|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2006 : 07:02:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
upriver wrote:
a quote from the JET site.
"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level."
The actual paper is located here, the quote is from page 5.
It is surprising (not really) that you would take one piece of infromation relating to a Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactor and sweepingly apply it to blackbody radiation and the stars. Strange that no one else made this jump in logic, isn't it? The reactor is essentially a cyclotron that uses a toroidal magnetic field to hold and heat a Deuterium-Tritium plasma to the point that fusion between the deuterium and the tritium occurs. The record so far is a sustained reactor for 5 seconds (pretty cool). The emissions from the plasma is strongly dependant on the fusion rate so it does not follow black body emmisions. The plasma is at low pressure and close to 100 million degrees!
This fusion reactor and the surface of the sun are no where close to each other. It is not an apples to apples comparison. The fusion that occurs in the sun is deep in the interior.
You have found one small interesting fact that appears to be confined to this type of fusion reaction system and have boldly announced that this proves that the sun has a solid surface...
You are going to have to do better than that, upriver.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 07:25:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just when I think GeeMack can't clarify this any better, he does it! Not that he should have to, obviously. You are worthy of being called a patient man, GeeMack!
The moment that Geemack actually explains the cause of the rigid patterns in the image, and the movements we see in the image, and shows us how the CME manifests itself in these image, *then* you can claim he "clarified" anything. As it is, all he's done is explain how individual pixels get lighter and darker and this is not what I asked him to explain. I already agreed with him about the cause of light and dark pixels. What he's never answered, and no one has answered is why those geometric patterns remain consistent throughout the movie, the movements in the image, and how the CME manifests itself in these series of images.
Those are the "tough" questions, and the questions he keeps avoiding.
I did email Dr. Hurlburt back with those specific questions. If he responds to these questions and provides answers, I'll post them here, unless Neal would prefer to keep his comments "private".
Michael, I'm truly interested in all of this post, but have no expertise in solar theories whatsoever. However, I do understand what GeeMack, Dave, and others have been trying to say about the RD images. Why do refuse to accept this?
I am honestly asking you if you:
a) Realize you're wrong, but have gone too far to recant, thinking that you'll look foolish?
b) Realize you're wrong, or suspect you are wrong, and just want to ignore the fact so that you can bolster your own arguments?
c) Don't realize you're wrong?
It is very simple to understand that the RD images don't "show" any actual pictures, images, features, what have you. They represent "values" assigned to the differences in the images. Substitute something else in place of pixels and it would still work. If you gave them aphanumeric designations, it would still be an RD, but with names instead of pixels. No images needed! Why don't you just admit that? You really need to stop and listen to these guys on this. It's killing your credibility, at least with me (I assume some of the others have already given up).
You show a great deal of patience, a talent for learning complex scientific issues, and tenacity like I've rarely seen. Credit to Dave and a few others in this thread who have also shown the patience of an oyster. The only issue I see is that you are either willingly blind to obvious mistakes you're making, or legitimately not understanding this. Either way, a serious self evaluation of your stance of this particular sub-topic would be in order for you.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 07:28:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These "features" as upriver described them have a "lifetime" (I love that word by the way) that is unlike the "lifetime" of the structures we see in the plasma of photosphere. These features retain their rigid geometric relationsips to one another. That can only be possible if these features don't move, and plasma doesn't behave like that.
There's that strawman again. Nobody is claiming that the features seen in TRACE imagery are created by some clump of plasma's spacial relationships to some other clumps of plasma. That's a mistake, Michael, and one you've never bothered to correct despite having it pointed out to you a zillion times.quote:
I know now for sure that at least one other individual here understands the nature of RD images and how to explain RD images.
No, all you know is that someone else employs the same strawman argument as you do, trying to assert that your opponents' argument is that what is seen is "structures" built from plasma. But it's not, and never has been so. So, you've just got a partner in battling the straw army you've created, and frankly the two of you there chopping away bloodlessly look more than twice as silly as you did by yourself. |
- 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 - 08/22/2006 : 07:32:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is some evidence to show that if we mix current and metals we can release x-rays and generate plasma temperatures measured in the millions of degrees.
Nobody ever said otherwise, Michael. Running extremely high currents through precision-machined metals can create high temperature plasmas and X-rays. I'm still waiting for your evidence that this must be the process that occurs on the Sun.
Again: "could be" versus "must be." |
- 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 - 08/22/2006 : 09:19:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Michael, I'm truly interested in all of this post, but have no expertise in solar theories whatsoever. However, I do understand what GeeMack, Dave, and others have been trying to say about the RD images. Why do refuse to accept this?
