|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2006 : 21:36:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If you can show what kind of gas or plasma could have enough pressure to hold the solid surface up like a balloon against gravity as you're suggesting, with numbers of pressure included, I migh (only might) consider some merit to the water bubble as an analogy of the solid surface of sun.
:) Well, that is progress IMO. I'll see what I can do for you in my spare time. I suppose it would have to be based on a pressurized fissionable core of mass separated plasmas. That sounds as plausible as any interior model IMO.
You will be able to do nothing to answer Mab's challenge, Michael, because you don't know the materials, density, mass or volume of your allegedly solid shell, and so cannot calculate the pressure necessary to maintain the shell's integrity. It's an insult to all of our intelligences that you would answer Mab by saying anything other than "sorry, I don't know enough about my own model to be able to provide such data." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 02:15:01 [Permalink]
|
We also have a problem with the energy source from within the sun.
How can a fissionable core keep constant energy-levels for 4,5 billion years?
The hydrogen gas model actually allows for a self-regulating process of fusion. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 06:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
You'll note on page 1113, that the 171A view is somewhat more clear than the 195A view, but both these wavelenghts show much more detail than the SXT view of the same event.
And by the way, the real reason that the TRACE images are much more clear than Yohkoh's images is that the SXT has a resolution of 2.5 arseconds per pixel, while TRACE can resolve down to 0.5 arcseconds per pixel. If every TRACE pixel covers 135,424 km2, then every Yohkoh pixel covers 3,385,600 km2. |
- 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 - 02/19/2006 : 14:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And even if they do have a very serious problem, it says nothing about your model one way or the other. Nothing at all.
That is not so. It demonstrates that your ability and my ability to discern the light source and the heat source of solar satellite images is greater than the cumulative total of the folks at NASA and Lockheed that are responsible for solar satellite image analysis. Whatever analysis we might do once we understand the light source is bound to be a lot more "enlightened" than anything I've heard from the "establishment". No appeals to authority are going to fly here, and several "assumptions" regarding solar image analysis have to be further scrutinized, specifically the "assumption" that these 171A image originate *above* the surface of the photosphere.
quote:
Indeed, when?!? How many more clues do you need, Michael, before you'll figure it out? Since you're still chanting "special pleading, special pleading," I suspect you'll need a lot more clues. If you can drop that anti-scientific attitude and apply yourself to the question, I bet you'll figure it out.
Dave, the only "anti-scientific attitude" going on here IMO is your insistence that we take Lockheed's word for it on the placement of the transition region and that we must "assume" that everything in these iron ion filters is coming from above the photosphere. You keep trying to shove that assumption down my throat, and I'm not buying it.
If Lockheed doesn't even grasp that the coronal loops/arcs are the light source and the heat source of these images, then the also have very little idea about the electrical current running through these arcs. These are billion degree temps we see in the red areas of their colorized image. The key here is that electricity, not the corona is the heat source. That is the "assumption" you are making that is anti-scientific and it prevents you from seeing my point about black body radiation IMO. Once you remove that one assumption, my calculations *can* apply. My point in that thread was to demonstrate that Lockheed Martin (and NASA) fail to grasp even the most basic and fundamental aspects of solar satellite image analysis, namely that the light source, and the heat source is the coronal loops.
This is a very important point, and it does help support my case in the long run in two very important ways.
1) It demonstrates that the heat source for these images is not the corona, but rather the heat source of the corona is the coronal loops, as predicted in a Birkeland model.
2) It opens up the possibility that there is a solid surface below the photosphere since solids, particularly solids that are mostly made of iron, are fully capable of delivering this kind of current flow to the surface.
quote:
Great, so the idea that anything in the TRACE images is at a million Kelvin flies right out the window if Lockheed can't be trusted.
Let's dispell a bunch of strawmen here shall we? If you notice on my website, I make it very clear that the folks at Lockheed and NASA that designed, launched and maintain these satellite systems are my personal heroes. I admire, respect and deeply appreciate all the hard work they have done to bring this solar satellite data to the public awareness. Only a few folks at Lockheed and NASA are responsible for "interpreting" these images, and it's only this tiny little group of folks I have any beef with.
