|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2006 : 15:03:37
|
This is a continuation of the thread Surface of the Sun, Part6.
Enjoy...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 15:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
We're discussing your model and its flaws.
Maybe that's what *you* would like to do, but I'm discussing *all* solar models and *all* flaws of *all* solar models. You act as though Birkeland's model is the only model that one can poke holes in, yet you admit that no great mind on earth seems to be able to explain the cause of coronal loops even though Birkeland explained them 100 years ago using his solar model.
quote:
My argument is that you are mistaken in offering "consistent with" as support for your model when there are an infinite number of alternative "models" with which the data is also consistent.
I understand the danger of confusing the concepts here Dave and I hear you on this point, but in this particular case, I'm doing nothing of the sort. You (and no one else) has offered me any alternative explations from any alternative models to choose from. I therefore have only one viable way to explain these arcs, at least for the time being. If and when you come up with some other "model" and can explain the cause of these emissions without electricity, let me know.
quote:
I picked an absurd model in order to demonstrate that fact. You blew off the objection.
I did not, and do not believe it's a valid objection since it is not specific. In effect you "handwaved" in an arguement that goes something like: "Since you can't be sure there isn't some other way to explain this, even though no one on earth can offer one, you therefore can't be right." That is how it sounds at least from my perspective at this point. If you had a valid alternative, and hadn't already admitted that no one can explain the cause of these coronal loops using gas model theory, then I might understand your viewpoint. Since you don't know what the cause is, you can't logically rule out "electricity" in the first place, not even in your model, and you've never offered any scientifically viable alternative that is also consistent with observation.
quote:
I'm not asking you to doubt Dr. Bruce! There it is again: your mistaken insistence that criticisms of your interpretation of the data are actually criticisms of Dr. Bruce's work. They are not. How hard is that to understand?
In this case the *only* part of Dr. Bruce's work (and he tackled a lot of subjects) that I'm interested in, or am using at the moment is his work that relates to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. He suggested that these emissions were the direct result of electrical discharges. I agree with his assesment on that subject. I see no reason to doubt that part of his assessment and that is the only part of his assessment I am asking you to look at. If these are electrical discharges as Bruce believed, then there is no way that the dark regions can be hotter than the bright ones. This is a very specific issue, related to a very specific topic. If you can show me how he was wrong about this aspect of his work, I will then have a logical reason to reconsider my position. If you cannot do that, then I cannot help but believe you are avoiding the issue and refusing to either agree with his work, or show how and where he was wrong on this subject.
quote:
You don't share my concern, so you don't see any need to actually do the work required by your model?
Why would I want to duplicate the work of Birkeland? He spent a great deal of time with different spheres and diffferent voltages and different settings. In no case did his sphere "blow up" or emit "too much" of anything. Why would I worry about it, when his own lab images look nearly identical to the patterns I see in satellite images? Unlike gas model theory, Birkeland's solar model includes a lab model that works and produces energy patterns that are perfectly consistent with solar satellite images. If you aren't even worried about explain some of the more relevant details of satellite images, why should I be worried about "what if" questions that are unrelated to direct observations?
quote:
Quote the sections of his work wherein he described "voltages and current flow" in "arcs" on the Sun itself.
He desribes voltages, charges, and electromagnetic variations of various sphere sizes. At worst case you'd have to "scale it up". If the current he use didn't destroy the sphere, I fail to see why you'd think a scaled up version would do so.
quote:
Yes, why are you afraid to test to see if you are correct?
I'm not "afraid" to test them, I just see no logical reason to do that when I've seen a working lab model that produces images that are consistent with satellite images. If you could actually give me a compelling reason to do this, I might see your point. Since you can't offer me a valid or logical alternative, and you can't really logically even rule out electricity as the source of this "unknown cause" of coronal loops, I fail to see the point of the excersize.
quote:
Any explanation I might make is irrelevant to whether or not your explanation is correct.
Come on. It is relevant. It's one thing to suggest there are X number of possibilities all of which *can* logically be true. We therefore need to devise a way to test various methods, and I would agree with the point you are trying to make.
In this case however there *isn't* any other option on the table, and there isn't any logical reason to reject the life's work of Dr. Bruce. If there isn't an accepted explanation for the cause of these coronal loops, then there isn't any logical way to even rule out electrical discharges in the first place. I literally see no motive for doubting the integrity or the work of Dr. Bruce on this specific subject, and there is no motive to create any sort of "test" to differentiate between competing theories. In fact there isn't a "method" to create a test since there are no alternatives to choose from at the moment. It would therefore be irrational of me to even worry about "what ifs". If and when someone comes up with an alternative, I'll worry about it. Since all the great minds of gas model theory have yet to offer such a competing expalantion in over 400 years of research, and can't even rule out electrical discharge as the cause even i |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/17/2006 16:24:00 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 00:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Maybe that's what *you* would like to do, but I'm discussing *all* solar models and *all* flaws of *all* solar models.
Then you'll be talking to yourself, as I don't think anyone else here wants to talk about the flaws in the "big ball of very spicy oysters" model of the Sun.  quote:
You act as though Birkeland's model is the only model that one can poke holes in...
