations we might wish to employ.
quote:
I see nothing of the sort. Would you please quote yourself from page 11?
Certainly:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5675&whichpage=11
quote:
We don't seem to be communicating well on this point IMO. I'm proposing an electromagnetic core as well, one that rotates over a 22 year timeframe. These inner magnetic fields help drive the current flow at the surface, just as you are proposing as well. There isn't really any difference in our models in this way. The main difference is that the "pinpoint" acuracy of this current flow IMO is directly related to the suface structures, not simply the magnetic fields. In other words, higher surfaces will generally be more positively charged that surfaces in the valleys. Current always takes the path of least resistance, and the shortest distance through the crust will be the thinnest regions. The fields *combined* with the terrain allow for stationary arcs IMO. I'm not sure what you feel creates these fields or stabalizes them to a pixel or two over a very long timeline.
quote:
I think I'm not communicating these ideas very here well, since my model would also have a electromagnetic core, one that |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/13/2006 13:17:58 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 13:49:09 [Permalink]
|
http://trace.lmsal.com/cgi-bin/trace_get1www_image.sh?tri19990809.2200_0474
http://trace.lmsal.com/cgi-bin/trace_get1www_image.sh?tri19990809.2300_0001
Dave, here is one 'set' from around 23:00 hours (just before and after 23:00 hours) on August 9th, 1999. The 171A image is the first link. There are other pairs from just after this set, but there is little if any obvious discrernable difference between any of the 'sets' that I can see. You are welcome to pull another pair from the same minute window if you prefer.
As you can see, the arcs are significantly brighter than the backgound of the solar atmosphere in both images. The fact that the arcs are the brighter than the atmosphere in both images means that it really doesn't matter what alogrithm they applied to the image, the bright areas, and the areas of high heat concentration is the arc, and the areas directly around the arc. The arc is still brighter than the background in which it sits. Both images show heat is concentrated in and around the arc, and the backround is relatively dark, indicating it's cooler. We can verify this fact in any Yohkoh image as well. The heat it sees is also directly related to the arcs and the proximity to the arcs. The arcs are the heat source and the arcs are the hottest things in the atmosphere. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/13/2006 13:52:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 14:17:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Explaining that a magnetic field can occur in a gas model is not the same as explaining how it remains fixed to a specific pixel while the source of the magnetic field is tens if not hundreds of thousands of kilometers away.
"Specific pixel" being over half a million square kilometers.quote:
quote:
No, just an impossible question.
I find that hard to believe, expecially since you said this earlier...
Since you don't seem to have understood my previous post, I'll say it in different words: "I was wrong."quote:
I admit I'm a bit confused at this point as to where you stand exactly, but I fail to see how you can expect me to believe that it's an "impossible" question to answer, since you've answered it yourself in the past.
That was a different image, and I was wrong.quote:
quote:
None of that data answers the question you asked. Instead, I would need to have the original 195A image,
I'm sure we could find it. I predict the light in the 195A image is also concentrated in the arcs.
So? What does that mean with regard to the temperatures?quote:
What makes you think an algorithm related to intensities is going to change the fact that the light is concentrated in the arcs in both images?
Since Lockheed claims that a ratio of the intensities indicates temperature, then where the light is concentrated is not actually relevant. If the ratio 1.0 means a particular temperature, then it's irrelevant whether 10 or 1,000 photons hit a particular pixel in a pair of 171A and 195A images. If they're the same intensities, the ratio is still one.
Of course, this all gets back to the question I asked you pages ago: have you personally verified the temperatures in question, and that (for example) iron ions at those temperatures actually emit at the specified wavelengths?quote:
Again, I can see where you might feel how this affects the "base" of the arc issue, but not the arc vs. the corona temp issue.
I don't see a difference in the "issues."quote:
A heat concentration issue is directly related to a light concentration issue...
