|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2006 : 16:15:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Your math is too simplistic to be a approximate representation of reality. 1+1=2
Ok, I'll bite. How do you *know* that to be the case? You are essentially alledging that (1+1)(+-*/)(someothermathematicallyundefinedthing) = -1
No I'm not, but you could present the equations and algoriths used to greate the compound image to start with. That would go some way to reduce my suspicion of you not being sincere.
quote:
quote:
While it is a nice picture, you're still working with two normalized pictures where we cannot say how much UV-light is present compared to the other picture. A pixel brightness of 50% in the first pic does not represent the same energy output as 50% in the other pic.
So? Both the 171A and 195A image show very clearly that the light in *both* images is concentrated in the coronal loops.
And I've been trying to make you understand that there is a good reason for the concentrations, which I accept: the density of the matter that emits these wavelengths is much higher than elsewhere.
quote:
quote:
I never contested that. The energy concentration is in the loops. But not because they are necessarily hotter, but because they contain a much higher amount of ions emitting those frequencies.
How?
Because ions capture electrons.quote:
Why?
Because the ions are cooling down to the point where they can capture an electron.
quote:
What evidence do you have that the darkest areas of this image are *anywhere near* 160,000K plus?
Because the darker area is not devoid of emmissions.
quote:
quote:
The temperature - also know to physicists as the average kinetic energy of the atoms/ions - can be as high, or even higher outside the loops.
Can be, could be, might be? As I said, what evidence do you have that the darkest regions are anywhere near the temperatures of the brightest regions? If you aledge it *is* a greater temperature, demonstrate it. If you can't, I can't simply *assume* it's that temperature.
What part of "can be", "could be", and "might be" do you not understand?
YOU are the one dogmatically insisting that the loops must be hotter than the corona. I don't assume anything. I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility that corona is hotter than the loops. I'm also open to the suggestion that the loops might be hotter than the corona.
You Michael is the one committed to the statement of fact that the loops are hotter, and we are asking you for evidence of this. All the while we are also trying to make you consider that corona might be hotter. But since the "hotter loops" is your claim, you are the one with the burdon of proof, not I nor Dave. And demanding me to provide evidence for a hotter corona that is your strawman is a logical fallacy, since I never committed myself (as evident by the "can be, could be, might be).
quote:
quote:
It's just that since the density is so much lower than in the loops themselves, the energy-concenration will be lower in the corona compared to the loops. Hence, the corona will glow less than the loop.
I'm assuming you meant to say the density was "higher" in the loop,
Didn't I just say that? Density is higher in the loop, lesser in the corona.
quote:
but again, what *evidence* do you have to suggest this in the first place?
More 171A light is coming from it.
quote:
You convieniently *ignore* the fact that it can be *both* more dense *and* a greater temperature!
I most certainly do not!
I'm trying to point out to you that it is an assumption that needs to be backed up by more than just the fancy pictures you've manufactured.
quote:
You can't define the energy source of the corona.
Neither can you. Or at least, you haven't defined it yet in a convincing manner.
quote:
You can't determine which areas are hotter even though every satellite image shows a direct correlation between highest energy wavelengths and the coronal loops.
...and I say that your interpretation is at fault.
quote:
You can't define a light source because you claim it's all glowing,
The light sources are ions. They are all "glowing", but they are not a black-body. Since the corona is so thin, ions in the corona can emmit photons without overwhelming the CCD.
quote:
even though quantum mechanics can explain these stray photons without ever |
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 - 04/12/2006 : 16:44:38 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, I see how it works now. You are allowed to simply "alledge" anything you want. You can alledge that the coronal loops are more dense than the corona, even though you have no evidence to support that allegation. I get it. I'm the only one that has to provide any actual evidence to support my case, is that it? You can handwave in anything and everything you like, logic and evidence be damned? Show me how you know with absolute certainty there is any density difference here at all Dr. Mabuse, and then maybe I'll think about taking you seriously. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 17:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh, I see how it works now. You are allowed to simply "alledge" anything you want. You can alledge that the coronal loops are more dense than the corona, even though you have no evidence to support that allegation. I get it. I'm the only one that has to provide any actual evidence to support my case, is that it? You can handwave in anything and everything you like, logic and evidence be damned?
