|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/14/2006 : 17:15:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave, *you* are in denial of fact that the peak range of this filter is way higher than the low end.
The high-temperature end still has less of a response than the peak, no matter how you slice it. A pixel with only 10% brightness (pretty dim) can represent 900,000 K temperatures or 2,200,000 K temperatures. Anything dimmer than that represents temperatures below 900,000 K OR higher than 2.2 MK, and I challenge you to tell me which it is for any pixel of your choosing.quote:
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:
I never ignored it, Michael, you're simply rejecting the fact that Yohkoh's 10% response on that particular filter starts at about 5 MK, leaving a 2.8-MK range in which both telescopes will record very dim pixels. If you'd rather try for 25% brightness, then you're looking at a "dim range" of about 4.6 MK between them. The brightest stuff - the top 25% - has a gap of almost 34 MK between the two telescopes (for that particular Yohkoh SXT filter, brighter does equal hotter, but not for three of the other four). It's only when talking about pixels with values very close to zero that the temperature ranges of TRACE and Yohkoh start to overlap, and you know that those low-valued pixels aren't reliable indicators (and neither are the brightest).quote:
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.
That's simply false, as demonstrated above.quote:
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.
No, you're simply trying to jump backwards to your whole "the heat is concentrated in the loops" claim, instead of providing evidence that brighter equals hotter. Nice try at dodging, but the temperature response curves of TRACE say that brighter doesn't equal hotter, three out of five Yohkoh SXT filters say brighter doesn't equal hotter, quantum physics says brighter doesn't always equal hotter, the experimental results say that brighter doesn't always equal hotter, and the guy who agrees with you on where the 20 MK temperatures are says brighter doesn't always equal hotter. You're the only person who offers a blanket "brighter equals hotter" rule, but you can't support it with any verifiably accurate methodology.quote:
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.
[Shrug] Don't let the door hit you in the ass. |
- 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 - 04/14/2006 : 17:24:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/spheroma.htm
This website will describe the electrical discharges that are occuring in the plasma better than I could ever hope to describe it Dave.
I'm not interested in electrical discharges within the plasma, Michael. I'm interested in your point-to-point, from-a-solid-surface discharges. The spheromaks being generated by that group seem to last only microseconds, anyway. How are they at all analogous to the "arcs" you claim are occuring on the Sun for hours or days? |
- 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 - 04/15/2006 : 14:30:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I never ignored it, Michael, you're simply rejecting the fact that Yohkoh's 10% response on that particular filter starts at about 5 MK, leaving a 2.8-MK range in which both telescopes will record very dim pixels. If you'd rather try for 25% brightness, then you're looking at a "dim range" of about 4.6 MK between them. The brightest stuff - the top 25% - has a gap of almost 34 MK between the two telescopes (for that particular Yohkoh SXT filter, brighter does equal hotter,
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
I want you to think carefully here about what you just said. You just said that in Yohkoh's SXT filter, brighter is hotter. In this composite image, we do see that the "brighter and hotter" regions in yellow are certainly much hotter than the darker areas of this image, meaning that the heat is still *concentrated in the loops* no matter what temperature you assign to the rest of the corona. The blue regions simply comfirm that direct link between the coronal loops and these high temperature plasmas.
You quite literally have exactly zero evidence to suggest that the corona itself is anywhere near the temperatures we find in the coronal loops themselves. You have no evidence of density change in either image.
Your allegations here are baseless, even by the very admission that in an SXT images, "brighter *is* hotter". As Nitta and I suggested to you earlier, the hottest plasma must be concentrated *inside*, not outside the loop.
You are now grasping at straws, looking for *any* reason at all to find some way to prop up this weak arguement. The photosphere and chromosphere are measured in the tens of thousands of degrees. You cannot identify a heat source for something you claim in in the millions of degrees that is sitting on tens of thousand of degree plasma. You have no visual evidence at all that the *whole* corona can be, or should be measured in the millions of degrees. None of your allegations are supported by evidence of any sort.
quote:
That's simply false, as demonstrated above.
