|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2006 : 23:53:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, despite all my earlier attempts to get you to figure it out on your own, the 5,800 K parts of the photosphere are not entirely plasma. It's cool enough for non-ionized atoms and even some very simple molecules to form.
Well, that's news to me frankly. I was under the impression we needed temperatures of less than 4000K for even carbon atoms to remain stable, let alone complex molecules. Keep in mind that I believe the arcs even carry along solids from the surface on their "trip" through the arc, so we both agree there are solids in the "atmosphere".
quote:
The whole surface is three dimensional and moving.
I'm looking for a way to begin with some point we seem to agree on and move forward in a less hostile manner. I know there must be a logical way to get through to you since we both seem to agree on the moving nature of the plasma in the photosphere and the heat concentrations in the arcs. If we can get that far, I know there must be a way to get through to you on these issues.
The arcs have to have a starting point (base) and something that differentiates the base from the plasma around the base. The magnetic fields we observe are created by the flow of eletrons through the arcs. Somehow I get the feeling you and I should be focusing our attention on the nature of the arcs/loops. We seem to closer to agreement on that point than we are on the RD images at the moment.
The RD images are important IMO, because the represent the "feet" or the base of the arcs. The structures on the surface are where the arcs originate. It's solids that keep these arcs "grounded" to a single pixel or two. The surface is however eventually "eaten away" and the arcs eventually move, but the solids on the surface are what allows for these concentrations of electrical currents to form. The differences in height are what create the separation in charges. Somehow I'm sure this is the path for us to find agreement if we are to find agreement.
quote:
Indeed.
But I ask you the same question about location. How do you *know* that these emissions, and particuarly the "bases" of these emissions originate in the lower corona?
In Birkeland's model, the arcs originate from the surface and go *through* the gas atmosphere.
quote:
The plasma is not holding "rigid structures." Instead, magnetic fields through the plasmas are cooling it,
HMMM. These magnetic fields sound suspisciously like they posses "supernatural" powers. How exactly does a magnetic field "cool" the plasma around it? How would that look in heat signature images of a coronal loop, and how does that compare to Yohkoh and Rhessi images of heat concentration patterns?
quote:
and as the ions pass through this cooling zone,
What "cooling zone" are we talking about exactly? Is this all in the corona, or are you talking about a transition through the chromosphere into the corona, or something else altogether? Is this a localize "layer" of some sort? I want to be sure I understand your model clearly on these points, and I don't wish to put any words in your mouth. If I missunderstand what you are suggesting, work at it a bit, and I promise I will honestly try to understand you.
quote:
they collect electrons
This cooling zone contains electrons? How so?
quote:
and thus emit EUV light (because they're that hot).
I think we both seem to agree that electrons are heat source and the main culprit in light emission. If you can explain yourself from these two starting points, I think I'll catch on sooner or later.
quote:
The idea that anyone here is claiming that any of the coronal ions are holding any sort of shape is a strawman. Just like laser light passing through a cloud of smoke, ions passing through the magnetic fields give the illusion of solidity.
You have light emitting in consistent patterns in some way shape or form. Light from the photosophere does not emit in such consistent patterns, nor would I have any reason to believe that light from a "hotter region" would necessarily emit in consistent patterns, particularly if it's actively moving, and we can certainly see that it's actively moving in the photosphere which is cooler and denser.
quote:
It doesn't.
Well, there certainly is a pattern of consistency to be found in the RD images that is not seen in images of the photosophere. Somehow you have to account for this in the midst of moving coronal loops. I'm thinking at this point it would be worth putting together the raw images into movie form to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
quote:
Well, the problem is that you're not considering the distances involved. The heated air eventually drops to the same temperature as the rest of the atmosphere at a particular altitude, and the rising column stops of its own accord. Especially since the less-dense the air, the less mechanical linkage there is between molecules.
But in this case, its not getting "cooler" as we move up, it's getting hotter and lighter the further we move up the density layers.
quote:
The Lockheed "gold" video is a mere 90 minutes long.
I think I'll put together the images in movie form and then we can discuss that. You mentioned a key point that I missed earlier, so I'll reserve judgement here until we've disucssed cadence a bit. Even still, even by your timelines, that is nearly an eternity compared to the strucuture changes we see in the photosophere which would have been created and destroyed 10 times over, even by your conservative estimates.
quote:
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/09/2006 23:59:27 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, that's news to me frankly. I was under the impression we needed temperatures of less than 4000K for even carbon atoms to remain stable, let alone complex molecules.
Apparently you can't even be bothered to crack open a periodic table. The melting point of carbon is 3,800 K. The boiling point of carbon is 4,300 K, leaving a 500 K range in which carbon is a liquid. As far as I can tell, it requires more than 6,500 K to ionize carbon.quote:
Keep in mind that I believe the arcs even carry along solids from the surface on their "trip" through the arc, so we both agree there are solids in the "atmosphere".