What becomes critical to reexamine is the notion that the 171A and high energy emissions originate in the lower corona rather than below the photosphere. That is the assumption that has to be reexamined.
quote:
Yes, and it is still inappropriate to use that million-Kelvin figure in a blackbody calculation of the whole Sun, as you did, because we know those million-degree plasmas aren't anywhere close to the definition of a black body.
You don't know that Dave, you assumed that. It would all relate back to density. According to a Birkeland model, the density of iron in those coronal loops/arcs is more dense than the photosphere and if everything in that image, including the photosphere was more than 1 million degrees Kelvin, we'd all be fried to a crisp. It all depends on where you "assume" that transitional region sits in relationship to the photosphere.
quote:
How many more times does this need to be said before you'll admit it?
How many more times will it take for you to admit there is a core assumption you are making, specifically that these images relate *only* to the corona, that has never been established?
quote:
Actually, TRACE would see blackness if the plasmas were 100 million degrees (or a billion). The energies wouldn't be right for TRACE to see anything, they'd all be too high.
But that is why the Trace/Yohkoh composite image is so very critical. We can see the loops rising in the solar atmosophere. Trace verifies that the base of these arcs is at least a million degrees, and potentially at least 20 million K (FeXX). Yohkoh also verifies that the very base of the arc is a "little" visible to it, suggesting it's probably at least closer to 20MK than to 1MK even at the base of the arc. As the arc rises through some "substance", and into a new, lighter, hotter, thinner layer, then Yohkoh can also see the light from these arcs as well. The UofM demonstrates that the base of the arcs is probably closer to 1Billion K than to 20MK, and there is current flowing through these arcs. The Rhessi satellite verifies that the base of the loops/arcs is the point of anihillation, suggesting again that we are looking at something that is closer to billion degree temperatures, verifying the work of UofM.
Now if Lockheed doesn't "get it" on these basic issues, we can't assume that the lower corona is the heat source or that solar moss activity takes place above the photosphere.
quote:
Nobody here is doing so. The fact that Lockheed may have screwed up doesn't say anything about your model,
Yes it does. It shows that my analysis is "better" than NASA, and 'better' than Lockheed, and my model is consistent with observation, whereas their model is not. Their model, and their interpetation has already been falsified, whereas Birkeland's model and Birkeland's interpretation is verified. It's that simple.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/19/2006 14:45:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 14:54:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You will be able to do nothing to answer Mab's challenge, Michael, because you don't know the materials, density, mass or volume of your allegedly solid shell, and so cannot calculate the pressure necessary to maintain the shell's integrity. It's an insult to all of our intelligences that you would answer Mab by saying anything other than "sorry, I don't know enough about my own model to be able to provide such data."
At the moment, you are right, I cannot answer his question. All I suggested is that I would "work on it" his way, a way he felt comfortable with, and a way that I do as well. It is an insult to *my* intelligence to simply "assume" I will not learn and gather more useful information over time. I'm simply considering his suggestion carefully and scientifically and logically.
Like I said, you seem to see every personal limitation within an individual as some sort of "disproof" of the viability of a Birkeland solar model. There is no one to one correlation between my ignorance and the viability of Birkeland's solar model. You really need to let that strawman go IMO. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 15:19:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]It's not a circular argument (at least), but it is a non-sequitor, so it's still unacceptable. What I hear is "we know these parts of the movie are reflections off a surface because they're not part of what I deem to be the only light sources." But, you haven't demonstrated that the arcs are the sole light source, so your assertion is a non-starter.
Woah, wait a moment. I want to address this point before we go any further. You and I already agreed (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the coronal loop are the light source and the highest heat source we see in these satellite images. Isn't that correct?
If that is correct, then you and I already agree the loops are *a* light source. If you wish to propose another light source that we might both agree to, by all means, be my guest, but the loops are *one* light source we seem to have agreed to is it not?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/19/2006 15:22:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 15:26:51 [Permalink]
|
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/millenniummini.jpg
The light seen by Yohkoh is observed against a dark background of the photosophere the chromosphere and a "relatively" cool corona. The light and heat is concentrated inside the coronal loops. Furthermore, the UofM has already demonstrated that electrical current flows through these loops/arcs. They are *a* light source we both have already agreed on, unless I've misunderstood you. If you wish to propose another light source that we might also agree to, I'm all ears. That light source will have to be consistent with these two images, and other Rhessi images as well, which also show that the highest energy emisions originate from the coronal loops/arcs. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/19/2006 15:30:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2006 : 22:09:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And even if they do have a very serious problem, it says nothing about your model one way or the other. Nothing at all.