No Dave. You just said it yourself. In an SXT image, brighter is hotter. Those yellow areas associated with the arcs are much "hotter" than anything else around it. Where the arcs do not come from below, we see nothing in the 5 million degree range. Where the arcs are coming from below, we *do* see million degree plasma *and* we know that brighter is hotter as it relates to everything that is yellow in this image. The brue regions simply confirm the direct link between coronal loops and high temperature plasma that Yohkoh is able to image further up the atmosphere. You shot your whole show in the foot, and you have no evidence whatsoever, to suggest that the darkest regions of this composite image are anywhere in the same temperature range as the coronal loops themselves. Furthermore, since the backgound of the chromosphere is measured in the tens of thousands of degrees, purely from a thermal perspective, it is *highly* unlikely that the whole corona can be, or would be millions of degrees. It is perfectly likely that electrical discharges through plasma will heat the plasma closest to the discharges themselves.
All you are doing here is demonstrating your unwillingness to be reasonable, logical, or rational in your approach. You shot your own argument in the foot, and you don't even seem to realize it yet. As Nitta and I said to you pages ago, the loops are the most likely place to find multimillion degree plasma. I can even define the energy source that heats the plasma for you with Birkeland's model, namely current flow.
quote:
No, you're simply trying to jump backwards to your whole "the heat is concentrated in the loops" claim, instead of providing evidence that brighter equals hotter.
You just said yourself that in an SXT image (that yellow section) brighter is hotter Dave. What can I say except to agree with you?
quote:
Nice try at dodging, but the temperature response curves of TRACE say that brighter doesn't equal hotter,
But I am not relying upon TRACE in the final analysis Dave. I cut my teeth on the Yohkoh program, not the Trace program, and that is why I keep putting that SXT overlay in front of you, over and over again. Sooner or later, you will "get it". I'm sure of it. It may not be today, it may not be this month for all I know, but I know you to be an intelligent person, and I know you will eventually "get it".
quote:
three out of five Yohkoh SXT filters say brighter doesn't equal hotter,
But the one I selected as an overlay *does* say that, even according to you!
quote:
quantum physics says brighter doesn't always equal hotter,
In this case, it does based on the filter in question.
quote:
the experimental results say that brighter doesn't always equal hotter,
In the experimental results related to the SXT filter that is show in yellow, it does!
quote:
and the guy who agrees with you on where the 20 MK temperatures are says brighter doesn't always equal hotter.
In *this* case Dave, we are in perfect agreement. You are the odd man out, not me.
quote:
You're the only person who offers a blanket "brighter equals hotter" rule, but you can't support it with any verifiably accurate methodology.
Boloney! I just did, even based on your own statements.
quote:
[Shrug] Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
If you continue to base your whole arguement on irrational statements, I won't really have much else I *can* do Dave. I like and respect you, but right now the words that are coming out of your mouth tend to blow your whole argument out of the water. None of it makes any sense. You say that with the SXT filter, brighter is hotter, and then you proceed to ignore an SXT image that shows you that the coronal loops are |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/15/2006 14:47:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 14:41:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not interested in electrical discharges within the plasma, Michael. I'm interested in your point-to-point, from-a-solid-surface discharges.
What? The whole *atmosphere* of the sun is plasma Dave, how can you not be interested in how plasma arranges itself around electrical current? You clearly are *not* serious, or unbiased, or even acting rationally at this point as far as I can tell.
quote:
The spheromaks being generated by that group seem to last only microseconds, anyway. How are they at all analogous to the "arcs" you claim are occuring on the Sun for hours or days?
You'll note that this group also proposes this to be the mechanism to explain coronal loops using *gas model theory too* Dave, but you never asked *them* to demonstrate longer timelines. The double standards around here are simply astounding.
You seem to have no problem with them trying to use this phenomenon of electricity and plasma to explain a coronal loops in the gas model, but you turn right around and deny it's a reasonable way to explain the discharges of a Birkeland solar model? 
You call this fair and unbaised Dave?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 15:31:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Anything dimmer than that represents temperatures below 900,000 K OR higher than 2.2 MK, and I challenge you to tell me which it is for any pixel of your choosing.
