|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2006 : 18:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Mind you, you could retract the claim that you're the "only one on earth" who has explained these images correctly.
Well, first you'd have to give me a good reason to do that. :)
My explanation of the Lockheed RD image is not the least bit affected by this particular error on my part, and the only attention to detail I've ever heard about this image came from Lockheed's website when it talked about the ejected material we see in this image.
Now of course it never describes what kind of material it is, where it's ejected from, why it rains back down, or where it goes when it rains back down. That is however the only significant "detail" I've even heard gas model theorist attempt to discuss. Once we try to discuss that detail however, few if any answers are ever fortcomming.
I didn't suggest I'm the only one on earth to explain them "correctly", I said "scientifically" and one that was "attentive to detail". The term "correct" implies I have already determined an outcome. I truely have not. As I said, I half expected that someone would come along and drop a gas model explanation on the table that was attentative to detail and could explain at least "some" of the details we see. Unfortunately that has not occured.
quote:
The images themselves are evidence. Interpretations of them are not, they are simply interpretations.
You can interpret that crater shaped structure anyway you wish, but it's there 2.5 minutes later, angular corners and all. Mind you that these images are obscured by streamers in the plasma (arcs) that come off the surface. The surface itself is also more obscured as a result.
quote:
If and only if brighter==hotter.
You can't use black body principles in one post and then ignore the ramifications of these same principles in the next post. In all electrical discharge events, brighter is hotter. By all black body principles, bright is hotter. This all comes back to simple laws of physics, logic and common sense. If we both saw an electrical discharge through the earth's amosphere, you would not suggest the earth atmosphere is "hotter" than the plasma in the arc. Bruce documented the fact that these events are consistent with electrical discharges.
If you have evidence they are not electrical discharges, I'm certainly willing to listen, but I see no reason to dismiss his work without cause.
quote:
You have yet to demonstrate this to be true.
I site the life's work of Dr. Charles Bruce to demonstrate this. I've yet to hear any counter explanation, or any reason to discount his work on solar electrical discharge phenomenon.
quote:
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.
Actually, it's "less obvious" to me how *much* hotter they are than the surrounding plasma of the photosphere and chromosphere. According to Lockheed (not me) these temps are in the millions of degrees. I would say they "could" be that high, but they are not *necessarily* that high.
quote:
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".
We don't just have one image or a single satellite to work with. We have Yohkoh, SOHO, TRACE, Geos and Rhessi just to name a few. All of these satellite images show a consistent pattern of light from coronal loops. Yohkoh SXT imaging system uses a much broader spectrum than TRACE's 171 or 195A filters, and it also shows that the light and heat is concentrated in and around the arcs. Rhessi show's neutron capture signatures higher up in the arcs, and shows that positron and electron annihilation occurs at the base of these arcs. Geos also shows a consistent set of light patterns from the coronal loops. All the highest energy photons are associated with the coronal loops or proximitiy to the coronal loops.
Until you can show me how light and heat are NOT related in solar-like conditions, I see no reason to believe they are not related processes, since they are certainly related processes in electrical discharges, and Bruce has shown a correlation between solar atmospheric movements and electrical discharges.
quote:
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."
You folks do come up with some rather "creative" strawmen. In this case however, you have at least two eye witness (UofM and Bruce) putting electricity at the scene of the crime.
quote:
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.
Fine, I accept it could be lower than 160 thousand Kelvin (which seems quite likely against a 20,000 K chromosphere, or greater than 20 million Kelvin, which seems rather unlikely. If we have doubts, we can go to Yohkoh and Rhessi and look at what they show us. Yohkoh is particularly helpful in that regard since it shows us a fairly large spectrum of high energy discharges. These images are also quite in alignment with the observations of the TRACE system. These coronal loops are the focal points of the high energy discharges.
quote:
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.
Perhaps under very specific scenarios, it's 'possible' but I have ample examples in every thunderstorm |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/20/2006 18:06:55 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 18:49:48 [Permalink]
|
This image shows a comet particle collected by the Stardust spacecraft. The particle is made up of the silicate mineral forsterite, which can found on Earth in the gemstone peridot. It is surrounded by a thin rim of melted aerogel, the substance used to collect the comet dust samples. The particle is about 2 micrometers across.
Credit: NASA
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1896.html
Here is just one more clue to the mystery of solar system formation, and unlike theory, it turns out the comets do not seem to be "dirty snowballs". In fact they contain many of the minerals in our own crust. These, are all simply supernova renmants as Dr. Manuel surmised.
