|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2006 : 13:38:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
No, the density difference is inferred from the available evidence, but that's just a distraction away from the problems you are facing right now.quote:
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.
That's precisely my point, Michael. It is you who believe that there is a correlation between bright pixels and high temperatures. You refuse to actually provide verifiable evidence of this, though.quote:
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.
There would be no need for any image analysis if you'd discuss your electrical model.quote:
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.
It's not a distraction, Michael, it is hard physics without any "analysis" required.quote:
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.
I've been scientifically fair and neutral by demanding that your support your claims with verifiable evidence, just like everyone else.quote:
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.
The fact that you can't seem to come up with evidence suggests that your interpretation may not be "reality" at all.quote:
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...
False premise, since both filters also image continuum radiation.quote:
...and since the background of the photosphere and chromosphere are measured in the tens of thousands of degrees...
Irrelevant.quote:
...and most of the background of these images are quite dark...
A subjective judgement call.quote:
...there is no logical or scientific reason to believe that the *entire* corona is as hot as the temperature range of the filter.
Conclusion based on a false premise, an irrelevancy and an opinion. I don't see any logic or science in your argument.quote:
Only the lit parts of these images can be guaranteed to be in that temperature range...
Since there are "intermittent hot pixels" per your own citation, any particular brightly lit pixel cannot be assumed to be recording hot plasma.quote:
...and only the *sources* of the photons *(vs. reflection points) seen in these emissions can be guaranteed to be of a very high temperature.
You have yet to name any laws of physics which would show that the coronal material must be reflective.quote:
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.
This assumes that a coronal loop is analogous to a lightning bolt, but the magnetic topology shows that's not the case.quote:
The arc is producing the heat and light, whereas the atmosphere is not producing either thing.
You've yet to demonstrate any "arcs."quote:
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?
I don't have eviden |
- 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 : 14:06:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, the density difference is inferred from the available evidence, but that's just a distraction away from the problems you are facing right now.
It is an illogical and unsupportable *inferred* idea Dave. It only works if there is *no* scattering of photons in the plasma. As the papers I've cited demonstrate, that is not the case. Therefore your inferred idea is without merit.
This is no discraction. This is the *core* issue in a nutshell.
quote:
That's precisely my point, Michael. It is you who believe that there is a correlation between bright pixels and high temperatures.
I conly correlate the two because NASA and Lockheed claim it takes 500,000 degree plasma to emit 195A photons that Trace can image. There is necessarily a direct relationship between high temperatures and light of this wavelength. I'm not making it up Dave.
quote:
There would be no need for any image analysis if you'd discuss your electrical model.
There is a need to provide *observational support* for these ideas however, and it's one of the simplest things to do, or so I thought. I didn't anticipate a pure denial campaign however.
quote:
It's not a distraction, Michael, it is hard physics without any "analysis" required.
Dr. Bruce layed out the basics for you Dave. You're just looking to avoid the topic of light and heat concentration in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
I've been scientifically fair and neutral by demanding that your support your claims with verifiable evidence, just like everyone else.
You mean everyone else *but you*. You claim things like:
quote:
The darkest pixels, because they are non-zero counts of photons, also respresent temperatures within the same range, Michael. They give us no clue as to which parts might be hotter all by themselves.
You then absolutely, positively refuse to support your claim.
quote:
The fact that you can't seem to come up with evidence suggests that your interpretation may not be "reality" at all.
Oh Boloney. I have millions of images from 5 different satellite programs to support my case Dave.
quote:
False premise, since both filters also image continuum radiation.
What is the *minimum* plasma temperature required to emit photons that the 195A filter can image?
quote:
quote:
...and since the background of the photosphere and chromosphere are measured in the tens of thousands of degrees...
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Hello? You have a known temperature of the background plasmas. We are trying to assertain the temperature of a layer that is directly connected to plasma in the tens of thousands of degrees, all long the surface. You have no idea what the corona temperatures might be, but there is certainly no logical reason to believe the whole corona is millions of degrees. It's certainly not 'irrelevant'. This to me is pretty clear evidence how far from "neutral" you are.
quote:
A subjective judgement call.