Come on! How can you even ask something like this? Considering the whole corona is sitting on top of a plasma that is only measured in the 10's of *thousands* of degrees, the option of "below 900,000K" would certainly be the more *likely* option purely from a logical and thermal/physical perspective!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 16:01:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you continue to base your whole arguement on irrational statements, I won't really have much else I *can* do Dave. I like and respect you, but right now the words that are coming out of your mouth tend to blow your whole argument out of the water. None of it makes any sense.
It doesn't make sense to you, Michael, because you've fooled yourself into thinking that I'm making a claim about the temperatures in the corona.quote:
You say that with the SXT filter...
There is no such thing as the "SXT filter" aboard Yohkoh. For someone who's dealt with Yohkoh images for years, you should know this.quote:
...brighter is hotter, and then you proceed to ignore an SXT image that shows you that the coronal loops are therefore necessarily hotter than the darker regions of this image! Hoy Vey!
Actually, it turns out that I was wrong about brighter being hotter for the Be and Fe filters. It's not true, I made the mistake of looking at a high-level "cartoon"-like presentation of Yohkoh's capabilites yesterday. I apologize.quote:
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm
Notice the filter used Dave. The Yellow regions are created by the SXT filter!
Actually it turns out I was wrong about two things, because I thought that image was made with the Be filter. Oh, well: the Al/Mg filter (thanks for pointing that out) had a big hump in its temperature response curve even in the incorrect graphs I saw yesterday.quote:
You call this fair and unbaised Dave?
It's as fair as saying, as you now have, that because a single SXT filter has a brighter=hotter response, then your blanket claim that brighter always equals hotter is true. It's as unbiased as your lying about the claims that I've made, Michael. And Nitta's point was that brighter doesn't always equal hotter, so you obviously feel free to stuff words into his mouth, too. You're a massive hypocrite to be preaching about fairness and biases, Michael.
And really, Michael, I want to know how your electrical currents generate magnetic fields parallel to their direction of travel, which is the only way for them to have charged particles spiralling around them. I'm certain that Dr. Bruce never made such a easily-disprovable claim. And the spheromak stuff doesn't even address it, since the primary magnetic field in those experiments was driven by coils external to the chamber. It doesn't matter if what other people say is consistent with your model, Michael, when your model fails to be consistent with what we know about the topology of magnetic fields created by electrical currents.
Secondly, you also need to provide evidence for your claim that charged particles will move in the direction of the current around one of your alleged electrical currents, Michael. |
- 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 - 04/15/2006 : 16:37:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It doesn't make sense to you, Michael, because you've fooled yourself into thinking that I'm making a claim about the temperatures in the corona.
Then why in the world would ask whether that dark plasma is likely to be less than 900,000K or greater than 2.2 million degrees?
quote:
There is no such thing as the "SXT filter" aboard Yohkoh. For someone who's dealt with Yohkoh images for years, you should know this.
Oh for goodness sake you can be infuriating at times. When I use less complicated "lingo" you go off onto rediculace tangents. Then then ignore the point entirely.
quote:
It's as fair as saying, as you now have, that because a single SXT filter has a brighter=hotter response, then your blanket claim that brighter always equals hotter is true. It's as unbiased as your lying about the claims that I've made, Michael.
You are a trip at times Dave. I've done my best to keep this conversation at least civil and yet you accuse me of lying. When I ask you simple questions like "How about neutron capture events, hot or cold?", you flatly ignore the question. Even though I've showed you Trace/Rhessi overlays showing a direct correlation to these neutron capture events, you ignore that evidence as well. I'm running out of ideas here frankly.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
If you refuse to believe what you can see with your own eyes, and you refuse to answer some basic questions that directly relate to the issues, there is really very little I can do to help convince you Dave.
quote:
And Nitta's point was that brighter doesn't always equal hotter, so you obviously feel free to stuff words into his mouth, too.
I'm not stuffing words in his mouth Dave, but he and I ultimately located the highest temperature plasma inside the coronal loops. You are the only one of the three of us that seems to have a tough time accepting this. I agree that density *can* play a role, but mostly *inside* the coronal loops and near the coronal loops where the temperature is high enough to really affect the total output of photons, not in the coolest regions of the corona.
quote:
You're a massive hypocrite to be preaching about fairness and biases, Michael.
