|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/15/2006 : 20:40:07 [Permalink]
|
Birkeland's simulator did, indeed, have an electromagnet at its core.
But it doesn't much matter. From what I've read, Birkeland had this great idea that the aurora of the Earth could be explained as charged particles interacting with Earth's magnetic field, accelerating the particles into the thick atmosphere at which point the particles would collide with an atom somewhere and the collision would give off light.
Birkeland demonstrated this effect by building a simulation, a hollow bronze ball (to represent the planet), with a reconfigurable electromagnet inside (to represent the Earth's magnetic field), surrounded by a gas (for Earth's atmosphere), and he bombarded the contraption with cathode rays (a stream of electrons) from outside the box it was housed in. By varying the electromagnet, the gasses, and the strength of the cathode rays, he was able to recreate the Earth's aurora.
So, he was absolutely correct. Charged particles (electrons, protons and heavier ions) being ejected from the Sun do indeed get trapped by Earth's magnetic field, and they're dumped into the atmosphere where they eventually impact some atom, causing a glow that we know as the Northern (or Southern) Lights.
But it seems to me that Birkeland went overboard. He had this wonderful tool, his simulation, and when you've got a great hammer, everything else starts looking like a nail. Birkeland - in the reference Michael provided above - not only goes on to say that perhaps the Sun's corona is created in the same way as Earth's aurorae, but also goes on to suggest that maybe Saturn's rings are made the same way, too.
So Birkeland really screwed up on the Saturn deal. He got Earth right, but Saturn waaaay wrong (despite making pictures which look just like Saturn). Based on this evidence alone, Birkeland's explanation fitting the Sun only has a 50-50 shot at being right.
Most important to note, however, is this: Birkeland never proposed anything about the bulk of the Sun except that it has a magnetic field generator in it. He proposed no model of the Sun, but only a possible model of the Sun's corona. This is one piece of information that Michael doesn't seem to get. Birkeland toyed around with different materials and different textures for the big metal sphere of his, to create different possible coronal features. All of the spheres were, I believe, metallic, but I've never heard any being primarily iron, and as I pointed out to Michael long ago, any conductor would do - including a big ball of plasma (which Birkeland didn't have access to).
The problem is this: Birkeland's whole argument was by homology. Homologous things are those "Corresponding or similar in position, value, structure, or function." In other words, the argument is that if Birkeland's simulator looked like the Sun's corona, then his setup is homologous to whatever is going on in the Sun. Michael has taken this argument and really run with it, completely ignoring the fact that many homologies fail completely, so it's not a reliable method of determining what's really happeneing. For example, some clouds look like big cotton balls in the sky, but they're not at all built like big cotton balls, despite the similar appearance.
To Michael, things which look like "hills" and "valleys" in a running difference image are actual hills and valleys. What looks like stuff "blowing in the wind" really is (to him) being blown about by some wind. Personally, I think he's been staring at the images for so long that he is incapable of seeing anything else, which is why he is so dismissive of alternative explanations that they simply don't even exist for him, and so he keeps repeating that I've "never" addressed these issues despite the fact that I have.
Anyway, in more practical terms, Birkeland believed that the Sun's corona could be explained as a sort of aurora if the Sun were positively charged compared to the rest of the universe to the tune of 600 million volts, and so electrons would rain down on it like they rain down on Earth. Michael's been rather insistent that his Sun has some sort of internal power source, and so the electrons can be released internally. Therefore, in one important way, Michael's "model" of the Sun is very different from Birkeland's.
By the way, Dr. Charles Bruce, whom Michael also cites, also seems to have argued from pure homologies that because the Sun looks (externally) like a lot of lightning bolts, then it's appearance is because of lots of lightning bolts. Bruce seems to have actually been proud of his arguments by homology, but I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with any of them.