You don't see brighter and darker regions in these images?
quote:
Conclusion based on a false premise, an irrelevancy and an opinion. I don't see any logic or science in your argument.
Of course not. You're too busy trying to cling to the notion that plasma doesn't scatter light. Talk about false premises Dave.
I've got a call to take. I'll look at the rest later and see if there is anything I missed that isn't pure rehash. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 14:14:23 [Permalink]
|
http://www.llnl.gov/science_on_lasers/10PlasPhys/PPh-C_LPInst.html
www.epfl.ch/tcv/diag/thomsb.htm" target="_blank">http://crppwww.epfl.ch/tcv/diag/thomsb.htm
quote:
Thomson scattering:
A laser beam that passes through plasma interacts with free plasma electrons so that minute amount of the laser light is scattered from them. The spectral width of the scattered radiation depends on the electron temperature (due to Doppler line broadening), and its intensity is related to the electron density. This way, local values of electron temperature and density are obtained.
Dave, how long do you intend to suggest that this statement is true?
quote:
The darkest pixels, because they are non-zero counts of photons, also respresent temperatures within the same range, Michael. They give us no clue as to which parts might be hotter all by themselves.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2006 14:16:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 16:10:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
1) Since when does "scattering" equal "reflection," Michael? Can this attempt of yours to shift the goalposts be any more transparent?
2) You could have presented information like this at any time before now, and saved us all page after page of your "why won't you just believe me?!?" whining.
3) It's not my job to find proof for your assertions.
4) What wavelengths and plasmas are being discussed in the abstract you linked?
quote:
I just can't believe an intelligent person like you is going to try to stand on this quicksand Dave.
What quicksand? Your claim is that the coronal material can reflect light that it emits. You still haven't demonstrated that to any degree whatsoever, and now are trying to insist that I do your homework for you.quote:
How long do you think this charade is going to last anyway?
I dunno, how much longer can you avoid supporting your own claims and/or avoid retracting them?
A later post:quote:
It is an illogical and unsupportable *inferred* idea Dave. It only works if there is *no* scattering of photons in the plasma.
What? Why?quote:
As the papers I've cited demonstrate, that is not the case. Therefore your inferred idea is without merit.
I don't see the logic connecting an inference of density differences with the non-scattering of light. It seems like you're saying that - by analogy - since the Earth's atmosphere scatters light, we can make no reliable inferences from a photo of an airplane in flight that it is denser than air.quote:
This is no discraction. This is the *core* issue in a nutshell.
Well, your "core issue" has become lost amongst your ridiculous posturing and fabrication of claims.quote:
quote:
That's precisely my point, Michael. It is you who believe that there is a correlation between bright pixels and high temperatures.
I conly correlate the two because NASA and Lockheed claim it takes 500,000 degree plasma to emit 195A photons that Trace can image. There is necessarily a direct relationship between high temperatures and light of this wavelength. I'm not making it up Dave.
You're just ignoring the real issue: we know that light from million-kelvin plasmas will be recorded by TRACE, but that doesn't mean that there's a correlation between the intensity of that light and the temperature. In fact, if one looks at the response curves, we see that such is absolutely not the case, as the highest response isn't from 20 MK plasmas.quote:
quote:
There would be no need for any image analysis if you'd discuss your electrical model.
There is a need to provide *observational support* for these ideas however, and it's one of the simplest things to do, or so I thought.
If you'd flesh out the details of your electrical model, you could say, "and so we find that the images of a coronal loop should look like thus-and-such, and lo and behold! they do: [insert any coronal image here]." That would be fine observational support for your model. Instead, you're demanding that we do all sorts of "analysis" which you can't even do yourself, first.quote:
I didn't anticipate a pure denial campaign however.
There is no denial here, Michael, except to say that the claims you think I made, I didn't make.quote:
quote:
It's not a distraction, Michael, it is hard physics without any "analysis" required.
Dr. Bruce layed out the basics for you Dave.