Ditto Dave. You and I are peas in a pod as far as I can tell. I'm not claiming to be unbiased, and I have layed out my math and my explanations in some detail. To date, all you've done is put up hurdles and posit "what ifs", and have refused to take a stand on anything, or give any explainations for your positions. It's like arguing with Jello. I've at least shown you my "math" on this issue Dave. You've steadfastly refused to offer me any "sophisticated up" math to demonstrate your case, but you insist there is a 'better' way. All the while you've told me that math was the key to making points with you. Talk about hypocritical behaviors Dave. You're driving me nuts right now.
quote:
And really, Michael, I want to know how your electrical currents generate magnetic fields parallel to their direction of travel, which is the only way for them to have charged particles spiralling around them. I'm certain that Dr. Bruce never made such a easily-disprovable claim.
You're taking a few sentences I put together to give you a rough idea of what I was trying to explain, and you're building a federal case over it in your own mind. This, in spite of the fact that I went out of my way to give you a much 'better' explanation of what I was trying to describe, complete with pictures.
quote:
And the spheromak stuff doesn't even address it, since the primary magnetic field in those experiments was driven by coils external to the chamber.
In a Birkeland model, that field would be driven electrons flowing through the surface, driven by the magnetic fields, deep in the core. You also failed to note that Dr. Bruce was right about the field and the electrical flow flowing roughly parallel to one another in these events.
quote:
It doesn't matter if what other people say is consistent with your model, Michael, when your model fails to be consistent with what we know about the topology of magnetic fields created by electrical currents.
But in this case, we are talking about how currents *flow through plasma*, since the whole atmosphere of the sun *is plasma*!
quote:
Secondly, you also need to provide evidence for your claim that charged particles will move in the direction of the current around one of your alleged electrical currents, Michael.
I'm going to let you digest that spheremak model for awhile Dave. If you're looking for clear answers as to how current behaves and how it flows through plasma, that's where you'll find them. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/15/2006 16:39:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 16:37:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Come on! How can you even ask something like this? Considering the whole corona is sitting on top of a plasma that is only measured in the 10's of *thousands* of degrees, the option of "below 900,000K" would certainly be the more *likely* option purely from a logical and thermal/physical perspective!
We've never discussed this from a "what's more likely?" point-of-view. You flat-out asserted that the brighter areas are hotter than the darker areas. "Always" was a word you used in conjunction with that claim at least once. The temperature response curves don't support those factual claims. Your brand-new probability claim is another transparent attempt at moving the goalposts. |
- 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 - 04/15/2006 : 16:41:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Come on! How can you even ask something like this? Considering the whole corona is sitting on top of a plasma that is only measured in the 10's of *thousands* of degrees, the option of "below 900,000K" would certainly be the more *likely* option purely from a logical and thermal/physical perspective!
We've never discussed this from a "what's more likely?" point-of-view. You flat-out asserted that the brighter areas are hotter than the darker areas. "Always" was a word you used in conjunction with that claim at least once. The temperature response curves don't support those factual claims. Your brand-new probability claim is another transparent attempt at moving the goalposts.
Dave, please stop avoiding my direct questions, especially the important ones. Neutron capture events: Hot or cold?
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 17:18:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then why in the world would ask whether that dark plasma is likely to be less than 900,000K or greater than 2.2 million degrees?
I didn't ask any such thing.quote:
Oh for goodness sake you can be infuriating at times. When I use less complicated "lingo" you go off onto rediculace tangents. Then then ignore the point entirely.
Actually, you're now ignoring the point, since you didn't even acknowledge my mistakes about the temperature response curves of the five Yohkoh SXT filters. I wonder why you would ignore that?quote:
You are a trip at times Dave. I've done my best to keep this conversation at least civil and yet you accuse me of lying.
When you're repeatedly stating that I'm making claims which I am not, despite my repeated correction of your incorrect opinions, it isn't civil. When are you going to retract your claim that I said that scattering never happens?quote:
When I ask you simple questions like "How about neutron capture events, hot or cold?", you flatly ignore the question.