Obviously, the next step with any argument from homology is "how do I prove that what this looks like is really what it is?" The technology for Birkeland and Bruce to actually take this next step with regard to the Sun was absent while they were alive. The images from SOHO, TRACE, RHESSI and Yohkoh are all in wavelengths that are absorbed completely by the Earth's atmosphere, most of what they had to go on was visible-light imagery. Birkeland, due to the fact that certain ions of iron and nickel were unknown in his time, actually thought there was a new element to be found in the Sun's corona, which he (and others of his time) called "coronium" (another miss for Birkeland's ideas). Bruce was around during the formation of the standard solar model, and didn't actually claim anything other than that there is a giant thermonuclear reaction going on inside the Sun, mostly because, he argued, there's no way for anyone to know. The first glimmerings of direct knowledge of the interior of the Sun - neutrinos - were finally seen in a cloud chamber the same year that Bruce died, 1979.
What either of these guys would do if they were brought to our time is anyone's guess. Birkeland, especially, used enough qualifications ("maybe," "possibly," and so on) that he didn't seem to be particularly wedded to his ideas about the Sun. Michael, on the other hand, claims that his model will be the dominate solar model 50 years from now. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
I'm reminded of the quote often attributed to Schopenhauer: "All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed, and finally they are seen as self-evident." If this were predictive - which it isn't - Michael would have a lock on the truth given the amount of ridicule he subjects himself to. It's a common thing heard among crank scientists: "they laughed at Galilleo, didn't they?" Unfortunately for them, Carl Sagan reminded us that "they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." |
- 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 - 08/15/2006 : 23:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Which is it? You can't even keep your stories straight Geemack, and worse yet you can't even admit to blowing it when you stick your foot in your mouth. You don't really think everyone is really going to overlook that fact that you just did a complete about face do you?
Although it's subtle, I think most people would understand the difference between those comments.
Ya right. Do you really think anyone is buying this Geemack, or do you figure a few of them might notice that you have a problem admitting mistakes?
I get the feeling that most people are going to see right through this lame rationalization and this stupid charade. I'm quite certain that absolutely nobody is going to miss the fact you dodged my direct questions again, because I'm going to keep sticking those two question sin your face until you give me some direct answers or until you simply admit that you don't have a clue what the answers are.
quote:
The process of creating running difference images doesn't create the patterns.
That is the accurate statement that you made *after* your blatent about face, right after I busted your show. That was exactly the opposite of what you previously stated.
quote:
Driving 35 miles per hour doesn't create the number 35 on your speedometer. Pressing "158 + 269" doesn't create the number 427 on the screen of your calculator.
Talk about lame and childish rationalizations only because you simply can't admit being to wrong. Geez. You're a trip. Do you really think people are buying this stuff, particularly when your also blatently dodging the two direct questions that were posed to you?
quote:
The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image.
The persistent patterns have absolutely nothing at all to do with the processing method, they are due to the data, just like every pixel of the output. The process simply expresses what's in the raw data, nothing more. Anyone looking at a few months of Lasco RD images from the SOHO archives will easily notice that we can see the effects of the *movement of particles* in these images, in fact we see bursts of plasma flows and we see the movements of these plasma flows in the Lasco images. These images of moving plasma are set against the vacuum of space, so it's quite obvious that everything in the image (except stars in the background) is moving, and nothing is fixed.
Just like the other running difference images, any types of "patterns of discharges" are directly related to the solar plasma flow. Such flow patterns have nothing at all to do with the processing technique, though these flow patterns are revealed by the running difference technique.
quote:
They are part of the output, the result of applying the process to the input files.
No Duh. Every single pixel is part of the output Sherlock, patterns or no patterns. I asked you to explain *why* those *patterns* are there in the gold RD image, I didn't ask you to repeat the obvious.
quote:
Anyone other than Michael have any questions?
You never answered *my* questions, in fact you utterly dodged both of them.
quote:
Now let's cut to the chase. Running difference images don't show any solid physical features,
I didn't ask you this Geemack. I asked you explain the cause of the geometric and perisistent patterns in the image. Do you think people aren't going to notice that you didn't answer this direct question, nor answer the second direct question I asked you related to the movement we see in the image?
quote:
structure,
I see *lots* of "structures" in those patterns. Why are they there in the data data output Geemack? What solar process creates such "patterns" over such extended timelines (more than an hour and a half)?
quote:
or surfaces.
