|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2006 : 12:57:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Does this mean you'll stop pretending to be presenting a "Birkeland model" of the sun, seeing as by any reasonable scientific definition, it would seem that such a thing does not exist?
The term "reasonable" is a bit subjective, and I'm certainly not "pretending" anything. Birkeland figured out how the sun works long before we understood all the factors we now understand, and there is still a lot to learn about our universe. I still consider this to be a Birkeland model, since Birkeland did put together all the important components and experimented with them in his lab over 100 years ago. It would be rediculace for me to take credit for inventing the concept of a metal sphere with eletromagnetic fields covered in plasma. Birkeland did all that already.
At this point the only thing I would concede is that Birkeland's model remains less refined, only because less time and effort has been spent on perfecting it and analysing every detail. That will happen with time however, and I won't be doing all the work myself.
quote:
Note, some experiments performed by me dropping glass spheres onto the ground and taking high resolution images of the shattering do not constitute a "John Model" of the sun as a fused silica sphere.
But Birkeland didn't just drop a few glasses on ground. He put together all the key components that we now see in satellite images. There is a metallic magnetized sphere involved. There is electricity involved. There are currents involved. There is plasma involved. Birkland didn't just toy around for an hour or two, he spent a great deal of time analysing the details of what was going on in his experiments and comparing them to the ongoings of our solar system. He was 60 years ahead of his time in predicting Birkeland currents. He developed the core model and began to create an understanding of our universe based on eletromagnatism and metal spheres. It would be unethical of me to simply usurp his work and try to take credit for coming up with these ideas. While I did develop these ideas on my own, I can't ignore that he beat me to the punch by 100 years.
quote:
Read a little about the definition of scientific model (you can start here if you like, it's not a perfect definition, as is often the case with wikipedia, but illustrative nonetheless) you'll find what you're proposing is at best a hypothesis.
It's a "rough theory" in my book. :) We're quibbling over words IMO. I'd be the first to admit that Birkeland's work has not been taken up by enough other people yet to round out these ideas in a mathematically cohesive way at the moment, certainly not to the degree that others have postulated mathematical "hypothesis" about how a gas ball might function from mathematical perspective.
quote:
You also don't really have even a hypothesis for the sun, but rather ideas for certain parts of it, as you admit you have no idea what materials make up the bulk of the sun (below the crust), or what specific processes are driving its "operation".
I have *some* idea of what's under the crust based on spectral output during active phases. I can for instance tell you there is a lot of nickel for instance. That is hardly surprising since lots of meteorites contain iron, nickel and silicon, the very same things we see in the spectral output of our own sun.
quote:
It's very important to remember that pointing out perceived issues with one model (say the gas model you so love) is not support for an alternative. (Just as fundamentalists attempting to pick holes in evolutionary theory are not supporting their argument for a 5000 year old earth or it's creator in any constructive way).
But that also works both ways John. You may find a percieved weakness in a Birkeland solar model, but that is not evidence to support the gas model. Explaining these satellite images using gas model theory might be considered evidence to support the gas model, but that never seems to occur, at least not with a lot of attention to detail like the rising and falling, mass separated, ejected materials we see in this image. There is no one to one correlation however between finding some percieved weakness in the Birkeland solar model and support for gas model theory. These images still need to be explained using gas model theory to support gas model theory with satellite images.
quote:
And still don't by all available indicators.
That's just a cheap shot from my perspective, since no one here has put together a cohesive explanation for even the first image on my website that is attentive to detail using gas model theory. In fact no one in 9 months on several different boards has managed to do that. Why not? How hard can it be? I can be attentive to every detail I've noticed in these images using Birkeland's model. It's quite easy to explain where ejected material comes from and where it goes in a Birkeland model. I can easily explain solar moss and solar rain using Birkeland's model. I can easily epxlain the rigid nature of the "patterns" in the RD images, the peeling affect seen the RD images, the light changes on the patterns of the RD images, etc, using a Birkeland model. No detail need go unexplained in a Birkeland model. I can't even get a straight answer about how the ejected material rises and falls, or where it comes from out of this this group, let alone any explanation for the uniform rotation of these patterns using gas model theory.
quote:
As long as you define "simplistic handwaves" to mean "Anything which doesn't explain features in running difference images as 3D structures" .