If that were true, then a 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb (cooler) would be dimmer than a 15-watt incandescent bulb (hotter), but the opposite is true.quote:
In each case the heat and the light is concentrated in the loop itself.
That's the conclusion you must support with data.quote:
That is not what Yohkoh images suggest IMO. Yohkoh sees x-rays once the arc passes through the photosphere and into the corona because less of the x-rays are absorbed by the corona, vs what are absorbed by the photosphere.
Yes, I'm well aware of your opinion on that matter, which assumes that the images show stuff below the photosphere, but you haven't been able to provide evidence which demonstrates that conclusively. All you've done is shown images and offered your explanation, despite an infinite number of explanations being possible for any given image.quote:
Even in the composite image I showed you earlier however, Yohkhoh *can* see the base of the arcs, even through the photosphere because of the intensity of the arc at the base. This is also where anihilation occurs. That same paper you cite talks about the Bastille day flare and notes that both satellites see the same event.
And? This doesn't conflict with the standard model at all.quote:
In any electrical arc, and any lightning bolt, we see a lot of ions "cooling down" as well, shedding kinetic energy that was created by the flow of electrons through arc. That does not suggest the arc is cool, nor does it suggest the base of the arc is cooler than anywhere else in the arc.
You're right, which is why I didn't say that the arc is cool, I said the emissions are indicative of cooling, if even by a single degree.quote:
There is no one to one correlation between "bright" areas and "cool" areas, in fact it typically works just the opposite...
Where is your evidence that light equals heat?quote:
...paticularly in any black body calculations we might wish to employ.
Except that you refuse to acknowledge that a plasma fails to meet the definition of a black body, so we will never agree on that point.quote:
quote:
I see nothing of the sort. Would you please quote yourself from page 11?
Certainly:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5675&whichpage=11quote:
We don't seem to be communicating well on this point IMO. I'm proposing an electromagnetic core as well, one that rotates over a 22 year timeframe. These inner magnetic f |
- 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 - 03/13/2006 : 16:02:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Specific pixel" being over half a million square kilometers.
It is still a relatively "stable" stream, often several streams coming and going from the same location in fact. That focal point of coronal loops is quite rigid, and continues over very long timelines. The complexity of the loops streams is also very important. We don't always see "simple" electromagnetic fields poking through the surface (like a loop). Instead we see a complex arrangement of movement that remain stationary over extended periods of time.
quote:
Since you don't seem to have understood my previous post, I'll say it in different words: "I was wrong."
IMO, it takes a great deal of strength of character to admit to being wrong. In this case however, I respectfully suggest you were actually right. :)
quote:
So? What does that mean with regard to the temperatures?
The fact the coronal loops are brighter than the atmosphere around them in both images shows that even over a "relatively" *wider* spectrum, both images demonstrate the the coronal loops are the hottest, and brightest items in the images.
So this image is perfectly analogous to looking at lightening in the earths atmosphere. You would not suggest that the lightning bolt as it first begins to emit light is actually "cooler" than the atmosphere around the arc. You would know from looking at the energy it emits, and from the million degree temperatures and the gamma rays it emits, that the bolt and the area around the bolt is very "hot", much hotter than the surrounding atmosphere.
quote:
Since Lockheed claims that a ratio of the intensities indicates temperature,
Does that mean that you and I are automatically obligated to agree with that premise, because I don't, at least not the way they labeled things. It is however entirely possible the method worked and they mistlabled the image, but I can guarantee you that the lightning bolt is hotter the the atmosphere around it. The intensities do indicate temperature alright, and we can see that the lit areas are lit in both images. Lockheed's labeling system however is backwards.
quote:
then where the light is concentrated is not actually relevant.
There's another premise I do not agree with. The light concentration is directly related to heat concentration in lightning. Dr. Bruce demonstatrated that these events are electrical discharges, just like any lightning bolt, or any electrical arc. The light from an electrical arc is also directly related to temperature, and the process of the flow of current. The bright areas are *hot*, not cold.
quote:
If the ratio 1.0 means a particular temperature, then it's irrelevant whether 10 or 1,000 photons hit a particular pixel in a pair of 171A and 195A images. If they're the same intensities, the ratio is still one.