No, I'm acting as if there's only one person here defending a solar model as if it is so correct that every solar scientist will eventually acknowledge it as the truth (that'd be you).quote:
...yet you admit that no great mind on earth seems to be able to explain the cause of coronal loops even though Birkeland explained them 100 years ago using his solar model.
Why don't you quote his explanation for us?quote:
You (and no one else) has offered me any alternative explations from any alternative models to choose from. I therefore have only one viable way to explain these arcs, at least for the time being.
I'm asking you to demonstrate that it is a viable model, Michael. You don't seem to understand that at all.quote:
If and when you come up with some other "model" and can explain the cause of these emissions without electricity, let me know.
Whether any other model ever presents itself is irrelevant to whether your model is viable.quote:
I did not, and do not believe it's a valid objection since it is not specific. In effect you "handwaved" in an arguement that goes something like: "Since you can't be sure there isn't some other way to explain this, even though no one on earth can offer one, you therefore can't be right."
Bullshit. The argument I made was, "since there are an infinite number of explanations which are consistent with our observations, show me why I should accept yours and reject any of the others."quote:
That is how it sounds at least from my perspective at this point.
You are, once again, mistaken about what I'm saying.quote:
If you had a valid alternative, and hadn't already admitted that no one can explain the cause of these coronal loops using gas model theory, then I might understand your viewpoint. Since you don't know what the cause is, you can't logically rule out "electricity" in the first place, not even in your model, and you've never offered any scientifically viable alternative that is also consistent with observation.
Once again, I'm asking how you go about ruling in electricity. It isn't the default.quote:
In this case the *only* part of Dr. Bruce's work (and he tackled a lot of subjects) that I'm interested in, or am using at the moment is his work that relates to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. He suggested that these emissions were the direct result of electrical discharges.
Now it's just a suggestion?!? Things are getting worse by the post, here. A suggestion, in science, implies little evidence - a hunch.quote:
I agree with his assesment on that subject.
Your agreement isn't evidence that it is correct.quote:
I see no reason to doubt that part of his assessment and that is the only part of his assessment I am asking you to look at. If these are electrical discharges as Bruce believed, then there is no way that the dark regions can be hotter than the bright ones.
And that's what I'm asking you to test: are they electrical "discharges," however you'd like to define that term?quote:
This is a very specific issue, related to a very specific topic. If you can show me how he was wrong about this aspect of his work, I will then have a logical reason to reconsider my position.
I'm asking you to demonstrate that such a position is correct. Your agreement isn't evidence, and claiming that it was Dr. Bruce's "life's work" and so I shouldn't doubt it is nothing but an argument from authority.quote:
If you cannot do that, then I cannot help but believe you are avoiding the issue and refusing to either agree with his work, or show how and where he was wrong on this subject.
Again, I'm asking you, the claimant, to show me that he was right.quote:
Why would I want to duplicate the work of Birkeland? He spent a great deal of time with different spheres and diffferent voltages and different settings. In no case did his sphere "blow up" or emit "too much" of anything.
I'm not asking you to recreate Birkeland's lab work, I'm asking you to show me his calculations and the physical laws he applied to the scenario of heating in the solar corona, in order for you to demonstrate that he had everything correct, as you claim.quote:
Why would I worry about it, when his own lab images look nearly identical to the patterns I see in satellite images?
You shouldn't worry about it if you're taking things on faith, but that's not scientific.quote:
Unlike gas model theory, Birkeland's solar model i |
- 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 - 03/18/2006 : 13:44:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then you'll be talking to yourself, as I don't think anyone else here wants to talk about the flaws in the "big ball of very spicy oysters" model of the Sun.
Cute. Then again, you are supporting a gas ball model that seems to have about the same explantive abilities as the spicy oyster model when it comes to explaining the light source of solar satellite images. :)
quote:
No, I'm acting as if there's only one person here defending a solar model as if it is so correct that every solar scientist will eventually acknowledge it as the truth (that'd be you).
Well, what can I say? I'm a firm believer in a Birkeland oriented plasma cosmology model of the universe. I feel about gas model/gravity only models of the universe the way you feel about flat earth concepts. IMO, there really is no going back once you "see the light" so to speak.
You are however feverishly favoring a gas model theory of the sun Dave. We all have our own internal biases.
quote:
Why don't you quote his explanation for us?
I already posted a link to the outline of his model Dave, complete with images. I don't feel like wasting my time rereading a 20 page document for you at the moment.
Instead, let's look at his visual results, shall we?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
The surface discharges can be focused toward or away from the equator by increasing or decreasing the electromagnetic field. There are no visual atmospheric mysteries of the sun that cannot easily be explained in terms of electricity, magnetic fields, a solid surface metal sphere and gravity. All of his results are completely consistent with what we see in satellite images.
quote:
I'm asking you to demonstrate that it is a viable model, Michael. You don't seem to understand that at all.
