|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2006 : 10:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Halelujia! Maybe we'll get somewhere now. Ok, we now seem to all agree that the plasma inside the coronal loops is the hottest and most dense plasma in the corona.
Since you still haven't explained what you mean by "coronal loop" (a drawing might help, again), I'm not sure I can agree.quote:
I've been fixated on this point because we can't really discuss much in the way of solar satellite images unless we can agree on the light source and the heat concentration patterns in the images we see.
And since Nitta points out that there is no real consensus, why should this discussion be any different? The fact is, even without a consensus, coronal science still gets done, but here, you're claiming that this discussion can't continue unless we all agree on certain aspects of some images.quote:
We are clearly talking past one another at this point somehow, since some of your answers are inconsistent from where I sit.
As are yours.quote:
The point I've been trying to make is that all atoms radiate energy provided they have the excess energy to radiate. We can image the corona and assign temperature ranges to the things we find in the corona based on these same laws of physics that affect all atoms.
I agree with all of that, but claiming that it has something to do with blackbody principles is simply incorrect.quote:
On thing we find in the corona, and I "guess" (I'm still not quite sure where you're at on this) we *finally* agree that coronal loops are more dense and hotter than the surrounding material as Nitta suggested.
And I think you've vastly oversimplified what Nitta had to say.quote:
Dave we *can* and we *do* see the hot zones of the corona.
No, we have to infer the temperatures based on the physical properties we believe the corona has, coupled with the images.quote:
We can isolate the heat source of the corona based on the laws of physics and thermodnamics.
None of the laws of physics or thermodynamics needed to infer the temperatures include "blackbody principles" in this case.quote:
Regardless of whether ions radiate exactly like molecules, we can still isolate the heat signatures of the corona using the same laws of thermodynamics.
But not blackbody principles.quote:
There is no mystery in resolving where the heat is concentrated.
It's quite a bit more complex than you're making it out to be.quote:
You're trying to make it more difficult that it really is. We can see which areas are hot and which are less so simply by looking at this region in a variety of wavelengths.
No, we have to infer the temperature distribution through methods which are logically consistent with themselves and with all the other physical properties of the system in question.quote:
quote:
That's a new term for the corona: shadow. I don't know what it means relative to these images which show photons coming from everywhere.
They don't come from everywhere egually Dave.
Strawman: I never said "equally."quote:
The loops emit the most light because they are more dense than the surrounding material.
That's what I said many pages ago, and you rejected it.quote:
They also emit light because they are energized by electrical current and they are considerably hotter than the darker regions of the corona.
If they're denser, why do they need to be hotter? How hot do you think the rest of the corona is, Michael?quote:
The issue here Dave is very simple. All atoms (even ions) will emit light if there is excess energy to be emitted. There is no great difference between locating the heat signature of the corona vs. locating the heat signature of anything. We simply have to look to see what "glows" in the hot wavelengths.
And thus you refuse to answer my question.quote:
Ya, I did have a few crappy science teachers that taught me that the sun was a giant ball of gas, and the corona was somehow immune from radiating energy in a way that allows us to easily locate the heat source of the corona.
It is unbelievable that you can agree with Nitta, yet still assert that temperature measurements in the corona should be "easy."quote:
I can see the heat source with my own eyes...
No, you cannot.quote:
...and it's no great mystery why gas model theoriest can't figure out simple stuff like coronal loops and the heat source of the corona. They were all taught a bunch of garbage and they still believe in the garbage they were taught.
|
- 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 - 04/04/2006 : 10:15:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That wasn't a strawman, but it was a cheap shot. When you put forth a barrel full of fish and hand Dave the shotgun, what do you expect?
I handed him a flippent comment to something I felt was off topic. I certainly didn't expect *that* part of the conversation to go anywhere. :)
quote:
That Water Bubble-video (though cool as it is) have no relevance what so ever with sun (especially your model of it),
Actually, I've grown quite "fond" of that model over the last few months Dr.
quote:
other than it demonstrates sound wave propagation through a relatively homogenous sphere of liquid. It actually demonstrates how sound-waves propagates through the sun if it was a ball of plasma, not a ping-pong ball. It demonstrates some principles of helioseismology. And have a close look: That blob of water in the video doesn't have a solid surface.
