|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:48:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What they were telling you is that when iron (and calcium) ions do not put out a blackbody spectrum (and they don't, regardless of the imaging systems capabilities), then you can't seriously apply a blackbody calculation to the whole Sun using iron (and calcium) ion temperature data. It's inapplicable.
This was never a debate that only involved iron and calcium plasma. The whole thing is predicated upon the heat *concentration patterns* of not just one filter, but every solar filter ever used. The Yohkoh SXT images are quite clear and implication of these images is quite clear. They show us that the light in these temperature ranges comes from the coronal loops, not the surrounding materials. The hottest regions therefore are the loops themselves, not the surrounding materials. Each TRACE filter picks up a range of temperatures, including FE XX ions in the 20 million degree range. There is simply no way for the loops to be cooler than the dark areas of that image. Any and all black body concepts still apply, and that Yohkoh Trace composite image shows you what SXT sees as well. Yohkoh only sees emssions *from the arcs*, it sees much less light outside of the arcs. Therefore the arcs are hot compared to the surrounding materials. It's really just that simple. There is no way for the arcs to be cooler than the dark areas of that image. Period.
quote:
Tenuous plasmas do not meet the definition of a black body.
Special pleading since they seem to work fine for that photosphere you claim is made of less than aerogel density.
quote:
]That you seem to still refuse to understand this, and still defend your blackbody calculation as if it were valid, simply destroys your credibility even further.
The fact you ignored the math I presented to support this issue, and all the images I used to support this issue and the fact you won't admit that the loops are the hot zone, only destroys what credibility you have with me as well.
quote:
Michael: You however seem to think you know more about this image than even the guy that created it...
You're lying about me again, since I already said that I learned something from it.
Fine, we'll go from there. Like I said, the filament layer has a depth, and that depth can be seen in these images, particularly the ones done by the author in question since he's using a very large telescope to create such images.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 20:52:09 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:57:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off your allegedly solid surface.
Oh Balony. You literally handwaved away the whole Lockheed RD image I see. You never did explain how all those "structures" remained fixed even while the arcs moved around during the time in question.
quote:
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off of dust.
The how about tackling that Lockheed RD image in earnest and tell me what that dust drifting off to the left is all about? How come we see it? What temperature is it? Why is it moving when none of the rest of these structures moves?
quote:
The "tornado structures," being black in the images, are clearly blocking 171A light, not reflecting it.
It does both of these things which is why we can tell it's not the light source. It is therefore quite doubtful that they are really 1 million degrees, and therefore quite unlikely that these structures are in the corona.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:08:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is no way for the arcs to be cooler than the dark areas of that image. Period.
Gee, I've even agreed to that (although you persist in your denial that I have not). Perhaps the image was mislabeled, and the blue should have been coolest, and red hottest. Either way, your blackbody calculation is invalid because none of the ions in a million-K plasma emit a blackbody spectrum. None of them.quote:
quote:
Tenuous plasmas do not meet the definition of a black body.
Special pleading since they seem to work fine for that photosphere you claim is made of less than aerogel density.
Amazing. You're getting mighty close to catching that purposeful mistake, but you're still not quite there. I'll give you a hint: how hot is the photosphere?
quote:
The fact you ignored the math I presented to support this issue...
I didn't ignore the math, I told you in no uncertain terms why it is inapplicable.quote:
...and all the images I used to support this issue...
When have you ever presented an image to me and said, "hey, the coronal loops are hotter than the dark portions of this image?" If you did such a thing, did I disagree?quote:
...and the fact you won't admit that the loops are the hot zone...
More denial on your part, as I agreed with you already about the loops being the hottest portions of the corona.quote:
...only destroys what credibility you have with me as well.
At least I've got rock-solid evidence of your denial, whereas you need to rewrite history in order to destroy my credibility.quote:
Fine, we'll go from there.
I'd much prefer we go back even farther and get you to address some of the older issues. Like you said, changing the subject only makes you look bad. You've still got:- circular evidence that soft X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere while extreme UV isn't,
- no evidence that TRACE can see anything 3,480 km (or 4,800 km) below the photosphere,
- self-generated evidence that all of helioseismology is invalid,
- no evidence that acceleration affects our ability to accurately measure mass,
- no evidence that dark matter or dark energy could generate even a 0.007% difference in our measurement of the Sun's density,
- an isotope analysis which fails to work for Earth (so why should we think it'll work for the Sun?),
- no evidence of mass separation within the Sun which doesn't rely upon the assumption that there is mass separation within the Sun,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model used an iron sphere,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model wouldn't be applicable to a big ball of plasma,
- no evidence that electric arcs can accelerate electrons to high energies,
- your own statement that your assertions of a neon layer and a silicon layer are wild guesses,
- a superb ability to ignore people who point out your flawed methods of analysis (for one example, see "blackbody radiation" and your attempt to apply it to iron ions),
- an even more fantastic ability to redefine terms and then refuse to divulge your own personal meanings,
- a super-incredible ability to quantify almost nothing about your model, and still claim its validity,
- and so, in short, you've got no evidence that there is anything solid in the Sun.
|
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 21:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Gee, I've even agreed to that (although you persist in your denial that I have not).