I accept that you believe what GeeMack has told you. For that matter so do I. It's what he *didn't* address that is important here, not what he did explain.
quote:
I am honestly asking you if you:
a) Realize you're wrong, but have gone too far to recant, thinking that you'll look foolish?
The only way I could ever hope to know if I was actually "wrong" would be for someone to actually explain these 'features' and their lifetimes in a "better" scientific way. I've emailed every expert I could find on the subject and I've debated these images now for over a year in cyberspace with astromers from all over the world, and never once has anyone addressed the longevity of the features in these RD images.
Now it's "possible" someone does have a better answer, but so far, that's never occured. It's definitely *not* a).
quote:
b) Realize you're wrong, or suspect you are wrong, and just want to ignore the fact so that you can bolster your own arguments?
Since no one has explained the lifespan of the features, I certainly can't "know" that I'm wrong. B) is therefore inapplicable to be sure.
quote:
c) Don't realize you're wrong?
C) would be a viable option. It's possible that some human being has a "better" scientific answer, and I am simply unaware of it. That is why I have actively debated these ideas now in cyberspace, and why I continue to exchange emails with all the "experts" that I can find. So far however, I haven't heard any better scientific answers. I am however aware of the fact that c) is a possibility.
You should realize however that this is but one image among many hundreds of thousands of images that convince me I'm right. I also have found nuclear chemical data to bolster my case which was highly unexpected when I first started out. I've since found heliosiesmology evidence that shows the existence of a "subsurface stratification" layer that's sitting right where it should be sitting if my interpretation is correct. I didn't expect that either at first.
quote:
It is very simple to understand that the RD images don't "show" any actual pictures, images, features, what have you. They represent "values" assigned to the differences in the images.
I realize it's a value. That isn't the issue. The issue is the lifetime of the features in the images.
quote:
Substitute something else in place of pixels and it would still work. If you gave them aphanumeric designations, it would still be an RD, but with names instead of pixels. No images needed! Why don't you just admit that?
Well, in the most generic sense you're right, but that has nothing to do with what we're actually looking at. We're looking at changing photon intensities from the surface of the sun. That is not unlike a LASCO image where we're looking at changing photon intensities from the plasma flow around the sun. In LASCO images however you don't find any consistent "features" because there are none. There are however consistent features on the surface of the sun.
It's not a matter of "admitting" anything. It's a matter of looking at the processing technique, and trying to explain those persistent features in the RD image. Why can't you admit that?
quote:
You really need to stop and listen to these guys on this. It's killing your credibility, at least with me (I assume some of the others have already given up).
I've listened to them now for months. Dave's a credible "skeptic", and so is Dr. Mabuse, and many others here. Geemack is not credible because he refuses to cognitively acknowledge the point that upriver pointed out to him. It is the "lifetime" of the "features" in this image that are the key points, and these issues have never been addressed by Geemack. Geemack in fact stated very matter of factly that the features were an artifact of the processing method. He then did an about face the moment I asked him to show me the line of code that could produce such features and never admited his mistake and never addressed these issues. He never had any credibility with me to begin with, and his recent behaviors have only convinced me he hasn't a clue what to do about the real issues so he's running like hell from them and huffing and puffing and hoping nobody notices he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
The causes of these features and the lifespan of these features has not ever been addressed, nor has Geemack ever explained the CME manifests itself in these images. Even upriver has done more than Geemack in only a few short sentences in a single post.
If and when Geemack ever gets to these issues, then ask me if I was right or wrong. As it is, I could never hope to know that answer from Geemack's responses thus far.
quote:
You show a great deal of patience, a talent for learning complex scientific issues, and tenacity like I've rarely seen. Credit to Dave and a few others in this thread who have also shown the patience of an oyster.
If it were not for Dave and Dr. Mabuse, I would not post here at all. As much as Dave gets under my skin sometimes, he's actively providing me with a sound scientific way to move things forward, and I very much appreciate his efforts. I like him in spite of his ocassional nasty disposition. You should not misunderstand my motives or my feelings toward the vast majority of the people that have skepticially reviewed these ideas over the past year. I appreciate their time and their expertise and their patience.