My model of sound travel wouldn't be "ping-pong" ball by the way. In this case the sphere has a plasma atmosphere above it. It would be more like a ping-pong ball surrounded by water.
quote:
But gravitational forces are not at work in that video, only surface tension. As an example to support your argument, it fails miserable. In fact, it's not even in the same ball-park.
I'm not even go to go there at the moment. I've specifically tried to keep this part of the conversation focused on the corona and the coronal loops. We can come back to this stuff later if you folks really want to.
quote:
The difference between your arguments and the targets at a shooting gallery at the amusement-park is that we get a prize at the amusement park. If you had acknowleged Dave's hits, he would have put you out of business long ago.
What you and Dave seem to think are "hits" seem rather more like invisible, mystical heat bunnies. I don't see anything in that composite image to suggest that the coronal loops are cooler or less dense than the atmosphere around them. Quite the opposite. I see arcs that emit light, just as I would expect in a Birkeland model. The fact that gas model theory has a tough time isolating the heat source of the corona simply demonstrates how "blind" that model is to reality in general. Every high energy satellite system puts the heat and the light in the coronal loops. It should be pretty darn obvious to anywone that the coronal loops are hotter and more dense than the dark regions in the same image, but for whatever reason, this seems to be quite the "revelation" as it relates to solar theory. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 10:53:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The difference are only perceptial in your mind Dave. My model is no different that Birkeland's model in the final analysis since it does certainly intact with the unviverse around it, just as Birkeland's model interacted with it's environment. The fact you see these two models as somehow "different" in that regard simply demonstrates that you do *not* yet understand my model.
No, I still see the models as different in other ways, Michael. Birkeland's "arcs" only came from outside influences, while you've got point-to-point electrical potentials across the surface of yours. And then there are the other points I mentioned which you just ignored in your rush to claim that your model "interacts with its environment." Just a red herring, trying to distract from the other differences.quote:
The only reason I'm in utter denial that my model is different from Birkelands is because it is *not* functionally different than Birkeland's model, no matter how much you might think otherwise.
But it is functionally different, since the electrons in the arcs in Birkeland's photos don't originate on the sphere. |
- 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 - 04/04/2006 : 11:10:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure they are Dave. Lockheed's method is still a variation on the same theme. They are just complicating the issue dramatically by trying to compare wavelengths rather than just adding them up.
Blackbody calculations don't depend on "adding up" the wavelengths at all. In fact, if the corona did radiate as a black body does, we could measure temperature from just a single broad-band image.quote:
The whole notion of comparing them at all was to attempt to assertain the heat signature. Unfortuntately they failed to scientifically deal with any of the complications of their method and their results are skewed accordingly.
Of course, just like with your "Z-axis acceleration," you can't quantify any of the "complications" you claim exist. Of course, quite a bit of that method has been experimentally verified right here on Earth, but you're not encumbered by facts.quote:
quote:
Except we don't all agree that all the pixels are lit.
We seem to agree that photons hit every pixel of the camera, but we don't seem to both deal with reflection issue equally.
Sure we deal with it equally: you can't measure it, and neither can I.quote:
quote:
You're completely missing Nitta's point, and mine as well.
No I'm not Dave. I accept his basic point, namely that an increase in density will *also* cause an increase in photon output. I have no problem accepting that issue. What I don't accept is that the method works as advertized, and evidently he did not either since in the final analysis, he put the hot 20 million degree plasma inside the loops just as I did.
Nobody is asking you to accept the method of measuring temperature from line ratios, that's just another red herring. The point you're missing is that the temperature measurement is a very complex issue, and you're oversimplifying it to death.quote:
quote:
I'm supposed to be impressed that you can disprove a strawman?
No Dave, you're supposed to look at the image and notice that the loops are the hottest and most energetic part of the corona.
I can't see any temperature data in an image, Michael, because it's not that simple.quote:
That's what these multimillion dollar satellites reveal to us. It's not just Trace and SOHO that reveal this to us, but also Yohkoh, Geos and Rhessi as well. All of these satellites show that the high energy discharges are associated with the coronal loops.
And yet, high energies aren't necessarily associated with high temperatures.quote:
Oh come on! I offered you a "reasonable" way to filter out some of the reflection issues.
No, it's unreasonable to offer a method which you can't even implement because you don't know what measurement to plug in.quote:
You rejected it because it was "imperfect".