Two agreements in one hour? :) I think I'm having a tough time telling when you actually "agree" with me frankly. You sure didn't sound like you agreed.
quote:
Perhaps the image was mislabeled, and the blue should have been coolest, and red hottest.
It seems a lot more logical that the programmer would have picked red to designate "hot" rather than "blue", but I emailed Lockheed about this very image and Carolus Shriver assured me that this image was correctly labeled. Either they don't have a clue where the heat is concentrated, or Carolus was having a bad couple of days.
quote:
Either way, your blackbody calculation is invalid because none of the ions in a million-K plasma emit a blackbody spectrum. None of them.
You seem to be under a false misconception that a filter is directly related to a specific ion, or a specific temperature or a specific wavelength. None of these things are true. Nothing truely emits "exactly" in a black body spectrum but these concepts can still easily show us that the bright areas of a *temperature sensitive* filter that sees temps from 160K to nearly 20 million K is going to be hotter than the dark areas of the same image, especially since the background of the photosphere is only 6000K. Lockheed certainly mislabeled the image, but Carolus defended it. Lockheed is wrong and left it that way even after I pointed it out to a significant individual at Lockheed. I can't simply ignore the fact they don't grasp where the heat is concentrated. The first thing you have to do in image interpretation is determine the light source and they don't seem to have figured that out.
quote:
Amazing. You're getting mighty close to catching that purposeful mistake, but you're still not quite there. I'll give you a hint: how hot is the photosphere?
Approximately 5800K. That is how total solar output is calculated. It is calculate as a 5800K black body with a radius of 1.00R.
quote:
I didn't ignore the math, I told you in no uncertain terms why it is inapplicable.
You mean you "alledged" it to be so with a handwave.
quote:
When have you ever presented an image to me and said, "hey, the coronal loops are hotter than the dark portions of this image?" If you did such a thing, did I disagree?
I assumed you read that thread in question. I'm not altogether clear now that you do disagree with me about the heat being concentrated in the coronal loops. We seem be quibbling over details at this point.
quote:
More denial on your part, as I agreed with you already about the loops being the hottest portions of the corona.
No longer will I remain in denial. I accept we agree on this point about the loops being the hottest thing in the image. I'm uncertain as to what the heck we're arguing about at this point.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 21:28:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:38:52 [Permalink]
|
Here's why I know for certain that both NASA and Lockheed have a serious problem as it relates to satellite image interpretation. Before you can begin to examine an image, you must determine the light source. In this case it is especially important to isolate the light source since we can't really "interpret" anything we might see unless we know where the light is coming from.
When I emialed Carolus Shriver and sent him the TRACE/Yohkoh overlay to show him that the light source of all the high energy filters is the coronal looops, and to show him the high temperature plasma was concentrated in the coronal loops, he would not accept this, or hear me on this point.
When I emailed NASA, Dr. SOHO - Stein tried to tell me that the photosphere was the light source and these loops were "backlit" in some way. It's clear that NASA had not yet identified the light source either. If both Lockheed and NASA remain ignorant to even this key issue, there is absolutely no way on earth they could possibly interpret satellite images accurately. It's just that simple. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 21:58:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off your allegedly solid surface.
Oh Balony. You literally handwaved away the whole Lockheed RD image I see.
I can't read your mind to know what you see, Michael. If you can present some evidence that 171A light can reflect off your allegedly solid surface, then maybe I would agree that what is seen in that video is a surface. But as I've already explained, I think the background is nothing more than an artifact of a running average over the frames, and you refuse to divulge the evidence which might allow us to confirm or refute that hypothesis.quote:
You never did explain how all those "structures" remained fixed even while the arcs moved around during the time in question.
You never did create the movie you promised to make me of the arcs moving around during that same time and same place.quote:
quote:
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off of dust.
The how about tackling that Lockheed RD image in earnest and tell me what that dust drifting off to the left is all about? How come we see it? What temperature is it? Why is it moving when none of the rest of these structures moves?
Oh, I'm willing to accept Lockheed's description that it's matter falling back to the Sun from the CME that occured (I'll accept that until a better explanation comes along), and we can see it because it's very cool relative to the iron ions and so absorbs 171A light (it's dark).quote:
quote:
The "tornado structures," being black in the images, are clearly blocking 171A light, not reflecting it.
It does both of these things which is why we can tell it's not the light source.
I see no reflections.quote:
It is therefore quite doubtful that they are really 1 million degrees, and therefore quite unlikely that these structures are in the corona.