I already did that Dave. Birkeland demonstrated it's a viable model 100 years ago. Bruce confirmed that electrical discharges are responsible for what we see in the solar atmosphere. Nuclear chemistry has demonstrated that he sun is mass separated and is mostly made of iron. A small fleet of solar satellites have now confirmed that these electrical discharges come from the surface of a predominantly iron and metallic surface.
What you have not done is demonstrate that the gas model is a viable alternative based on *direct observation*. In fact, you don't seem to be capable of explaining the light source for even a single solar satellite image that contains high energy discharge signatures. In essense, you could never hope to effectively explain a single high energy satellite image because you don't comprehend the release mechanism. Somehow, however, you're quite certain it's *not* driven by electrical discharges. The fact you can't explain it, yet refuse to consider electrical discharges as the cause, shows the irrational nature of your rationalization. On one hand you claim not to know the cause, and in the next breath you rule out the most likely cause.
quote:
Whether any other model ever presents itself is irrelevant to whether your model is viable.
The model is viable Dave. Birkeland already demonstrated this in a lab over 100 years ago. Bruce confirmed the electrical discharge nature of these solar events. Manuel demonstrated that the sun is mostly made of iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere. Satellite images confirm that the electrical discharges come from a highly metallic surface that sits just under the visible photosphere. I therefore know without any doubt that this is a viable model Dave. What I don't know is if there is another viable model, expecially since the leading alternative can't even explain the light source of a single high energy satellite image. Since it can't do that, gas model theory could never hope to explain any of these images logically or rationally or fully. I therefore treat that model exactly the same way as your oyster model.
quote:
Bullshit. The argument I made was, "since there are an infinite number of explanations which are consistent with our observations, show me why I should accept yours and reject any of the others."
You "alledge" that there an "infinite number of explanations", even though you can't name one? It's up to you to prove there are an "infinite number" of alternatives here Dave because I totally disagree. There are a "finite" number of alternatives that logically and scientifically fit the observational evidence. You can't even describe a single alternative, let alone a framework to include an "infinite number" of alternatives. You can't even logically rule out electrical discharges as the cause *even in the gas model*. It is therefore up to you to at least offer a few viable alternitives that pass the logic and science test if you expect me to believe there are an "infinite number" of them to worry about.
I believe this fallacy is called an argument to ignorance fallacy. We already know that thre is one scientific and logical way to explain these emissions. If you believe there are viable alternatives, put them on the table and let's discuss them.
quote:
Once again, I'm asking how you go about ruling in electricity.
Come on Dave. Birkeland ruled it "in" 100 years ago. Bruce verified it 50 years later. Satellites confirm it visually. There's no mystery here, and the excessive foot dragging on this point is purely a self defense mechanism on your part.
quote:
It isn't the default.
So? There isn't a default, and since when was science a popularity contest?
quote:
Now it's just a suggestion?!? Things are getting worse by the post, here. A suggestion, in science, implies little evidence - a hunch.
Oh for goodness sake! There is no pleasing you. If I go too far to one side, you chastise me. If I use a word that seems too far the other way, you complain some more. There is no pleasing you.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/18/2006 14:11:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 13:53:57 [Permalink]
|
This image seems to be making the rounds again in the news, yet evidently gas model theory cannot even explain these arcs. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 14:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave:Okay, how many neutrinos does Birkeland's model emit?
How many is simply a matter of taking the observed number and working backwards, as is typically done in many scenarios. One thing I can tell you is *where* we might expect to see at least *some* of these emissions, namely the areas where we see positron/electron anihilation on the surface at the base of the arcs. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 18:39:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Cute. Then again, you are supporting a gas ball model that seems to have about the same explantive abilities as the spicy oyster model when it comes to explaining the light source of solar satellite images. :)
Actually, it appears to me to explain that pretty good, since we know that plasma exist in the corona and we know that magnetic fields run through the corona. Sure, the model doesn't explain the source of the magnetic fields, or the method by which the corona is heated, but it explains the "light source" well given what we know exists out there.
Besides which, from what part of "the standard model is irrelevant" do you get the idea that I'm trying to support it?quote:
Well, what can I say? I'm a firm believer in a Birkeland oriented plasma cosmology model of the universe. I feel about gas model/gravity only models of the universe the way you feel about flat earth concepts. IMO, there really is no going back once you "see the light" so to speak.
Right, and I don't share your religious faith in your model.quote:
You are however feverishly favoring a gas model theory of the sun Dave.
By saying it is irrelevant.quote:
We all have our own internal biases.
Obviously you're so biased that when I say the "gas model is irrelevant," you hear "the gas model is correct."quote:
quote:
Why don't you quote his explanation for us?
I already posted a link to the outline of his model Dave, complete with images. I don't feel like wasting my time rereading a 20 page document for you at the moment.
Oh, good, then you haven't read the next volume, either, and I won't feel so bad for not having ferreted it out.quote:
Instead, let's look at his visual results, shall we?