Then why aren't those patterns moving if there is no "surface"?
quote:
They don't show anything beyond or through any opaque material.
How do you know anything in this image is "opaque", and how does that opaqueness explain the rigid patterns in the image?
You just dodged both of the direct questions I asked you because you obviously don't have the first clue how you might begin to answer them. Anyone with half a brain can see what a blatent attempt at misdirection your response was, and nobody is going to miss the fact you didn't answer my questions and you failed to explain what *caused* the patterns as I asked you to do. Nobody is going to miss the fact you didn't explain the movements we see in the image. I won't let them, and I'm not going to go away. I'll keep sticking those two questions right back in your face until you answer them or just admit that you simply don't know the answers. You claim to be quite the expert Geemack, so explain the details and quit stalling. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/15/2006 23:17:27 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 23:07:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
There is one very important aspect of Birkeland's experiment that sets it apart from conditions at the sun:
The vector of the gravitational force around the globe.
I don't understand. Why is that so important to the degree that it would influence the value of his work? The concentration of discharges on the sphere was far more influenced by the electromagnetic fields he was using than by the earth's gravitational field. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 00:37:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Birkeland's simulator did, indeed, have an electromagnet at its core.
Thanks, that "vouch" for my comment saves me some time looking up things for Cune. I'm going to respond to this post because I think it naturally leads us to the electrical discharge theory that Birkeland simulated in his lab, and that Bruce later demonstrated mathmatically could be applied to solar discharges.
quote:
But it doesn't much matter.
Oh but it does matter Dave, it matters a great deal. In fact it's been *the* deciding issue for me between Manuel's notion of a spinning neutron core, and the fission core I first proposed. I can explain the stable magnetic orientiation of the sun quite easily with Manuel's theory of a neutron core. Likewise, Manuel's theory has the advatange of conforming to Birkeland's model. I can't for life of me figure out a realistic way to constrain a fission reaction that might produce such stable magnetic fields internally, which is why I'm leaning in the direction of an neutron core. This particular "detail" matters a great deal IMO.
quote:
From what I've read, Birkeland had this great idea that the aurora of the Earth could be explained as charged particles interacting with Earth's magnetic field, accelerating the particles into the thick atmosphere at which point the particles would collide with an atom somewhere and the collision would give off light.
He was quite the "hands on" and rather "macho" type of scientist too. His expeditions to the northern polar regions were quite the undertaking and his theories were so far ahead of his time it was simply amazing. His lab looked like something right out of "Young Frankenstein". That was certainly cutting edge technology for the day. You gotta admire a guy like that, although I suspect his involvement with X-rays through these experiments probably led to his early demise. He as a little "too" ahead of his time in some respects, and he didn't even have access to a computer. I'd definitely list him as one of my all time favorite astronomers.
quote:
Birkeland demonstrated this effect by building a simulation, a hollow bronze ball (to represent the planet), with a reconfigurable electromagnet inside (to represent the Earth's magnetic field), surrounded by a gas (for Earth's atmosphere), and he bombarded the contraption with cathode rays (a stream of electrons) from outside the box it was housed in. By varying the electromagnet, the gasses, and the strength of the cathode rays, he was able to recreate the Earth's aurora.
He also recreated the solar discharges in the same way.
quote:
So, he was absolutely correct. Charged particles (electrons, protons and heavier ions) being ejected from the Sun do indeed get trapped by Earth's magnetic field, and they're dumped into the atmosphere where they eventually impact some atom, causing a glow that we know as the Northern (or Southern) Lights.
Of course he "knew" all this nearly 70 years before a satellite in space could actually demonstrate his theory to be "fact". It's too bad that the field of "astronomy" took so long to catch up to him.
quote:
But it seems to me that Birkeland went overboard.
It seems to you, or you know this to be fact?
quote:
He had this wonderful tool, his simulation, and when you've got a great hammer, everything else starts looking like a nail.