What I don't appreciate are the childish insults that Geemack packs into every post. You and I have exchanged several posts now and I have never felt anything from you but professionalism. That's what I expect from everyone, and I think you expect that from me as well. That's all I'm expecting from Geemack too, but he evidently isn't mature enough to have such conversations. It's a pity. He brings down what has otherwise been a very informative discussion on this topic.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/22/2006 09:22:35 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 09:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is some evidence to show that if we mix current and metals we can release x-rays and generate plasma temperatures measured in the millions of degrees.
Nobody ever said otherwise, Michael. Running extremely high currents through precision-machined metals can create high temperature plasmas and X-rays. I'm still waiting for your evidence that this must be the process that occurs on the Sun.
Again: "could be" versus "must be."
I hear you Dave. I'm working on it. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 09:38:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There's that strawman again. Nobody is claiming that the features seen in TRACE imagery are created by some clump of plasma's spacial relationships to some other clumps of plasma.
You're right Dave. Geemack tried to pass them off as an artifact of the processing technique, but a quick glance at some Lasco image blows that theory out of the water.
quote:
That's a mistake, Michael, and one you've never bothered to correct despite having it pointed out to you a zillion times.
I can't "correct" anything other than to correct the error that Geemack made when he claimed these features were an artifact of the imaging technique. I know that this is factually incorrect, and it's the only "explanation" offered thus far. Therefore I can't "correct" anything thing else that's been said about these features or the lifespan of these features.
Give me some "better" explanation and I'll listen and decide if it makes sense. Geemack's explanation doesn't make sense or we'd see similar "patterns" in LASCO RD images too.
quote:
No, all you know is that someone else employs the same strawman argument as you do,
He didn't assert any such thing. He simply pointed out that the "features" in the image are related to events on the sun. He also noted that the "lifespan" (I love that phrase) of these "features" is the key issue. He at least understands the nature of the core issues, whereas Geemack is still parroting pixel intensity explanations ad nausium and refusing to cognitively identify the key points. Talk about silly behaviors Dave. At least explain to Geemack what he needs to focus his attention on, since he doesn't seem to "get it".
quote:
trying to assert that your opponents' argument is that what is seen is "structures" built from plasma. But it's not, and never has been so. So, you've just got a partner in battling the straw army you've created, and frankly the two of you there chopping away bloodlessly look more than twice as silly as you did by yourself.
Fine Dave, then you or Geemack explain these persistent features anyway you want, but don't hand me a song and dance about pixel intensities I've already agreed with and don't tell me it's an artifact of the processing technique because I know for a fact that this is factually inaccurate. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/22/2006 09:43:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 09:46:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
While I'm looking up some overlapping images of lightning to show my my "lab tests" of my method...
The implications of this statement just hit me.
You're really not going to acknowledge that your theory has dozens of inferences in it, are you? You're going to refuse to admit that your relative temperature assertions have been inferential until you find some suitable images, and at that point in time you're going to go back to criticizing scientists for using inferences, right?
It's not going to work, Michael. Your double-standard isn't going to magically vanish because you present "lab tests," since you were the one who set that standard in the first place and then fought against having to live up to it. Even if you succeed in finding the same bolt of lightning imaged in several different wavelengths and go on to show your math is correct, you'll still be sitting on a pile of other inferences that have no "lab tests" for support.
The lack of "lab tests" isn't the problem, Michael, it's your insistence that a lack of "lab tests" is a problem which is a problem. No step of the scientific method reads "verify hypothesis with a laboratory test." That's just something you made up, and now that upriver has jumped on your bandwagon, you're finding it difficult to live up to.
You can, of course, keep trying if you're that bullheaded, or you can admit that I (and I'm sure silent others here) have stipulated to your assertion that the heat is in the arcs, and actually move the discussion forward by explaining how you know that it is electrical current that's the cause, and nothing else. |
- 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 - 08/22/2006 : 10:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The implications of this statement just hit me.
You're really not going to acknowledge that your theory has dozens of inferences in it, are you? You're going to refuse to admit that your relative temperature assertions have been inferential until you find some suitable images, and at that point in time you're going to go back to criticizing scientists for using inferences, right?
I have no problem admitting that *every* model is based on an untold number of inferences, including mine. The specific math I used however *is* something that can be demonstrated here on earth. When I get some time today, I'll do that for you. I'm still looking for good images to use, but the techinque works perfectly when applied to plasma filaments and discharges in general.
quote:
It's not going to work, Michael. Your double-standard isn't going to magically vanish because you present "lab tests," since you were the one who set that standard in the first place and then fought against having to live up to it.