No, I rejected it because we have no hope of using it correctly.quote:
What alternative did you come up with?
Since you haven't demonstrated a need to account for reflectivity, I'm not convinced that any method is required. |
- 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 - 04/04/2006 : 11:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dr. Bruce discusses the breakdown voltages required for coronal events, thus obviously thinking that the only plasma which exists in the corona is within the discharges themselves. There isn't any evidence for that, however, and if the whole-corona temperatures are correct, then the whole corona is plasma, and no insulating materials exist there to breakdown ionically. Again, the lightning analogy is inept, unless you have evidence that the corona is less than 6,000 kelvin except for the arcs?
I don't have to do that since that arcs do not originate in the corona in the first place and STEREO will demonstrate that for us later this year.
You still have to explain how arcs through a plasma generate the temperatures required to create all that ionized stuff, and I mean explain, by describing the amperage, current, and resistance in an "arc." |
- 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 - 04/04/2006 : 11:16:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since you still haven't explained what you mean by "coronal loop" (a drawing might help, again), I'm not sure I can agree.
Drawings? We don't need no stinkin' drawings. I have a million pictures of them. :)
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_990809_230034.gif
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
quote:
And since Nitta points out that there is no real consensus, why should this discussion be any different? The fact is, even without a consensus, coronal science still gets done, but here, you're claiming that this discussion can't continue unless we all agree on certain aspects of some images.
We *must* isolate a light source and a heat signature source to have a serious discussion on these satellite images. That becomes critical as we get to the RD images, but it's important even in the simplest of satellite images like the top image. Before we can even get to the more interesting images, we have to understand the basics, otherwise no analysis is really possible.
quote:
I agree with all of that, but claiming that it has something to do with blackbody principles is simply incorrect.
I think you're getting hung up on the definitions of words here Dave. Blackbody principles involve a host of thermodynamic principles and rely upon the laws of physics. Atoms emit light given enough excess energy. Blackbody calculations related to light output and heat output are still relavant, even if the density of the corona if far less than the the density of the photosophere. Atoms are still atoms. I'm essentially talking about blackbody principles as these principles relate to individual "atoms". You seem to be fixated on some other aspect of blackbody principles. If however you agree that we can discuss this in terms of atoms and the laws of thermodnamics that relate to atom and emissions, then I think we can find common ground.
quote:
No, we have to infer the temperatures based on the physical properties we believe the corona has, coupled with the images.
Actually, we don't have to "infer" a whole lot here Dave. All I'm infering in my method is that hot things emit light. That's pretty much a given law of physics. Lockheed's "method" on the other hand is predicated on a whole host of physical properties of the atmosphere which they fail to address or even recognize as being problematic in their method.
quote:
None of the laws of physics or thermodynamics needed to infer the temperatures include "blackbody principles" in this case.
I'm going to steer this conversation away from the term "blackbody" since you seem to be interpreting that term much differently than I am. I'm instead going to use terms like thermodynamics and laws of physics, since that is ultimately what these blackbody principles are created from, and these are the simple principles I'm tyring to convey.
quote:
But not blackbody principles.
Ok. We'll do it your way. We'll drop the term "blackbody" altogether than and talk about the laws of thermodynamics and keep it focused on these core issues as it relates to atoms in the atmosphere. That should simplify this discussion greatly.
quote:
quote:
There is no mystery in resolving where the heat is concentrated.
It's quite a bit more complex than you're making it out to be.
No Dave, I don't think it is. Lockheed is the on that it turning this into a complicated excersize, not me. My method is simply and clean and isn't predicated on knowing the precise amount of photons from each ion. It's simply predicated on a simple law of thermodynamics that suggests that atoms with excess energy emit light. The method Lockheed is attempting to use is radically more complex. To do it their way, you need to know something about the ratios of photons (FE IX vs FEXX you are recieving), and something about the reflection and absorbtion rates of the atoms in the atmosphere. They are making it *far* more complicated than it needs to be or should be.
quote:
No, we have to infer the temperature distribution through methods which are logically consistent with themselves and with all the other physical properties of the system in question.
My method is logically consistent with itself. It's also completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and physics. Atoms that are hot will radiate energy. Atoms that are less hot will radiate less energy. There is nothing inconsistent with my methods.