I think it was more along the lines of realizing that if this was the way the sun and the earth interacted, the maybe the sun and the solar system was electromagnetically connected to the universe itself. It certainly worked well to explain the northern lights, so he know these ideas applied to astronomy in general, and may be important issues in explaining the universe as a whole. It's not an illogical premise Dave, particularly when you look at the similarity of the images he produced of his simulated sun, and how closely they resemble what we see in modern satellite images. If it took 70 years to prove the sun and the earth are connected, perhaps it may take 70 more to demonstrate the solar system and the universe are connnect this way as well.
He was just *way* ahead of his time if you ask me.
quote:
Birkeland - in the reference Michael provided above - not only goes on to say that perhaps the Sun's corona is created in the same way as Earth's aurorae, but also goes on to suggest that maybe Saturn's rings are made the same way, too.
So Birkeland really screwed up on the Saturn deal.
Woah. No he didn't. He may have very accurately explained why the trapped dust particles are arranged as they are. He may have not been accurate about every detail, but he may not have missed on every point either.
quote:
He got Earth right, but Saturn waaaay wrong (despite making pictures which look just like Saturn).
But the patterns he created, may very well be what influence the collection of particles in the rings in these configurations Dave. You can't be certain that the EM fields he played with don't have some influence on how rings are formed. You're assuming they are not related, but you don't know that to be true, at least you don't know that there isn't some relationship between the two.
quote:
Based on this evidence alone, Birkeland's explanation fitting the Sun only has a 50-50 shot at being right.
Not necessarily. Again, I think if it took 70 years to figure out he was right about the earth when we live right here, then it's not inconcievable that it may take us another 70 years to figure out he was right about the electromagnetic interplay of the planets and the between the universe and the solar system.
quote:
Most important to note, |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/16/2006 03:34:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 00:50:08 [Permalink]
|
| Let's do this really methodically. Birkeland demonstrated a working electrical solar model that would produce hot glowing discharge "loops" that terminate at the surface. Bruce later demonstrated that solar atmospheric events move at speeds that rival the speeds of lightning discharges here on earth. There is now a direct observational connection between the speed at which the coronal loops form, and electrical discharges. There is an observational link between Birkeland's simulation, and events that Bruce later described as electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. In a very real way, Birkeland and Bruce have already connected the dots for us here, and their combined work suggests that electrical discharges could very easily be responsible for producing very hot coronal loops that terminate at the surface. Before we even get into the Rhessi, Yohkoh and other satellite images, we already have good reason to suspect that we should see "hot" coronal loops and we have reason to suspect that these discharge loops are heated by electrical current. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/16/2006 00:54:28 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 07:14:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sure, Michael. Many posts ago, I granted (for the sake of discussion) your assertions that the coronal loops are more hot than the corona itself. You then said that the next step is to see that the heat is due to electrical currents. I asked how we could check that, and you said something about RHESSI, but I asked for clarification about what you meant in the same post in which I used the "L word," so you didn't reply to that question. Now, two weeks later, you're badgering me for info about Lockheed's temperature analysis again, taking two steps backwards instead of moving things along. So, what is it about RHESSI that confirms that electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas?
That sounds good Dave. Let me finish a progamming project I'm working on for a customer and think about the issues I want to focus on first, and I'll put together some links. I'll start with the Rhessi evidence, but I'll demonstrate what I mean through a number of satellites as we proceed.
Oops, you got side tracked with Birkeland. Why don't you respond to Dave.
By the way, was this comment by you suppose to be funny?
quote:
Ya right. Do you really think anyone is buying this Geemack, or do you figure a few of them might notice that you have a problem admitting mistakes?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 09:41:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Oops, you got side tracked with Birkeland. Why don't you respond to Dave.
Well, sort of. Then again, his experiments offer us a mechanism to explain the heat signatures of the coronal loops. If the plasma in these loops really reaches temperatures that are measured in millions of degrees against a relatively cool background, then we still need a method to explain the high temperatures, and the increase of emissions from inside the loops. Birkeland's lab tests produced just such loops. It would be irrational to *assume* this is merely a coincidence.