Only if you redefine "solid" to mean "anything which isn't ionized," which I refuse to do. Going from (generally) cold to hot, we have solids, liquids, gasses and plasmas.quote:
I'm looking for a way to begin with some point we seem to agree on and move forward in a less hostile manner. I know there must be a logical way to get through to you since we both seem to agree on the moving nature of the plasma in the photosphere and the heat concentrations in the arcs. If we can get that far, I know there must be a way to get through to you on these issues.
You could start by not redefining already perfectly good terms like "photosphere" and "solid" to mean things that they don't.quote:
The arcs have to have a starting point (base) and something that differentiates the base from the plasma around the base.
The magnetic field loops seen in the corona originate 200,000 km below the photosphere.quote:
The magnetic fields we observe are created by the flow of eletrons through the arcs.
Prove it, in light of the fact that the UofM paper describes radiation emitted by electrons as they are spun about by magnetic fields.quote:
Somehow I get the feeling you and I should be focusing our attention on the nature of the arcs/loops. We seem to closer to agreement on that point than we are on the RD images at the moment.
I doubt it, since your opinion on what is driving what is diametrically opposed to mine.quote:
The RD images are important IMO, because the represent the "feet" or the base of the arcs.
In EUV light, the "footprint" of the coronal loops is at the base of the corona, because everything below that is too cool to emit such light.quote:
The structures on the surface are where the arcs originate.
I see no structures.quote:
It's solids that keep these arcs "grounded" to a single pixel or two.
I see no evidence for solids within the Sun. I don't even see any evidence for liquids within the Sun.quote:
The surface is however eventually "eaten away" and the arcs eventually move, but the solids on the surface are what allows for these concentrations of electrical currents to form.
The electrical currents form because free electrons (in a plasma) in a magnetic field will move.quote:
The differences in height are what create the separation in charges.
The movement of electrons is due to the very strong magnetic fields generated deep in the Sun (possibly by heavy elements collecting at the tachocline).quote:
Somehow I'm sure this is the path for us to find agreement if we are to find agreement.
I still doubt it.quote:
But I ask you the same question about location. How do you *know* that these emissions, and particuarly the "bases" of these emissions originate in the lower corona?
Because there's no evidence that million-Kelvin temperatures exist just 4,800 km below the photosphere.quote:
In Birkeland's model, the arcs originate from the surface and go *through* the gas atmosphere.
Yes, because of the solid nature of Birkeland's conductor, there was no other possible arrangement. He didn't have a two-foot ball of plasma to play with.quote:
HMMM. These magnetic fields sound suspisciously like they posses "supernatural" powers. How exactly does a magnetic field "cool" the plasma around it?
Since the motion of a charged particle will be constrained by a magnetic field (simple physics), it will lose kinetic energy (cool).quote:
How would that look in heat signature images of a coronal loop, and how does that compare to Yohkoh and Rhessi images of heat concentration patterns?
It will look exactly as those images look.quote:
What "cooling zone" are we talking about exactly? Is this all in the corona, or are you talking about a transition through the chromosphere into the corona, or something else altogether?
There are several cooling areas. Those around the length of a magnetic field loop, and ions (and electrons) will also be cooled by whac |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 12:59:28 [Permalink]
|
The bad news is your model is trash.
The good news is you sound smart enough to get a multi-million dollar grant from the US Government, congratulations.
You know if you write a book, thats even more evidence in your favor! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 15:14:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The melting point of carbon is 3,800 K. The boiling point of carbon is 4,300 K, leaving a 500 K range in which carbon is a liquid. As far as I can tell, it requires more than 6,500 K to ionize carbon.
Ah, I was thinking in terms of "solids" whereas you are including all non plasmas (gasses and liquids). I'm going to respond to what I believe are the critical points in some order of relevancy from my perspective. Bear with me a bit.
quote:
You could start by not redefining already perfectly good terms like "photosphere" and "solid" to mean things that they don't.
What you would call the "photosphere" amounts to one mass separated layer of plasma, specifically the neon layer. I've typically used the term photosphere rather loosely, but I'll speak now in terms of plasma layers where possible.
quote:
M:The arcs have to have a starting point (base) and something that differentiates the base from the plasma around the base.
The magnetic field loops seen in the corona originate 200,000 km below the photosphere.
There are two issues here IMO that warrant mention IMO. The magnetic fields are simply created by the flowing electricity. The "charges" that spawn these arcs may in fact begin that deeply, but IMO, the surface emits these arcs from distict surface features, features that ultimately erode and change with time.
The point that's noteworthy here is explaining how and why these magnetic fields can drive this kind of current flow, with pinpoint accuracy, for over 75 minutes in duration from pretty much the same location. What creates these strong magnetic fields so far from the core?
We both agree that the magnetic fields begin below the photosphere. In a Birkeland model, they are simply arcs from the surface. The current flowing through the arcs, creates the magnetic fields. The magnetic fields of the surface also help direct the flow of elecricity through the crust.
quote:
Prove it, in light of the fact that the UofM paper describes radiation emitted by electrons as they are spun about by magnetic fields.