When however you look at the method that Lockheed is trying to use, it is predicated on knowing a great deal more about the specific environment in question. Since they can't even isolate the heat source of the corona, that seems pretty damn inconsistent from where I sit.
quote:
That's what I said many pages ago, and you rejected it.
You also must recognize that they are not *only* more dense than the atmosphere they traverse, the atoms in that loop are a much greater temperature than the corona itself. According to Nitta, they can contain plasma up to 20 million degrees! That's that key here Dave. They are *hot* as well as *dense*.
quote:
If they're denser, why do they need to be hotter?
Because they put out light consistent with plasma in the 20 million degree range, and the darker regions of the corona are not that hot.
quote:
How hot do you think the rest of the corona is, Michael?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2006 11:17:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 11:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since you still haven't explained what you mean by "coronal loop" (a drawing might help, again), I'm not sure I can agree.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/arcade_small_9_nov_2000.JPG
Drawings? We don't need no stinkin' drawings. I have a million pictures of them. :)
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_990809_230034.gif
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Well, since you're unwilling to detail what you think is a single arc in any of these images, we can't continue.quote:
We *must* isolate a light source and a heat signature source to have a serious discussion on these satellite images.
Yet you refuse to show me a single arc. Why are you stonewalling?quote:
That becomes critical as we get to the RD images, but it's important even in the simplest of satellite images like the top image. Before we can even get to the more interesting images, we have to understand the basics, otherwise no analysis is really possible.
And while you stonewall on the basics, we can't go anyplace.quote:
I think you're getting hung up on the definitions of words here Dave. Blackbody principles involve a host of thermodynamic principles and rely upon the laws of physics.
Yes, blackbody principles are a subset of those physics.quote:
Atoms emit light given enough excess energy.
Blackbody principles describe the energy levels of the light given nothing more than a temperature. You and I both know that ions, due to quantum principles, don't have a direct correlation between temperature and photon energy levels, so they're not black bodies.quote:
Blackbody calculations related to light output and heat output are still relavant, even if the density of the corona if far less than the the density of the photosophere.
Red herring: I never claimed that the low density precluded our use of blackbody calculations.quote:
Atoms are still atoms. I'm essentially talking about blackbody principles as these principles relate to individual "atoms".
A single iron atom in isolation won't emit a blackbody spectrum, either.quote:
You seem to be fixated on some other aspect of blackbody principles.
No, just the definition of a black body. That you use the term loosely and unscientifically is what the problem is here, Michael.quote:
If however you agree that we can discuss this in terms of atoms and the laws of thermodnamics that relate to atom and emissions, then I think we can find common ground.
Okay, go ahead and tell us how photon intensity is related to heat in ions.quote:
Actually, we don't have to "infer" a whole lot here Dave. All I'm infering in my method is that hot things emit light. That's pretty much a given law of physics. Lockheed's "method" on the other hand is predicated on a whole host of physical properties of the atmosphere which they fail to address or even recognize as being problematic in their method.
Actually, Lockeed recognizes that while hot things emit light, lots of hot things will emit more light than just a few hot things, and thus take into account much more than your simple-minded "brighter equals hotter" nonsense.quote:
No Dave, I don't think it is. Lockheed is the on that it turning this into a complicated excersize, not me.
No, lots of scientists believe the issue is very complex.quote:
My method is simply and clean and isn't predicated on knowing the precise amount of photons from each ion.
The line-ratio method isn't predicated on that, either.quote:
It's simply predicated on a simple law of thermodynamics that suggests that atoms with excess energy emit light.
Yes, which says nothing about their temperature.quote:
The method Lockheed is attempting to use is radically more complex. To do it their way, you need to know something about the ratios of photons (FE IX vs FEXX you are recieving), and something about the reflection and absorbtion rates of the atoms in the atmosphere. They are making it *far* more complicated than it needs to be or should be.
They're trying to measure the temperature, Michael. You're not.quote:
My method is logically consistent with itself. It's also completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and physics. Atoms that are hot will radiate energy. Atoms that are less hot will radiate less energy. There is nothing inconsistent with my methods.
They are inconsistent with the fact that the camera is a photon counter, and doesn't detect the energy levels of the photons.quote:
When however you look at the method that Lockheed is trying to use, it is predicated on knowing a great de |
- 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 - 04/04/2006 : 13:27:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I have no issue with you, or anyone, making mistakes. The issue I've been trying to make, repeatedly, was not that it was an accidental error, but rather that it was a mistake in your method/ability of analysing various types of imagery.