Why bother when we can simply do a text search of the pages in question for terms like "volt," "ampere," "watt," etc.? We quickly find that he never once attempted to formulate a working model of the Sun with his experiments, and only tried to discover the mechanisms whereby solar flares were created. He only calculated that per the methods he was using, the space surrounding the Sun has a potential of 600 million volts compared to the Sun itself.
Given that figure, and the scanty details of his cathode-ray generator, we can do some work. Scaled up from his "machine," 600 million volts is a upward factor of 40,000. If we scale the current by the same amount, then we find it to be a maximum of 20,000 amperes. Assuming that the plasmas in the corona are no more conductive than iron (not a great conductor, but more resistance equals more heat), then the path (from highest point to surface in the TRACE image set you provided) covers about 120,000 km within a 1,000 km-radius conductive plasma "arc" (an underestimate to drive the resistance higher). The resistance of such an arc would be 3.7×10-12 Ohms. 20,000 amps through a conductor of that resistance will disperse 1.48 milliWatts of power as heat.
Your body generates that amount of heat in just 1.3 seconds. Better conductors (like plasmas) will generate even less heat.
Perhaps that's why Birkeland doesn't try to actually explain the heat of the Sun as due to electrical currents, but instead points to other factors and in effect says that there's not enough data at that time to figure out even the "currents" in the Sun and surrounding space.quote:
The surface discharges can be focused toward or away from the equator by increasing or decreasing the electromagnetic field. There are no visual atmospheric mysteries of the sun that cannot easily be explained in terms of electricity, magnetic fields, a solid surface metal sphere and gravity. All of his results are completely consistent with what we see in satellite images.
Except for the million-plus-kelvin temperatures.quote:
I already did that Dave. Birkeland demonstrated it's a viable model 100 years ago.
I just showed that to be wrong.quote:
Bruce confirmed that electrical discharges are responsible for what we see in the solar atmosphere.
No, he said it was possible.quote:
Nuclear chemistry has demonstrated that he sun is mass separated and is mostly made of iron.
Only if you ignore the problems with the methodology.quote:
A small fleet of solar satellites have now confirmed that these electrical discharges come from the surface of a predominantly iron and metallic surface.
Only if you first assume that there is a solid surface to begin with.quote:
What you have not done is demonstrate that the gas model is a viable alternative based on *direct observation*.
The gas model is irrelevant.quote:
In fact, you don't seem to be capable of explaining the light source for even a single solar satellite image that contains high energy discharge signatures.
No, you simply reject the explanation based upon strawmen and misunderstandings of the instruments used.quote:
In essense, you could never hope to effectively explain a single high energy |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2006 : 20:48:58 [Permalink]
|
| By the way, I finally got around to doing the work myself, and I find even more evidence that the Lockheed "gold" video is not a running difference video. For example, taking the difference of the first and last images used as frames in the video results in this image (after normalizing contrast in the originals, shifting the first frame 17 pixels to the right and one down to compensate for solar rotation, and then enhancing the result by a factor of 2). It bears little resemblance to the frames in the video. Creating an average between then (using the same methods, save the final enhancement) looks like this, which is much closer to the video. |
- 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 - 03/19/2006 : 15:45:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, I finally got around to doing the work myself, and I find even more evidence that the Lockheed "gold" video is not a running difference video. For example, taking the difference of the first and last images used as frames in the video results in this image (after normalizing contrast in the originals, shifting the first frame 17 pixels to the right and one down to compensate for solar rotation, and then enhancing the result by a factor of 2). It bears little resemblance to the frames in the video. Creating an average between then (using the same methods, save the final enhancement) looks like this, which is much closer to the video.
Nice work Dave. I was wondering at the lack of hi-contrast temporary features often seen in difference imagery. Averaging would certainly explain that.
As usual I'm somewhat humbled by the amount of work you do make your case clear. You'd think the actual proponent of a new, potentially exciting, theory would be just as conscientious. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2006 : 18:11:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I understand that we all make mistakes Michael, that wasn't my point. What irks me is that even after I asked a question specifically related to these images, you were able to look at them again and respond as if they actually were raw images. This to me is a clear demonstration that you don't have a clear concept of the different kinds of information diferent image types provide. That is veryrelevant to the discussion, I agree that childish highlighting of "Look, here's a typo/mistake" is not. The latter was never my intent.
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:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
Again you're missing the point. I wasn't making any case for or against black body emission. The point I was trying to make is that the photons received are just photons, the image tells you nothing conclusive about the source of those photons.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
This may be true, but simply asserting it doesn't make it so. The photons could come from anywhere in the field of view. The depth of field here is relatively huge, you need to pay proper attention to relative intensities and the spectral behaviour of materials in various layers.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
Actually, that could well be the case. The laser light contributes essentially zero to the thermal state of the system. The heating of the active section of the laser is caused by a longitudinal gas discharge (primarily Neon in the case of a copper vapour laser). The background could be (and often is) hotter than the laser beam under numerous operating conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
The cavity in the copper laser I've described is heated by an electrical dischage. It takes a 3 phase power supply delivering kiloWatts of average power to get the few watts of laser light I've described. The thermal effect of the light itself is, as I mentioned earlier, essentially zero. The area in the arc is not always hotter than the area around it. I know this for a fact, I have personally observed and taken measurements to confirm this fact, not just looked at pictures and assumed something. Your statement that:"every other electrical discharge on this planet or any planet" behaves as you suggest is simply wrong. You've yet to provide any evidence as to why a terrestrial lightning bolt is representative of the solar coronal loops.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
"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.
