|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:10:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could only assume by this response that you didn't thuroughly read Dr. Bruce's explanations
If you will recall when you asked me if I read it I said "nope" that is indeed what I meant.
quote:
You also cannot assume that charges cannot "build up" since the sun has a very strong magnetic field, and these "disharges" are occuring with the express intent of neutralizing these potential differences.
Your sentence structure seems to indicate that you are saying that electrical discharges are neutralizing the magnetic field. Is that what you meant to say?
quote:
Birkelands model even demonstrated that the "bumbs" or higher surface elevations tend to be the points where these discharges are concentrated.
Kind of like lightning striking the highest object in the area - so what, that proves exactly nothing
quote:
Plasma itself is not a "perfect" conductor by the way.
Non-perfect conductor does not equal insulator.
quote:
Do you even have an alternative explanation that fits the speed requirements?
Nope. These 1000's of posts are just pointing out that you don't either. Your model (such as it is) just doesn't work.
One other point you said:
quote:
I am of course "assuming" that you got past the second sucessful prediction he [Bruce] made.
I thought you said his first prediction was not a prediction. It was an epiphany based on faulty arithmetic - remember?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:14:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Not content with trashing black body theory, now you're going to single handedly discredit the entire optical imaging field too. Well done.
Nothing like a strawman to get things started. I'm doing no such thing!
quote:
Do you not think a fairly significant amount of progress has been made towards designing optical systems that image particular regions of space onto a specific imaging plane?
Yes, I do believe it's gotten "better" over time, but is not "perfect" down to the single photon or CCD level, particularly not the equipment on TRACE and SOHO and YOHKOH.
quote:
If your "light from a single point would in fact light up every single pixel" is true, how on earth (haha) do we ever take images of point sources, or distant stars for that matter?
The same way they have for years.
quote:
Diffraction, dispersion and other optical system non-idealities certainly impose constraints on the design of imaging, or any optical system for that matter, but what you are suggesting is patently absurd.
So you know with absolute certainty that there will absolute, be no bleed through anywhere in any of these satellite images. Every single satellite is single photon perfect?
quote:
Stick with the reflection issue if you think it is one, this new postulate is a worthless diversion.
I think this whole post is a worthless diversion. Come on. In order for there to be "zero" bleed through from one point to another, you would need to ensure absolute perfection. Show me how such test were performed on Yohkoh and TRACE CCD images, and then "maybe" I'll think about it. As it is, I think you are "assuming" *perfection*, when the equipment was never designed to be photon perfect to begin with.
quote:
(Edit: I posted this after seeing Dave has already noticed and replied to your absurd suggestion, my objection, however, still stands. I have spend many years studying, designing, building and testing optical systems for all sorts of applications, some terrestrial, some not. You can claim "appeal to authority" all you like, but remember, it's only fallacious if it's inappropriate authority. If you think it's relevant, please describe your experience with optical systems).
Then you also know that any atmosphere will also "blur" and image and even the reflection issue cannot possibly be 100% perfect, right down to the very last photon.
This whole thing is one giant red herring. No one here has any alternatives to offer, no explanations of any sort, just allegations of "perfect science" right down to a single photon. I'm afraid I don't believe that, and none of these responses has addressed the issues I've raised. You cannot possibly assume that the darker regions are hotter than the brighest ones, and you cannot be sure that even the photons from the darker CCD pixels didn't originally begin in the coronal loops. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2006 17:21:52 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:20:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Gee, Michael, I guess you edited it while I was typing.
Evidently so Dave.
quote:
No, I'd still like you to explain how, if light from every point on the "surface" hits every pixel in the CCD, the images show anything but the sum-total of the brightness of the entire Sun.
Typical. Everytime I try to get to the direct issue with you, you throw up some rediculace hoop for me to jump though first. It is not up to me to prove to you that photography and ccd imaging works as advertized. Holy cow, it's getting deep around here.
quote:
Michael, I'm not peddling anything, I'm questioning your grasp simple optical science.
Ok. Show me that TRACE and SOHO and Yohkoh images are capable of being 100% perfect in this area, right down to the very last photon Dave. Prove I'm wrong. It should be easy enough to do. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:37:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
If you will recall when you asked me if I read it I said "nope" that is indeed what I meant.
Well furshur, put yourself in my shoes for a moment. I directed you to a gentleman who I believe understands this material better than I do. I would be his "student" were he alive today. If you can't be "bothered" to read his work, why do I have to hold your hand here? I'm not going to twist your arm to educate yourself.
quote:
Your sentence structure seems to indicate that you are saying that electrical discharges are neutralizing the magnetic field. Is that what you meant to say?