Everything else around them is over a million Kelvin, so they have to be in the corona, just cool stuff within the corona (nobody claims that the corona is only a million Kelvins and up, Michael, only that it's the only place above 0.7R or so where such temperatures are known to exist). |
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 22:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I can't read your mind to know what you see, Michael.
Fine. Let's go back to this image because it's the single most important image that Lockheed has ever produced IMO. I agree you can't read my mind, so let's go back through this again with the understanding that the light source is the coronal loops and the rest of it I will explain to you in methodical detail.
quote:
If you can present some evidence that 171A light can reflect off your allegedly solid surface, then maybe I would agree that what is seen in that video is a surface.
There is plenty of evidence of this in the image itself. You seem to want very specific calculations related to densities of particular plasmas but we can't even seem to agree what kind of plasmas they are, or what the density might be.
When we used your favorite math formulas to calculate the temperature and density of Jupiter's upper atmosphere, it turns out that we missed both points by a long shot. It's both hotter and more dense than we "predicted" using pure math. You cannot then try to use a mathematical formula to calculate density at the penumbral filament "layer", until you know whether or not the sun is mass separated and you know what kind of material you are dealing with. Only then might we try to hazzard a 'guestimate' that isn't based on blind math formulas.
quote:
But as I've already explained, I think the background is nothing more than an artifact of a running average over the frames,
What exactly does that mean? There are lots of things in that image. Do you mean they are all "artifacts"? How so? How do they all remain unchanged over these timelines when the photosphere is changing every 8 minutes?
quote:
and you refuse to divulge the evidence which might allow us to confirm or refute that hypothesis.
What evidence are you talking about? You have access to exactly the same evidence that I do.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
When might it occur to you that maybe you should check this stuff out for yourself instead of fighting me tooth and nail on every single point?
quote:
You never did create the movie you promised to make me of the arcs moving around during that same time and same place.
Your right, I never did build you a movie of the raw images, but you can just pick the hour that Lockheed mentions specifically and watch all the movement in the atmosphere. I didn't get around to building you a movie, but I'm sorta tired of doing *all* the work for you expecially since you claimed to have downloaded a "ton of images" if I recall correctly. This is not a difficult task, but it is time consuming. When I have more time I'll try to get around to it, but frankly I shouldn't have to hold your hand and do all the work, particularly the time consuming stuff that you can easily do yourself and have demonstrated that you can easily do for yourself without my help.
quote:
Oh, I'm willing to accept Lockheed's description that it's matter falling back to the Sun from the CME that occured (I'll accept that until a better explanation comes along),
Well, on that point we all seem to be in perfect agreement. The point is that it's "falling back" meaning the solar atmosphere is mass separated as I've said all along.
quote:
and we can see it because it's very cool relative to the iron ions and so absorbs 171A light (it's dark).
We both agree it's cool. I think it blocks and reflects light because it's a solid, but we're both on the same page about it being cool dark *dense* material that is "falling" just as a Birkeland model would expect in a mass separated environment.
quote:
Everything else around them is over a million Kelvin, so they have to be in the corona,
How do you know that "everything around them" is over a million degrees rather than just light in the coronal loops that is a million degrees? Why does *everything* have to be over a million degrees?
quote:
just cool stuff within the corona (nobody claims that the corona is only a million Kelvins and up, Michael, only that it's the only place above 0.7R or so where such temperatures are known to exist).
The only place that temperatures over a million degrees exists from .995R upwards is in the coronal loops, or the plasma directly around the coronal loops which is being heated by the coronal loops. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, show me evidence of your point in any high energy satellite image. Geos, Rhessi or Yohkoh images will suffice. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 22:21:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 22:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Gee, I've even agreed to that (although you persist in your denial that I have not).
Two agreements in one hour? :) I think I'm having a tough time telling when you actually "agree" with me frankly. You sure didn't sound like you agreed.
I agreed with you that the coronal loops are the hottest part of the corona days ago. I still do not agree that a blackbody calculation is applicable to anything with a temperature curve which is nothing but a bunch of spikes, not at all continuous, and which lacks the other characteristics of a black body.quote:
You seem to be under a false misconception...
Is a "false misconception" a truth?  quote:
...that a filter is directly related to a specific ion, or a specific temperature or a specific wavelength. None of these things are true.
Which is why I rely on the specturm of the ions in question, and not on the instrument imaging them, to tell me whether a blackbody calculation is applicable or not.quote:
Nothing truely emits "exactly" in a black body spectrum but these concepts can still easily show us that the bright areas of a *temperature sensitive* filter that sees temps from 160K to nearly 20 million K is going to be hotter than the dark areas of the same image, especially since the background of the photosphere is only 6000K.
No, Michael, we don't even need to use blackbody calculations to see that. And you're right, nothing emits like a true black body, but once you get to the point where there is no continuous spectrum, all blackbody calculations fly out the window. This isn't a handwave, it's a fact of physics. You can't model as a black body what is clearly not a black body.quote:
Lockheed certainly mislabeled the image, but Carolus defended it.