That paper also describes temperatures that exceed 1 US billion degrees Kelvin. That is highly congruent with a Birkeland model of arcs from the surface. The base of the arc get very hot. The arc itself contains the areas of greatest heat concentration. We seem to agree on that point, and it's a fundamental issue. The heat concentration is a direct result of electricity running through metals. The flow of current is what creates these intense magnetic fields in precisely confined locations.
In your way of thinking, where exactly is the base of the arc? Why is that particular area the hottest part of the loop?
quote:
I doubt it, since your opinion on what is driving what is diametrically opposed to mine.
How so? Let's keep that heat concentration issue in mind here. Whatever "drives" this process, heats this loop, and causes it to emit in a wide range of temperatures and wavelengths. Electrical flow and magnetic fields go hand in hand. There cannot be current running through these arcs without the presense of magnetic fields, and we must still explain the intensity of these magnetic fields so far from the suns core, keeping in mind the fact that the bases of these arcs can remain stable for long periods of time.
The other thing that comes to mind here is the "chicken or the egg" question. I'm suggesting that electriticy is the driving force and this flow of current creates strong magnetic fields around the flow of current. You seem to be suggesting that magnetic fields drive the flow of current. Is that what you mean by diametrically opposed points of view?
quote:
In EUV light, the "footprint" of the coronal loops is at the base of the corona, because everything below that is too cool to emit such light.
That is actually an *assumption* that has never actually been demonstrated. In Birkeland's lab experiments, the arcs originated from the surface of the metal sphere and extended beyond the gas atmosphere. The arcs were hotter than the gas atmosphere they traversed. That would be the same process on a much larger scale if Birkeland's model is the correct solar theory. The base of the arcs are the metallic surface, not plasma above the sphere itself.
This is the same basic arguement I got from Lockheed and NASA as well. There is a systemic "assumption" within both camps that presumes that the temperature of the emission is directly related to distance from the photosphere, but that is not, and never has been a given. That was actually a presumption that was made even before SOHO and TRACE were launched. The problem however with this logic, is that it automatically excludes the possiblity that electrical flow is the heat source of these emission patterns. We can't assume that!
quote:
The electrical currents form because free electrons (in a plasma) in a magnetic field will move.
Sure. Electricity will always take the path of least resistence. The question however is that we see that the "structures" of the photosphere are changing rather rapidly. What's holding these strong magnetic fields in place inside a boiling plasma?
quote:
The movement of electrons is due to the very strong magnetic fields generated deep in the Sun (possibly by heavy elements collecting at the tachocline).
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/plasma-99a.html
quote:
For plasmas immersed in strong magnetic fields, electric currents tend to flow along the magnetic field lines, which act like wires guiding the current. The field-aligned current creates its own magnetic field, and, when added to the original magnetic field, results in a twisted or helical magnetic field.
Either way we look at this chicken or the egg question, ultimately it is the flow of current though the plasma (and we both agree there is plasma in the coronal loop) that creates these helical shaped magnetic fields that surround the flow of current. The current flow within the plasma is the h |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/10/2006 15:37:44 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 18:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Get real. There is a "pattern" in these images (since you have a problem with the term "structure") that is easily discernable to anyone. Whatever the cause, there is a cause for these patterns.
I don't have a problem with the term "structure". There isn't any "structure" in running difference images or videos. You're the one who has a problem with that, Michael.
quote:
The "cause" according to you (and John) is *uniform movement* of light and dark "patterns" from the sun. The *uniformity* aspect however has *never* been addressed. If the photosphere plasma showed any sort of uniformity in movement, you might have a case. Since it acts more like a "gooey" liquid, boiling and convecting and changing in 8 minute intervals, you've got nothing. You've got no way to explain this uniformity of movement when the photosphere certainly doesn't behave that way.
Strawman. Nobody has claimed that video is of activity in the photosphere.
quote:
False. The illumination is what is left when we subtract one image from another. The light itself came from the sun.
Prove it.
quote:
Correct. Then again, the lighting on the structures changes over time. It is not uniformly lit in each and every frame. Even LMSAL talks about the area getting "brighter" and you quoted that part in fact from their website. We can all see it do that. We can all see the intensity changes with time, particularly in the patterns in the middle.
If we changed the command in the software where it puts down a brighter pixel, and had it put down a pink pixel instead, then those areas LMSAL says are getting brighter would be getting pinker. That wouldn't mean something on the Sun is actually pink. It's the software that places brighter pixels, not light from the Sun. And although you claim to believe otherwise, you have yet to demonstrate it quantitatively.
quote:
Yes, and we have darker areas too. The point here is that the uniformity in movement hasn't been explained. You have no such movement going on within the structures of the photosphere and it is presumably cooler and more dense than this layer. If there is no uniform momement, then there is no guarantee of shadows on the left.