Your qualifier "when it comes to electrical discharges" help a little in this case, but it's still not universally true even in this case, as I just pointed out. Heat and light are related in ways that depend on a lot of other conditions. "Hand in hand" is a gro |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2006 : 19:15:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The term "reasonable" is a bit subjective, and I'm certainly not "pretending" anything. Birkeland figured out how the sun works long before we understood all the factors we now understand, and there is still a lot to learn about our universe. I still consider this to be a Birkeland model, since Birkeland did put together all the important components and experimented with them in his lab over 100 years ago. It would be rediculace for me to
take credit for inventing the concept of a metal sphere with eletromagnetic fields covered in plasma. Birkeland did all that already.
At this point the only thing I would concede is that Birkeland's model remains less refined, only because less time and effort has been spent on perfecting it and analysing every detail. That will happen with time however, and I won't be doing all the work myself.
If you were to actually present a solar model, it would be astute of you to reference Birkeland's work. However, in the absence of the existence of any actual Birkeland solar model (not some experimental results which you are taking as representative of the sun, or pictures with circles and arc in them, which are you interpret as therefore being representative of the sun), you'd be much better off simply presenting your model Michael, and giving credit where credit is due. If would also be less likely to offend people who appreciate Birkeland's work if it turns out that you're wrong, and, by your inference, Birkeland is therefore wrong, seeing as it was actually his model in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But Birkeland didn't just drop a few glasses on ground. He put together all the key components that we now see in satellite images. There is a metallic magnetized sphere involved. There is electricity involved. There are currents involved. There is plasma involved.
By that sort of logic, your model is also a de Graaff model, amongst I'm sure, many other models. You're references section is going to be a lot bigger than your actual model, should the latter ever appear in any substantial form.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But that also works both ways John. You may find a percieved weakness in a Birkeland solar model, but that is not evidence to support the gas model.
I don't see a perceived weakness in a Birkeland solar model, I simply don't see a Birkeland solar model. Point one out and I'll be happy to read the appropriate documentation. You're right though, this is not support for the gas model. Fortunately I'm not attempting to validate the the gas model, I'm simply discussing the underlying science. You are supposed to be the one presenting and supporting a model, Michael.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These images still need to be explained using gas model theory to support gas model theory with satellite images.
No they don't, unless someone has said "Michael Mozina is wrong because the gas theory is right, and the gas theory disagrees with Michael Mozina". Show me anyone using this argument and your request will make a little more sense. No one has to that show a part (or all) of the gas model to be correct to demonstrate that a part (or all) of your model is incorrect. It's quite possible they are both incorrect, and almost infinitely unlikely that either is entirely correct.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That's just a cheap shot from my perspective, since no one here has put together a cohesive explanation for even the first image on my website that is attentive to detail using gas model theory. In fact no one in 9 months on several different boards has managed to do that. Why not? How hard can it be?
Several people have explained to you both the theory of running difference images and how the features they result in are not therefore what you describe them as. Because no none has described the features you believe you see (e.g. mountains, peeling, dust) you hand wave away their attempts as non-existent.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No John, I'll be happy to listen to a serious explanation. A handwave is more like: "The patterns we see are an "optical illusion", well, er, most of them anyway, except of course that ejected stuff we see in the image."
No one is saying the images themselves are optical illusions Michael. What we are saying is that the pixel intensity gradients are just what they are. That some of them they "look like" 2D photographs of solid, mountainous structures is the where the term "illusion" is appropriate. Dark pixels in this sort of image are not shadows, no matter how much you want them to be. The "illusion" related to your interpretation, not the contents of the image itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is a strawman John. I'm not claiming any such thing. I'm asking you to explain the crater (literally if you like):
I want to discuss the details of the crater, how it got there, the shape, the size, the details.
The fact that you're assuming it's a crater illustrates the point. "How it got there" is described by a mathematical function none of us (as far as I know) has specific details of. However, we do know in general terms that it "got there" by the virtue of the fact that the photons in this region vary in intensity with such spatial distribution that the resulting calculated image has a roughtly circular feature. The size can be determined relatively simply in the X and Y directions if you're so inclined. The depth is going to be much trickier of course. There could be features larger than the biggest mountain ranges on earth in there, and we'd be unable to see or resolve them at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is what image analsyis is all about John, we have to pay attention to these details. That is what separates a real analysis from a simple handwave.
You can do all the in-depth analysis you want Michael, but if you've got the context, and understanding of how the image was created (or in fact is) wrong, a pixel by pixel a |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2006 : 19:36:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Nice work Dave. I was wondering at the lack of hi-contrast temporary features often seen in difference imagery. Averaging would certainly explain that.
Thanks, John.