Yes, now you're finally getting it. Michael, your assumptions about the interior loops being hotter may be correct, but then again they might not be. Because your claim is dependent upon that assumption, "maybe" isn't good enough, since it might not be. Since you keep insisting you are interested in proving your claim is correct (and not just a possibility), then you should be doing everything possible to prove it. Why do you keep whining that no one will just adopt your assumptions? Dr. Mab has said he's willing to keep an open mind on the possibility that they are correct, but he's waiting for you to prove it to him. So long as the very real possibility exists that your assumptions aren't correct, why on earth would anyone go along with them?
quote:
Show me how you know with absolute certainty there is any density difference here at all Dr. Mabuse, and then maybe I'll think about taking you seriously.
Sigh. No, I guess you don't get it. You don't need "absolute certainty" to express doubt, Michael. Doubt is the absence of certainty. Your claims are in doubt. The way you eliminate doubt is not by "doubting the doubters," as you insist on doing, but by eliminating the other possibilities. So long as those possibilities remain a viable alternative, Michael, your claims are not valid.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/12/2006 17:11:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 18:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Whereas *your claim* was that since all pixels have photons, all areas are necessarily *hot* by the filter standards in question. They are not.
No, you've just reversed your own claim, and then rashly assumed that I've been arguing from such a position. That's a false dichotomy, though, and I explained my actual position to you, so you should know better than to continue claiming something you know to be untrue.quote:
My premise is simply based on all the laws of physics we rely on every day of our lives.
No, actually, it's not, but you refuse to discuss that anymore.quote:
quote:
We are still waiting for you to prove that assertion.
I already did that mathematically for you and everything. I even showed you pretty 'pictures' to "show" you the math. The math is clear. The focus of energy is in the loops. That is where the high energy photons are concentrated, and where they originate. You simply refuse to "see" (literally).
No, you're simply assuming that brighter equals hotter, when you know that's not true. And now you're argument with Mab is that there aren't any density changes in the corona, when you previously picked "both denser and hotter" as the explanation of the images. Your wild inconsistency is what the problem is, here.quote:
I'm focusing in on your *assumption* that was inaccuate Dave, simply to point out where you are in error.
My being in error doesn't make your explanation correct.quote:
You cannot equate the presense of photons in individual pixels as indicators of plasma in the same plane (layer(s)) as the coronal loops in the same temperature range.
Due to all the problems with the equipment, neither can you, even if the pixels are bright.quote:
Even were light to come straight at us and there were no other external factors to consider, the distance involved requires that we consider reflection from the original events being recieved as well.
How can we consider them, Michael, when you're refusing to even demonstrate that the relfections exist?quote:
We can't simply *assume* as you did that *some* relatively small amount of photons in that pixel equate to hot plasma in the same atmosophere as the coronal loops. There is no such one to one relationship.
I don't assume any such thing. I'm asking you to offer a verifiable method of measuring whether the bright parts are hotter than the dark parts of a TRACE image.quote:
quote:
My only premise is that you need to substantiate your assumptions.
As someone who respects you, I tell you quite directly that you are backpeddling, dragging your feet, and ignoring the laws of physics, not to mention what you can see with you own two eyes.
I know for a fact that my own eyes can fool me. That's why I want substantiation, and not all this "why don't you just believe it?!?" crap.quote:
quote:
No, I expect you to prove your own assumptions, instead of assuming that you are correct by default.
How would you suggest I go about that Dave? Given the data we have. How would you suggest I go about that?
That's a damn good question, Michael, because I can't think of a single way you could demonstrate, from a handful of images in which brighter doesn't always equal hotter, that the temperature differences which you assert exist really do. Not without using more sophisticated physics than you're willing to. I can't help that you want to keep dumbing things down until they're sure to be insufficient to explain anything.quote:
I've already shown you evidence from multiple satellite programs that show a direct correlation between high energy emissions and the coronal loops.
And I've already demonstrated that one can have "high energy" events without the temperature of the material necessarily being "hot" (for example, positron/electron annihilations).quote:
What exactly will you accept if you won't believe what you can see with your own eyes?
Once again, an appeal to faith. I reject it.quote:
Dave, you can't claim that the presense of light in a CCD pixel equates to hot plasma in the corona.
Neither can you, anymore.quote:
There are three dimensions and you are accounting for only two and ignoring the laws of physics in the process.
So are you, now.quote:
QM insists these photons will "spread out" and arrive from the same event by different paths Dave.
And equipment malfunctions show that there are "hot" pixels and "dead" pixels all over the place, too. Which leads back to the question: How has Michael Mozina taken these errors into account in his own i |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 19:07:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh, I see how it works now. You are allowed to simply "alledge" anything you want. You can alledge that the coronal loops are more dense than the corona, even though you have no evidence to support that allegation. I get it. I'm the only one that has to provide any actual evidence to support my case, is that it? You can handwave in anything and everything you like, logic and evidence be damned? Show me how you know with absolute certainty there is any density difference here at all Dr. Mabuse, and then maybe I'll think about taking you seriously.