Well, then Dr. Bruce is completely wrong that an electrical current would create a magnetic field parallel to its direction of travel.quote:
You're just looking to avoid the topic of light and heat concentration in the solar atmosphere.
Since that conversation is going absolutely nowhere due to your stonewalling and evasiveness, then yes, I am trying to avoid it.quote:
quote:
I've been scientifically fair and neutral by demanding that your support your claims with verifiable evidence, just like everyone else.
You mean everyone else *but you*. You claim things like:quote:
The darkest pixels, because they are non-zero counts of photons, also respresent temperatures within the same range, Michael. They give us no clue as to which parts might be hotter all by themselves.
You then absolutely, positively refuse to support your claim.
As I predicted, |
- 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 : 16:56:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since when does "scattering" equal "reflection," Michael? Can this attempt of yours to shift the goalposts be any more transparent?
Could you be any more infuriating Dave?
quote:
2) You could have presented information like this at any time before now, and saved us all page after page of your "why won't you just believe me?!?" whining.
I'm to blame for your denial routine? Man, now I've heard everything.
quote:
3) It's not my job to find proof for your assertions.
Nor is it my job to disprove your assertions! Grr. You're amazing at times!
quote:
4) What wavelengths and plasmas are being discussed in the abstract you linked?
What nitpick of a distraction are you hoping to find there? You must realize by now that the statement of yours that I've quoted several times now is absolute false. Instead of simply admitting it and moving on, we're going to dance around some more evidently.
quote:
What quicksand? Your claim is that the coronal material can reflect light that it emits.
No, I said it would reflect light that the coronal loops emit. There is a distinct difference between these two sentences.
quote:
You still haven't demonstrated that to any degree whatsoever, and now are trying to insist that I do your homework for you.
Excuse me? I insisted you demonstrate your claim that *some* photons in all the pixels demonstrated that the corona was in the temperature range of the filters in question. You are wrong. You've been wrong, and you simply won't concede that you are wrong. Instead we'll play the blame game and make it all my fault. What a boatload of rationalizations we're about to go through, only because you can't come clean and move on. Hoy Vey, you are a trip at times.
quote:
I dunno, how much longer can you avoid supporting your own claims and/or avoid retracting them?
What statement must I "retract" publically for you to admit that "scattering happens" as John so elequently put it?
quote:
quote:
It is an illogical and unsupportable *inferred* idea Dave. It only works if there is *no* scattering of photons in the plasma.
What? Why?
Because if "scattering happens", some photons released in the loops are going to take different paths through the plasma and few photons will inevitably end up in all the pixels.
quote:
I don't see the logic connecting an inference of density differences with the non-scattering of light.
The connection is between the presense of some photons in every pixel and "scattering happens". Density is a side issue, albeit an important one.
quote:
It seems like you're saying that - by analogy - since the Earth's atmosphere scatters light, we can make no reliable inferences from a photo of an airplane in flight that it is denser than air.
:) Oh the strawmen you resort to. At least pick a valid analogy, like the one I've been using. We're discussing heat and plasma and electrical current and high speeds. If you want an analogy, pick a high voltage electrical discharge on earth. Even you toy plasma ball would have been a better analogy for that matter.
quote:
Well, your "core issue" has become lost amongst your ridiculous posturing and fabrication of claims.
I've been discussing *your* claim that the presense of *some few* photons in each pixel indicates the presense of high temp plasma in the range of the filter throughout the entire corona. You're doing your best to shift the burden back on me, irregardless of the fact you're simply WRONG!
quote:
You're just ignoring the real issue:
No Dave, that *is* the real issue.
quote:
we know that light from million-kelvin plasmas will be recorded by TRACE, but that doesn't mean that there's a correlation between the intensity of that light and the temperature.
The "intensity" is affected by scattering Dave. You can't simply assume as you did that some few photons equates to plasma in that temperature range at that spot in the corona. For you know the *only* things that emit this light, and reach these temperatures are the coronal loops. You cannot assume that *all* light equals high temp plasma. First you have to isolate the *source* and then maybe we can talk about which areas have high temperature plasma.
quote:
In fact, if one looks at the response curves, we see that such is absolutely not the case, as the highest response isn't from 20 MK plasmas.