I beg to differ with you on this point John. It was an accidental error. I make them all the time particularly since I tend to post between tech calls with tons of external distractions going on. Sometimes I'll be interrupted 20 times before I finish a single post. My statement was actually valid and accurate. We *can* see "structures" in raw images.
quote:
You can have all the "features" you want, and a partridge in a pear tree. When you say that said features are mountains and such, and that these mountains appear in both raw and calculated images, I will continue to have issues with your analysis. Nice redirect by the way. (Never mind what I said, this is what I meant...)
But John, I did show you a raw image (colorized) that shows these same kinds of features:
My statement was actually accurate, although the images I cited in that particular post were not raw images. We can however see these same structures in raw images.
quote:
Sorry, I thought you were presenting a model. You're right, you don't have to play any game. You can leave scientific issues with your model undealt with, as long as other models haven't dealt with them too, then your model is just fine. If you think you get a hard time here, try that argument out in a submission to any peer reviewed scientific publication.
It's not the process that I object to, I object to the double standard. The gas model theory can't even explain a coronal loop, a CME, the 11 year solar cycle, coronal rain, solar moss, etc. There are lots of things that gas model theory can't answer even with thousands of dedicated scientists working on these issues everyday. Nobody however attempts to dismiss gas model theory based on these unknowns. The attitude around here however is based on the concept that if you folks can stump me on some aspect of the model, the model is somehow less valid. There is no correlation between the viability of the Birkeland solar model and the personal limitations of a single individual. I resent that "attitude", and the fact that "attitude" isn't applied equally to both models. If I *can* explain the heat source of the corona, and gas model theory cannot, that seems like it should count for something. Around here however, that kind of thing gets completely ignored.
quote:
That you can "see" solid mountains in running difference images.
You'll have to be more specific I'm afraid, since I do in fact see solid mountains in the Lockheed RD image. I also see material that is ejected from the surface rise and fall back to the surface. I see where the material fell to the surface and I see how it affected the surface. I see all sorts of patterns in that image that are consistent with a solid surface and no one has ever come close to explaining the consistency of these patterns and the important details of this image using gas model theory.
quote:
quote:
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that if you believe that these images can be explained a "better" way, they you are obligated to put such an explantion on the table. It has to be attentive to all the minute details we see in the multimillion dollar images.
This has been done.
I beg to differ. The only real "detail" that anyone even mentioned was the cloud of mass separated material rising from the surface and falling back down again. Unfortunately that observation blew the whole theory about how we can't really see anything "real" in these images. We certainly *can* see material rise and fall in that image. Physical things show up just fine in RD images and we have proof of that in the rising and falling materials we see and their affect on the surface. No one has even mentioned the peeling we see along the right. No one has really addressed the consistency of the patterns and their longevity compared to structures in the photosphere.
quote:
You, however miss the point. Even in the absence of a "better" interpretation, an incorrect interpretation is still an incorrect interpretation.
The allegation was that we could not see anything "real" in that image, only shifting lighting patterns. The fact we actually *can* see the rising and falling material from the CME totally disproves that allegation. In short there was no legitimate criticism of my interpretation, and no "better" interpretation was offered. I can't just ignore that no one is able to offer a gas model explanation of that image, not on this board or any board where I have had these discussions. Evidently that image doesn't lend itself real well to a gas model explanation. I can understand why of course, but then this isn't exactly a great sales pitch for gas model theory if it can't even explain the very first image on my website. I could hardly abandon Birkeland's solar model based on the complete lack of a gas model explanation that I've heard to date.
quote:
You missed it again. By "where", I was hoping you'd be able to make the leap that I was talking about "where", spectrally. I'm not going to go into your specific errors regarding temperature and image intensity relationships, as it's already been done ad nauseum.
From a spectral standpoint I've looked at the solar atmosphere now from about every spectrum that has been used to image the sun. I've seen gamma ray images, x-ray images, iron ion photon images, helium ion photon images, calcium ion photon images. They don't all look the same. Some images are radically different from other images depending on the wavelength that is used to do the imaging.