Going back to the details I laid out in this post, I find that a difference of frame 1 and frame 2 (of the "gold" video, again) results in this image, and even more "shocking," the difference between frame 2 and frame 3 results in this image.
Again, the method I used to create these images was to first normalize the contrast in each frame independently (so that the darkest pixel becomes the blackest black, and the brightest pixel becomes the whitest white), then subtract one from the other (taking the absolute value of the result for each pixel), and finally enhance the contrast of the subtraction by a factor of two so differences become brighter and more noticeable among all the indentical (and thus black) pixels.
Aside from a bunch of white dots (those "hi-contrast temporary features," which appear to me to be instrument transients), the differences between frames 2 and 3 are very few. Not much changes at all in that minute and ten seconds, and it looks drastically different than what one sees in the opening frames of the "gold" video. (By the way, I believe that most of the differences I find between frames 1 and 2 are a side-effect of the contrast normalization process. Whatever created the "haze" over frame 1 - and I think it was an instrumentation issue, also - has destroyed our ability to correctly restore the bandwidth that the image might have had.)
I don't have the time now, or otherwise I'd create an average of all three frames.quote:
As usual I'm somewhat humbled by the amount of work you do make your case clear.
Don't be. I'm beginning to consider my inability to let this stuff drop to be a major failing in my personality.quote:
You'd think the actual proponent of a new, potentially exciting, theory would be just as conscientious.
Yeah, one would think that, wouldn't one? |
- 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 - 03/20/2006 : 11:25:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, it appears to me to explain that pretty good, since we know that plasma exist in the corona and we know that magnetic fields run through the corona.
You are confusing magnetic fields and heat Dave. They are not one and the same thing.
quote:
Sure, the model doesn't explain the source of the magnetic fields, or the method by which the corona is heated, but it explains the "light source" well given what we know exists out there.
It's not the presence of magnetic field lines I have a problem with, although you would still need to explain such strong fields so far away from the core. It's your suggestion that these field lines have anything to do with "heat" without the flow of electricity I have a tough time with.
quote:
Right, and I don't share your religious faith in your model.
But my faith is based on observation and experimentation Dave.
This statement rings a little hollow from my persective as well. While it's "easier" to play devil's advocate and profess to not "take sides" in a debate, usually the motivation behind someone's "disbelief" is "belief" in something else. In this case, it's clear we both have internal biases. I'm simply up front about mine and the reasons behind these biases.
quote:
By saying it is irrelevant.
It's not "irrelevant" to begin with. The gas model is the model we were all handed in school, and the model that we continue to invest millions of dollars in. While a gas model problem may not be "direct evidence" that the Birkeland model is accurate, it's still relevant to this discussion.
quote:
Obviously you're so biased that when I say the "gas model is irrelevant," you hear "the gas model is correct."
No, I hear you attempting to defending "interpretations" of the gas model as in the your first paragraph, so I find it hard to believe you are as 'detached' as you claim.
The issue here is pretty simple really. You've invested a great deal of time into finding aspects of Birkeland's theory that I can't fully explain. You seem to equate a "lack of an explanation" with some "major flaw" in Birkeland's model. The problem however is that even gas model theory can't seem to explain even simple aspects of solar activity. If it can't explain a coronal loop for goodness sake, what good is it? You however continue to see one model as inferior by virtue of a lack of understanding on my part, while you ignore the fact that you also have a lack of understanding on your part. There is no one to one correlation between my personal ignorance and the accruacy of a solar model. If we are to evaluate solar model based on how well they explain solar phenomenon, the gas model does not get a free pass by virtue of being "taught in school".
quote:
Why bother when we can simply do a text search of the pages in question for terms like "volt," "ampere," "watt," etc.? We quickly find that he never once attempted to formulate a working model of the Sun with his experiments, and only tried to discover the mechanisms whereby solar flares were created. He only calculated that per the methods he was using, the space surrounding the Sun has a potential of 600 million volts compared to the Sun itself.
He did more than that Dave, he changed the parameters. He changed globe sizes, the strength of the electrical fields, the strengths of the magnetic fields, etc. He quoted the amperage based on sphere sizes that he used ect.
quote:
Given that figure, and the scanty details of his cathode-ray generator, we can do some work. Scaled up from his "machine," 600 million volts is a upward factor of 40,000. If we scale the current by the same amount, then we find it to be a maximum of 20,000 amperes. Assuming that the plasmas in the corona are no more conductive than iron (not a great conductor, but more resistance equals more heat), then the path (from highest point to surface in the TRACE image set you provided) covers about 120,000 km within a 1,000 km-radius conductive plasma "arc" (an underestimate to drive the resistance higher). The resistance of such an arc would be 3.7×10-12 Ohms. 20,000 amps through a conductor of that resistance will disperse 1.48 milliWatts of power as heat.
Your body generates that amount of heat in just 1.3 seconds. Better conductors (like plasmas) will generate even less heat.
Perhaps that's why Birkeland doesn't try to actually explain the heat of the Sun as due to electrical currents, but instead points to other factors and in effect says that there's not enough data at that time to figure out even the "currents" in the Sun and surrounding space.