That is not so. It demonstrates that your ability and my ability to discern the light source and the heat source of solar satellite images is greater than the cumulative total of the folks at NASA and Lockheed that are responsible for solar satellite image analysis. Whatever analysis we might do once we understand the light source is bound to be a lot more "enlightened" than anything I've heard from the "establishment". No appeals to authority are going to fly here...
Holy crap! Leave me the hell out of the above, Michael, as I certainly don't claim anything about my abilities compared to the collective solar analysis knowledge of Lockheed and NASA. One image description seems wrong to me, that's it. I haven't made even the slightest effort to ascertain why, and don't plan to unless it becomes paramount when dealing with your model. Since all you're doing is trying to primp yourself through comparison with what appears to me to be a simple mistake, you're presenting nothing more than a logical fallacy - a false generalization from one data point to all solar knowledge.quote:
...and several "assumptions" regarding solar image analysis have to be further scrutinized, specifically the "assumption" that these 171A image originate *above* the surface of the photosphere.
I'm still waiting for you to present evidence that your model's plasmas, between the allegedly solid surface and the visible neon mixture (which violates the mass separation), is transparent to extreme UV light. I've got plenty of reason to believe that those layers in your model, like almost every other substance in the universe, is opaque to EUV light. You have presented not an iota of positive evidence that doesn't depend on the assumption that your layers are transparent, though.quote:
quote:
Indeed, when?!? How many more clues do you need, Michael, before you'll figure it out? Since you're still chanting "special pleading, special pleading," I suspect you'll need a lot more clues. If you can drop that anti-scientific attitude and apply yourself to the question, I bet you'll figure it out.
Dave, the only "anti-scientific attitude" going on here IMO is your insistence that we take Lockheed's word for it on the placement of the transition region and that we must "assume" that everything in these iron ion filters is coming from above the photosphere. You keep trying to shove that assumption down my throat, and I'm not buying it.
I've never once tried to make you accept any such assumption. In fact, I have no clue as to where Lockheed places the "transitional region" and don't really care since I don't believe I've ever made a single argument about the placement of a "transitional region." Given your penchant for redefining everything, I wouldn't dare make any such suggestion without finding out how you define that term, anyway.quote:
If Lockheed doesn't even grasp that the coronal loops/arcs are the light source and the heat source of these images, then the also have very little idea about the electrical current running through these arcs. These are billion degree temps we see in the red areas of their colorized image. The key here is that electricity, not the corona is the heat source. That is the "assumption" you are making that is anti-scientific and it prevents you from seeing my point about black body radiation IMO.
I never once made any assumption about any "heat source," and certainly not an assumption so bare-assed contradictory to what you've been saying. You know the arcs go through the corona, you've said so yourself when pointing to that Yohkoh/TRACE image. If anyone here or at Lockheed or NASA has said "the corona is the heat source," I'd be very much surprised.quote:
Once you remove that one assumption, my calculations *can* apply.
I don't see how, given the definition of a black body and how electrical arcs don't fit it any better than a million-Kelvin plasma does. Besides which, your result says that the Earth should receive a billion times more energy than it does if the black body calculation is correct, so obviously it's not correct.quote:
My point in that thread was to demonstrate that Lockheed Martin (and NASA) fail to grasp even the most basic and fundamental aspects of solar satellite image analysis, namely that the light source, and the heat source is the coronal loops.
And their failure does absolutely nothing to support your claims and your model.quote:
This is a very important point, and it does help support my case in the long run in two very important ways.
1) It demonstrates that the heat source for these images is not the corona, but rather the heat source of the corona is the coronal loops, as predicted in a Birkeland model.
Which has nothing to do with anything that Lockheed or NASA has said, so far as I can tell.quote:
2) It opens up the possibility that there is a solid surface below the photosphere since solids, particularly solids that are mostly made of iron, are fully capable of delivering this kind of current flow to the surface.