The only pattern that is very consistent in all solar images is that the higher energy discharges are all associated with the matierals that are in and around the coronal loops. The coronal loops can be seen by Rhessi, Geos, Yohkoh, Trace and SOHO. Those loops put out photons in a wide wavelength range |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2006 13:32:06 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 15:14:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, since you're unwilling to detail what you think is a single arc in any of these images, we can't continue.
First of all I don't think that "arcs" travel in the "singular" to begin with. It's more than likely a quantum "burst" or stream rather than a "singular" arc. If you insist on visualizing this transfer of energy as a "singular" thing, go to page 42 of this months Scientific American article and look at Gordon's drawings. The green arcs are "singular" "bursts" if you will. The bottom right hand corner has a nifty drawing of a magnetic field with a plasma coil wrapped around it. This image is exactly what you see when you find current running in a wire. The magnetic field lines flow in a helix shape around the current flow. The current flow is what creates the magnetic field lines around the wire. The "singular" arc that you are trying to visualize is represented in that green arrow in the middle. In Birkeland's model, there is current flowing in that green wire. The plamsa winds around the current flow. Is that a sufficient "drawing" or do you need something more to understand the idea I'm trying to convey?
quote:
Yet you refuse to show me a single arc. Why are you stonewalling?
I'm not stonewalling you Dave. Gordon Holman already did this drawing for us on page 42. If you insist on visualizing a singular arc, see his drawings on page 42 and note where he shows green magnetic flow lines. These are also good drawings of an individual arc. You will need to to add a (+) sign at one end of the arc at the surface, and (-) sign at the other end.
quote:
And while you stonewall on the basics, we can't go anyplace.
How about you and I try this in a more direct and civil way Dave. I'm not trying to stonewall you, so there is no need to mischaracterize my motives. I don't always even understand what answers you are looking for, and often times more recently, I've been trying to reign in the discussion to some key points so we makes *some* progress. I even spent time for you adding up the images and showing you the math on my terms in a visual way, and I am continuing to try to make headway toward satellite image interpretation. We do however have to agree on what I would call some very "basic" issues. By "basic" I mean we *must* identify the light source of each image (they aren't always the same). We must also identify some heat signature characteristics of the image in question since we are trying to figure out how a hot object gets hot and where the heat flows. There is no point in beating around the bush here. We have to isolate these keys issues if we're going to figure out how the sun works.
I would like to take this one step at a time, starting with your statement about these loops being more dense and a higher temperature than the plasma outside the loop. Nitta also put the high temperature plasma in the loop meaning that he too must have surmised that the temperature *and* the density were higher inside the arc. That seems to be one place where we are at least close to finding agreement. I want to focus on that issue. I'll also try to see how I can relate my ideas back to what you call a "singular" loop. I would see it more as a "quantum loop" rather than a "singular" anything. Either way, I can figure out a way to relate my "quantum burst" to your "singular loop" if we are patient with one another. You however need to take some time and think about what I'm saying.
quote:
Blackbody principles describe the energy levels of the light given nothing more than a temperature. You and I both know that ions, due to quantum principles, don't have a direct correlation between temperature and photon energy levels, so they're not black bodies.
I think it would be best if we simply dropped the term "blackbody" from this discussion entirely. That concept has *never* "perfectly" fit anything. It's a theoretical construct that now seems to be getting in the way of our clear communication at this point. I would suggest instead that we use terms like energy, electricity, heat, thermodynamics, emission, absorbtion, and very specific energy related concepts.
I'm going to skip the rest of the blackbody terminology disagreements entirely. I liked the image I posted earlier for two primary reasons. It shows that loops travel in packs or waves. Sometimes they even move in opposite directions in close proximity to one another. They can often span very large areas and be huge in scope. Keep in mind that these kinds of events occurs quite frequently, particularly in the sun's "active" phases when the sun's magnetic pole is pointing slightly north and south of the equator. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 18:12:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael wrote:
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Here Dave, read section 2. These are just a few of the successful predictions of Dr. Bruce's Electrical Discharge theory that Mr. Holman seems to think "cannot" apply because some unnamed generic "investigators" concluded it could be written off decades ago.