Seriously Michael, pull your head in, or take a break and come back when you've really thought about this stuff.
Yes, anyone can allege anything they want, however, if that person is purporting to present some sort of coherent model, then they'd better be prepared to provide some supporting evidence, otherwise all they have is allegations. It's true, you're copping most of the "prove it" type requests. However, as you're the one with the model, that's as it should be. If you don't like this fact, then you'd better find a new hobby, because science is obviously going to be too frustrating for you.
Dr Mabuse doesn't have to prove there is a density increase in the loops, but as we know more photons are coming from these regions than surrounding regions, more source material certainly seems like a good reason. When Dr Mabuse presents his model which requires that this is so, then we'll press him for proof of his case. At the moment, the density argument is simply a valid reason as to why there isn't necessarily a temperature gradient as you are predicting.
By the way Michael, I've re-visited a number of the images on your web site, and those of the actual sources, and find that in almost every image taken near the rim, where some "space" and some "sun" is visible, there is no shortage of black pixels. How do you explain this in light of the shoddy optical design work done by NASA and Lockheed? I mean, "diffraction happens" (Sounds like a good bumper sticker slogan), how on can photons from the sun not fill the background with a nice non-black level, which should decay predictably with increasing distance from the disc?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've demonstrated there are equipment limitations, and atmospheric relection is something that logically *must* be occuring.
Why must it be occuring? More importantly, if it is occuring, is it of signifcant magnitude to effect our observations? If I was making those sorts of assertions, I'd check things like that, but I'm funny that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These bright regions have already been linked to high temperatures by NASA and Lockheed. The darker regions are not *necessarily* anywhere near the same temperature as the bright regions.
The first sentences is certainly true. And if there were truly "dark" areas, one could reach one of two conclusions:
1. Some material between the dark area and the satellite was absorbing the photons.
2. The material is not at the right temperature to emit photons in this wavelength range in the first place.
However, there are no "dark" areas, so I see no need to speculate on these issues further at the moment.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We can't simply *assume* as you did that *some* relatively small amount of photons in that pixel equate to hot plasma in the same atmosophere as the coronal loops. There is no such one to one relationship.
Now you're getting a little closer. You need to define "relatively" small. It's of the order of 10% of full scale in many pics, in your composite, it's much higher. Whatever you're blaming for this background level, it should just as effectively wash out sharp features in the brighter areas. This doesn't seem to be happening to an appropriate level, do you have an argument for preferential quantum scattering now?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
John's example of astro-photography proves your QM-assumtion to be wrong, since he recorded zero value pixels.
No, that doens't demonstrate anything of the sort! Were not even talking about similar conditions for crying out loud.
But somehow your terrestrial lightning strikes are appropriate. Riiiiight.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The laws of physics HH. Lockheed and NASA set a minimum temperature range for these filters based on temperatures required to emit such photons. There is a minimum temperature that can be assigned to the brightest regions of the image. There is no such miminum that can be assigned to the darkest regions. I literally have *no evidence* that the darkest regions are anywhere near the temperature range of this filter in the first place. That plasma is not emitting brightly and I have no evidence to suggest it's anywhere near the temperatures that these filters are sensitive to.
Your evidence for the temperature of the darker background is exactly the same as the evidence for the brighter areas. You either accept that photons in the passband are indicative of material at this temperature, or you dont. If you believe the photons from the darker area come from somewhere other than the darker area then you need to demonstrate that this is true, and this is important, to a level that will produce the images as observed.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have evidence to determine the *temperature* in the coronal loops in the form of photons at these wavelengths that suggest that the loops are "hot". I cannot determine the temperature in the darkest regions.
So evidence in the form of photons at this wavelength that agrees with your theory is evidence. Evidence in the form of photons at this same wavelength which does not agree with your theory is something else. Got it.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 21:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, now you're finally getting it. Michael, your assumptions about the interior loops being hotter may be correct, but then again they might not be. Because your claim is dependent upon that assumption, "maybe" isn't good enough, since it might not be.
And by this logic, the gas model theory *may be* true but then I can "alledge" anything else might work too. By this logic you can't prove the gas model theory has any merit at all! That's what this process how now become. It's one giant denial routine based on nothing more than handwaves of your own choice, scientific evidence be damned.