Bruce certainly isn't a "distraction" either if we are attempting to explain the existence of hot loops against a cooler background, since he documented the mathematical relationships between solar events and electrical discharges. These two individuals offer us a possible explanation from very hot coronal loops. This isn't a distraction. It shows us that long before we put satellites into space, there was already an explanation available as to how we might explain high temperature plasma inside coronal loops.
All the various high energy satellites show us that there is a very direct correlation between the coronal loops and highest energy emissions we can observe from sun.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: "How *do* we get from 6000 degree plasma, to million plus degree plasma?" What's the heat source? After the event's of January 20th 2005, we have only two or three possible options.
The high temp plasma in the loops could come "squirting up" from far beneath the surface of the photosphere, from areas of the sun that actually experience million degree plasma, but that would require that the loops always originate far below the surface of the photosphere. It's hard to imagine however how a column of mechanically squiring plasma is going to reach speeds like we say on January 20th. Then again the two don't *necessarily* have to be related, but each of these events requires lots of energy.
Magnetic reconnection might explain *some* increase in temperatures over relatively short timelines, but how does such a thing explain loops that remain active for hours on end from relatively stationary footprints?
Another option is to use Birkeland's model. One immediate advantage is that we are not limited to the loops having to originate below the photosphere in each instance. That is particularly attractive since Lockheed claims that these emission footprints are all located far above the photosphere. In addition, Bruce has already documented the mathematical correlation here between these types of events and electrical discharges.
Even before we look at a single Rhessi image that shows gamma rays and neutron capture signatures, we already have good reason to suspect the last option might have merit.
The fact Rhessi shows us neutron capture signatures from inside the coronal loops, and the fact it also shows us gamma ray emissions from relatively low in the atmosophere is simply a bonus. We already know that electrical discharges release gamma rays here on earth, and Rhessi has imaged such events, so these Rhessi images simply add fuel to fire. Yohkoh was also able to image hard x-ray images at the base of the loops as well.
What the satellite images really provide is visual confirmation of the viability of what Birkeland and Bruce already demonstrated.
It's not just one bit of evidence from on satellite program that leads us to an electrical discharge explanation for coronal loops, it's the sum total of *all* the evidence. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/16/2006 10:03:07 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 10:04:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
By the way, was this comment by you suppose to be funny?
quote:
Ya right. Do you really think anyone is buying this Geemack, or do you figure a few of them might notice that you have a problem admitting mistakes?
I think it was.
If Michael really wanted to find out who many buys his explanation of running difference pic vs. GeeMack's, all he has to do is set up a poll.
As easy as that. It would be too embarrassing though, I think. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 10:09:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's do this really methodically. Birkeland demonstrated a working electrical solar model that would produce hot glowing discharge "loops" that terminate at the surface.
Right.quote:
Bruce later demonstrated that solar atmospheric events move at speeds that rival the speeds of lightning discharges here on earth.
I'm not so sure. The last I remember, Dr. Bruce was talking about million-mile-per-hour discharges, whereas a lightning stroke here on Earth typically travels over 200 times faster, at 0.3c or so. (And no, the CME at 0.25c itself is not an electrical discharge, but in your model would be a clump of mass accelerated by some sort of electrical discharge.)quote:
There is now a direct observational connection between the speed at which the coronal loops form, and electrical discharges.
Aside from the point above, I wouldn't use "direct observational connection," since all you've got is a homology.quote:
There is an observational link between Birkeland's simulation, and events that Bruce later described as electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.
No, Birkeland's simulation looked like the Sun which Bruce thought looked like lightning. These are simply homologies, and not causal "links."quote:
In a very real way, Birkeland and Bruce have already connected the dots for us here...
In a very real way, the dots being connected are not nicely numbered, and so can be connected in many wrong ways.quote:
...and their combined work suggests that electrical discharges could very easily be responsible for producing very hot coronal loops that terminate at the surface.
Nobody is disputing "could be," Michael. That's my point. Where is the evidence that electrical discharges are responsible for producing very hot coronal loops?quote:
Before we even get into the Rhessi, Yohkoh and other satellite images, we already have good reason to suspect that we should see "hot" coronal loops and we have reason to suspect that these discharge loops are heated by electrical current.