We're talking about plasma from all temperature *ranges* from the low end, all the way up to the highest posssible temperatures. The highest repsonse is going to certainly include room for the scenario where you see all the photons emitting from a whole range of temperature zones around that hot spots.
quote:
If you'd flesh out the details of your electrical model, you could say |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 17:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
even though quantum mechanics can explain these stray photons without ever suggesting that the whole corona is hot.
Explain in detail what process of Quantum Mechanics is responsible for this effect. Because I think you're just throwing the QM-argument around because it is a convenient red herring. Demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about, and quantify the error it produces, and you might convince me that you're not just bullshitting me.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node85.html
quote:
The scattering of a photon by a charged particle is called Compton scattering, and the quantum mechanical version of the Compton scattering cross section is known as the Klein-Nishina formula.
In order for the two of you to be right, the whole theory of QM must abandoned entirely Dr. Mabuse. Prove to me now that you aren't just bullshitting me. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/13/2006 17:11:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 17:24:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I conly correlate the two because NASA and Lockheed claim it takes 500,000 degree plasma to emit 195A photons that Trace can image.
Actually, according to this resource of yours, TRACE's 195A filter response drops to 0.0001 (not quite zero) at a Log10T of about 4.75, or about 56,234 kelvin. For the 171A filter, the response drops that low at a Log10T of about 4.8, for a temperature of about 63,096 kelvin. (See figures 3 and 2 respectively, of the linked paper.) I'm sure you could have done this math yourself, and am frankly puzzled why you didn't.quote:
There is necessarily a direct relationship between high temperatures and light of this wavelength. I'm not making it up Dave.
Again, what you appear to be making up is the mythical direct correlation between temperature and the intesity of light at those wavelengths. After all, if we knew we were looking only at Fe XII (for example) through the 195A filter (for example) and saw an intensity 1/10th as bright as the maximum (for example), we couldn't say whether it came from an 891,251-kelvin plasma or a 2,238,721-kelvin plasma, since the emission curve of Fe XII crosses the 0.1 line at those two temperatures (about). And since TRACE can image many more ions than just the one, any attempt at correlating image brightness with temperature necessarily becomes more complex than just having to pick between two disparate temperatures. |
- 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 : 17:45:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I conly correlate the two because NASA and Lockheed claim it takes 500,000 degree plasma to emit 195A photons that Trace can image.
Actually, according to this resource of yours, TRACE's 195A filter response drops to 0.0001 (not quite zero) at a Log10T of about 4.75, or about 56,234 kelvin. For the 171A filter, the response drops that low at a Log10T of about 4.8, for a temperature of about 63,096 kelvin. (See figures 3 and 2 respectively, of the linked paper.) I'm sure you could have done this math yourself, and am frankly puzzled why you didn't.
I'm frankly puzzled why you stopped after doing only *some* of the math Dave. Now tell me what the peak temperatures are for each filter and you'll know the temperature ranges between the "darkest" regions and "brightest" ones.
Man, it is simply amazing to me the lengths you are willing to go to in an attempt to avoid the obvious. Even the very lowest possible end of the spectrum is well beyond the temperature of the chromosphere Dave. What temperatures must those most brightly lit areas represent now, based on that same set of equations you just used? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 18:09:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since when does "scattering" equal "reflection," Michael? Can this attempt of yours to shift the goalposts be any more transparent?
Could you be any more infuriating Dave?
It's not my fault that you lack the ability to be precise with your terminology, Michael. Scattering and reflection are words with different meanings.quote:
quote:
2) You could have presented information like this at any time before now, and saved us all page after page of your "why won't you just believe me?!?" whining.
I'm to blame for your denial routine? Man, now I've heard everything.
No, you're to blame for not presenting supporting evidence for your claims when you were first asked to do so.quote:
quote:
3) It's not my job to find proof for your assertions.
Nor is it my job to disprove your assertions! Grr. You're amazing at times!