There's no science behind any of these statements, just pure and utter conjecture based on blind "faith" in something you can't demonstrate in any way.
I think I will have to take some space at this point. After nearly 20 pages worth of trying to isolate a light source (like you can't see the damn thing with your own two eyes), we still haven't agreed upon a light source or a heat source of high energy emissions. The worst part is we can all see those brightly lit arcs on every high energy satellite imaging system we have in space.
quote:
Since you keep insisting you are interested in proving your claim is correct (and not just a possibility), then you should be doing everything possible to prove it. Why do you keep whining that no one will just adopt your assumptions?
Because you've provided exactly zip in the way of alternatives, and your side has provided exactly zip in the way of evidence that there is a density difference between the corona and the coronal loops in the first place. Not only that, you've not demonstrated that some *utterly unspecified* density difference would create the exact kinds of patterns we see in these images. I'd worry about something you could provide some evidence for, but I don't see the point in worrying much about invisible, magical heat sources.
quote:
Dr. Mab has said he's willing to keep an open mind on the possibility that they are correct, but he's waiting for you to prove it to him.
I've already provided lots of evidence to demonstrate that these loops are hot. In fact they are upwards of a million plus degrees in fact. Your side however "alledges" that the darkest pixels are also hot, and yet there is no observational evidence to support that claim. There is no magical heat bunny hiding in any of these satellite images, and for such a thing to exist and provide no evidence of its existence, it would have to defies all the known laws of physics.
quote:
So long as the very real possibility exists that your assumptions aren't correct, why on earth would anyone go along with them?
Why on earth would you go along with the Big Bang theory? Why would you go along with any theory as long as there is *any* possibility that something else could be the cause? If there was a "real" possibility of what you claim based on observational evidence, I might understand your arguement. As it is, its a simple case of pure denial and blind speculation.
quote:
Sigh. No, I guess you don't get it. You don't need "absolute certainty" to express doubt, Michael. Doubt is the absence of certainty. Your claims are in doubt. The way you eliminate doubt is not by "doubting the doubters," as you insist on doing, but by eliminating the other possibilities. So long as those possibilities remain a viable alternative, Michael, your claims are not valid.
BS. Anyone and everyone can alledge doubt HH, on most if not all topics. Science however requires *evidence* and that is something you simply do not have. You have no evidence that the loops are more dense than the corona itself. You have no evidence at all to demonstrate the dark regions are hot. You have no observational evidence to support your handwave of an allegation since the magic invisible heat unicorn is nowhere to be seen in any of the high energy satellite images. All the satellites show a strong correlation to coronal loops and high energy emissions. These images demonstrate that there is hot plasma in the loops. They do not demonstrate that that the darkest regions are hot.
This scenario is exactly as if we looked at a lightning bolt from a distance. You then alledge that the dark regions around the discharge plasma reflects photons, so it too could be hotter than the plasma in the loop. If I tried to sell you something like that you laugh in my face, yet you're tying to sell me that story now. Baloney. This has turned into one giant denial campaign at this point. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 22:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you've just reversed your own claim, and then rashly assumed that I've been arguing from such a position. That's a false dichotomy, though, and I explained my actual position to you, so you should know better than to continue claiming something you know to be untrue.
Oh for crying out loud Dave! You were the one that claimed that because there were photons in every pixel, that the plasma in the corona was all in the same temperature range of the filter. What kind of game are you playing now?
quote:
No, actually, it's not, but you refuse to discuss that anymore.
Oh boloney.
quote:
No, you're simply assuming that brighter equals hotter,
Which is *exactly* what you should be "assuming" too.
quote:
when you know that's not true.
No Dave, I certainly don't *know* that is not true. In fact I know that it is true in this case.
quote:
And now you're argument with Mab is that there aren't any density changes in the corona, when you previously picked "both denser and hotter" as the explanation of the images. Your wild inconsistency is what the problem is, here.
Based on Birkeland's model and everything I've seen in satellite images, sure I do believe that the coronal loops are both more dense and hotter as well. I do not however see any evidence of any density difference in the two images in question. There is nothing there to suggest such a thing in these two images. Even if there is a density difference, that does not lend any support at all to your previous claims. First you have to demonstrate that the darker regions are even in the same ballpark as it relates to temperature. You've never demonstrated that point. Then you have to eliminate reflection issues entirely. You've never done that either.
quote:
My being in error doesn't make your explanation correct.
Actually, in this case it does. It shows you *how* and *why* your logic is flawed and it also lends support to my case at the same time.
quote:
Due to all the problems with the equipment, neither can you, even if the pixels are bright.