I couldn't answer the question unless I knew whether you were talking about fast neutron capture or slow neutron capture. You failed to answer my query on that point.quote:
Even though I've showed you Trace/Rhessi overlays showing a direct correlation to these neutron capture events, you ignore that evidence as well. I'm running out of ideas here frankly.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
That movie doesn't answer my question about whether you're refering to fast or slow neutron capture, either.quote:
If you refuse to believe what you can see with your own eyes, and you refuse to answer some basic questions that directly relate to the issues, there is really very little I can do to help convince you Dave.
I can't answer your question as you asked it, Michael, so I asked the one question which would clear that up, but you didn't answer me.quote:
I'm not stuffing words in his mouth Dave, but he and I ultimately located the highest temperature plasma inside the coronal loops.
That's utterly irrelevant to whether your claim that "brighter equals hotter" is true.quote:
You are the only one of the three of us that seems to have a tough time accepting this.
I don't care about where the highest temperatures are located, Michael, I simply want you to demonstrate your claim that brighter always equals hotter.quote:
I agree that density *can* play a role, but mostly *inside* the coronal loops and near the coronal loops where the temperature is high enough to really affect the total output of photons, not in the coolest regions of the corona.
Who gives a shit where it's located, Michael: does brighter always equal hotter or not?quote:
quote:
You're a massive hypocrite to be preaching about fairness and biases, Michael.
Ditto Dave. You and I are peas in a pod as far as I can tell. I'm not claiming to be unbiased, and I have layed out my math and my explanations in some detail. To date, all you've done is put up hurdles and posit "what ifs", and have refused to take a stand on anything, or give any explainations for your positions. It's like arguing with Jello.
No, Michael, it's like arguing with a critic of a scientific theory: you (the proponent of the theory) must demonstrate that potential problems with the theory aren't actually problems, without regard to any other theory attempting to explain the same thing(s). I don't have a position, nor do I require a position, on any of the points that you bring up.quote:
I've at least shown you my "math" on this issue Dave. You've steadfastly refused to offer me any "sophisticated up" math to demonstrate your case, but you insist there is a 'better' way.
Your memory is faulty again: you refused to provide a method whereby we could all verify that your "math" would create correct results.quote:
All the while you've told me that math was the key to making points with you. Talk about hypocritical behaviors Dave.
It wasn't hypocritical. I said "show me your math." You did. Then I said, "show me that your math is correct." You did not.quote:
You're driving me nuts right now.
You're the one continually shifting the goalposts.quote:
You're taking a few sentences I put together to give you a rough idea of what I was trying to explain, and you're building a federal case over it in your own mind.
Ah, so you were just spouting imprecise nonsense. Got it.quote:
I'm going to let you digest that spheremak model for awhile Dave.
Based on the experimental setup the spheromak team is using, I'm forced to ask where all the neutral gas is in your model.
Next post:
|
- 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 - 04/15/2006 : 17:52:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then why in the world would ask whether that dark plasma is likely to be less than 900,000K or greater than 2.2 million degrees?
I didn't ask any such thing.
quote:
Anything dimmer than that represents temperatures below 900,000 K OR higher than 2.2 MK, and I challenge you to tell me which it is for any pixel of your choosing.
What the heck is that supposed to mean then? Of course the dimmer pixels will be most likely to be less then 900,000 Kelvin Dave. Unless you have some valid reason to believe that a plasma that sits on other plasma measured in the 10's of thousands of degrees Kelvin, I can only begin with a rational premise of that this plasma is cooler than 900,000 Kelvin unless otherwise proven to be a greater temperature by some logical mechanism. I have no evidence it's "hot" in comparison to the coronal loops.
quote:
Actually, you're now ignoring the point, since you didn't even acknowledge my mistakes about the temperature response curves of the five Yohkoh SXT filters.