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/forsteri/forsteri.htm
Forsterite is typically high in iron content, but of course includes silicon as we would expect from an exploding star as well as magnesium and oxygen. The crust of our sun is not homogeneous, but composed of these kinds of materials. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/20/2006 19:03:30 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 23:33:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This image shows a comet particle collected by the Stardust spacecraft. The particle is made up of the silicate mineral forsterite, which can found on Earth in the gemstone peridot. It is surrounded by a thin rim of melted aerogel, the substance used to collect the comet dust samples. The particle is about 2 micrometers across.
Credit: NASA
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1896.html
Yes. It's interesting what dust was collected.
quote:
Here is just one more clue to the mystery of solar system formation, and unlike theory, it turns out the comets do not seem to be "dirty snowballs".
On the contrary, quite the opposite is true. The comets really are "dirty snowballs". The dust collected did not come from the comet itself, but from behind the comet's tail: the dirty snow expelled from the comet contains a high percentage of volatiles, like water, methane, ammonia, and other funky stuff, along with the "dirt". All volatiles evaporate once it's heated, the process starts just inside of Jupiter's orbit. Once the probe sampled the dust from the comet's tail, minerals was all that was left since it does not evaporate.
quote:
In fact they contain many of the minerals in our own crust. These, are all simply supernova remnants as Dr. Manuel surmised.
Yes, but in a relatively small amounts compared to volatiles.
quote:
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/forsteri/forsteri.htm
Forsterite is typically high in iron content, but of course includes silicon as we would expect from an exploding star as well as magnesium and oxygen. The crust of our sun is not homogeneous, but composed of these kinds of materials.
Given that you have now identified three major components of the crust, can you please indicate it's density? +/- 50% would be sufficient for me. |
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. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 07:36:16 [Permalink]
|
The Scientific American has a great article on solar flares this month. There has been alot of progress in understanding this phenomena in recent years. They even discuss some of the aspects of the electrical currents in flares as it relates to the magnetic fields.
Sadly for Michael they do not discuss (or even seem to be aware of) the solid surface of the sun.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 11:07:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The Scientific American has a great article on solar flares this month. There has been alot of progress in understanding this phenomena in recent years. They even discuss some of the aspects of the electrical currents in flares as it relates to the magnetic fields.
Sadly for Michael they do not discuss (or even seem to be aware of) the solid surface of the sun.
Cool! I haven't seen my copy yet, but it should be arriving any day now. I'm particularly interested in the electrical current aspect of that article, and I hope Dave is interested as well.
It's not really sad for me that they don't mention a solid surface, it's really just sad for science as a whole that they haven't recognized where the electrical current originates.
Did they suggest this current flow *only* took place above the photosphere, or did they suggest that the current flowed *beneath* the photosphere as well?
I've got a ton of questions about the current flow aspects of that article, but I suppose I'll just have to read it for myself. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 11:33:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Yes. It's interesting what dust was collected.
...
The dust collected did not come from the comet itself, but from behind the comet's tail: the dirty snow expelled from the comet contains a high percentage of volatiles, like water, methane, ammonia, and other funky stuff, along with the "dirt". All volatiles evaporate once it's heated, the process starts just inside of Jupiter's orbit. Once the probe sampled the dust from the comet's tail, minerals was all that was left since it does not evaporate.
Well, you can show me the dirt to be sure, and we see plenty of crater like structures on that surface. What I don't see are any of the so called "volatiles". Of course one may ask why none of the water managed to freeze, or form into solids that were capable of being captured as well. For that matter, why wasn't that particle surrounded by ice particles?
quote:
Yes, but in a relatively small amounts compared to volatiles.
I personally find it a little "convenient" that *all* the volatiles as you refer to them would necessarily evaporate rather than freeze, or bond to something else. There is oxygen in these particles, and there is hydrogen in the solar discharges. The electric universe crowd has demonstrated how these elements might interact to form "water" as the comet moves closer to the sun and heats up. I fail to see why it must be the case that comets are really "dirty snowballs" at all. In fact it could simply be a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas in the solar discharges interacting electrically with the oxygen atoms inside these particles that forms "water vapor" that we might see in the coma as the comet approaches the sun.
quote:
Given that you have now identified three major components of the crust, can you please indicate it's density? +/- 50% would be sufficient for me.
http://webmineral.com/data/Olivine.shtml
quote:
Density: 3.27 - 3.37, Average = 3.32
That is probably as good as any 'guestimate' I might make at the momement. As long as you're giving me a 50% margin of error, I'll select a "range" for the surface crust that is somewhere between Olivine and Calcium Ferrite, something around 4.0. Keep in mind that the crust could be quite "thin" in comparison to the diameter of the entire sun. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/21/2006 12:27:45 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 12:29:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's not really sad for me that they don't mention a solid surface, it's really just sad for science as a whole that they haven't recognized where the electrical current originates.
 |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 13:49:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
It's not really sad for me that they don't mention a solid surface, it's really just sad for science as a whole that they haven't recognized where the electrical current originates.