Pure, unadulterated denial. You were the one that claimed Lockheed and NASA even measured these temperatures in the lab!
quote:
How can we consider them, Michael, when you're refusing to even demonstrate that the relfections exist?
This is just more pure denial. I don't have to demonstrate it. The laws of physics dictate this process will occur when we have light passing through atoms of many different varieties. The fact you deny this process occurs or you simply *refuse* to accept this point demonstrates that you aren't being open minded or even the least bit neutral in your evaluation. You have no logical reason to believe that no interference or light reflection will occur and every logical reason to believe it would occur, particuarly with so many particles to work with.
quote:
I don't assume any such thing. I'm asking you to offer a verifiable method of measuring whether the bright parts are hotter than the dark parts of a TRACE image.
How can you claim that Lockheed and NASA set these million degree temperatures for these filters based on specfic lab tests and then expect me to demonstrate that very same point for you?
quote:
I know for a fact that my own eyes can fool me. That's why I want substantiation, and not all this "why don't you just believe it?!?" crap.
So lets see. You can't trust what you *do* see. You don't *see* any evidence to support a density difference but you claim there is one. You know for a fact that NASA and Lockheed came up with these temperature requirements based on lab tests, but I'm supposed to prove that to you somehow. You don't have any reason to believe there would not be at least *some* interference, but you refuse to believe there is any unless I *prove* it to you. Did I miss anything?
quote:
That's a damn good question, Michael, because I can't think of a single way you could demonstrate, from a handful of images in which brighter doesn't always equal hotter, that the temperature differences which you assert exist really do.
I've got a *million* or more images from a handfull of different satellites to demonstrate this Dave. I've shown you Trace/Yokhoh overlays, TRACE/RHESSI images etc. It's not just a handful of images that demonstrate this point Dave, it is *every single* image that demonstrates this point.
quote:
Not without using more sophisticated physics than you're willing to.
Exactly what kind of "sophisticated physics" is acceptable to you Dave? You can't even tell me what mathematical formulas Lockheed used in their excersize, but for some reason it's "sophisticated" enough for you, whereas my approach is not? The hypocrisy of this position is simply staggering.
quote:
I can't help that you want to keep dumbing things down until they're sure to be insufficient to explain anything.
I can't help that you want to keep "complicating it up" until they're sure to be insufficient to explain anything either.
quote:
And I've already demonstrated that one can have "high energy" events without the temperature of the |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 22:35:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 22:25:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Seriously Michael, pull your head in, or take a break and come back when you've really thought about this stuff.
Seriously John, you should take the editorializing out of your posts. You're not making any points that way.
quote:
Yes, anyone can allege anything they want, however, if that person is purporting to present some sort of coherent model, then they'd better be prepared to provide some supporting evidence, otherwise all they have is allegations. It's true, you're copping most of the "prove it" type requests. However, as you're the one with the model, that's as it should be. If you don't like this fact, then you'd better find a new hobby, because science is obviously going to be too frustrating for you.
I don't find it frustrating to be required to provide evidence to support my case. I find it frustrating that you think it's ok to not support your allegations in the same manner.
quote:
Dr Mabuse doesn't have to prove there is a density increase in the loops,
If he claims there a density difference, and that claim is vital to his case, he certainly does have to show some supporting evidence.
quote:
but as we know more photons are coming from these regions than surrounding regions, more source material certainly seems like a good reason.
100,000 tonnes of low temperature (say 6000K) plasma all crammed together is still going to be quite dark in this image John. Density isn't the overriding factor here. The one thing we know for sure is that the plasma in the coronal loops is quite hot, more than 500,000K hot since it can be seen in the 195A image as well as the 171A image. We have no idea about the density based on these two images. It's not like density alone automatically equates to light in these wavelengths. You need a minimum temperature that is far greater than the backround of the photosphere and chromosphere.
quote:
When Dr Mabuse presents his model which requires that this is so, then we'll press him for proof of his case.
He did provide a "model" to explain this via density differences, so you should be pressing him for evidence. You would certainly press me for such evidence if it was mandatory to make my case.
quote:
At the moment, the density argument is simply a valid reason as to why there isn't necessarily a temperature gradient as you are predicting.
It is not a valid reason since the massive density changes in 6000 degree plasma isn't going to affect these images at all. There is a minimum temperature requirement here, and no evidence of density changes to begin with.
quote:
By the way Michael, I've re-visited a number of the images on your web site, and those of the actual sources, and find that in almost every image taken near the rim, where some "space" and some "sun" is visible, there is no shortage of black pixels. How do you explain this in light of the shoddy optical design work done by NASA and Lockheed?