If I were disputing "suspect" stuff, then I never would have granted your version of the heat signatures of the corona. I'm not interested in disputing "could be" any more. I want to know what evidence clinched the deal for you, turning "could be" into "is" so strongly that you claim your model will be dominant in 50 years.
Again: I have no problem with "could be." I agree that if X looks like Y, then yes, X could be Y. But that argument doesn't actually say anything about whether X is Y. Stick insects are not sticks. Zebras are not pedestrian crossings. The Washington Monument is not an erect penis. Nuns are not penguins. Scuba divers are not fish. It is really, really easy to create all sorts of homologies. The vast majority of them fail to be more than superficial. Ignoring that will lead to many instances of mistaking a map for the terrain (since a map looks like the terrain, but is not the terrain). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 10:15:34 [Permalink]
|
Michael you are still not moving on. You have given your reasons why you think that the loops are electrical discharges (again). OK. Explain the how electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas. Simply saying electrical discharges are hot is not enough - give some mathematical equations or experimental data indicating that this is possible. This is where you give out some concrete data on your model. Saying, "IMO thus and such is the reason", will not get it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 08/16/2006 10:20:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 10:51:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I think it was.
Holy Cow Dr. Mabuse, here's his original quote:
quote:
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again.
There are noting *but* physical features in a running difference image. Just look a few Lasco RD images The plasma flow is creating flow *patterns* and flowing plasma formations in the RD image. The only thing that can create any patterns are *physical features* of the sun. The RD subroutines have nothing in them to create any "patterns" at all. All the patterns can only be caused by "physical features".
The guy did a complete about face! I know for a fact that he's full of it because his answer was wrong and even now he still refuses to explain the *cause* of the physical features. The worst part is he's claiming to be some sort of "expert" on RD images, but the only thing he knows about them is what he parroted from Neal. Geemack obviously doesn't have the first clue how to answer the two questions I asked him which is why he's won't answer them and why he keeps dodging the question.
I couldn't care less about any polls or any appeals to popularity. All I'm interested in are valid scientific explanations, and obviously Geemack hasn't got any. He's full of hot air just like I figured. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:14:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not so sure. The last I remember, Dr. Bruce was talking about million-mile-per-hour discharges, whereas a lightning stroke here on Earth typically travels over 200 times faster, at 0.3c or so. (And no, the CME at 0.25c itself is not an electrical discharge, but in your model would be a clump of mass accelerated by some sort of electrical discharge.)
More specifically it would be a chunk of mass accelerated by the electrical discharge.
quote:
Aside from the point above, I wouldn't use "direct observational connection," since all you've got is a homology.
The connection between TGF's on earth and gamma ray burst imaged on the surface of the sun by Rhessi is more than just a homology, it's quite literally the "smoking gun".
quote:
No, Birkeland's simulation looked like the Sun
Why is that?
quote:
which Bruce thought looked like lightning.
Rhessi images of the earth and the sun would seem to confirm his hypothesis.
quote:
These are simply homologies, and not causal "links."
But Rhessi confirms the homology very well could and probably does apply. One of the points that Bruce makes is that early experiments that went looking for x-rays on the sun were based on the idea that there could be electrical discharges on the sun and these "might" release x-rays. Not only does the sun release x-rays, it releases gamma rays as well just like we see in TGF's here on earth using the very same instrument to detect both events.
There is a very important solar prediction we can now make about the presense of gamma-ray, just by virtue of knowing that they have been detected in TGF's on earth by Rhessi. If we know in advance that lightning on earth produces gamma rays, and we hypothesize that the sun also experiences electrical discharges, then we could test this idea by "predicting" that coronal loops would at least sometimes create gamma ray emissions. Indeed, as we look at the Rhessi images of the sun layed against a Trace image of the loop action, we find that the base of the coronal loops does indeed emit gamma rays, and our prediction is verified.
quote:
In a very real way, the dots being connected are not nicely numbered, and so can be connected in many wrong ways.