Since the darker areas are places in the image which were getting darker between each successive raw image, your notion that they might be shadows only needs to be explained by you.
quote:
Show me where anyone at Lockheed did that kind of quantitative analysis with this image. In fact try to get your friends and LMSAL to even tell you who created the image and how to get in touch with them. I'd love to ask them a few details about this particular image, but Lockheed won't even cop to who created it! It's a bit tough to do some of these kinds of quantitative analysis on this specific set of images if you don't know any of the details about how it was processed or created. I'd love to do what you suggest with this image, but I can't do that if everyone at Lockheed hides these details about this particular image intentionally.
The people at LMSAL don't need to explain anything about the "structure". You're the one claiming there is structure.
Oh, and the good folks at LMSAL have been quite forthcoming with me about those images. Maybe you've been the same kind of asshole to them as you've been to the people here. Maybe they tried to tell you there are no structures in a running difference image or video. Maybe you threw a tantrum and lied and badgered them and accused them of not having addressed the issue, as you have repeatedly done and continue to do with the people here. Maybe the people at LMSAL put you on their spam filter. Maybe they've chosen to get on with their important business and to not indulge your silly delusion.
quote:
If we observe that it looks and behaves as a solid, then we have evidence that it could be solid. That's what.
I've got two pictures which look exactly like the same species of mushroom. One makes a tasty soup, the other will kill you. If all you've got is a picture that looks like something, so what?
quote:
Prove it. Give me some explanation as to how we get uniform movement out of this layer, and address a couple of the details of this image in earnest. Stop throwing a handwave of an arguement "optical illusion" at me and get real with the details of the image.
You prove it, after all it's your claim. You still haven't explained how all the "light" in every single running difference image comes from the same side, no matter where on the Sun. But it would take some effort and some calculations to do that, neither of which you're willing to invest into your crazy fantasy.
quote:
No one yet has addressed why we would expect to see *uniform movement* from a layer that is *less* dense and *more* energetic than the photosphere that creates and destroys it's "structure" every 8 minutes. The euphamism here for "structure" is "uniform movement". You've yet to address this uniformity of movement.
"Structure", as you've been using it, means something solid, static, not moving. Now you're changing your definition again to mean "uniform movement". You can't even keep your terminology consistent from one posting to the next. It's no wonder you can't understand the clear explanations provided so far. Once more, running difference images don't show structure.
quote:
Comparing the Bautforum to NASA is like comparing the twilight zone to NASA. There isn't a serious comparison to be made. Even Dave was smart enough to figure out that the coronal loops are the heat source, and Lockheed got their labeling system messed up. Not a single individual at the Bautforum even got that far.
You're lying again. The people at the BAUT forum understood the red parts of the image, as explained by LMSAL, were from the 171Å filter, and the blue parts were hotter, from the 191Å filter. But there's |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 21:18:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ah, I was thinking in terms of "solids" whereas you are including all non plasmas (gasses and liquids).
And? Why in the world would you ever think in terms of "solids" when the temperatures are far too high for any solids to exist? It's all either gasses or plasmas.quote:
I'm going to respond to what I believe are the critical points in some order of relevancy from my perspective. Bear with me a bit.
It's difficult when our ideas of "relevancy" clearly differ.quote:
What you would call the "photosphere" amounts to one mass separated layer of plasma, specifically the neon layer. I've typically used the term photosphere rather loosely, but I'll speak now in terms of plasma layers where possible.
Indeed, you've used the term "photosphere" to mean either the photosphere, or "everything above the solid surface of the Sun." Had you started out using all your terms properly, this thread would have been much shorter.quote:
quote:
M:The arcs have to have a starting point (base) and something that differentiates the base from the plasma around the base.
The magnetic field loops seen in the corona originate 200,000 km below the photosphere.
There are two issues here IMO that warrant mention IMO. The magnetic fields are simply created by the flowing electricity. The "charges" that spawn these arcs may in fact begin that deeply, but IMO, the surface emits these arcs from distict surface features, features that ultimately erode and change with time.
That's your hypothesis, now why don't you find some evidence for it which excludes the possibility that the Sun and its magnetic fields are built like the planet Earth, which has a deep rotating dynamo creating its magnetic fields without any arcs or currents penetrating through the surface? Yes, Michael, your model, by virtue of having its magnetic fields created by what amount to giant sparks coming off the surface, would make the Sun vastly different from the Earth (even after all your complaints that we were the ones trying to do that). Not only that, but since Birkeland's "model" used an electromagnet to generate its magnetic field, your model is not a Birkeland model.quote:
The point that's noteworthy here is explaining how and why these magnetic fields can drive this kind of current flow, with pinpoint accuracy, for over 75 minutes in duration from pretty much the same location. What creates these strong magnetic fields so far from the core?
A huge, deep, dynamo would do so, just like it does here on Earth. Why don't you explain how your model can have electric arcs which drive such huge magnetic fields and last for 90 minutes or more?quote:
We both agree that the magnetic fields begin below the photosphere. In a Birkeland model, they are simply arcs from the surface.