Are you talking "dark" to your eye, or that most images have zero photon hits in the original FITS images?
quote:
I mean, "diffraction happens" (Sounds like a good bumper sticker slogan), how on can photons from the sun not fill the background with a nice non-black level, which should decay predictably with increasing distance from the disc?
You'll have to be a bit more precise here on which images specifically that you're talking about.
quote:
Why must it be occuring?
Because the sun has an atmosphere around it. It's not like there isn't plasma all around it.
quote:
More importantly, if it is occuring, is it of signifcant magnitude to effect our observations?
That depends on what you mean by "effect". If you mean will we see signs of diffusions, yes.
quote:
If I was making those sorts of assertions, I'd check things like that, but I'm funny that way.
Which is why I'm sure you can demonstrate there really is a density difference to worry about.
quote:
The first sentences is certainly true. And if there were truly "dark" areas, one could reach one of two conclusions:
1. Some material between the dark area and the satellite was absorbing the photons.
Are you suggesting the atmosphere absorbs photons *selectively*?
quote:
2. The material is not at the right temperature to emit photons in this wavelength range in the first place.
Bingo!
quote:
However, there are no "dark" areas, so I see no need to speculate on these issues further at the moment.
Eh? There there "darker" areas and brighter areas. There will not necessarly be any pixels with zero photon hits.
quote:
Now you're getting a little closer. You need to define "relatively" small. It's of the order of 10% of full scale in many pics, in your composite, it's much higher. Whatever you're blaming for this background level, it should just as effectively wash out sharp features in the brighter areas. This doesn't seem to be happening to an appropriate level, do you have an argument for preferential quantum scat |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 22:26:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 22:45:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And I've been trying to make you understand that there is a good reason for the concentrations, which I accept: the density of the matter that emits these wavelengths is much higher than elsewhere.
So exactly *why* do you accept this idea in the first place? What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the density of the coronal loops is "much higher" than elsewhere? How much higher? Which data set leads you to believe there is a "much higher" density to be found in the coronal loops? Define this density gradient for me. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 04:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And I've been trying to make you understand that there is a good reason for the concentrations, which I accept: the density of the matter that emits these wavelengths is much higher than elsewhere.
So exactly *why* do you accept this idea in the first place?
I accept it as a possible explanation because the TRACE photo shows more light coming from there. It's an interpretation of what is evident from the photos.
Plasma includes decoupled electrons. Decoupled electrons absorb light of any wavelength. That's why I'm highly skpetical to your claims that the TRACE UV-images have reflected light in it.
quote:
What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the density of the coronal loops is "much higher" than elsewhere? How much higher? Which data set leads you to believe there is a "much higher" density to be found in the coronal loops? Define this density gradient for me.
Why?
I'm proposing alternative explanations for the effects we see in the photos. Since the claim that the coronal loops are hotter is your claim, and I'm remaining non-committant but acknowledging that a density can be a factor, I'm not the one who is stuck with the dilemma of providing evidence for my assertions. It is your claim that coronal loops are hotter, thus: yours is the burdon of providing evidence. The "evidence" you have put forth this far has other plausible explanations which invalidates it as evidence.
I'm also noting that for several pages you have ignored addressing Dave's very valid point that ionised atoms are not the atoms emitting the UV-radiation. It's the ion that captures an electron that emits it. It is when an electron goes from a higher energy-level (decoupled, for example) to a lower orbit (captured) that a photon is emitted. This is made possible when the kinetic energy of the ion and the electron is lowered beyond the necessary level for capture.
If the density of the loops and the corona is the same, then this a more plausible explanation for the light concentrations. The conclusion is that the coronal loop is cooling down the corona.
Decoupled electrons on the other hand increases their energy when they capture photons (of any wavelengts), which leads to a higher temperature. This results in the counter-intuitive effect that black-body radiation from a 6000°C surface can heat a plasma way beyond 160'000 degrees. |
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 - 04/13/2006 : 05:59:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atmospheres tend to reflect light. Our atmosphere certainly reflects sunlight. So does the sun's atmosphere. It's no different since they are all composed of very same particles, namely atoms.
In the earth's atmosphere a photon is absorbed by an electron of an atom and jumps to a higher energy state, when the electron drops back to the lower energy state (lower orbit if you will) a photon is emitted - reflection or scattering.