Well furshur, it's all about where the base of the arcs are located. If they are located in the corona as Lockheed believes, that should be easily demonstratable via STEREO data in about 6 months or so. If however the base of these arcs is located under the photosphere (which they must be IMO), then this too should be easily demonstrateble with STEREO technology. A key prediction difference between current theory and a Birkeland solar model is the location of the base of these arcs. Lockheed claims they originate in the corona, but if magnetic fields are driven from inside the core, then the arcs that form around current flow would be flowing quite strongly *long* before the arcs reached the surface of the photosphere. Lockhheed has this logically backwards, even by gas model standards if you ask me. This year should bring a whole host of new "discoveries" about what is transpiring in the corona, and what's going on in the arcs in general.
What gas model theory never gets around to explaining is the complexity of the "magnetic fields" that we see. For instance:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/MDI_T171_000317_11.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/124360main_quietHR_alt.0200_200.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/125209main_quiet_640x480.mpg
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 15:40:45 [Permalink]
|
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive24.html
Here's the quote from Lockheed describing that last movie I cited:
quote:
When do electrical currents (and flares) occur in the Sun's atmosphere?
NASA press release 2005/08/16
Strong electrical currents in the Sun's corona form when new field, itself likely carrying currents, emerges into existing active regions out of alignment with existing field (see this study published in the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 628, 501; July 2005).
The visualizations on the left (courtesy Goddard Space Flight Center, based on SOHO/MDI and TRACE observations), show the characteristic differences between regions with and without strong electrical currents. The movies first show the evolution of the magnetic field (observed with SOHO/MDI), then a computed current-free (potential) magnetic field, and finally the subsequent evolution as seen by TRACE in its 171Å pass band.
In the top movie, the computed field shows little resemblance to the coronal configuration observed with TRACE (gold color table); the strong currents responsible for this deviation between field and model caused very strong flaring activity in this region. In the bottom movie, the model field matches the corona quite well, and although there is considerable coronal variability, no major flaring occurred. The magnetogram movies differ in that the potential case shows some emerging flux, but relatively little, and mostly aligned with the pre-exising field. The non-potential case shows strong intrusions of misaligned, rapidly evolving field with very strong gradients. The latter characteristic is shared by almost all of the non-potential, flaring regions analyzed in the ApJ study.
Here is the press release that is mentioned:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/clear_weather_feature.html
Here is the paper that is sited in the article:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/125101main_schrijver.pdf
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/21/2006 16:22:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 15:43:18 [Permalink]
|
From the press release (emphasis mine):
quote:
Insight into the causes of the largest solar flares came in two steps. "First, we discovered characteristic patterns of magnetic field evolution associated with strong electrical currents in the solar atmosphere," said Dr. Marc DeRosa of the ATC, co-author of the paper. "It is these strong electrical currents that drive solar flares."
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/21/2006 15:43:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 00:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Unbelievable 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg
I really liked this movie from the press release. They even show the coronal loop coming up from underneath. How then can the base of these arcs orininate in the corona?
Sweeet. Not very realistic though, I can't see the ground.
Speaking of movie clips, since you're not interested in doing science, you should write a script based on your theory and pitch it to Hollywood. It would be so cool right, you'd have these scientists see, and they've developed this fancy new heat shield thingy so the first thing they do is build a spaceship and take it into space to study the inside of the sun.
So they're like right next to the sun and after this huge dramatic buildup they decide to go inside the sun's corona. And everything's going great, the heat shield works perfect and all, but see they think the sun is giant ball of plasma and they don't know that they're like headed straight for the solid iron shell of the sun and everything. Anyway at the last moment they see the surface and they start screaming and yelling "Pull up! Pull up!" but it's too late and they crash land on the surface.
I don't know exactly what happens after that but this alien who lives on the sun shows up and explains how stupid they were to believe that the sun was a ball of plasma. And then he either saves them or lets them die and its all very profound and stuff. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 01:14:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Unbelievable
That actually gave me a chuckle. :)
Can I play the skeptical guy on board that favors a Birkeland model and gets to say "I told you so" at the end? :) |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 02:30:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That actually gave me a chuckle. :)
Can I play the skeptical guy on board that favors a Birkeland model and gets to say "I told you so" at the end? :)
Sure. In Hollywood, anything is possible. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 07:53:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well furshur, it's all about where the base of the arcs are located. If they are located in the corona as Lockheed believes, that should be easily demonstratable via STEREO data in about 6 months or so.
As anybody who has been following this train wreck knows the STEREO will confirm (once again) that your silly ideas are, well, silly. You on the other hand, will somehow interpret the data as confirming the surface of the sun is solid, or has a shell or whatever.
Pitiful 
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