So I guess we go back to that black body calculation and consider what emission range we might expect to see from plasma that could easily be in excess of 20M kelvin, particularly in the brightest and hottest areas of the images.
quote:
If that were true, then a 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb (cooler) would be dimmer than a 15-watt incandescent bulb (hotter), but the opposite is true.
This light does not come from an incandescent source (like the photosphere), it comes from the electrical flow through predominantly iron and nickel surfaces. A better comparison would be a 15 watt incandescent bulb, vs a 300 watt incandescent bulb. There will be a direct link between temperature and intensity.
quote:
That's the conclusion you must support with data.
I just showed you both sets of data that were used (I think). In both sets of data, the light and the heat are concentrated in the loops, whereas the background was relatively darker and cooler from the perspective of both filters. It matters not which filter we use, the light is always concentrated in the loops. We therefore *must* conclude that the heat is concentrated in the loops, and the background is cooler. This is perfectly analogous to lightning on earth.
quote:
Yes, I'm well aware of your opinion on that matter, which assumes that the images show stuff below the photosphere, but you haven't been able to provide evidence which demonstrates that conclusively.
This is pure double standard. You have not been able to provide evidence which demonstrates your case "conclusively" either. Fortunately this is a very testable prediction, which should be falsifiable and/or verifyable by STEREO.
quote:
All you've done is shown images and offered your explanation, despite an infinite number of explanations being possible for any given image.
There are not an "infinite" number of of possible explanations that are also scientifically logical and cohesive as a whole. There are only so many ways we might "interpret" the light areas compared to the dark areas. Either one is hotter, or cooler, or discenably different in a tangible way that is explainable from a scientific perspective. I've offered an explanation that is logical, rational, and supported by laboratory evidence, including the fact that plasma mass separate in strong electromagnetic fields and gravity wells. Even a mass spectrometer is based on this "theory". Electromagnetic fields seem to separate isotopes very well.
quote:
And? This doesn't conflict with the standard model at all.
And the fact it becomes "move" visible with height does not indicate it is "hotter" at the top than at the bottom. There is no one to one correlation here, since in both models the emission percentage will related to absorbtion rate. You have an additiona |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/13/2006 16:15:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 16:09:14 [Permalink]
|
| I'm a little confused at this point Dave. You seem to have a problem with me trying to correlate light to heat output, but Lockheed is doing exactly this, they just apply some alogrithm to the process. Their method also equates light to heat, just in a different way. All electrical discharges on earth show a light and heat correlation, and UofM showed the electrical connection to these emission patterns, even if Bruce had never done so. I really don't understand how you will accept Lockheed using this principle and meanwhile question the principle itself. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/13/2006 16:10:36 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 18:23:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
FeXX Ions won't show up at all, the detector only detects photons. I think this is just a typo on your part, but I can never be sure, for all I know you are postulating that the FEIX ions are detected directly by the satellite. After all, you explained that the image below (original link here):
as looking down on the atmosphere *and* the surface showing raw (non colorized) pictures of the sun surrounded by Solar wind and cosmic wind driven by Birkeland currents..
The bolding is mine, quoting your actual explanations of this image. I've cut and pasted your responses into a single semi-cohesive sentence, but believe it's all perfectly in context. You can see the original message here if you don't believe me.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
There is no difference between a photon at 171 angstroms from an FE ion, or one at 171 angstroms from another source (say a black body). The intensity of pixels is a simple combination of the intensity of the photons at a particular wavelength adjusted for the filter and detector properties.
Dave has tried to explain to you that (even relative) temperature is not measured by looking at the intensity at a single wavelength, but rather by looking at a ratio of intensities at two or more wavelengths.