No, in your model that's what they are. Birkeland used an electromagnet.quote:
The current flowing through the arcs, creates the magnetic fields.
That's your model again.quote:
The magnetic fields of the surface also help direct the flow of elecricity through the crust.
Where is the evidence of this?quote:
quote:
Prove it, in light of the fact that the UofM paper describes radiation emitted by electrons as they are spun about by magnetic fields.
That paper also describes temperatures that exceed 1 US billion degrees Kelvin.
Yes, and you didn't bother to comment on my discussion of what "radio temperature" actually means.quote:
That is highly congruent with a Birkeland model of arcs from the surface.
Where did Birkeland measure the temperature of his arcs? Quotes only, please.quote:
The base of the arc get very hot. The arc itself contains the areas of greatest heat concentration. We seem to agree on that point, and it's a fundamental issue.
I'm not so sure, anymore, but you decided that my discussion of those very important points wasn't "relevant."quote:
The heat concentration is a direct result of electricity running through metals.
Prove it. Show us the resistance of the "metals" in the corona which generate such high temperatures that the tops of the loops glow in soft X-rays.quote:
The flow of current is what creates these intense magnetic fields in precisely confined locations.
Prove it.quote:
In your way of thinking, where exactly is the base of the arc? Why is that particular area the hottest part of the loop?
You decided that my answer to these questions wasn't "relevant" already. I think that, based on your assessment of my comments, I have no obligation to answer these questions again. To do so would simply invite you to snub my efforts again.quote:
|
- 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 - 03/11/2006 : 15:17:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And? Why in the world would you ever think in terms of "solids" when the temperatures are far too high for any solids to exist? It's all either gasses or plasmas.
Are we talking about the temperatures of the top of the neon penumbral filaments where they meets up with the lighter and hotter chromosphere, or are we talking about the base of the neon penumbral filaments, where they meet up with the denser and cooler silicon layer? Just as the chromosphere is lighter and hotter than the photosphere, and the chromosphere is denser and cooler than the corona, so too the dense silicon layer is cooler and more dense than the layers above it. Pressures at the top of each layer are less than the pressures at the bottom, and layers are arranged by the isotope. Density here dictates temperature and location will determine temperatures. The wild cards are the coronal loops from an atmospheric temperatures perspective. Proximity to coronal loops brings heat.
quote:
It's difficult when our ideas of "relevancy" clearly differ.
Well, I hear you. You will have to stop me where you need to and get clerification or details that you feel are critical. Let us however at least focus on theory and issues that relate to the images themselves. I think we'll find that much more productive.
quote:
Indeed, you've used the term "photosphere" to mean either the photosphere, or "everything above the solid surface of the Sun." Had you started out using all your terms properly, this thread would have been much shorter.
You are right that I have generally used the term photosphere to convey the whole atmosphere from the surface of the neon to the surface itself. Where you use the term 'photosphere', you'll have to think neon layer in a Birkeland model, and I'll have to be more specific about the role and location of each layer. I've tried to give you some rough estimates related to depth. Each layer has a depth. The neon "photosphere" is as described in modern literature. The rest of the atmospher is arranged by atomic weight till we hit the surface itself.
quote:
That's your hypothesis, now why don't you find some evidence for it which excludes the possibility that the Sun and its magnetic fields are built like the planet Earth, which has a deep rotating dynamo creating its magnetic fields without any arcs or currents penetrating through the surface?
Actually, the magnetic fields of earth do setup the current flow of the planet just as Birkeland predicted as he viewed the Northern lights. The alignment of the current flow around the earth is directly related to the magnetic field of the earth.
Having said the, the sun and the earth (according to you) are not alike in that the earth is considered to have a heavy core, made of heavy metals. You presumably have a non mass separated hydrogen ball. Where's the dynamo coming from exactly in your model? Is this a theoretical construct about some unknown property of hydrogen, or is the magnetic alignment something directly associated with the fusion process? How do these fields remain stationary at the core with pinpoint accuracy so as to arrive at ecactly the same pixel, frame after frame after frame over a distance of 696,000 Km? Where exactly do these field originate and how do they remain this stationary?
quote:
Yes, Michael, your model, by virtue of having its magnetic fields created by what amount to giant sparks coming off the surface, would make the Sun vastly different from the Earth (even after all your complaints that we were the ones trying to do that). Not only that, but since Birkeland's "model" used an electromagnet to generate its magnetic field, your model is not a Birkeland model.
We don't seem to be communicating well on this point IMO. I'm proposing an electromagnetic core as well, one that rotates over a 22 year timeframe. These inner magnetic fields help drive the current flow at the surface, just as you are proposing as well. There isn't really any difference in our models in this way. The main difference is that the "pinpoint" acuracy of this current flow IMO is directly related to the suface structures, not simply the magnetic fields. In other words, higher surfaces will generally be more positively charged that surfaces in the valleys. Current always takes the path of least resistance, and the shortest distance through the crust will be the thinnest regions. The fields *combined* with the terrain allow for stationary arcs IMO. I'm not sure what you feel creates these fields or stabalizes them to a pixel or two over a very long timeline.
quote:
A huge, deep, dynamo would do so, just like it does here on Earth.