No, I'm suggesting that if the core's magnetic field changes, it may directly affect a change in current flow at the surface, and the change could be rather dramatic and rather quick.
quote:
Kind of like lightning striking the highest object in the area
Bingo! You got it.
quote:
- so what, that proves exactly nothing
How can you say that? I guess nothing actually "proves" anything when you get right down to it. All I can do is provide you with evidence. You will have to decide what constitutes "proof". "Proof" is *entirely* subjective.
quote:
Non-perfect conductor does not equal insulator.
The only thing that is required here are two plasmas (or two materials) with two different rates of conduction and insulation properties.
quote:
Nope. These 1000's of posts are just pointing out that you don't either.
No, I certainly don't have an alternative, but then again, I don't need one.
quote:
Your model (such as it is) just doesn't work.
That is purely a subjective assessment furshur. Gas model theory (such as it is) just doesn't work either as was demonstated this week. So what? Even if you find some fault here furshur, gas model theory has never been perfect either.
quote:
I thought you said his first prediction was not a prediction. It was an epiphany based on faulty arithmetic - remember?
I also remember that he was at least in the "ballpark", whereas you haven't offered me any predictions that gas model theory can make about these events. What can I say? What alternative is there? |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes, I do believe it's gotten "better" over time, but is not "perfect" down to the single photon or CCD level, particularly not the equipment on TRACE and SOHO and YOHKOH.
So you know with absolute certainty that there will absolute, be no bleed through anywhere in any of these satellite images. Every single satellite is single photon perfect?
I can take pictures of the stars on a clear night with a $200 digital camera, with 24 bit resolution and get zero level pixels. If you can point out to me why you think that TRACE, SOHO and YOHKOH are going to have "bleed" issues which result in observable image artifacts, or a base-line based on average intensity over the whole image, I'm more than willing to listen.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think this whole post is a worthless diversion. Come on. In order for there to be "zero" bleed through from one point to another, you would need to ensure absolute perfection. Show me how such test were performed on Yohkoh and TRACE CCD images, and then "maybe" I'll think about it. As it is, I think you are "assuming" *perfection*, when the equipment was never designed to be photon perfect to begin with.
Remember, you brought this up as as issue that needed addressing it. We are just doing so. If you would prefer to admit it was a poorly conceived issue from the start and would like to move on, fine. But if you believe it is a contributing factor, we are going to have to deal with it before doing any further image analysis.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
(Edit: I posted this after seeing Dave has already noticed and replied to your absurd suggestion, my objection, however, still stands. I have spend many years studying, designing, building and testing optical systems for all sorts of applications, some terrestrial, some not. You can claim "appeal to authority" all you like, but remember, it's only fallacious if it's inappropriate authority. If you think it's relevant, please describe your experience with optical systems).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then you also know that any atmosphere will also "blur" and image and even the reflection issue cannot possibly be 100% perfect, right down to the very last photon.
Your concern for the "very last photon" is touching, but if you're going to throw up roadblocks because of every imperfect system, we're going to get nowhere. Demonstrate that the contribution of light from diffraction, chromatic aberration & dispersion, spherical aberration, vignetting or whatever else you think is responsible, is significant enough to have a measurable effect on the images, and we will take it further. Have you ruled out the radiation from your computer monitor somehow making it's way to the CCD array? What about cosmic rays? Insignificant you say? What an assumption!
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This whole thing is one giant red herring. No one here has any alternatives to offer, no explanations of any sort, just allegations of "perfect science" right down to a single photon. I'm afraid I don't believe that, and none of these responses has addressed the issues I've raised. You cannot possibly assume that the darker regions are hotter than the brighest ones, and you cannot be sure that even the photons from the darker CCD pixels didn't originally begin in the coronal loops.
As usual, your complaint about everyone else not offering alternative models is irrelevant.
No one has "assumed" that the darker regions are hotter than the brightest ones. We're just not willing to assume the converse either.
If you want us to assume that the light from the darker regions comes from somewhere other than the darker reasons, bring on the analysis and evidence. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/10/2006 17:49:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:53:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Your concern for the "very last photon" is touching, but if you're going to throw up roadblocks because of every imperfect system, we're going to get nowhere.
Wait a minute. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The capabilities of these satellite systems are known and published. I believe they work "within specification", but I am certainly not claiming that they are "perfect", right down to the very last photon. If you believe this generation of satellites has that kind of precision, then you must be the one to demonstrate that level of precision, because I see no evidence they were ever advertized to posess such a high level of perfection. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 18:05:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Wait a minute. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The capabilities of these satellite systems are known and published. I believe they work "within specification", but I am certainly not claiming that they are "perfect", right down to the very last photon.