I never asked you to disprove any of my assertions. What's amazing is that you used an incorrect term and then stonwalled for weeks before presenting your evidence.quote:
quote:
4) What wavelengths and plasmas are being discussed in the abstract you linked?
What nitpick of a distraction are you hoping to find there?
None, I was hoping you'd be able to tell us how much scattering goes on in the corona, but you're instead focused on personal bickering.quote:
You must realize by now that the statement of yours that I've quoted several times now is absolute false.
Ripped from its context, as you've chosen to use it, it's always been false. That's why I never made the claim away from the context in which we've been discussing these issues: your prior lack of citing any evidence that the coronal material could "reflect" light.quote:
Instead of simply admitting it and moving on, we're going to dance around some more evidently.
No, I fucking admitted it as soon as you posted the evidence of the faults within TRACE itself. So we're now talking about your refusal to move on to something more interesting.quote:
quote:
What quicksand? Your claim is that the coronal material can reflect light that it emits.
No, I said it would reflect light that the coronal loops emit. There is a distinct difference between these two sentences.
Okay.quote:
quote:
You still haven't demonstrated that to any degree whatsoever, and now are trying to insist that I do your homework for you.
Excuse me? I insisted you demonstrate your claim that *some* photons in all the pixels demonstrated that the corona was in the temperature range of the filters in question.
My "claim" (which you still refuse to admit wasn't so idiotic as your strawman version of it) was only a counter to your claim that the coronal material is reflective. Since you've demonstrated your claim (finally!), we can move on. But you're refusing to. Why?quote:
You are wrong. You've been wrong, and you simply won't concede that you are wrong.
Since I never made the claim as you've quoted it (the context is missing), I've got nothing to be wrong about. What is it that you want me to say, Michael? That I was wrong about a claim I never made as you intend it to sound?quote:
Instead we'll play the blame game and make it all my fault.
You failed to present your evidence until asked a dozen times to do so.quote:
What a boatload of rationalizations we're about to go through, only because you can't come clean and move on. Hoy Vey, you are a trip at times.
You're the one not moving on now, Michael.quote:
quote:
I dunno, how much longer can you avoid supporting your own claims and/or avoid retracting them?
What statement must I "retract" publically for you to admit that "scattering happens" as John so elequently put it?
You should retract your claim that I said that scattering doesn't happen. I never made such a claim.quote:
Because if "scattering happens", some photons released in the loops are going to take different paths through the plasma and few photons will inevitably end up in all the pixels.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2006 : 18:27:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm frankly puzzled why you stopped after doing only *some* of the math Dave. Now tell me what the peak temperatures are for each filter and you'll know the temperature ranges between the "darkest" regions and "brightest" ones.
Okay, so you're in denial that the response curve is peaks in the middle of the temperature range, and not at the high end. Got it.
[Edited to add: apparently, Michael, you simply ignored the point of the second part of that post.]quote:
Man, it is simply amazing to me the lengths you are willing to go to in an attempt to avoid the obvious. Even the very lowest possible end of the spectrum is well beyond the temperature of the chromosphere Dave. What temperatures must those most brightly lit areas represent now, based on that same set of equations you just used?
Somewhere between hot and hotter, but due to the nature of the filter and the ions, even hotter temperatures will result in dimmer light being captured. That much is obvious from the response curves, Michael. Why are you denying it? |
- 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 - 04/13/2006 : 21:51:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
even though quantum mechanics can explain these stray photons without ever suggesting that the whole corona is hot.
Explain in detail what process of Quantum Mechanics is responsible for this effect. Because I think you're just throwing the QM-argument around because it is a convenient red herring. Demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about, and quantify the error it produces, and you might convince me that you're not just bullshitting me.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node85.html
quote:
The scattering of a photon by a charged particle is called Compton scattering, and the quantum mechanical version of the Compton scattering cross section is known as the Klein-Nishina formula.
In order for the two of you to be right, the whole theory of QM must abandoned entirely Dr. Mabuse. Prove to me now that you aren't just bullshitting me.
Are you kidding?
The only thing you managed to do was proving that you can dig up a link to post.