On earth that is considered to be heavy materials. What is the solar dynamo made of in your model? What keeps the focus of these magnetic field lines?
quote:
Why don't you explain how your model can have electric arcs which drive such huge magnetic fields and last for 90 minutes or more?
Actually Birkeland's model would include an external power source, namely the universe, when explaining energy flow. The dynamo example you used earlier would do nicely, particularly if the sun has a conductive core of fissioning heavy metal plasma surrounded by pressurized Xenon plasma and an iron shell.
quote:
No, in your model that's what they are. Birkeland used an electromagnet.
I think I'm not communicating these ideas very here well, since my model would also have a electromagnetic core, one that rotates over time and effects the energy release at the surface. The fact you seem to think there is some difference between us on this point suggests we aren't communicating well. I'll be happy to take responsibility since I've talked about various solar models as it relates to a core.
There has always been a electromagnetic dynamo in my model, even from day one, regardless of the internal model.
quote:
M:The current flowing through the arcs, creates the magnetic fields.
D:That's your model again.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/11/2006 15:48:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 15:39:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Oh, and the good folks at LMSAL have been quite forthcoming with me about those images.
Most of the comments from your last post were not worth wasting my breath on. This one was. If that is so then you should have no trouble finding out who posted the image to their website, what timelines were involved from start to finish and the cadence used between images. So tell me oh smooth talker you, just who actually did create that Lockheed RD image? I'll even give you a hint of who that might be:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/usage_200205.html
Notice who's name is attached to this image.
quote:
Maybe you've been the same kind of asshole to them as you've been to the people here.
I've cetainly returned your BS back to you here, but my lack of knowing these details has nothing to do with "attitude" on my part. You of course can prove my attitude had something to do with it by getting some details out of Lockheed.
quote:
The people at the BAUT forum understood the red parts of the image, as explained by LMSAL, were from the 171Å filter, and the blue parts were hotter, from the 191Å filter.
Then Dave must be a lying idiot too eh? He agreed with me that areas marked in red are actually hotter, not cooler than the blue regions.
quote:
There are no lighting changes in a running difference image. The pixels which are brighter than other pixels were made that way by the software. The "dust particles" and "peeling" have been explained by myself and by LMSAL in this way, "This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud."
So there are no "structures" in the image, but we *can* see flying debris? Kind of a double standard isn't it? What is this "ejected" material made of that is so vastly different than any other plasma? What's it made of? Why does it "emit/reflect?" light again? If it falls back down again as a dark cloud, isn't it more dense than the other plasma? You're sure their is no mass separation, and this is all in the corona, but you have pieces flying up and falling back down. We can see the pieces reflect material just fine, but we can't be sure that's a surface that relects light. You are one walking/ talking contradition GeeMack. What exactly *is* coronal rain in your opinion? Where does it come from, and where does it fall back down to? What makes it rise, and what makes it fall? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/11/2006 15:43:35 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 16:18:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not at all. In the standard view of the Sun, electric currents are only responsible for (A) twisting the paths of the magnetic field loops,
I missed some key points in the first post:
But the UofM shows that electricity flows freely in CME events, and that this flow of electricity is powerful enough to be involved in some powerful emissions in these regions.
quote:
and (B) creating free-free and gryosynchrotron radiation.
How? How is electricity creating such radiation?
quote:
In neither case does a current become a "heat source,"
Then what is the heat source?
quote:
and in neither case does the emission of light visible to TRACE depend upon any net electrical current.
What holds these loops in place then. Here's why I ask:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034_bar_clip.gif
quote:
If the temperature does not vary much along aloop, and lies around 1 million degrees along most of its length, the gas should sag into the bottom of the loops under the influence of gravity. Consequently, the gas density should decrease by a factor of almost three every 50,000 km; the emission (which scales as the square of the density) should drop by that factor every 25,000 km. The right-hand bar in the lower image on the left shows how radidly the emission should have dropped off in the case of such simple gravitational stratification; the observed situation is closer to the intensity profile in the left-hand bar, for which the scale height has been doubled. Clearly, the emission drops off much more slowly than expected from a simple static model. The assumptions that are generally made that solar coronal loops are essentially stationary (evolving slow compared to the time they can adjust to a new situation) and that they are uniformly heated have been demonstrated to be fundamentally untenable: many loops evolve very rapidly, and none of them is heated uniformly!
quote:
No, we won't, because the emission patterns in the UofM paper are all nonthermal (which you didn't address at all - I guess it's not relevant in your mind), and the emission of light from ionized atoms cooling down doesn't require any net current flow at all (but you didn't address those points, either).