The suns 'atmosphere' is NOT made up of atoms however, it is made up of ionized plasma. In light of your incorrect statement could you explain reflection using these facts.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 08:55:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I accept it as a possible explanation because the TRACE photo shows more light coming from there. It's an interpretation of what is evident from the photos.
That does not address my question. You do not know that the darker pixels represent plasma in the filter's range to begin with. Clumping a lot of relatively cool plasma together will not guarantee that the more dense but relatively cool plasma will show up in these high energy filters. What evidence do you have that the darker regions of the image represent plasma in the filters temperature range?
Based on the fact they are brightly lit in the 195A image, the minimum temperature for the coronal loops is 500,000K and more than likely exceeds 1.5M Kelvin. That is not necessarily true of the darker regions of this same image. Density alone will *not* explain this phemenon by itself, you still need to demonstrate that the dark regions *are hot enough* (greater than 160,000K for 171A and 500,000K for the 195A image) to emit photons at all, regardless of the density of the corona material.
Let's see your evidence to support that conclusion. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2006 08:59:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 10:52:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh for crying out loud Dave! You were the one that claimed that because there were photons in every pixel, that the plasma in the corona was all in the same temperature range of the filter.
No, I said that because I had no evidence of reflection, I had no reason to assume that non-zero pixels represented temperatures outside TRACE's range. You've provided evidence of other problems with the telescope which mean that non-zero pixels may be due to something other than plasma within TRACE's range (but it still isn't necessarily so). Why you feel a need to keep harping on this as if your entire theory hinges upon the idea that there are places in the corona which don't emit any radiation which TRACE can see, I don't know.quote:
What kind of game are you playing now?
None whatsoever. As far as I can tell, you're continuing this digression only because you don't want to address the problems with your electrical model.quote:
quote:
No, actually, it's not, but you refuse to discuss that anymore.
Oh boloney.
Then why is it that you haven't addressed the problems I identified with your electrical model?quote:
quote:
No, you're simply assuming that brighter equals hotter,
Which is *exactly* what you should be "assuming" too.
Why should I be doing that? What makes the assumption that brighter equals hotter valid for the corona?quote:
quote:
when you know that's not true.
No Dave, I certainly don't *know* that is not true. In fact I know that it is true in this case.
What physical laws and measurements did you use to determine that brighter equals hotter?quote:
First you have to demonstrate that the darker regions are even in the same ballpark as it relates to temperature. You've never demonstrated that point.
Once again, you're attempting to get me to prove the converse of your claims. But you haven't demonstrated your claims to be true.quote:
Then you have to eliminate reflection issues entirely. You've never done that either.
You've never demonstrated that reflections exist within the corona. Once you do, it still won't matter since I don't need to prove the converse of your claims, you just need to prove your claims.quote:
quote:
My being in error doesn't make your explanation correct.
Actually, in this case it does. It shows you *how* and *why* your logic is flawed and it also lends support to my case at the same time.
How does it lend support to your case? You still haven't shown that the dark areas are necessarily colder than the brighter areas, since TRACE is also afflicted by problems which can make pixels darker than they should be.quote:
quote:
Due to all the problems with the equipment, neither can you, even if the pixels are bright.
Pure, unadulterated denial. You were the one that claimed Lockheed and NASA even measured these temperatures in the lab!
Are you kidding me? First you claim that because there's no consensus, that the emission-line ratio method of temperature measurement is unreliable. Now, however, you want to use that method? And in light of the fact (which you quoted) that there are intermittant "hot" pixels in the images, and that difraction can "add" photons to pixels which don't belong, among other issues!quote:
quote:
How can we consider them, Michael, when you're refusing to even demonstrate that the relfections exist?
This is just more pure denial. I don't have to demonstrate it.
It's your claim - who else should demonstrate it?quote:
The laws of physics dictate this process will occur when we have light passing through atoms of many different varieties.
Which laws of physics? Name them. They all have names.quote:
The fact you deny this process occurs or you simply *refuse* to accept this point demonstrates that you aren't being open minded or even the least bit neutral in your evaluation.
No, I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that the process occurs. Begging me to "accept" unnamed "laws of physics" isn't evidence, Michael.quote:
You have no logical reason to believe that no interference or light reflection will occur and every logical reason to believe it would occur, particuarly with so many particles to work with.
|
- 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 - 04/13/2006 : 12:54:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, I said that because I had no evidence of reflection, I had no reason to assume that non-zero pixels represented temperatures outside TRACE's range.
Let me get this straight....