I'll give you a real world example I've observed directly, a copper vapour laser has two primary wavelengths, green (511 nm) and yellow (578 nm). At the peak power output for these devices, the beam "looks" green (it's actually a ratio of about 3:1 green to yellow). As it gets hotter, the green intensity drops and the yellow begins to dominate. If you overheat too much the green disappears entirely, then, before the yellow disappears your laser has disintegrated. (I may or may not have been in the room when this happened, on a number of occasions  ).
The point is, if you try to measure temperature changes (not even absolute temperature) just by looking at a particular wavelength, you will not get an accurate result, you can't even necessarily tell if the temperature has increased or decreased.
"Brighter=hotter" might seem intuitive or feel right to you, but that doesn't make it so.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
There exist LED spotlights which can temporarily blind you due to their brightness, but won't reach the heat of a small campfire (which won't blind you).
Actually I think you have that backwards. The LED spotlight focuses energy to point on the back of your cornea in a more effiecient way and "burns" the retina faster. The light and the heat are again directly related to the affect of burning your eye. Light and heat are still related. One is simply more "focused". Both emit light because they are "hot".
Michael, you really need to learn something about physics before starting to talk about physics. Do you understand anything about photon emission/absorption as it relates to semiconductor junctions? Based on your comment above I can only assume the answer is "no sir, very little".
Light has a lot to do with it, heat has nothing to do with it. Tell me what you think the junction temperature is for a typical red LED. The intensity of light from a $5 laser pointer is greater than that from the sun. Do you think there is any part of the laser pointer that is hotter than the sun? Collimation and focus certainly has something to do with it, but you are completely wrong on the heat issue. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 19:12:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The math related to density of a Birkeland model with metal spheres has yet to be "worked out", or if it has been worked out, I *personally* remain ignorant to it at the moment. I'll concede that point for the time being.
Does this mean you'll stop pretending to be presenting a "Birkeland model" of the sun, seeing as by any reasonable scientific definition, it would seem that such a thing does not exist?
Note, some experiments performed by me dropping glass spheres onto the ground and taking high resolution images of the shattering do not constitute a "John Model" of the sun as a fused silica sphere.
Read a little about the definition of scientific model (you can start here if you like, it's not a perfect definition, as is often the case with wikipedia, but illustrative nonetheless) you'll find what you're proposing is at best a hypothesis. You also don't really have even a hypothesis for the sun, but rather ideas for certain parts of it, as you admit you have no idea what materials make up the bulk of the sun (below the crust), or what specific processes are driving its "operation". It's very important to remember that pointing out perceived issues with one model (say the gas model you so love) is not support for an alternative. (Just as fundamentalists attempting to pick holes in evolutionary theory are not supporting their argument for a 5000 year old earth or it's creator in any constructive way).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I started debating these ideas in cyberspace back in June, half expecting to get blown out of the water by someone who understood something about these images that I didn't understand.
And still don't by all available indicators.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Mind you, I had already talked to "experts" at Nasa and Lockheed, but really, I didn't know how things might go once I started debating these things with "experts" from all over planet earth. I'm not immune to scientific criticism. What I am immune to are simplistic handwaves.
As long as you define "simplistic handwaves" to mean "Anything which doesn't explain features in running difference images as 3D structures" .
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've noticed a pattern over the last nine months. A funny thing always happens when we start dissussing the actual images. Suddenly, according to my opponents, the details of the image are not important (to them).
And your "opponents" explain very specifically why the details aren't important in the context you think they are. This of course isn't acceptable to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael MozinaThe nuances of the image aren't relevant or addressed. What happens instead is a lot of personal attack about how I don't understand what I'm looking at, with an utter failure on their part to explain the details of the image. That is really how things have gone for the last nine months as it relates to these key solar images.