Again, looking at the first succesful prediction:
quote:
The theory may be said to have started with a successful prediction during Sydney Chapman's Kelvin lecture(3.1) on the sun to the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 8th May, 1941, when he referred to a solar prominence which had reached a height of a million miles in an hour. It seemed to the writer that this could only mean that the phenomenon must be a solar lightning flash and that, therefore, a million miles an hour must be equivalent to 3 x 10^7 cm/sec, the velocity of propagation of the lightning leader-stroke since the velocity of propagation of breakdown in a gas should be independent of the density. [This] first prediction was approximately correct and the electrical discharge theory was launched
Well that statement in bold should be easy enough to check:
30,000,000 cm/sec
1 cm = 0.000 006 214 mile
3600 sec = 1 hour
30,000,000 cm/sec X .000006214 mile/cm X 3600sec/hour = 671,112 miles/hour
Um, so in the electric universe 671,112 = 1,000,000?
Nice source, I'm sure many a skeptic is now convinced.
You're a barking lunatic...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 19:20:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Um, so in the electric universe 671,112 = 1,000,000?
This is so typical of your shallow attitude. Let's look at the part you edited out, shall we?
quote:
The theory may be said to have started with a successful prediction during Sydney Chapman's Kelvin lecture(3.1) on the sun to the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 8th May, 1941, when he referred to a solar prominence which had reached a height of a million miles in an hour. It seemed to the writer that this could only mean that the phenomenon must be a solar lightning flash and that, therefore, a million miles an hour must be equivalent to 3 x 107 cm/sec, the velocity of propagation of the lightning leader-stroke since the velocity of propagation of breakdown in a gas should be independent of the density. A little mental arithmetic in the darkness corroborated on a scrap of paper when the lights went up, verified that this first prediction was approximately correct and the electrical discharge theory was launched.
For crying out loud furshur, he's describing the epiphany he had while sitting in a lecture where someone was describing the speed of a specific solar phenonenon in "miles/hour". He describes how he mentally related that number to a different figure in his head with different units that related to the propogation speed of a lightning stroke leader. He notes that it's an approximation but it certainly put him in the ballpark of the kinds of speeds he might expect to see if it was in fact discharge related. The fact you put him down for describing the epiphany he had says volumes about your character IMO. You never did offer me much in terms of an explanation of what drives these propogation speeds I noticed. I guess it's just infinitely easier to sit on the sidelines and hurl handgranades than it is to offer any alternatives of your own. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2006 19:23:04 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 00:05:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It used to seem that your arguments, while I didn't generally agree with them, were at least occasionally based on some sort of logic. Your last few pages of posts however, particularly in relation to the black body and current flow discussions seem to have degenerated badly from a scientific point of view. It could simply be that we've stumbled into an area where your basic knowledge is lacking, or it's just become too personal for you.
I see now that the use of the term "blackbody radiation" is simply confusing this conversation more than it is helping it. As I suggested to Dave, I think we need to focus on the thermodynamic laws and the physical laws that affect atoms, not theoretical constructs.
From my perspective however, the heat signatures in these images speak for themselves. It's quite obvious from the total of these millions of images from multiple satellites that the coronal loops are quite a bit more energetic and more dense than the other materials in the solar atmosphere. We can see this fact in image after image. I think once we get past the unnecessarily lingo, and look at the hard science of thermodynamics, my position will become clear and my position will be vindicated. Be patient.
quote:
I am speculating here somewhat, but it honestly feels like you're grasping at ideas based on faith and principle rather than reason.
Ir may "feel" like that to you from the outside looking in at the moment, but quite the opposite is true. I would have to admit that I had "faith" in gas model theory when I could not explain these images. I have however collected "observational evidence" to demonstrate the credibility of Birkeland's solar model. My "faith" was replaced by "observation".
quote:
Before you start accusing me of defending the solar model, I'll say this: It's true I may not be entirely aware of all the biases that have resulted from my educational and other life experiences to this point, however, I have absolutely no vested interest in or desire to defend the "gas model". As a distinct body of knowledge, I was barely even aware of the "gas model"'s existence before getting into this discussion. You'll find it quite a common trait that scientists exhibit less loyalty to their particular institution/company/discipline than they do have to science itself.
Well John, frankly that's reassurring. Based on your comments to date I would not say you were actively trying to defend gas model theory, but we all have that bias. It was handed to us in school, like it or not.
quote:
A corollary of this tendency is, as one of my colleagues used to say "managing scientists is like trying to herd cats".