Since I am not privvy to any of those emails, I cannot comment on any of that.quote:
quote:
Amazing. You're getting mighty close to catching that purposeful mistake, but you're still not quite there. I'll give you a hint: how hot is the photosphere?
Approximately 5800K. That is how total solar output is calculated. It is calculate as a 5800K black body with a radius of 1.00R.
Come on, Michael, make the connection: why can we model the photosphere as a black body, but not the corona?quote:
quote:
I didn't ignore the math, I told you in no uncertain terms why it is inapplicable.
You mean you "alledged" it to be so with a handwave.
No, when you first brought it up, many pages ago, I provided the definition of a black body and evidence to show that the corona is not a black body. You defended your blackbody calculations then, too, if I remember correctly, despite the physics being against you.quote:
I'm not altogether clear now that you do disagree with me about the heat being concentrated in the coronal loops. We seem be quibbling over details at this point.
What we're "quibbling about" is your insistence that a blackbody calculation based upon data from the corona is a valid methodology, despite the wealth of evidence that it is not. Your vigorous defense of this methodology allows you to shoot yourself in the foot even more than you've done already with your other claims, so I'm quite willing to keep going on the subject. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 23:05:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fine. Let's go back to this image because it's the single most important image that Lockheed has ever produced IMO. I agree you can't read my mind, so let's go back through this again with the understanding that the light source is the coronal loops and the rest of it I will explain to you in methodical detail.
I don't agree that the light source for every non-black pixel in the video is the coronal loops. You'll need to demonstrate that bright pixels outside the coronal loops (wherever they are in the video) are reflections of the light produced by the coronal loops. That's what I've been asking for.quote:
quote:
If you can present some evidence that 171A light can reflect off your allegedly solid surface, then maybe I would agree that what is seen in that video is a surface.
There is plenty of evidence of this in the image itself.
You're getting circular again. What I hear you saying is that the video shows reflections of 171A light, and we know they're reflections of 171A light because that's what the video shows. This is, of course, unacceptable.quote:
You seem to want very specific calculations related to densities of particular plasmas but we can't even seem to agree what kind of plasmas they are, or what the density might be.
No, a simple citation of data showing that a solid calcium ferrite will reflect 171A light will do. Along with, of course, citations that the plasmas which your model has are transparent to 171A light (because the reflected light has to get through 4,800 km of the stuff).quote:
When we used your favorite math formulas to calculate the temperature and density of Jupiter's upper atmosphere, it turns out that we missed both points by a long shot.
When did "we" do any such thing? I told you that since you didn't provide any references for the Jupiter thing, I had no idea what you're talking about.quote:
It's both hotter and more dense than we "predicted" using pure math. You cannot then try to use a mathematical formula to calculate density at the penumbral filament "layer", until you know whether or not the sun is mass separated and you know what kind of material you are dealing with. Only then might we try to hazzard a 'guestimate' that isn't based on blind math formulas.
Since I can't verify the premise of this argument, I cannot agree with it.quote:
quote:
But as I've already explained, I think the background is nothing more than an artifact of a running average over the frames,
What exactly does that mean? There are lots of things in that image. Do you mean they are all "artifacts"? How so? How do they all remain unchanged over these timelines when the photosphere is changing every 8 minutes?
Once again, the old strawman of the footprints of the coronal loops being mechanically linked to the roiling photosphere (oooops, which definition of "photosphere" were you using that time?), despite there being some 2,500 km of less-dense plasma in between the photosphere and corona (namely, the chromosphere).
But what do I mean by artifacts? I mean that if one were to make an average of the pixel intensity over, say, 10 frames or so (the movie is 76 frames, is it not?), then one would expect to see the background "glow up" since only some of the raw frames have a "haze" over them, and one would expect the instrument anomalies which appear in only a single raw frames to show up for many frames (as they do).quote:
quote:
and you refuse to divulge the evidence which might allow us to confirm or refute that hypothesis.
What evidence are you talking about? You have access to exactly the same evidence that I do.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
When might it occur to you that maybe you should check this stuff out for yourself instead of fighting me tooth and nail on every single point?quote:
You never did create the movie you promised to make me of the arcs moving around during that same time and same place.
Your right, I never did build you a movie of the raw images, but you can just pick the hour that Lockheed mentions specifically and watch all the movement in the atmosphere.
Sigh. You ealier claimed that you know the movie covers three hours. I've already told you that when I look at the raw images, I see some of the same features six hours prior to the times mentioned in the Lockheed description, and also six hours past those times. I know damn well that if I were to pick a different three-hour period from the one you claimed to have known (for a fact), you'd just ridicule any effort on my part to verify my hypotheses about the video.