And even 100 years later there still isn't enough data about the strength of the Birkeland currents that affect our solar system to fully explain a lot of phenomenon Dave. There isn't any crime in being ignorant. At least we understand where our ignrorance begins. Only now are we begining to "observe" and think about "measuring" cosmic scale Birkeland currents in distant structures. We still have almost no idea what kind of currents permiate our region of space, but based on the fact that other regions do experience currents, it would be highly likely that all galaxies and solar systems experience such currents.
quote:
Except for the million-plus-kelvin temperatures.
I think you must have missed a couple of my posts. In an electrical discharge model, it's not even a given that these arcs *MUST* be a million degrees plus as *Lockheed* (not me) claims.
quote:
I just showed that to be wrong.
You didn't show that Dave. It's not even a requirement that these loops reach a million degrees!
quote:
No, he said it was possible.
No, he said there was "evidence" that these events are electrical discharges |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/20/2006 13:09:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 11:44:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, I finally got around to doing the work myself, and I find even more evidence that the Lockheed "gold" video is not a running difference video. For example, taking the difference of the first and last images used as frames in the video results in this image (after normalizing contrast in the originals, shifting the first frame 17 pixels to the right and one down to compensate for solar rotation, and then enhancing the result by a factor of 2). It bears little resemblance to the frames in the video. Creating an average between then (using the same methods, save the final enhancement) looks like this, which is much closer to the video.
First of all, let me preface my response by saying I *certainly do* appreciate the effort that you put into this, and for explaining your "methods". Having said that, just eyeballing the two images, I'd be inclined to say that the RD version show more of the "surface detail" that is consistent with the gold video, whereas the averaged image seems to blur the detail or remove it altogether. Though I have played with RD versions of these images, I've not really played around much with a averaging function, nor have I been able to completely duplicate the video using strickly RD techniques. I can't say I can rule out an averaging technique in this process, but I'm skeptical of that based on the loss of detail in the averaged image. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 12:57:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I understand that we all make mistakes Michael, that wasn't my point. What irks me is that even after I asked a question specifically related to these images, you were able to look at them again and respond as if they actually were raw images.
Well John, I can't deny I did it, and I don't really know what you expect me to say about it now. I've already acknowledged my mistake. What more can I do?
quote:
This to me is a clear demonstration that you don't have a clear concept of the different kinds of information diferent image types provide. That is veryrelevant to the discussion, I agree that childish highlighting of "Look, here's a typo/mistake" is not. The latter was never my intent.
The "typo" comment I made related to leaving out the word "photon" from the sentence. It had nothing to with my mistake about the RD images. If I had tried to defend my mistake even after it was clearly pointed out to me, I would understand your concern. As it is, I'm guilty of responding to these posts in less than ideal conditions, and it's possible (in fact likely) that I will occasionally put my foot in my mouth. I have provided you with evidence (image form) that even "raw" (though colorized in this case) images can show surface "structure". RD images are better at showing "surface structure" because they typically remove the atmospheric inteference.
quote:
Again you're missing the point. I wasn't making any case for or against black body emission. The point I was trying to make is that the photons received are just photons, the image tells you nothing conclusive about the source of those photons.
The image in this case does tell us some conclusive things about the source of these photons. It conclusively demonstrates that the coronal loops are hotter than their surroundings. It conclusively demonstrates that the light and heat is concentrated in the coronal loops. We may not be able to tell "conslusively" that current flow is the heat source from these images, but we certainly have evidence that current flow *could* be the heat source. Since LMSAL and I seem to agree that current flow is the heat source, evidently they seem to see this "evidence" in these images as well.
quote:
This may be true, but simply asserting it doesn't make it so. The photons could come from anywhere in the field of view. The depth of field here is relatively huge, you need to pay proper attention to relative intensities and the spectral behaviour of materials in various layers.
How does this change the fact that physics suggests that the bright regions would likely be hotter than the dark ones?
quote:
Actually, that could well be the case. The laser light contributes essentially zero to the thermal state of the system. The heating of the active section of the laser is caused by a longitudinal gas discharge (primarily Neon in the case of a copper vapour laser). The background could be (and often is) hotter than the laser beam under numerous operating conditions.
I supposed I would have to see that scenario to believe it. In other words, assuming that the lasesr light traverses a backgound that is all the same temperature, the laser light would tend to add energy to the area within the beam, and the area within the beam is likely to be "more energetic" if not "hotter" than the area around it.
Even if we grant you this point for the time being, that does not suggest you could compare the beams to determine the heat of the atmosophere *outside* the beam without understanding opacities, absortion rates, etc.
quote:
The cavity in the copper laser I've described is heated by an electrical dischage. It takes a 3 phase power supply delivering kiloWatts of average power to get the few watts of laser light I've described. The thermal effect of the light itself is, as I mentioned earlier, essentially zero.