Well, one thing I do like about science is that it is not based on faith, but on evidence and observation. Unfortunately however, science, like all human endeavors is not immune to human fraility, and money does drive the research. I hear your point however, and the fact that there is room for discent in science is one of the things I really like about it. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2006 00:24:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 00:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's not difficult to explain this energy concentration with a magnetically arranged solid surface to work with
Can you please explain what a "magnetically arranged solid surface" is? Is it the same as a mass separated one?
No, these are two different issues actually. The magnetic alignment of the surface crust is the alignment that was in place as the crust cooled. The alignment that was in place when that part of the surface cooled is related to the alignment of the energy that was flowing in that area at the time the crust cooled. The flow of current aligns the metallic elements in the crust in a specfic direction. This is most noteable when the magnetic poles are pointed slightly north and south of the equator. In that case we opposite alignments occurring just north and south of the equator that eventually begin to interact with one another.
quote:
OK, now I get it, the current flow, which begins by flowing through a low resistance plasma, "drags" some higher resistance material from the solid surface into the atmosphere, and then begins to flow through that higher resistance material rather than through the lower resistance plasma which it displaced. Have I understood you correctly? Now why didn't I think of that?
No, you didn't understand me correctly.
quote:
Wrong again Michael. Atoms are not black bodies. It would be to your advantage to learn some physics before making scientific assumptions about physical systems.
Like I said John, I'm going to avoid the term "black body" because of this term is more confusing than helpful at this point. The emissions *will* take place at an atomic level, and each and every atom that has enough excess energy is capable of emitting this excess energy. There are very important laws of physics and laws of thermodynamics that are absolute, and apply regardless of the density of the plasma involved. In the end, this issue does come back to what is happening in the atom, and as it relates to the TRACE images, this primarily relates to what is going on in Fe, Ca and Oxygen atoms since these are the primary atoms that are responsible for emitting photons in these particular wavelengths. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 05:39:52 [Permalink]
|
You are really a piece of work Michael
You wrote:
quote:
For crying out loud furshur, he's describing the epiphany he had while sitting in a lecture where someone was describing the speed of a specific solar phenonenon in "miles/hour". He describes how he mentally related that number to a different figure in his head with different units that related to the propogation speed of a lightning stroke leader. He notes that it's an approximation but it certainly put him in the ballpark of the kinds of speeds he might expect to see if it was in fact discharge related. The fact you put him down for describing the epiphany he had says volumes about your character IMO.
My character , you are so freaking dishonest it is amazing. I thought you were stupid but the truth is you will lie and decieve to convince people of you're indefensible position. Lets look at the site YOU provided again and see if I misrepresented it.
Here is the title of the paper:
quote:
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution
So am I to assume ths is not about actual predictions but it is about belief or feelings or estimations or opinions or fucking epiphanies (incorrect epiphanies at that).
So if that was not a prediction which of the apparent predictions in the paper are we suppose to ignore? I did not see in the paper where the author said, "on closer inspection I found that there was an arithmetic error and so you should disregard this prediciton".
Are all of the proponents of the electrical universe just dishonest?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 10:06:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
You are really a piece of work Michael
Thanks! :)
quote:
Are all of the proponents of the electrical universe just dishonest?
Talk about dishonest questions and tactics... The man explained to us where his ideas came from, and where and how he made the mental connection between electrical discharges and solar atmospheric phenomenon:
quote:
The theory may be said to have started with a successful prediction during Sydney Chapman's Kelvin lecture(3.1) on the sun to the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 8th May, 1941,
He also notes that he was mentally calculating these numbers in the dark during the presentation, and scribbled on some scratch paper afterwards. He literally sets the stage for us to understand how he made this connection between solar phenomenon and electrical discharges in the first place.
quote:
A little mental arithmetic in the darkness corroborated on a scrap of paper when the lights went up, verified that this first prediction was approximately correct and the electrical discharge theory was launched.
Instead of appreciating his explanation of how he made this mental connection, and instead of noting that is was only an *approximation*, you went into character assasination mode. Rather than listening to my point of view and accepting that this was only an appoximated figure, you then attack my character as well.
Instead of offering us any alternatives to explain these high discharge speeds as I asked you to do, you instead attack the characters of your opponents. The low road may be easy to take furshur, but it only demonstrates the biases within you. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2006 10:07:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