What is the point of arguing about the details of meteoric crater formation with someone who insists it's really just acne on the face of the man in the moon? Running difference images provide as much conclusive topographical information about the sun as police doppler radar does about the colour of your vehicle as it drives by.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In nine months, not one expert I've run into in cyberspace has been able to explain it's details and nuances, even though I was able to do so 6 months ago with a Birkeland model.
Then please describe, in scientific terms your Birkeland model for the sun.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you wish to convince me that there is a better gas model interpretation of these images, I'll need to hear one that is attentive to detail. That really doesn't seem like much to ask, but so far, it sure seems that way.
I seriously do not think it is possible to convince you. Several of us have explained time and time again why what you're seeing is not what you think it is, but you're rebuttal is always "but look at the structures". You're getting hung up on minute details while missing the bigger picture. "But you haven't addressed the woolliness of the sheep to my satisfaction" is not a worthwhile discussion when you're actually looking at a picture of a cloud in the Earth's atmosphere. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 03/13/2006 19:49:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 20:25:34 [Permalink]
|
| Dammit, I had a long reply typed up, but my computer ate it, and now I'm so pissed off at myself for such a rookie mistake that I don't want to go through it again. Perhaps tomorrow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 20:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dammit, I had a long reply typed up, but my computer ate it, and now I'm so pissed off at myself for such a rookie mistake that I don't want to go through it again. Perhaps tomorrow.
It happens to the best of us Dave. I recently replied to myself instead of editing my existing message. I must've saved the message before I noticed. It took me ages to figure out why my changes hadn't been made, hang on, why is there now another version with the changes...
 |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 21:35:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dammit, I had a long reply typed up, but my computer ate it, and now I'm so pissed off at myself for such a rookie mistake that I don't want to go through it again. Perhaps tomorrow.
I just want to know why that abominable "Reset Fields" button is positioned right beside the "Preview" button. Someone's cruel idea of a joke, I always supposed.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 21:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It happens to the best of us Dave. I recently replied to myself instead of editing my existing message. I must've saved the message before I noticed. It took me ages to figure out why my changes hadn't been made, hang on, why is there now another version with the changes...
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I just want to know why that abominable "Reset Fields" button is positioned right beside the "Preview" button. Someone's cruel idea of a joke, I always supposed.
Thanks for the commiseration, guys. Normally, when I know I'm going to be writing a whole lot of stuff, I do it in Notepad (with lots of saving) and then cut-and-paste everything back into the reply box here at SFN. Tonight, for some reason, I decided to wing it. Then, as I was looking for some old difference software I'd written ages ago, I happened into a folder for which Windows took a good five minutes to process (lots of nested ZIP files with some containing upwards of 15,000 files each). After about a minute, I decided to go look at something else on the Web, but the processor was so involved with Windows Explorer it wouldn't maximize the old Internet Explorer window I wanted, either. So I went to take out the garbage, and by the time I was done, the OS for some reason had decided that IE was the real problem, and told me that all seven of my open IE windows would be closed.
The sad part is, I didn't even find my old software, so I opened Windows Explorer for no benefit whatsoever. I've gotta rewrite that code, anyway, since it'd be a lot easier to use than Photoshop (or, rather, the GIMP) for illustrating the points I'd like to make. |
- 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 - 03/14/2006 : 10:32:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dammit, I had a long reply typed up, but my computer ate it, and now I'm so pissed off at myself for such a rookie mistake that I don't want to go through it again. Perhaps tomorrow.
I feel for you Dave. I hate it when stuff like that happens. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 12:14:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
FeXX Ions won't show up at all, the detector only detects photons. I think this is just a typo on your part,
Yes, it was simply a typo on my part.
quote:
but I can never be sure, for all I know you are postulating that the FEIX ions are detected directly by the satellite. After all, you explained that the image below (original link here):
as looking down on the atmosphere *and* the surface showing raw (non colorized) pictures of the sun surrounded by Solar wind and cosmic wind driven by Birkeland currents..