So, I'll ask again: what time period does the Lockheed "gold" video cover, precisely? Which 76 frames of raw data did they use to make that video? You claimed to have known this, after first claiming that you didn't know and Lockheed couldn't tell you.quote:
I didn't get around to building you a movie, but I'm sorta tired of doing *all* the work for you expecially since you claimed to have downloaded a "ton of images" if I recall correctly. This is not a difficult task, but it is time consuming. When I have more time I'll try to get around to it, but frankly I shouldn't have to hold your hand and do all the work, particularly the time consuming stuff that you can easily do yourself and have demonstrated that you can easily do for yourself without my help.
Except, again, that I do |
- 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 - 02/15/2006 : 23:09:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I agreed with you that the coronal loops are the hottest part of the corona days ago.
Then how about emailing Carolus yourself and asking him why he's never fixed his website.
quote:
I still do not agree that a blackbody calculation is applicable to anything with a temperature curve which is nothing but a bunch of spikes, not at all continuous, and which lacks the other characteristics of a black body.
This is special pleading IMO since nothing truely emits "exactly" in a continuous black body curve. Light is emitted in "quanta" at very specific frequencies that relate to the valence shells of the atoms or molecules in question. It's never a smooth line. The point is that even Yohkoh, which does see a much broader range of wavelengths can verify that the coronal loops are the hottest things in the atmosphere. For Lockheed to "blow it" on this image and then defend it when it's pointed out to them shows us that they do not have the first clue where the light originates, or where the heat is actually concentrated. These are no "minor" issues by the way. You can't miss these two key points and expect to analyse any solar image accurately.
quote:
Is a "false misconception" a truth?
Oh, alright, I'll give you that one. :)
quote:
Which is why I rely on the specturm of the ions in question, and not on the instrument imaging them, to tell me whether a blackbody calculation is applicable or not.
But I did the exact same thing! I used the SXT, GEOS and RHESSI satellites to give me a wider spectrum than just the TRACE system. I found that all the satellites show a consistent pattern of the light concentrations and heat concentrations being directly related to the coronal loops. I made that connection *long* before ever "discovering" a surface on the sun. You can't discover anything until you understand the light source and the heat source, and clearly Lockheed and NASA do not comprehend this most basic of issues.
quote:
No, Michael, we don't even need to use blackbody calculations to see that. And you're right, nothing emits like a true black body, but once you get to the point where there is no continuous spectrum, all blackbody calculations fly out the window.
Special pleading. They don't fly out the window. In fact you can see that they don't fly out the window in that composite Yohkoh/Trace overlay image. The hot areas at the base of the TRACE loops could be much hotter than just 1 million K. In fact as the loops reach the corona they glow in X-rays indicative of much higher temperatures. Rhessi shows that this is the area of neutron capture, whereas the base of the loops are the points of anihilation. All these calculations *could* still be quite useful in determining where the heat is concentrated and the fact the x-rays comes from the loops shows that these concept work quite well even in plasma IMO.
quote:
This isn't a handwave, it's a fact of physics. You can't model as a black body what is clearly not a black body.
Come on now. You have thinner than aerogel plasma behaving consistently as a black body. Then for some reason you raise the temperatures and claim black body principles go out the window. You agree with me that the loops are hotter and that Lockheed is wrong, but you can't see the connection here about Lockheed being blind to all concept of Black body principles to miss something this fundamental. You aren't making a lot of sense here IMO. It's a simple fact of physics that Lockheed was wrong about the labeling. You argreed with that much even though everyone at the Bautforum ignored that point completely and ultimately banned me in that thread no less. You agree that that these loops are hot and Lockheed missed the boat.
To miss something this fundamental, there has to be a more serious problem with Lockheed that meets the eye. It's not like I didn't take the time to track down the right individual and point out the mistake. How about you taking a few minutes and emailing Carolus yourself. You'll see what I mean about them missing the boat.
quote:
Since I am not privvy to any of those emails, I cannot comment on any of that.
Email him yourself:
carolus.schrijver@lmco.com
quote:
Come on, Michael, make the connection: why can we model the photosphere as a black body, but not the corona?
Ya, the whole thing is one big case of special pleading. It really doesn't much matter Dave. The loops are the light source and the loops are the heat source because you have electricity running through them. They heat the corona, not the other way around. The coronal loops are the heat source due to the current flow.
quote:
No, when you first brought it up, many pages ago, I provided the definition of a black body and evidence to show that the corona is not a black body. You defended your blackbody calculations then, too, if I remember correctly, despite the physics being against you.
The physics is entirely on my side of this debate Dave. The light comes from the coronal loops. The heat is concentrated in the coronal loops, and heat flows from the coronal loops into the thin plasma of the corona. The corona is in fact a "whispy" little thin layer of hydrogen that is being heated by the loops. That still does not make the dark areas of that image any hotter than the loops. That still doesn't explain why Lockheed hasn't fixed their problem in over 4 months or why they don't seem to have a clue about black body radiation to make such a bonehead mistake even after I showed them the Trace/Yohkoh composite image that shows the heat is concentrated in the coronal loops.