What kind of current flow at the surface, and how does showing Lockheed to be wrong support your notions? I don't see anything in those images which precludes a solid surface hidden beneath the photosphere, even if every TRACE image is of the corona.quote:
quote:
Great, so the idea that anything in the TRACE images is at a million Kel |
- 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 - 02/19/2006 : 22:15:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Woah, wait a moment. I want to address this point before we go any further. You and I already agreed (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the coronal loop are the light source and the highest heat source we see in these satellite images. Isn't that correct?
Nope, it's not correct. All I agreed with was that the coronal loops were the hottest part of the corona. I said nothing about light sources.quote:
If you wish to propose another light source that we might both agree to, by all means, be my guest, but the loops are *one* light source we seem to have agreed to is it not?
Since million-Kelvin plasmas will glow at 171A no matter whether they are inside or outside of a loop, then yes, the loops are one source of emitted 171A light. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:11:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It demonstrates that your ability and my ability to discern the light source and the heat source of solar satellite images is greater than the cumulative total of the folks at NASA and Lockheed that are responsible for solar satellite image analysis.
The line between confidence and hubris is fine indeed...  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:32:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It demonstrates that your ability and my ability to discern the light source and the heat source of solar satellite images is greater than the cumulative total of the folks at NASA and Lockheed that are responsible for solar satellite image analysis.
The line between confidence and hubris is fine indeed...
I'm glad someone appreciated it. Dave about had a heart attack. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:36:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since million-Kelvin plasmas will glow at 171A no matter whether they are inside or outside of a loop, then yes, the loops are one source of emitted 171A light.
Well Dave, the arcs/loops are the primary light source as far as I can tell. Would you agree that light does come from the arcs/loops, and that high energy light is typically associated with high temperatures signatures within the loops? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:39:46 [Permalink]
|
One more question for you Dr. Mabuse:
How reckless is it to suggest that LM and NASA have failed to indentify the light light source and the high temperature plasma in these images when they blatently misrepresent something as simple as the heat signatures of the upper atmosphere? If they can't identify the light source, and the highest temperature plasmas in the atmosphere, how could they possibly get any of the important things right related to solar satellite image interpretation? Keep in mind, this is page number 1 of their collection of images:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive.html
Now I assumed at first is was a simple mistake, but Lockheed stubbornly defended their position. You can't miss something this important (the actual light source) and have any hope of accurately interpreting what we see. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/20/2006 08:50:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 08:59:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Holy crap! Leave me the hell out of the above, Michael, as I certainly don't claim anything about my abilities compared to the collective solar analysis knowledge of Lockheed and NASA. One image description seems wrong to me, that's it. I haven't made even the slightest effort to ascertain why, and don't plan to unless it becomes paramount when dealing with your model. Since all you're doing is trying to primp yourself through comparison with what appears to me to be a simple mistake, you're presenting nothing more than a logical fallacy - a false generalization from one data point to all solar knowledge.
Actually Dave, the problem goes a lot deeper than one image:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B12FB3F5E0C7B8EDDAF0894DD404482
Lockheed and NASA have made a series of "assumptions" about the placement of the transitional region that is not consistent with the observations. They assume that the corona is the heat source that lights up the solar plasma to millions of degrees, but it is the coronal loops that heat up the corona. They don't understand the flow of heat within the solar atmosphere. They haven't identified the light source for that matter. Stein at NASA insisted the loops were "backlit" in some way, and Carolus at Lockheed Martin stuck to his description regardless of the satellite evidence I presented to him.
You can't miss these most basic of issues and expect to get accurate results. If they can't even identify the heat signatures of the solar atmosphere, how can they possibly know where the transitional region sits in relationship to the photosphere? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/20/2006 09:00:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 09:06:40 [Permalink]
|
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
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!
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_990809_230034_bar_clip.gif
The flow of electricity is what holds these "structures" in place and keeps them from collapsing. The moment the current is removed, the heavier materials in the loop fall as coronal rain.
The flow of electricity is the key here to understanding the nature and cause of coronal loops/arcs. UofM already demonstrated the electrical nature of CME's and Rhessi identifies the highest energy signatures are associated with these arcs/loops and the base of these arc/loops.
The reason that LM and NASA are having such a tough time explaining the behavior of coronal loops is because they do not recognize the importance of the flow of electricity as it relates to these images and these structures. The electricity flowing through the arc is what holds it's shape. There's nothing mysterious here than can't be easily explained by the flow of current through a predominantly iron plasma arc. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/20/2006 09:08:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