No John, I'll be happy to listen to a serious explanation. A handwave is more like: "The patterns we see are an "optical illusion", well, er, most of them anyway, except of course that ejected stuff we see in the image."
If you have a way to explain the consistency of the patterns I'll listen to it. If you don't have a way to explain the consistency of these patterns I see in the image, I can't ignore that fact.
quote:
And your "opponents" explain very specifically why the details aren't important in the context you think they are. This of course isn't acceptable to you.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/14/2006 14:41:06 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 14:19:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I want to discuss the details of the crater, how it got there, the shape, the size, the details.
Oh, not again!. Note that instead of a detailed explanation of how the crater got there (and vanished again in three days), all you came up with was "probably erosion." And yet you claim that objections to your interpretation of the RD images are "handwaving?"  quote:
I also have Doppler images of the surface by the way:
No, you've never provided any evidence that those images come from the surface. All you've got is a denial of how the Michelson Doppler Imager operates.quote:
That is what image analsyis is all about John, we have to pay attention to these details. That is what separates a real analysis from a simple handwave.
Exactly, which is why "probably erosion" was simply hypocritical, Michael. |
- 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 - 03/14/2006 : 15:18:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, not again!. Note that instead of a detailed explanation of how the crater got there (and vanished again in three days), all you came up with was "probably erosion."
It got there the same way it left there, namely erosion from the electrical activity of the surface. I never did agree with the "method" you tried to use to suggest it "vanished again in three days". You can't tell that by eyeballing the center of something this massive, and it should be done from RD images, not raw images that show significant lighting interference from the arcs traversing the atmosphere.
quote:
And yet you claim that objections to your interpretation of the RD images are "handwaving?"
Yes. My answer is cohesive. A Birkeland model with arcs on the surface will certainly experience pattern changes in the surface features over time. There is no special pleading here, and nothing unusual about what I'm suggesting. These are *huge* arcs. We can see the affect they have on the surface in the RD image in that peeling we see on the right side of the image. There certainly is significan amounts of erosions that are associated with *any* electrical arc of significant current flow. A welding rod typically erodes in seconds.
quote:
No, you've never provided any evidence that those images come from the surface.
The wave we see propogates on the surface of the photosphere. That structure is underneath the photosphere since we can literally watch the wave pass over it. It's relatively shallow as well since we can see the jagged sides and the sloping top of the structure as well.
quote:
All you've got is a denial of how the Michelson Doppler Imager operates.
That is simply false. The same processes that allow us to see the wave on a plasma photosphere also show the rigid and angular structures below. Doppler imaging is well understood and used to image the surface of the earth through cloud layers. That's all that is happening in this case as well. The Nickel ions provide the mass and their movement is clearly delineated around the angular stuctures of the surface below the photosphere.
quote:
Exactly, which is why "probably erosion" was simply hypocritical, Michael.
It is not hypocritical Dave. I've been clear since my first paper that erosion plays a large role in the shaping of the solar surface. The more active phases of the sun can reshape the surface in hours. I've seen the arcs do that in many images. In the Bastille day flare, you can see a lot of errosion occur, on both sides of the arc over just a few hours. The intensity of the arcs will certainly erode surface features and rearrange surface features. It not handwave. The flow of electricity is a crucial element of this model, and that intense current flow will certianly influence and change surface features over time. That not a handwave at all! The whole model is dependent upon the flow of electricity through surface structures, and a natural part of that process is surface errosion. It would not even be possible to have this kind of current flow *without* surface erosion. It's a totally "natural" way to explain surface feature changes in any electrical model of the sun. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 15:22:01 [Permalink]
|
| By the way Dave, I want to reemphasize that we literally *see* this surface erosion taking place in the RD image along the right hand side just after the main blowout of ejected *heavy* material. You keep wanting to see visual evidence to support mass separation, well there it is in the RD image in the ejected materials we see rise and fall! If you want visual confirmation of surface erosion, there it is in the RD image. There is no mystery about that image that can't be explained by a Birkeland solar model. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/14/2006 15:22:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 19:12:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It got there the same way it left there, namely erosion from the electrical activity of the surface.