Even though the corona is thin, it still contributes to the energy flow from the sun, just at lesser rate.
quote:
What we're "quibbling about" is your insistence that a blackbody calculation based upon data from the corona is a valid method |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 23:10:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 23:20:48 [Permalink]
|
| One more question for you Dave. How come you were able to notice that the coronal loops are the hottest thing in the image, and not a single individual on the Bautforum was able to acknowledge that point? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 00:03:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't agree that the light source for every non-black pixel in the video is the coronal loops. You'll need to demonstrate that bright pixels outside the coronal loops (wherever they are in the video) are reflections of the light produced by the coronal loops.
First of all, we need to consider "scales" of things again. Keep in mind that coronal loops come in all sizes and can be "intense" in small areas, even a few pixels. If you look at closeup BBSO h-alpha images, you'll see the flowing arcs actually flow all over the surface in much smaller loops than the big ones that come through the surface of the photosphere. The come in all sizes, even one or a few Trace pixels wide. It's entirely possible that a single dot is but a short arc between two relatively close points on the surface. There is also potentially some evidence in Yohkoh images that some of the plasma around the arcs also "glows" as well, though this could be a reflection as well. Not every lit individual pixel however needs to "necessarily" be a reflection.
quote:
That's what I've been asking for.
You seem to want a math formula here that I'm just not capable of personally giving you at the moment. I'm afraid that light propogation through plasmas isn't my field of expertise and there are many unknowns at the moment that would make such a calculation pretty suspect in the first place. I can show you from the images, but you're going to have to get into the details of the images for me to do that.
quote:
You're getting circular again. What I hear you saying is that the video shows reflections of 171A light, and we know they're reflections of 171A light because that's what the video shows. This is, of course, unacceptable.
You are getting overly "picky" about what kind of "observation" you will accept. In fact you won't accept an "observation", simply a math formula that neither one of us will be sure applies accurately since neither of us know the exact temperature or density of the penumbra. Until we know these things with greater accuracy, a math formula would only be a "guestimate" in the first place.
quote:
No, a simple citation of data showing that a solid calcium ferrite will reflect 171A light will do.
But the surface isn't solid calcium ferrite in the first place! Man you really insist on oversimplifing things even after I explain the complications. Why do you do that? When did I ever tell you that the surface was solid calcium ferrite?
quote:
Along with, of course, citations that the plasmas which your model has are transparent to 171A light (because the reflected light has to get through 4,800 km of the stuff).
So what if it traverses 4800km of something less than the consistency of aerogel? You won't even agree that the penumbra is made of neon and the math formulas that relate to "expected" density didn't work very well on Jupiter. Now you insist we do things *your* way rather than "a" way.
quote:
When did "we" do any such thing? I told you that since you didn't provide any references for the Jupiter thing, I had no idea what you're talking about.
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/galileo_probe/htmls/ASI_results.html
quote:
Since I can't verify the premise of this argument, I cannot agree with it.
How about now?
quote:
Once again, the old strawman of the footprints of the coronal loops being mechanically linked to the roiling photosphere (oooops, which definition of "photosphere" were you using that time?), despite there being some 2,500 km of less-dense plasma in between the photosphere and corona (namely, the chromosphere).
Huh? How does that have anything to do with the lack of movement that I mentioned to you? The photosphere recreates it's "structures" every 8 minutes. This image shows no sign of movement that is even remotely related to the kind of movements we see in the photosphere, and yet it's presumably less dense and more active.
quote:
But what do I mean by artifacts? I mean that if one were to make an average of the pixel intensity over, say, 10 frames or so (the movie is 76 frames, is it not?), then one would expect to see the background "glow up" since only some of the raw frames have a "haze" over them, and one would expect the instrument anomalies which appear in only a single raw frames to show up for many frames (as they do).
But Dave, these structures are consistently in each and every frame, and each and every image. The lighting changes rather dramatically as the light source shifts and changes during the timeline of the movie, but there simply isn't enough movement for these to be "artifacts" even by your own definitions.
quote:
Sigh. You ealier claimed that you know the movie covers three hours. I've already told you that when I look at the raw images, I see some of the same features six hours prior to the times mentioned in the Lockheed description, and also six hours past those times. I know damn well that if I were to pick a different three-hour period from the one you claimed to have known (for a fact), you'd just ridicule any effort on my part to verify my hypotheses about the video.
I'm not trying to ridicule your efforts Dave, I'm trying to help you understand what I did so you can do it yourself and you can trust your own results. All I said to you was that your earlier explanation of these structures being related to consistent magnetic fields wouldn't fly because the coronal loops shifted around during this timeline. You need only look a dozen of so images over even an hour long timeline to see that this is the case. I should not have to do the tedious stuff for you. If you doubt what I'm telling you, check it out for yourself.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/16/2006 00:04:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 09:55:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then how about emailing Carolus yourself and asking him why he's never fixed his website.