Because it really doesn't matter one iota Dave. The Yohkoh filter that was used will show us which plasma is "hotter" in relationship to the Trace image. Will the dark regions of the Trace image glow, or the bright regions of the Trace image? Maybe no area at all will be seen by Yohkoh's higher energy view. Alas, she did see some output at a higher energy wavelength, but it wasn't associated with the dark regions of the Trace image, but rather they were directly related to the tops of the coronal loops, just like we see in that Rhessi image showing neutron capture events.
quote:
When you're repeatedly stating that I'm making claims which I am not, despite my repeated correction of your incorrect opinions, it isn't civil. When are you going to retract your claim that I said that scattering never happens?
The only way for your original claim to be true was if and only if scattering never occured. We certainly know that it does and it will occur, so your point was invalid. That's what I said. You can build all the strawmen you like, or harbor bad feelings over your mistake, but it was your mistake, and it was a critical issue as it relates to this conversation. We *all* make mistakes, myself included, but it's critical that we not make any here as it relates to image interpretion.
quote:
I couldn't answer the question unless I knew whether you were talking about fast neutron capture or slow neutron capture. You failed to answer my query on that point.
Take your pick. Better yet, what does the UofM paper suggest?
quote:
I don't care about where the highest temperatures are located, Michael, I simply want you to demonstrate your claim that brighter always equals hotter.
For goodness sake Dave, then you and I aren't even having the same discussion. I'm not interested in you disproving an archane point, I'm trying to find agreement about the temperature of the coronal loops in comparasion to the corona, and to define a light source and heat signature based on what we see. You seem more interested in proving a technicality taken to an illogical extreme. I already agree with Nitta that density would play a role in this output, so you are now tilting at windmills of your own creation.
quote:
Who gives a shit where it's located, Michael:
Anyone who's interested in a scientific discussion of the sun. It's becomming painfully clear that this isn't your motivation in these discussions at all. It's becomming clear you're caught up in technicalities unrelated to a real science discussion.
quote:
does brighter always equal hotter or not?
Is that how you're going to try to grasp an ego victory here Dave? Didn't I already agree with you and Nitta that density would play a role? Why are you asking me this question in this way at this point in the conversation?
quote:
No, Michael, it's like arguing with a critic of a scientific theory: you (the proponent of the theory) must demonstrate that potential problems with the theory aren't actually problems, without regard to any other theory attempting to explain the same thing(s). I don't have a position, nor do I require a position, on any of the points that you bring up.
That may be a convenient rationalization Dave, but it is not as if you are unbiased here, or that you are attempting to find a rational solution that fits with observed evidence.
quote:
Your memory is faulty again: you refused to provide a method whereby we could all verify that your "math" would create correct results.
Excuse me? I already did that. I showed you that the loops are brightest not just in one image, but in both, and also in the combined one as well, meaning that whatever temperatures we begin to assign bright and dark regions of this image, the bright regions are considerably hotter than the chromosphere.
quote:
It wasn't hypocritical. I said "show me your math." You did. Then I said, "show me that your math is correct." You did not.
Dave, I've "shown" you now using three different satellite systems, the TRACE/Yohkoh overlay shows this is true, and the Trace/Rhessi image demonstrates this as well. In fact, virtually *every* Trace, Yohkoh, Rhessi, Soho and Geos image demonstrates this. There is always a direct relationship between the presense of a coronal loops (short though it m |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2006 : 19:27:18 [Permalink]
|
Michael, on the "brighter equals hotter" thing: yes, you once agreed with Nitta that brighter doesn't always equal hotter, but then you turned around and said otherwise, later on. Until this last post of yours, I was under the impression that you were back to your previous claims again, and nothing you've said in the last 20 posts or so has done anything to dissuade me, even though I've been explcit about my subject matter. But you now act surprised to learn that I'm talking "brighter equals hotter" still. Again, if you're unsure of what I'm taking about, ask.
And while we're on the subject of pots and kettles and their relative reflectivity, you're too busy ignoring the context in which a particular sentence was written to see that I was making no claim with regard to "scattering." I specifically told you that since you wouldn't provide evidence of "reflections" in the corona, then I could not assume there were any. Preaching to me against the evils of scoring "ego points" is less than compelling coming from you, and all of your protestations that you're not interested in doing so seem to be just so much hot air.