I'm not fighting this Dave. I think it's a valid point, and I'm certain I can demonstrate that my method works based on images here on earth. There's no resistance on my part to this requirement.
quote:
Even if you succeed in finding the same bolt of lightning imaged in several different wavelengths and go on to show your math is correct, you'll still be sitting on a pile of other inferences that have no "lab tests" for support.
But you already know that I can put together multiple high energy wavelengths of the same discharge event and show that the wavelengths originate from the same hot plasma. You already know it will work, it's just a matter of demonstrating it here on earth. That's a valid request. Likewise I'm going to expect you to demonstrate that any method Lockheed provides has also been "field tested".
quote:
The lack of "lab tests" isn't the problem, Michael, it's your insistence that a lack of "lab tests" is a problem which is a problem.
I disagree. As the saying goes, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. We don't have to take *everything* for granted based on inference, and we should try to verify what we can verify in lab tests. I'm not resisting the idea, in fact I think it's a *great* idea. Lab tests are a wonderful way of demonstrating a mathematical concept works as specified. I'm quite certain that I can demonstrate that my "method" works perfectly here on earth to identify the location of energetic plasma during discharges.
quote:
No step of the scientific method reads "verify hypothesis with a laboratory test." That's just something you made up, and now that upriver has jumped on your bandwagon, you're finding it difficult to live up to.
I don't think that either of us is suggesting that *everything* can be tested in lab, but black body emission/absortion theories related to light plasma should be "testable" in a lab. In fact some folks are starting to do this, and the results are not quite what was expected. The emisions tend to come in discrete packets related to the valence shell configurations.
quote:
You can, of course, keep trying if you're that bullheaded, or you can admit that I (and I'm sure silent others here) have stipulated to your assertion that the heat is in the arcs, and actually move the discussion forward by explaining how you know that it is electrical current that's the cause, and nothing else.
I'm not trying to be bullheaded Dave, I'm simply trying to be methodical, and I'm tring to respond to any and all reasonable requests. It is not unreasonable of you to expect me to demonstrate that my technique works as advertized, and I have not forgotten your request on the current issue either. They are both valid requests.
From my perspective, this is a matter of simply being methodical in our approach. That's all I'm doing as I see it. If you'll accept that my technique (A+B=C) works here on earth, then I'll be happy to skip the demonstration and stay focused on the electrical aspects. It's totally up to you how I proceed here, but I'm quite certain that I can demonstrate that my mathematical technique works here on earth to identify the areas of higher temperature plasma in the earth's relatively cool atmosphere. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/22/2006 10:41:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 11:11:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you'll accept that my technique (A+B=C) works here on earth, then I'll be happy to skip the demonstration and stay focused on the electrical aspects.
Just a quick question, since I don't have much time at the moment:
When you add two images together, what technique are you using to prevent pixel "rollover?" I mean, if the grayscale values go from 0 (black) to 255 (brightest white), and you simply add a 240 pixel (pretty bright) to a 16 pixel (pretty dim), the resulting pixel value will rollover from 256 (out of range) to 0 (black) unless you compensate in some way. What method of compensation are you using? |
- 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 - 08/22/2006 : 11:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When you add two images together, what technique are you using to prevent pixel "rollover?" I mean, if the grayscale values go from 0 (black) to 255 (brightest white), and you simply add a 240 pixel (pretty bright) to a 16 pixel (pretty dim), the resulting pixel value will rollover from 256 (out of range) to 0 (black) unless you compensate in some way. What method of compensation are you using?
Actually the dave.jpg file that I posted earlier was created in Photoshop, and the routines that I used do not "roll over", but rather "max out" and go fully white. If anything, the contrast between the loops and that darker background is underrepresented. The loops are actually somewhat "brighter" than they appear in contrast to the darker regions. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/22/2006 11:52:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 12:04:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually the dave.jpg file that I posted earlier was created in Photoshop, and the routines that I used do not "roll over", but rather "max out" and go fully white.
Okay, that's a method of compensating for the rollover problem. Which routines did you use to add the images together? |
- 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 - 08/22/2006 : 13:02:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, that's a method of compensating for the rollover problem. Which routines did you use to add the images together?
I loaded the original FITS files into Photoshop using the ESA FITS file sxtensions to CS2. I then used the internal (built in) "add" features of Photoshop to add the two images together.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 15:41:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
And this add function just adds the values of two pixels together, maxing them out at 255 (so no rollover)?
I simply figured it would be better if I made any errors that they should work against my theory rather than in my favor. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