What does his website have to do with your model?quote:
This is special pleading IMO since nothing truely emits "exactly" in a continuous black body curve. Light is emitted in "quanta" at very specific frequencies that relate to the valence shells of the atoms or molecules in question. It's never a smooth line.
Then why is it a smooth line when we deal with solids? Really, Michael, a black body is defined as a material which absorbs most of the radiation which hits it, and emits at all wavelengths. High-temperature iron and calcium plasmas fail to meet the definition, because they're transparent to most radiation and emit only at specific frequencies (except for the continuum, which is generated by electron collisions and not electromagnetic radiation).quote:
The point is that even Yohkoh, which does see a much broader range of wavelengths can verify that the coronal loops are the hottest things in the atmosphere. For Lockheed to "blow it" on this image and then defend it when it's pointed out to them shows us that they do not have the first clue where the light originates, or where the heat is actually concentrated. These are no "minor" issues by the way. You can't miss these two key points and expect to analyse any solar image accurately.
You also can't miss the fact that an million-Kelvin plasma is not a black body and expect to analyze the power output of the Sun correctly.quote:
But I did the exact same thing! I used the SXT, GEOS and RHESSI satellites to give me a wider spectrum than just the TRACE system. I found that all the satellites show a consistent pattern of the light concentrations and heat concentrations being directly related to the coronal loops.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a blackbody calculation is appropriate.quote:
I made that connection *long* before ever "discovering" a surface on the sun. You can't discover anything until you understand the light source and the heat source, and clearly Lockheed and NASA do not comprehend this most basic of issues.
An clearly you don't understand the limits of the blackbody equations.quote:
quote:
No, Michael, we don't even need to use blackbody calculations to see that. And you're right, nothing emits like a true black body, but once you get to the point where there is no continuous spectrum, all blackbody calculations fly out the window.
Special pleading. They don't fly out the window. In fact you can see that they don't fly out the window in that composite Yohkoh/Trace overlay image. The hot areas at the base of the TRACE loops could be much hotter than just 1 million K. In fact as the loops reach the corona they glow in X-rays indicative of much higher temperatures. Rhessi shows that this is the area of neutron capture, whereas the base of the loops are the points of anihilation. All these calculations *could* still be quite useful in determining where the heat is concentrated and the fact the x-rays comes from the loops shows that these concept work quite well even in plasma IMO.
How is any of the stuff you just said the result of a blackbody temperature calculation? It isn't, so far as I can tell.quote:
quote:
This isn't a handwave, it's a fact of physics. You can't model as a black body what is clearly not a black body.
Come on now. You have thinner than aerogel plasma behaving consistently as a black body. Then for some reason you raise the temperatures and claim black body principles go out the window.
Indeed they do: you haven't grasped why, and because you keep repeating your new "special pleading" mantra, you'll probably never grasp the difference between the photosphere and the corona, besides the temperature.quote:
You agree with me that the loops are hotter and that Lockheed is wrong, but you can't see the connection here about Lockheed being blind to all concept of Black body principles to miss something this fundamental. You aren't making a lot of sense here IMO. It's a simple fact of physics that Lockheed was wrong about the labeling. You argreed with that much even though everyone at the Bautforum ignored that point completely and ultimately banned me in that thread no less. You agree that that these loops are hot and Lockheed missed the boat.
I agree that the loops are hot and that something is wrong with that description, but I don't agree that a black body calculation is either necessary to show that something is wrong, nor do I agree that such a calculation is appropriate.quote:
quote:
Come on, Michael, make the connection: why can we model the photosphere as a black body, but not the corona?
Ya, the whole thing is one big case of special pleading. It really doesn't much matter Dave. The loops are the light source and the loops are the heat source because you have electricity running through them. They heat the corona, not the other way around. The coronal loops are the heat source due to the current flow.
Talk about handwaving. There's obviously a fundamental issue that you are missing in why the Sun below the photosphere can be modeled as a black body to some degree of accuracy, but the Sun's corona cannot be so modeled to any accuracy (your own calculation showed that). You seem to prefer to remain in ignorance, rather than solve the puzzle.
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 12:19:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, we need to consider "scales" of things again. Keep in mind that coronal loops come in all sizes and can be "intense" in small areas, even a few pixels. If you look at closeup BBSO h-alpha images, you'll see the flowing arcs actually flow all over the surface in much smaller loops than the big ones that come through the surface of the photosphere. The come in all sizes, even one or a few Trace pixels wide. It's entirely possible that a single dot is but a short arc between two relatively close points on the surface... Not every lit individual pixel however needs to "necessarily" be a reflection.