You have yet to convince me that you understand the content of that link. You still haven't quantified the error it produces.
From the link: "Thus, as a scatterer the electron acts rather like a solid sphere whose radius is of order the classical electron radius. Since this radius is extremely small, it is clear that scattering of radiation by a single electron (or any other charged particle) is a very weak process. " (emphasis mine) and the cross-section of the electron was calculated to ~6.65x10-29m2
Compared that to the cross-section of any atom. Then consider the distance between ions in a plasma. We're talking at least 10 orders of magnitudes greater than the cross section of the electron. That is the perspective of the "very weak process".
As a photon hits an electron and is "scattered" it must have an extremely narrow angle in order to reach the lens of the satellite from such a distance. How many millionths of a degree does it take to miss the lens? There we have another number of orders of magnitudes that are not selected to be your registered scattered photon registered on the wrong pixel of the camera.
Even though the article concludes that while the scattering effect of the plasma is very weak, it is not zero. So what? You quoted "the Quantum Mechanical version of the Compton scattering cross section is know as the Klein-Nishina formula."
Michael, What is the conclusion of the Klein-Nishina formula?.
If you dig through the article deep enough, there is a revelation to be made:
The photon that is scattered loose energy. When that happens, the wavelength increases. A scattered photon originating from FeIX would get blocked by the filter. So would a scattered FeXX-photon. Also, the article says that as the original photons increase in energy, the tendency is that less photons are scattered in reverse angle, which means less reflection (which is counter-intuitive, but hey that's QM for ya...).
The conclusion I draw from your failed attempt to convince me that you actually know what you're talking about when you bring up stuff like this, is that you're claims are mostly hot air.
A couple of threads back I promised myself that I wouldn't engage in more debating because I didn't see any sign from you being capable of redeeming yourself to conform to the scientific process. I blame myself for re-engaging, and promise to retire from this discussion altogether (save for moderation purposes). Anything else from me will be by proxy.
Have a nice day.
 |
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 - 04/14/2006 : 09:20:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
The scattering of a photon by a charged particle is called Compton scattering, and the quantum mechanical version of the Compton scattering cross section is known as the Klein-Nishina formula.
Are you kidding?
The only thing you managed to do was proving that you can dig up a link to post.
You have yet to convince me that you understand the content of that link.
I certainly *understand* that the theory of QM means that Dave's comment about some photons in the darker regions being indicative of plasma in the filter's temperature range is absolutely false.
quote:
You still haven't quantified the error it produces.
And I'm not going to either. Since we don't know the original intensity of the coronal loop or the density of the materials involved, I can't do that at the moment. What we know with absolute certainty is that this scattering affect will influence the photons as they travel though plasma, and there will be scattering from the filter itself for that matter.
I must say, this conversation has gone from being an interesting discussion to being a great example of pure denial oriented discourse at this point. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2006 : 09:31:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm frankly puzzled why you stopped after doing only *some* of the math Dave. Now tell me what the peak temperatures are for each filter and you'll know the temperature ranges between the "darkest" regions and "brightest" ones.
Okay, so you're in denial that the response curve is peaks in the middle of the temperature range, and not at the high end. Got it.
Simply amazing!
No Dave, *you* are in denial of fact that the peak range of this filter is way higher than the low end. You're also in denial of the other evidence we have in our possession from *many* other satellite systems that can verify for us that the dark regions are not dark because they are hotter than the loops themselves. Instead the dark regions are dark because they are nowhere near the temperatures of the coronal loops. We can see that very clearly in the TRACE/Yohkoh overlay composite image that you continue to ignore:
If the dark regions were dark in the Trace images because these regions were a greater temperature than the peak temperature range of the Trace filter, then the yellow Yohkoh SXT regions of this image would not be associated with the loops as well. Since Yohkoh also sees a direct correlation between the loops and the highest intensity of light, you are clearly the one living in denial Dave, not me.
At this point, I'm becoming incredibly bored with these denial routines and pointless insults. I think in start investing more of my time on the Livesciece forums, and a lot less time here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