You have no evidence for *any* reflection in the solar atmosphere, but you *do* have evidence of a density difference between the corona and the coronal loops?
quote:
You've provided evidence of other problems with the telescope which mean that non-zero pixels may be due to something other than plasma within TRACE's range (but it still isn't necessarily so).
How do you figure that Dave? We all know the equipment isn't "perfect", not to mention the fact that if there is *any* absorbtion/emission/reflection going on in the solar atmosphere, your assumptions are toast. Since there is ample evidence of all sorts of 'issues' you've never considered, there is simply no merit to your suggestion to begin with. You cannot logically equate the presense of *some* few photons as evidence of hot plasma in the corona. There is no such correlation.
quote:
Why you feel a need to keep harping on this as if your entire theory hinges upon the idea that there are places in the corona which don't emit any radiation which TRACE can see, I don't know.
Well, for one thing we have to identify the light source of these images or we can't do any sort of image analysis in the first place. There isn't much point in "harping" on anything else till we have at least gotten that far.
quote:
Then why is it that you haven't addressed the problems I identified with your electrical model?
I'm not going to get into other distractions with you yet. If you can't be scientifically fair and neutral on this point, there is no way you'll do so with *anything* I might say. This issue (light/heat concentration) *should* have been a slam dunk to agree on, but for whatever reason, you've chosen to ignore reality altogether.
quote:
Why should I be doing that? What makes the assumption that brighter equals hotter valid for the corona?
Since the 195A filter in particular shows *only* plasma that is greater than 500,000 degrees, and since the background of the photosphere and chromosphere are measured in the tens of thousands of degrees, and most of the background of these images are quite dark, there is no logical or scientific reason to believe that the *entire* corona is as hot as the temperature range of the filter. Only the lit parts of these images can be guaranteed to be in that temperature range, and only the *sources* of the photons *(vs. reflection points) seen in these emissions can be guaranteed to be of a very high temperature. Just as we cannot assume that the darker regions around a lightning bolt are as "hot" as the plasma inside the arc, so too, there is no one to one correlation between relfection/absortion/emission issues in the atmosphere as it relates to temperature. The arc is producing the heat and light, whereas the atmosphere is not producing either thing.
You would not try to claim that the atmosphere around an electrical discharge is hotter than the discharge plasma inside the arc. Why are you doing that in this case?
quote:
What physical laws and measurements did you use to determine that brighter equals hotter?
The same laws of physics that Lockheed and NASA used to isolate the temperatures required to generate these emissions, and the same laws they also use when they attempt to assign temperatures to plasma seen in these images. How can you claim there are measured numbers and then deny the physical principles behind their measured numbers? That isn't even rational. The brightly lit regions of the 195A image cannot even be anything less than 500,000 in a "coldest" case scenario, and we have not evidence to suggest the entire corona is that temperature.
quote:
quote:
First you have to demonstrate that the darker regions are even in the same ballpark as it relates to temperature. You've never demonstrated that point.
Once again, you're attempting to get me to prove the converse of your claims. But you haven't demonstrated your claims to be true.
No Dave, I'm asking you to demonstrate *your* claim that all photons in dark pixels relate directly to hot plasma in the corona. You can't shirk your responsibility to demonstrate that claim or recant the statement.
quote:
quote:
Then you have to eliminate reflection issues entirely. You've never done that either.
You've never demonstrated that reflections exist within the corona.
Actually, I did. I showed you an image from four separate wavelengths, and they show various levels of "interference" based on the wavelength in question.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
quote:
Once you do, it still won't matter since I don't need to prove the converse of your claims, you just need to prove your claims.
Again, I'm asking you to prove *your* claim that *any* photons seen in dark pixels equates to high temperature plasma in the corona. I see no evidence to support *your* claim.
I'm busy today. I'm going to stop here and see where you go with this issue Dave. If you aren't going to come clean on this issue, I have no reason to believe you'll come clean on *any* issue.
You *assume* no atmospheric interference and yet you *assumed* a difference in density. You can't establish either of these positions, and the first assumption would require a "miracle" of some sort. The second sassumption is based upon the first, namely that there is hot plasma in the corona that can become "more dense" to crea |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2006 13:01:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 13:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't have any evidence that there will be reflections, Michael.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/72502772/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Oh give me a break! Use your search engine for goodness sake and type in "light scattering plasma". You'll find tons of articles demonstrating that plasma will certainly scatter light. I just can't believe an intelligent person like you is going to try to stand on this quicksand Dave. How long do you think this charade is going to last anyway?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