Yes, and that's about as attentive to detail as saying that a zit comes and goes on a person's face due to bacterial activity. It doesn't explain anything.quote:
I never did agree with the "method" you tried to use to suggest it "vanished again in three days".
You never even addressed the method I used to determine that it came into being and vanished in three days, namely being unable to find anything vaguely crater-shaped before or after the images I presented.quote:
You can't tell that by eyeballing the center of something this massive...
That's why I didn't eyeball the center. For fuck's sake, Michael, I explained the method I used, and all you did was laugh at it. You could have taken a stand, by using the same images (I posted links to all of them) and doing your own damned measurements, but you couldn't be fucking bothered to.quote:
...and it should be done from RD images, not raw images that show significant lighting interference...
You were never able to describe a method whereby I might determine what pixels are chaning due to "lighting interference," but you still fault me for not being able to do so. A fine double-standard you've got there, Michael.quote:
...from the arcs traversing the atmosphere.
Pick any two of the images, pull them into photoshop, and highlight the "arcs traversing the atmosphere." After all of my questions about that very thing, you never were able to provide for me a method of determining what's in the atmosphere vs. what's near the surface. You'll have to show me.quote:
quote:
And yet you claim that objections to your interpretation of the RD images are "handwaving?"
Yes. My answer is cohesive. A Birkeland model with arcs on the surface will certainly experience pattern changes in the surface features over time.
So will a non-Birkeland model with magnetically-arranged loops emitting photons. It's also cohesive. These images obviously cannot determine one from the other.quote:
There is no special pleading here, and nothing unusual about what I'm suggesting. These are *huge* arcs.
Yes, indeed, that's what is unusual about them. We don't have any other examples of such tremendous arcs anywhere. Why don't we see smaller versions on Jupiter or Saturn? Or even smaller ones here on Earth?quote:
We can see the affect they have on the surface in the RD image in that peeling we see on the right side of the image.
I don't see any "peeling" there. I never have been able to see "peeling." You'll have to stick little arrows or something into the movie if you want me to see the effect you're talking about.quote:
There certainly is significan amounts of erosions that are associated with *any* electrical arc of significant current flow.
Except you've never been able to tell us the current flow in any of these "arcs" you assert exist. The UofM paper doesn't talk about current, it talks about electron densities.quote:
A welding rod typically erodes in seconds.
Only to deposit the metal right onto the work.quote:
The wave we see propogates on the surface of the photosphere.
No, it doesn't.quote:
That structure is underneath the photosphere since we can literally watch the wave pass over it.
You'll have to demonstrate that nickel absorption lines are visible through the photosphere if you want me to believe that the MDI can image through it.quote:
It's relatively shallow as well since we can see the jagged sides and the sloping top of the structure as well.
Define "relatively shallow."quote:
That is simply false. The same processes that allow us to see the wave on a plasma photosphere also show the rigid and angular structures below.
That's your claim, you need to support it with data about the Michelson Doppler Imager.quote:
Doppler imaging is well understood and used to image the surface of the earth through cloud layers.
Why would anyone use Doppler techniques on a non-moving body like the Earth? That makes no sense at all, Michael. Where is your evidence that anyone has used "Doppler techniques" to image this planet?quote:
That's all that is happening in this case as well. The Nickel ions provide the mass and their movement is clearly delineated around the angular stuctures of the surface below the photosphere.
Doppler techniques don't depend on mass. It is you who clearly don't understand Doppler techniques, Michael. I've already described how the MDI o |
- 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 - 03/14/2006 : 21:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://trace.lmsal.com/cgi-bin/trace_get1www_image.sh?tri19990809.2200_0474
http://trace.lmsal.com/cgi-bin/trace_get1www_image.sh?tri19990809.2300_0001
Dave, here is one 'set'...