Sigh. I'm asking you for an algorithm I can use to determine which pixels are direct emissions, and which represent reflections, and which are both. I don't see any reflections at all in that video, and need to know how you determine these things before I can "see" things from your point of view.quote:
quote:
You're getting circular again. What I hear you saying is that the video shows reflections of 171A light, and we know they're reflections of 171A light because that's what the video shows. This is, of course, unacceptable.
You are getting overly "picky" about what kind of "observation" you will accept.
Nonsense, I'm simply insisting that the evidence presented to support an assertion not be the assumption that the same assertion is true.quote:
In fact you won't accept an "observation", simply a math formula that neither one of us will be sure applies accurately since neither of us know the exact temperature or density of the penumbra. Until we know these things with greater accuracy, a math formula would only be a "guestimate" in the first place.
I'm not asking for a math formula. I'm asking you to say, "we know that these parts of the movie represent reflected 171A light because _________" and you fill in the blank with something other than "we see light reflected there."quote:
quote:
No, a simple citation of data showing that a solid calcium ferrite will reflect 171A light will do.
But the surface isn't solid calcium ferrite in the first place! Man you really insist on oversimplifing things even after I explain the complications. Why do you do that? When did I ever tell you that the surface was solid calcium ferrite?
You've implied plenty of times (both here and on your website) that the majority of the surface is some sort of calcium ferrite. I was willing to accept a finding that calcium ferrite (in solid form) is reflective of 171A light based upon your suggestions of its abundance in your allegedly solid surface. If such is not the case, pick any substance which you allege to be in large quantities in the shell, and show me that whatever you pick is reflective to 171A light. It's that simple. "Because ______ is reflective of 171A light (here's the reference: ______), we can assume for the sake of this discussion that the entire surface is reflective of 171A light." That's all that I want to hear, Michael, not some mathematical formula.quote:
quote:
Along with, of course, citations that the plasmas which your model has are transparent to 171A light (because the reflected light has to get through 4,800 km of the stuff).
So what if it traverses 4800km of something less than the consistency of aerogel?
Well, air is much less dense than aerogel and stops 171A light dead in just 100 km or so.quote:
You won't even agree that the penumbra is made of neon...
Because you've presented no evidence that it is, other than to offer an ad hoc hypothesis that there's a mix of elements which emit the spectrum we see instead of just neon's spectrum.quote:
...and the math formulas that relate to "expected" density didn't work very well on Jupiter. Now you insist we do things *your* way rather than "a" way.
No, I insist that evidence be presented for your claims, the scientific way.quote:
quote:
Since I can't verify the premise of this argument, I cannot agree with it.
How about now?
Okay, so? Another new finding means we don't know everything. What else is new?quote:
quote:
Once again, the old strawman of the footprints of the coronal loops being mechanically linked to the roiling photosphere (oooops, which definition of "photosphere" were you using that time?), despite there being some 2,500 km of less-dense plasma in between the photosphere and corona (namely, the chromosphere).
Huh? How does that have anything to do with the lack of movement that I mentioned to you? The photosphere recreates it's "structures" every 8 minutes. This image shows no sign of movement that is even remotely related to the kind of movements we see in the photosphere, and yet it's presumably less dense and more active.
Who said "more active" (other than you)? Does convection occur within the chromosphere? If so, where's the evidence? If not, why would we think that the interface between the chromosphere and the corona "roils" like the photosphere/chromosphere interface when there's 2,500 km of plasma in between them? In other words, y |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:09:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It looks like only the cloud has been highlighted.
It looks to me like only the edges of the cloud have been highlighted.
But of course, you're neglecting the "fact" that there are all sorts of "lighting changes" occuring within the RD images, not to mention "erosion," which somehow go into the "correct" interpretation of those images (which seems to begin by assuming that they're from 3,480 km - or 4,800 km depending on mood - below the photosphere).
On a more serious note, it's always seemed to me that Lockheed's description of the "gold" video as an RD movie is incorrect, due to the "glow up" of the background in the beginning and the long duration of transient instrument artifacts throughout. Due to those particular facts, I'm left with the impression that it's actually a running average movie. (Since Michael claims that Lockheed has disclaimed all knowledge of how the movie was put together or by whom, it's quite easy to see that their description might be wrong.)
Michael also posits that he knows which raw images went into making that movie, but hasn't seen fit to share those data with us. The date and time given here (under heading "Coronal Mass Ejection") gets us in the ballpark, but not close enough to attempt to duplicate the movie using various algorithms. Especially since Michael claims the movie covers only three hours, but many of the same gross features appear in the raw data more than six hours before and after the times in the description.
I've actually requested and downloaded a data package from the TRACE site. I've got around 50MB worth of data from 28-AUG-00 17:00:00 to 28-AUG-00 17:10:00. I'm going to see what I can extract from these (hopefully raw) images and see what that tells us about illumination sources, amongst other things. If nothing else I might be able to determine the type of algorithm used. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