But you're right about one thing, Michael: it was a critical mistake for me to ever ask you to demonstrate your assertions to be true, because instead of just doing so (like someone who's focused on the science would), you argue about things as if you've already handed over the evidence (the spheromak thing is brand new, though). It was a second critical mistake for me to play along with your unscientific "what's the alternative" games, since you still haven't shown me anyplace in the scientific method where such "give and take" is required of a theory's critics.
And speaking of which, if you think that (for example) my asking you to present evidence that "brighter equals hotter" shows some sort of bias in my criticisms of your claims, why didn't you say so instead of bringing up the wholly-irrelevant "blackbody" stuff oh so long ago? Sure, I've got biases, but I'm willing to have them pointed out if they show up in my questions. I've demonstrated that again and again by (for example) letting the helioseismology evidence drop completely since you argued that their methods are wholly unreliable (of course, you tried to downplay that to save some of the evidence, but that sort of cherry-picking doesn't fly). I'm living up to my end of our unspoken contract we've got by not repeatedly showing where the helioseismology evidence conflicts with your model. So, if you think my biases are getting in my way just because I've asked you to defend some assertion of fact which you've made, you should point it out instead of getting all huffy and argumentative.
As for your attempts "to find agreement about the temperature of the coronal loops in comparasion to the corona, and to define a light source and heat signature based on what we see," they are moot. You've apparently got an electromagnetic model which should, if it's mature enough, show us why the light and heat sources in the corona must be the arcs themselves. My agreement with your "image analysis" is therefore irrelevant, and it's my agreement with your underlying physics which should be of primary importance. You've determined (through means unknown) that such things are "running" instead of "walking," but I think you've got that backwards. "This is how I know my theory is correct (because the physics state that it can't be any other way)" is what you should be trying to teach, not how you got to those physics.
If it's going to take me saying "yes, Michael, the light and heat are 'concentrated in the arcs'" in order for us to move on to the good stuff (any physics which is actually diagnostic between your model and the standard model) then consider it said. |
- 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 - 04/16/2006 : 18:50:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If it's going to take me saying "yes, Michael, the light and heat are 'concentrated in the arcs'" in order for us to move on to the good stuff (any physics which is actually diagnostic between your model and the standard model) then consider it said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Alright, then let's now talk about the nature of the loop/arc.
FYI, I cetainly intend to return to the heliosiesmology issues again, including Kosovichev's newer work showing massive and linearly arranged "waves" on the photosphere that can be directly linked to surface activity below. We have a few other issues to cover first, most noteably the nature of the flow of current through plasma.
I'd like to return again to Bruce and also to Alfven since these two scientists were instrumental in forwarding the concepts related to plasma physics that will allow us to take the next few steps we must take. Bruce offered to explain these million mile per hour events in terms of electrical discharges. He and Alfven described the flow of electrical currents, and explained the physics behind the process.
Here is a "better" diagram of he magnetic and electrical fields that form in the plasma.
quote:
The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a plasma [2]
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/16/2006 18:53:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2006 : 19:26:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Alright, then let's now talk about the nature of the loop/arc.
...
I'd like to return again to Bruce and also to Alfven since these two scientists were instrumental in forwarding the concepts related to plasma physics that will allow us to take the next few steps we must take. Bruce offered to explain these million mile per hour events in terms of electrical discharges. He and Alfven described the flow of electrical currents, and explained the physics behind the process.
Why aren't you taking "the next steps," Michael? Why this extra preamble?
The articles I find on the subjects you've brought up in this post all seem to be talking about currents generated by the movement of magnetic domains "hundreds or thousands of kilometers" across (in the case of the solar corona) due to the magnetic fields moving through the plasma. I find no explanation of them based upon the idea that a current creates the magnetic field in the first place.
And either way, since everything Wikipedia seems to have comes from a "gas model bias," how is any of this going to be diagnostic for your model? It's not like there are any solar scientists who're saying that MHD effects or Birkeland currents don't exist in the Sun. And I don't find any saying that a solid surface is necessary for these processes to occur.
Of course, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't gotten around to stating your actual point here, so maybe I should be more patient. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