What level of precision do you think is required to generate monochromatic images with 8 bit resolution such that the light from brighter (though generally non-saturated) areas somehow brings the base black level to at least several percent (hell, even non zero) of full scale ?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you believe this generation of satellites has that kind of precision, then you must be the one to demonstrate that level of precision, because I see no evidence they were ever advertized to posess such a high level of perfection.
You claimed the system performs poorly enough to significantly affect the images that are it's primary purpose to create. That is the extraordinary claim, you provide evidence it is true.
If I claimed we could do photon counting or resolve meter sized features using these satellites, you'd have valid complaint. As it is, it looks like you're just attempting to further illustrate (quite successfully, in my opinion) your lack of (or perhaps contempt for) science and those that use it to develop technology. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/10/2006 18:07:30 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 18:58:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Show me that TRACE and SOHO and Yohkoh images are capable of being 100% perfect in this area, right down to the very last photon Dave.
Wow! You said that the light from a single spot on the "surface" of the Sun would hit every pixel on the CCD, but now, rather than providing any evidence for what you claimed to be true, you expect me to show you evidence that TRACE's imaging system is perfect, a claim so ridiculous that I never made in the first place. You have provided here a classic strawman, coupled with a reversal of the burden of proof, and topped off with a false dilemma and a red herring (since this is all a distraction from the problems with your electrical model for the loops). Four good logical fallacies in a single sentence! Is that a new high for you, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 19:33:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your sentence structure seems to indicate that you are saying that electrical discharges are neutralizing the magnetic field. Is that what you meant to say?
No, I'm suggesting that if the core's magnetic field changes, it may directly affect a change in current flow at the surface, and the change could be rather dramatic and rather quick.
Holy crap! I agree with this! Of course this has nothing to do with electrical discharges.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Kind of like lightning striking the highest object in the are
Bingo! You got it.
quote:
- so what, that proves exactly nothing
How can you say that? I guess nothing actually "proves" anything when you get right down to it. All I can do is provide you with evidence. You will have to decide what constitutes "proof". "Proof" is *entirely* subjective.
Michael, I agree that in an electrical discharge the will generally 'jump the gap' where the distance is the shortest. I can even envision that the a static charge could accumulate in a rough area or a bump. But if any of that is applicable to the sun you need to prove it. Proof is not subjective.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Non-perfect conductor does not equal insulator.
The only thing that is required here are two plasmas (or two materials) with two different rates of conduction and insulation properties.
Could you offer some evidence of this, or some physics to back that up or some equations to show this to be true?
quote:
I said your model is subjective, you said:
That is purely a subjective assessment furshur.
No your model is subjective - the crux of your model is: the surface of the sun looks solid to me - PURELY 100% subjective.
quote:
Gas model theory (such as it is) just doesn't work either as was demonstated this week. So what? Even if you find some fault here furshur, gas model theory has never been perfect either.
The current model of the sun is not perfect - true. There are many questions abut the sun it does not answer - true. This has nothing to do with your model. You never will get this will you.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 19:54:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only thing that is required here are two plasmas (or two materials) with two different rates of conduction and insulation properties.
The resistance of lead is over 12 times higher than that of copper, yet if you sandwich a piece of lead between two pieces of copper and run a current through them, there will never be arcs through or around the lead (or copper if you reverse the sandwich). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 20:46:27 [Permalink]
|
I use 1Mohm shoes at work to "short circuit" any static charges to ground in order to prevent discharges through electronics that I handle. Static charges in excess of 50V in close proximity is enough to dammage some components.
|
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 - 04/11/2006 : 13:04:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wow! You said that the light from a single spot on the "surface" of the Sun would hit every pixel on the CCD, but now, rather than providing any evidence for what you claimed to be true, you expect me to show you evidence that TRACE's imaging system is perfect, a claim so ridiculous that I never made in the first place. You have provided here a classic strawman, coupled with a reversal of the burden of proof, and topped off with a false dilemma and a red herring (since this is all a distraction from the problems with your electrical model for the loops). Four good logical fallacies in a single sentence! Is that a new high for you, Michael?