Great, let's roll with it.quote:
As you can see, the arcs are significantly brighter than the backgound of the solar atmosphere in both images. The fact that the arcs are the brighter than the atmosphere in both images means that it really doesn't matter what alogrithm they applied to the image, the bright areas, and the areas of high heat concentration is the arc, and the areas directly around the arc.
No, that's only true if the brightness of a pixel's-worth of coronal image is intrinsically linked to its temperature. Because Lockheed doesn't believe that's true, and I've already provided you with examples of low-heat light sources brighter than high-heat light sources (which you misunderstood - burning one's eyes had nothing to do with the argument I was making), and because you think that this is a basic issue, then let's examine your claim that the intensity of a pixel in a single 171A image is linked to the temperature of the material along that line of sight.
Lockheed seems to think that it is the ratio of intensities between the 171A and 195A filters which offers actual temperature information. Since you and I both know that a single 171A image can contain photons from both 1 MK emissions and 20 MK emissions, I would tend to think that a single image cannot be used to deduce temperature data.
Now, we don't know how the ratio was created, but I can produce images like this one:http://www.psorsite.com/mozina/comp1.bmp In this image, if the intensity of the 195A image is higher than the 171A image, a pixel is colored yellow (brighter yellow meaning more of a difference in favor of the 195A image). If the intensity of the 171A image is brighter than that of the 195A image, the pixel is colored purple, the brighter the purple the greater the difference in favor of the 171A image. Where the two intensities are equal, I've placed a white pixel (very few, relatively). Also, the image has been contrast-enhanced to highlight the differences.
What's obvious to me is that there are pretty massive differences in what passes each filter. And since the two filters have different responses in terms of temperature, those differences ought to tell us something. |
- 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 - 03/15/2006 : 11:08:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As you can see, the arcs are significantly brighter than the backgound of the solar atmosphere in both images. The fact that the arcs are the brighter than the atmosphere in both images means that it really doesn't matter what alogrithm they applied to the image, the bright areas, and the areas of high heat concentration is the arc, and the areas directly around the arc.
No, that's only true if the brightness of a pixel's-worth of coronal image is intrinsically linked to its temperature.
Name one high energy electrical discharge event that you can think of that doesn't work that way. Every lightning strike will release a whole host of emissions from a whole host of wavelengths. All of these wavelengths tend to be concentrated *in* the arc and directly around the arc, not miles from the arc. Bruce has already documented the electrical discharge nature of these solar events, and so has the UofM. These are certainly electrical discharges, and electrical discharges tend to have the highest temperatures and energy concentrations inside the arc itself.
quote:
Because Lockheed doesn't believe that's true,
Then Lockheed needs to demonstrate that an electrical arc isn't going to be the focal point of the energy, particularly since the arcs emit the x-rays and gamma rays that SXT sees. These loops also release the positron anihilation photons and neutron capture photons that Rhessi images as well. All the serious high energy action is happening in and around the electrical flow, just as we would expect in any electrical discharge event. There's no great mystery here where the high temperatures are concentrated. If you have any doubts that the atmosphereic plasma might be too hot to be imaged, look at a Yohkoh image, or a Rhessi image or a Geos image. All the light and high energy emissions come from *inside* the arc.
quote:
and I've already provided you with examples of low-heat light sources brighter than high-heat light sources (which you misunderstood - burning one's eyes had nothing to do with the argument I was making),
It has everything to do with *heat concentration* to a single point on the retina. Light and heat are still *directly* related, and I fail to understand how you cannot see that.
quote:
and because you think that this is a basic issue, then let's examine your claim that the intensity of a pixel in a single 171A image is linked to the temperature of the material along that line of sight.
Sure, let's examine my claim that a lightning bolt is hotter than the surrounding atmosphere. By all means, let's do that.
quote:
Lockheed seems to think that it is the ratio of intensities between the 171A and 195A filters which offers actual temperature information.
So Lockheed seems to think we can look at a lightning bolt in two wavelengths and tell something about the atmosphere around the bolt. Got it.