Well John, we're all human. More than half the time I'm responding to these messages while at work, in between technical calls and a host of other distractions. Sometimes I leave words out of sentences and occasionally I have even stuck my foot in my mouth as well. You will note however that once my mistake was pointed out to me, I immediately came clean about it. I didn't dance around the subject or make excuses for myself. As I have also since noted, we actually *can* see surface structures in raw images, it is just that the images I cited were not raw images.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
quote:
There is no difference between a photon at 171 angstroms from an FE ion, or one at 171 angstroms from another source (say a black body).
The term "black body" is a bit of a misnomer IMO. Only certain types of ions from various elements can emit photons in this wavelength range that can be seen by the 171A filter. Fe IX is an element that does radiate energy in that wavelength range, so is Fe XX. Not all ions of iron do radiate light in that wavelength range. In other words, very specific (and only very specific) ion photons will show up in a single filter.
quote:
The intensity of pixels is a simple combination of the intensity of the photons at a particular wavelength adjusted for the filter and detector properties.
True, but then without a way to separate the individual photons, there is no way to know if these photons came from an oxygen ion, a calcuim ion, a FeIX ion, or an FeXX ion or a combination of all of the above.
quote:
Dave has tried to explain to you that (even relative) temperature is not measured by looking at the intensity at a single wavelength, but rather by looking at a ratio of intensities at two or more wavelengths.
I'm sure it's possible to do that, but only if it's done right and labeleled correctly. The bright region of *both* images (not just one) was the coronal loops, not the background. That demonstrates that while the arc is not only 1 million degrees, it's at least 1.5 million degrees and radiates energy that both filters (195 and 171) can both see. Neither of these filters sees the blue areas as "brighter" than the arcs. Therefore the arcs are the light source and the heat source. Proximity to the arc will cause light plasma to "light up" near the arcs as well, but the arcs themselves are the million degree exception in a relatively "cool" background in *both* images not just one.
quote:
I'll give you a real world example I've observed directly, a copper vapour laser has two primary wavelengths, green (511 nm) and yellow (578 nm). At the peak power output for these devices, the beam "looks" green (it's actually a ratio of about 3:1 green to yellow). As it gets hotter, the green intensity drops and the yellow begins to dominate.
But whether green or yellow dominates, the source of the light is still the laser. That laser is still the heat source and the light source in both images. You would not look at the laser light while it's green, compare it to the laser light when it's yellow, plug it into an alogrithm and say the backround is hotter than the the laser light in *either* mode.
quote:
The point is, if you try to measure temperature changes (not even absolute temperature) just by looking at a particular wavelength, you will not get an accurate result, you can't even necessarily tell if the temperature has increased or decreased.
I can tell by looking at both images side by side, that the coronal loops are brightest in both images. The analogy would be seeing your laser streak accross a relatively darkened room in a low energy color. I then compare it to the laser light from a high energy color. I might determine from this that the color changes, or in this case emits (both colors), but I cannot determine that area around the laser light is somehow "hotter" than the areas inside the laser light in this fashion.
This isn't a laser scenario actually. Its simply an electrical discharge, like every other electrical discharge on this planet or any planet. The area inside the arc, and ajacent to the arc will always be hotter than the surrounding atmosphere. The real anology here would be looking at a lightening bolt from a distance in two spectrums. We may determine that the bolt emits light in several spectrums, but we can't determine from this ratio that the dark regions are somehow hotter than the lit regions.
quote:
"Brighter=hotter" might seem intuitive or feel right to you, but that doesn't make it so.
It's not just "intuitive" as you suggest, it is scientific fact and purely a matter of physics when it comes to electrical discharges. Heat and light always go hand in hand. Add heat, you get increased radiation, perhaps on *many* wavelengths at once. Likewise, no heat, no light.
quote:
Michael, you really need to learn something about physics before starting to talk |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/14/2006 15:31:24 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