Wow is right. What a rediculace denial routine. The irrational behaviors around here are simply incredible. I did not try to claim that any particular equipment was "perfect". In the real world, life simply doesn't work that way, especially when it comes to lenses, CCD cameras, and all the problem in general when imaging something as powerful and energetic as the sun.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n2/spd2000/205.htm
quote:
[2.91] Instrumental Effects and their Removal from TRACE Images
T.D. Tarbell, R.N. Nightingale, T.R. Metcalf, Z.A. Frank (LMSAL), TRACE Team
TRACE raw images often show fine structures at such high contrast that compensation for instrumental effects is not necessary to study their morphology and evolution. Nevertheless, TRACE team members have gradually been developing the techniques and calibrations necessary to understand and (sometimes) remove the principal instrumental degradations. These degradations include CCD pedestal variation with temperature and time, flat-field response, CCD sensitivity loss varying with position and wavelength, electrical interference during CCD readout, permanent dim pixels, intermittent hot pixels, overall system point spread function, diffraction of EUV radiation by the front entrance filters, scattered light at off-limb pointings, tracks of electrons and protons from the radiation belts, and artifacts from JPEG compression of solar strucures and the above defects. Characterization and removal of some of these will be presented in the poster, such as the following. A deconvolution routine can partially compensate for the EUV diffraction, which is described in the adjacent poster by Frank et al. White light flat fields are derived using the Kuhn-Lin algorithm. CCD sensitivity degradation (presumably lumogen damage) is measured both from crude UV and EUV flat fields and from mission-long analysis of synoptic disk center images; combining these results with the WL flats yields flat fields at all wavelengths. Some information on scattered light and point spread functions are obtained from the August, 1999, eclipse observations and the Mercury transit. SSW routines for dealing with some of these degradations will be identified.
This work is supported by the TRACE project at LMSAL (contract NAS5-38099).
Emphasis mine...
As I said, every single atom on the lens is bombarded by photons from the surface. Since this is real life, and nothing is ever "perfect", even diffraction from the atoms on the filters and lens can and will cause "hits" on the CCD. There are a whole *host* of issues that can lead to "false hits" as a matter of fact. Here is a typical description of the capabilities of the TRACE system.
http://ydac.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/surf/guides/tag/tag_sec3.html
Nobody at Lockheed Martin seems to think these CCD images are photon perfect. I certainly do not believe they are "photon perfect" either. There are reflections from the solar atmosphere to consider, reflections from the atoms in the filters to consider and equipment limitations related to CCD cameras to take into consideration as well. Solar wind can wreak havoc on images for a variety of reasons. For you to then make the claim that every darker pixel with a few "hits" must also represent plasma in the 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin range is simply absurd. You do not know that for a fact. You can't demonstrate that statement in any way. You claimed it anyway and then you expect me to prove that CCD imaging isn't "perfect". Hoy Vey. I think I need a break from this place for a few days. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/11/2006 13:09:16 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 14:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What level of precision do you think is required to generate monochromatic images with 8 bit resolution such that the light from brighter (though generally non-saturated) areas somehow brings the base black level to at least several percent (hell, even non zero) of full scale ?
"High" precision, and "absolute perfection" are two entirely different animals.
quote:
....As it is, it looks like you're just attempting to further illustrate (quite successfully, in my opinion) your lack of (or perhaps contempt for) science and those that use it to develop technology.
I resent that comment for a couple of reasons. First of all I have made it abundantly clear that I *love* science. I certainly have no "contempt" for science *at all*. Secondly, those who use this particular equipment day in and day out do not attempt to claim that every single photon recorded by the CCD camera represents plasma that is in the million degree range.
It is your side of the aisle that is claiming that this equipment is absolutely "perfect" to the very last photon. I disagree. I've shown you why I disagree. There are multiple problems with Dave's assumption. Using this particular technology none of you could possibly hope demonstrate that a reduced number of photons in the darkest regions of this image represent plasmas in the corona that are hotter than the brightest regions. That whole concept defies the laws of physics.
The repeated tap dancing around this issue is getting rather old frankly. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 16:32:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Wow is right. What a rediculace denial routine. The irrational behaviors around here are simply incredible. I did not try to claim that any particular equipment was "perfect".
No, and apparently you can't remember your own posts, either: you demanded that I prove that the imaging equipment is perfect. That's your false dilemma and reversal of the burden of proof. I never claimed it was perfect, either. And you can post all the technical details you want, but they're not going to make a bit of difference unless you can actually post the deconvolution they use to "partially" remove the difraction effects. And you still haven't been able to provide any measurement of the reflectivity of the coronal material, so we've got nothing to work with there, either.
The point has always been that we have no way to tell which low-intensity pixels are reflections, or defractions, or whatever, and which are actual low-density, high-temperature plasmas. Demonstrating that there are problems with the telescope actually helps prove my point, Michael.
Of course, none of that would matter if you'd go back to discussing the basic electrical model you've got in mind, since getting a full, working description which doesn't conflict with the laws of physics would, in the end, tell us all exactly where the heat and light are concentrated, without having to correct any image for any equipment effects. Why is it that you refuse to take such a straightforward and easy path, and instead insist on all this analysis nonsense?
From the next post:quote:
It is your side of the aisle that is claiming that this equipment is absolutely "perfect" to the very last photon.
Nobody ever made such a claim, Michael. You really do need a break if you're just going to keep making stuff up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 18:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Wow is right. What a rediculace denial routine. The irrational behaviors around here are simply incredible.
If that is true, why do you bother? |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