The nonthermal nature of the emissions related to electron flow certainly is relavant to my model Dave. I have even addressed *why* it occurs. But that explanation does not jive witht the paragraph I posted above that talks about how the heat remains consistent in the loop.
quote:
Pure speculation, unsupported by any evidence, and contrary to the fact that the umbra portion of a sunspot (through which the magnetic fields traverse the photosphere) is cooler than the rest of the photosphere (that pesky magnetic cooling again, which you also failed to even acknowledge).
I don't personally think "magnetic cooling" has anything at all to do with sunspot activity. That's actually one of those "pesky" little concepts you tossed into the conversation that you expect me to accept as fact.
I'm curious now. As I meantioned earlier, the plasma will form itself around "current flow" that is induced by magnetic fields. You have 200KM of distance for this current flow to begin adn to gain strength in your model. Where then is the "base" of the arc, and why is it the hottest area? Where are these electrons and where is this heat coming from in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 17:10:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and if the plasma is a "nearly perfect" conductor, why would the arcs fly 50,000 km above the surface at all, when according to you, electricity takes the path of least resistance (which would be more-or-less a straight line between points)?
Because the arcs are caused by moving electrons that "spring" from the surface in very specific directions, typically "up". That momentum of mass of flowing electrons creates a fountain of mass that has momentum. It eventually changes direction, but the momentum of the fountain, and the momentum of movement must first be redirected. That's why we see arcs in most cases. In other cases these things DO start out in straight lines, but the force within the arc pushes it outward, away from the crust. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 17:43:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'd love to ask them a few details about this particular image, but Lockheed won't even cop to who created it! It's a bit tough to do some of these kinds of quantitative analysis on this specific set of images if you don't know any of the details about how it was processed or created. I'd love to do what you suggest with this image, but I can't do that if everyone at Lockheed hides these details about this particular image intentionally.quote:
Originally posted by Me...
Oh, and the good folks at LMSAL have been quite forthcoming with me about those images.
Most of the comments from your last post were not worth wasting my breath on. This one was. If that is so then you should have no trouble finding out who posted the image to their website, what timelines were involved from start to finish and the cadence used between images. So tell me oh smooth talker you, just who actually did create that Lockheed RD image?
[...]
I've cetainly returned your BS back to you here, but my lack of knowing these details has nothing to do with "attitude" on my part. You of course can prove my attitude had something to do with it by getting some details out of Lockheed.
[...]
The usage page I cited earlier for you GeeMack was simply a copy I made before Lockheed removed the original page from their website. Here are two archived copies you can send to your friends at Lockheed as you try to track down the original creator of the image.
Unless you're just too lazy to go through the effort, if you want to find out who at LMSAL created those images and get any kind of description of the specifications involved, ask them yourself. Everyone here has already done a lot of your work for you, and your reply, rather than thanking us for all our help, which would be an appropriate response, is generally an accusation that the issues haven't been addressed. You've proven yourself to be a lying contemptible asshole, and many of your 600 postings here make that perfectly clear. We don't have to ask LMSAL to get an answer to that one.
quote:
Then Dave must be a lying idiot too eh? He agreed with me that areas marked in red are actually hotter, not cooler than the blue regions.
No I think it's much more likely, particularly considering Dave W. has not displayed a propensity for lying, as you regularly have, that he may have simply misunderstood the caption or description of those images. It's also highly possible, since you refuse to communicate clearly and concisely, that you either miscommunicated something to Dave W. or misunderstood one of his replies to you. But to cut through your renewed attempt at distraction and your continued avoidance of proving your crazy fantasy, it wouldn't matter if you and Dave W. were in agreement about that particular set of images and graphs. It still wouldn't provide any legitimate, quantitative support for your delusion.
quote:
So there are no "structures" in the image, but we *can* see flying debris? Kind of a double standard isn't it? What is this "ejected" material made of that is so vastly different than any other plasma? What's it made of? Why does it "emit/reflect?" light again? If it falls back down again as a dark cloud, isn't it more dense than the other plasma? You're sure their is no mass separation, and this is all in the corona, but you have pieces flying up and falling back down. We can see the pieces reflect material just fine, but we can't be sure that's a surface that relects light. You are one walking/ talking contradition GeeMack. What exactly *is* coronal rain in your opinion? Where does it come from, and where does it fall back down to? What makes it rise, and what makes it fall?
No contradiction here. If you'd spend as much time actually concerning yourself with legitimate solar sciences as you do building your silly little strawmen you might have actually gained a little ground by now. As it is you've written 600 posts, and within all those words you haven't gotten a single soul to accept a single piece of your "evidence".
"Flying debris" could occur anywhere within the coronal region of the Sun. Where there might be flying debris, or to use the more accurate description, ejected material, doesn't indicate any kind of direct association with a solid surface. Unless you can prove otherwise, that ejected material is likely to be plasma. Aside from that, your "solid surface" supposedly exists several thousand kilometers below the chromosphere or coronal region, or even the photosphere of the Sun. You have yet to demonstrate that the running difference images in question come from that depth, well, other than by your incessant hollering that it must be true because you say it's true.