The only way if we know if we've connected the dot's properly is to make some testable predictions and see how they work out. As Rhessi demonstrates, a key prediction we might logically make has been validated and confirmed.
If you feel there is a "better" scientific option, and you have a way to test between the two ideas, I'm willing to listen and see where the evidence leads us.
quote:
Nobody is disputing "could be," Michael. That's my point. Where is the evidence that electrical discharges are responsible for producing very hot coronal loops?
It's in the two first links I handed you. We can make testeable predictions based on knowing that TGF's can emit gamma radiation. If we also believe that these could be electrical discharges, we should expect to see gamma ray bursts from coronal loop activity. Indeed, that "prediction" is verified by Rhessi images.
quote:
If I were disputing "suspect" stuff, then I never would have granted your version of the heat signatures of the corona. I'm not interested in disputing "could be" any more. I want to know what evidence clinched the deal for you, turning "could be" into "is" so strongly that you claim your model will be dominant in 50 years.
Ok, I've done my part, and I put the first bit of direct satellite evidence, and the first confirmed prediction before the jury.
quote:
Again: I have no problem with "could be." I agree that if X looks like Y, then yes, X could be Y. But that argument doesn't actually say anything about whether X is Y. Stick insects are not sticks. Zebras are not pedestrian crossings. The Washington Monument is not an erect penis. Nuns are not penguins. Scuba divers are not fish. It is really, really easy to create all sorts of homologies. The vast majority of them fail to be more than superficial. Ignoring that will lead to many instances of mistaking a map for the terrain (since a map looks like the terrain, but is not the terrain).
Fine Dave, but then the only way to know now if we're on the right track is to look for was to falsify or verify the idea by making some logical predictions and see how they pan out. So far, so good. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/16/2006 12:17:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:32:04 [Permalink]
|
Let's expand our use of satellites here for just a second and let's look at x-rays and how they manifest themselves in electrical discharges on earth, and let's predict and test for them in Yohkoh images as well.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021782.shtml
According to this link, x-rays are a natural byproduct of electrical discharges here on earth from plasma created in the discharge. We can now make a second prediction about the presense of x-rays. If the coronal loops are electrical discharges as we believe, we should see that they emit x-rays.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Indeed, we see thw examples where the coronal loops do in fact emit x-rays as we would predict with our hypothesis. That's two bits of information, and two satellite confirmations to verify that we're on the right track.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:45:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, since you want to start with Rhessi evidence, let's start there and talk about the relationship between lightning, gamma-rays, coronal loops and Rhessi images.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html
Lightning on earth creates gamma radiation and Rhessi has been able to image this.
From the article, I found thiw quote:quote:
The exact mechanism that accelerates the electron beams to produce TGFs is still uncertain, he said, but it probably involves the build-up of electric charge at the tops of thunderclouds due to lightning discharges. This results in a powerful electric field between the cloudtops and the ionosphere, the outer layer of Earth's atmosphere.
And this one:quote:
TGFs have been associated with lightning strikes and may be related to red sprites and blue jets, side effects of thunderstorms that occur in the upper atmosphere and are typically only visible with high-altitude aircraft and satellites. The exact relationship between all these events is still unclear, though.(Emphasis mine)
Lots of "unclear" and "uncertain" comments there. Indeed, this is again an example of what I call a "Mozina Citation"-- try to prove that something you are talking about is a clear and indisputable fact by citing some article or press release that tangentally references one thing or other. Above you flatly state "lightning on earth creates gamma radiation and Rhessi has been able to image this" but your article says that there is probably a relationship, but they aren't sure, and if there is, they don't know how it works. If we were talking about inflation and the Big Bang, you'd have rejected this sort of argument without a second thought.
quote:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
In this Rhessi/Trace overlay images of coronal loops, we see the base of the coronal loops emit gamma rays.
There is our first bit of direct satellite confirmation of the idea that coronal loops are likely to be the result of electrical discharges.
Great, but again-- since the observations on earth aren't well understood, it seems silly to say that when you look at them on an object 93 million miles away, and since that object may or may not be like earth-- it's a stretch. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