Well, it might be "essentially zero" until it runs into things, but once it starts interacting with atoms, photons will add energy to the system.
quote:
The area in the arc is not always hotter than the area around it. I know this for a fact, I have personally observed and taken measurements to confirm this fact, not just looked at pictures and assumed something.
Are we talking about the sun now, or some other experiement?
If you "measured" this in the solar atmosphere, how did you measure it?
quote:
Your statement that:"every other electrical discharge on this planet or any planet" behaves as you suggest is simply wrong. You've yet to provide any evidence as to why a terrestrial lightning bolt is representative of the solar coronal loops.
That's kind of a double standard isn't it John? You applied a laser analogy to solar activity, and that is *highly* unlikely to apply here. I applied that lightning bold analogy because Bruce already provided evidence that these are electrical discharges.
quote:
Your qualifier "when it comes to electrical discharges" help a little in this case, but it's still not universally true even in this case, as I just pointed out. Heat and light are related in ways that depend on a lot of other conditions. "Hand in hand" is a gross oversimplification.
It's not really a gross oversimplification as it relates to electrical discharges. The only thing you can really complain about here is if you believe that these emissions are *not* due to electrical discharges. The University of Maryland has shown that these events include a great deal of current flow and electrical excitation. Bruce documented the speed of propogation is indicative of electrical discharges. If you believe these are not electrical discharges, you'll need to explain why you believe that to be the case, and explain what the conditions are on the solar surface that would allow for the hot regions to remain "darker" than bright regions.
quote:
Love th |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 16:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well John, I can't deny I did it, and I don't really know what you expect me to say about it now. I've already acknowledged my mistake. What more can I do?
I'm not asking you to do anything in relation to this error, I was pointing it out to highlight that it isn't always safe to assume that obvious non sequiters are typos or other simple errors. Mind you, you could retract the claim that you're the "only one on earth" who has explained these images correctly.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have provided you with evidence (image form) that even "raw" (though colorized in this case) images can show surface "structure". RD images are better at showing "surface structure" because they typically remove the atmospheric inteference.
The images themselves are evidence. Interpretations of them are not, they are simply interpretations.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The image in this case does tell us some conclusive things about the source of these photons. It conclusively demonstrates that the coronal loops are hotter than their surroundings.
If and only if brighter==hotter. You have yet to demonstrate this to be true. It would also be useful if you could provide a ball-park figure of how much hotter, seeing as it's so obvious to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It conclusively demonstrates that the light and heat is concentrated in the coronal loops.
No, it is evidence that light of in a specific wavelength range is "Concentrated" (poor terminology) in the loops. You are still assuming this is also a direct measure of "Heat concentration".
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We may not be able to tell "conslusively" that current flow is the heat source from these images, but we certainly have evidence that current flow *could* be the heat source.
I must have missed that part of science class. "Your honour, I draw your attention to the fact that defendant has two functional legs, we therefore have evidence that he *could* have walked to the victims premises, and in fact be the perpetrator of the crime."
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How does this change the fact that physics suggests that the bright regions would likely be hotter than the dark ones?
Physics suggests that the darker areas are emitting less photons in the sensors detection window, this may be because it's cooler (especially in the case of a black body), or because it doesn't emit the appropriate wavelengths at this temperature, be it hotter or cooler, or may be because of other optical properties of the material or the material that exists between it and the detector.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I supposed I would have to see that scenario to believe it. In other words, assuming that the lasesr light traverses a backgound that is all the same temperature, the laser light would tend to add energy to the area within the beam, and the area within the beam is likely to be "more energetic" if not "hotter" than the area around it.
The situation is more complex than that, the background temperature profile is not uniform, there are electric fields and the photon-atom interactions to understand. It happens, whether or not you are in the forest to "see" it Michael.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Even if we grant you this point for the time being, that does not suggest you could compare the beams to determine the heat of the atmosophere *outside* the beam without understanding opacities, absortion rates, etc.
In this case the parameters you mentioned are well understood. The point I'm making is that it is possible (and in fact happens) that the "darker" areas of an image can be hotter.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The cavity in the copper laser I've described is heated by an electrical dischage. It takes a 3 phase power supply delivering kiloWatts of average power to get the few watts of laser light I've described. The thermal effect of the light itself is, as I mentioned earlier, essentially zero.
Well, it might be "essentially zero" until it runs into things, but once it starts interacting with atoms, photons will add energy to the system.
You mean the energy that is absorbed by the copper atoms in order for spontaneous emission to occur? There are other energy transfer mechanisms as well, including the copper to buffer gas (neon) interactions. That atoms absorb energy is undeniable, that it results in the temperature on axis being higher than off it is an assumption that is not always true.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Are we talking about the sun now, or some other experiement?
If you "measured" this in the solar atmosphere, how did you measure it?
We're talking about the same thing we have been for the last few paragraphs, but you're free to assume I've travelled to the sun and made the measurements personally if you like. Perhaps I'll bring back some pictures of me and a thermometer and a really bright background. They really look like pictures of me standing on the sun, that ought to be proof enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Your statement that:"every other electrical discharge on this planet or any planet" |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 03/20/2006 17:52:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