You're the one claiming the replies from LMSAL and NASA are wrong. You're the one claiming the other extremely clear descriptions of your misunderstanding of running difference images are wrong. You're the one who has absolutely refused to make any sort of quantitative analysis of what you mistakenly believe to be evidence of your solid surfaced Sun fantasy. I don't have to prove that the current expert consensus is correct. I don't have to prove that Dave W. or JohnOAS or NASA is correct. I don't have to prove LMSAL's assessment that what you think you see in those images is an optical illusion. We are all in agreement. If you think everyone else is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, but you won't take on that burden.
I've given you a way to at least begin to show that what you're seeing might be given more consideration as being solid physical things, but you've refused to do the work necessary. Until you can explain how certain angles of light at certain intensities shone against certain topologies might indicate that those images are showing any kind of genuine structures, your claim of running difference images supporting your crazy notion of a solid surfaced Sun remains completely unsupported.
And it's quite telling that you should again avoid responding to concerns which might actually help support your fantasy. It's interesting to note that you've ignored the part of my post where I explained Birkeland's experiments. Unless you can actually show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description, include specific relevant quotes, and cite your references, you're lying when you claim to be presenting his model.
After all, given what we do know about his experiments, there isn't a speck of scientific support, or even a reasonable way to accept within the boundaries of known physical sciences, that he was correct if his models of the Earth, Saturn, a spiral nebula, and the Sun were all hollow brass balls covered with phosphorescent paint. You see, again, the burden of proof that you try so desperately to avoid is yours and yours alone.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 18:10:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Are we talking about the temperatures of the top of the neon penumbral filaments where they meets up with the lighter and hotter chromosphere, or are we talking about the base of the neon penumbral filaments, where they meet up with the denser and cooler silicon layer? Just as the chromosphere is lighter and hotter than the photosphere, and the chromosphere is denser and cooler than the corona, so too the dense silicon layer is cooler and more dense than the layers above it.
So you say. I don't see any evidence for lower temperatures beneath the photosphere.quote:
Pressures at the top of each layer are less than the pressures at the bottom, and layers are arranged by the isotope.
So how many neon isotope layers are there, and why do you insist on talking about just one?quote:
Density here dictates temperature and location will determine temperatures.
So you say. It doesn't happen that way on Earth, but if you want your model to differ from Earth, that's fine.quote:
The wild cards are the coronal loops from an atmospheric temperatures perspective. Proximity to coronal loops brings heat.
So you say.quote:
quote:
It's difficult when our ideas of "relevancy" clearly differ.
Well, I hear you. You will have to stop me where you need to and get clerification or details that you feel are critical.
I already mentioned several times thing which you appeared to reject as irrelevant, which are obviously relevant, yet you failed to address them substantively. How many more times should I go around and around like this, Michael, before I give up?quote:
Let us however at least focus on theory and issues that relate to the images themselves. I think we'll find that much more productive.
Except that you can't seem to focus. Rather than address things which I've addressed, you're constantly bringing in other stuff (which you seem to have forgotten to bring up before).quote:
You are right that I have generally used the term photosphere to convey the whole atmosphere from the surface of the neon to the surface itself.
No, you've even used it to include the whole of the corona (or so you said at the time).quote:
Where you use the term 'photosphere', you'll have to think neon layer in a Birkeland model, and I'll have to be more specific about the role and location of each layer. I've tried to give you some rough estimates related to depth. Each layer has a depth. The neon "photosphere" is as described in modern literature.
Baloney. In your model, there are at least three neon isotope layers which go into the "photosphere" (20Ne, 21Ne and 22Ne), and upwards of eight if we include the radioisotopes of neon (though none of them have a half-life longer than 3.38 minutes). How, given the boiling nature of the top layer, these three isotopic layers stay mass-separated is something you should explain, Michael.quote:
quote:
That's your hypothesis, now why don't you find some evidence for it which excludes the possibility that the Sun and its magnetic fields are built like the planet Earth, which has a deep rotating dynamo creating its magnetic fields without any arcs or currents penetrating through the surface?
Actually, the magnetic fields of earth do setup the current flow of the planet just as Birkeland predicted as he viewed the Northern lights.
The Earth's magnetic field exists due to the dynamo, and not due to giant sparks coming from one point on the Earth's surface and going to another.quote:
The alignment of the current flow around the earth is directly related to the magnetic field of the earth.
Duh.quote:
Having said the, the sun and the earth (according to you) are not alike in that the earth is considered to have a heavy core, made of heavy metals. You presumably have a non mass separated hydrogen ball. Where's the dynamo coming from exactly in your model? Is this a theoretical construct about some unknown property of hydrogen, or is the magnetic alignment something directly associated with the fusion process?
Okay, apparently you not only thought that my earlier discussion of this was irrelevant, you didn't even read it (because it answered those questions).
I've had quite enough that shit, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