First question: Even if we hope to measure the temperature around the bolt using this method of Lockheed's, the bolt is still going to be brightest and therefore hottest in both images unless everything around the bolt is somehow hotter than what's inside the bolt. Seems rather doubtful in this scenario that this is the case since the background of the photosphere is only 6K and the chromosphere is about 20K.
Second question: How do we know the exact absortion and reflection rates of these wavelengths on this particular plasma?
quote:
Since you and I both know that a single 171A image can contain photons from both 1 MK emissions and 20 MK emissions, I would tend to think that a single image cannot be used to deduce temperature data.
I disagree. The single image sees plasma from around 160,000K (well above the ambient temperature of the photosphere and chromosphere) all the way up to 20 million Kelvin (way beyond anything on the surface of the photosphere). The light concentration is without question centered in and around the arcs. That is not any different than I would expect from the arc of any arc welder that moves material from one place to another *inside* the flowing arc.
We actually have two different shots here as well, both of which can be combined logically and visually to see how they compare. What we can easily demonstrate is that the arcs are not limited to 1 Million Kelvin. The 195A filter sees higher temperature emissions and it shows that these arcs also peak in it's range as well. If the plasma around the arc was actually hotter than the peak of the 171A filter, then the 195A filter should show a dark arc in the middle of a bright atmosphere. That's not what it shows. It also shows a bright arc (just like a lightning bolt) against a dark background. The arcs are not 1M degrees. They are at *least* 1.5 Million and possibly as high as 20 Million degrees, particularly near the surface.
quote:
Now, we don't know how the ratio was created, but I can produce images like this one:http://www.psorsite.com/mozina/comp1.bmp In this image, if the intensity of the 195A image is higher than the 171A image, a pixel is colored yellow (brighter yellow meaning more of a difference in favor of the 195A image). If the intensity of the 171A image is brighter than that of the 195A image, the pixel is colored purple, the brighter the purple the greater the difference in favor of the 171A image. Where the two intensities are equal, I've placed a white pixel (very few, relatively). Also, the image has been contrast-enhanced to highlight the differences.
That is a very pretty picture Dave. I really like your color choices, but you're overlooking the obvious here. If the arcs are the light source (and we can see that it is), then these ratios only speak to the absortion, emission and reflection rates of the atmosphere, they do not speak to the actual temperature of the atmosphere itself, simply how light from the arcs interact with the atmosphere. There is no one to one correlation here between "ratios" of photons as it relates to the atmosphere unless you factor in all those variables and even still the 171A and 195 images both show *higher* energy co |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/15/2006 11:13:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2006 : 14:59:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Name one high energy electrical discharge event that you can think of that doesn't work that way.
Demonstrate that the coronal loops can be nothing else but high-energy electrical discharges.quote:
Every lightning strike will release a whole host of emissions from a whole host of wavelengths. All of these wavelengths tend to be concentrated *in* the arc and directly around the arc, not miles from the arc.
Lightning largely occurs through a non-plasma atmosphere, which is why it generates lots of heat in the first place - air is not a good conductor. The plasma through which coronal loops pass, however, is entirely plasma.quote:
Bruce has already documented the electrical discharge nature of these solar events...
No, Bruce presented the idea that every visible feature of the Sun was due to discharge, which contradicts your model.quote:
...and so has the UofM.
No, the UofM paper documents radiation emitted from high-energy electrons, not a high-energy electrical arc. That you don't differentiate between the two types of events is one of the reasons we don't agree on these issues.quote:
These are certainly electrical discharges...
Your evidence is uncompelling.quote:
...and electrical discharges tend to have the highest temperatures and energy concentrations inside the arc itself.
On that we agree.quote:
Then Lockheed needs to demonstrate that an electrical arc isn't going to be the focal point of the energy, particularly since the arcs emit the x-rays and gamma rays that SXT sees.
The gamma rays are not the product of heat, they are the result of nonthermal particle interactions. The hard X-rays aren't the result of thermal processes, either. And some of the soft X-ray emissions are thermal, while others are not.quote:
These loops also release the positron anihilation photons and neutron capture photons that Rhessi images as well.
Both are non-thermal processes.quote:
All the serious high energy action is happening in and around the electrical flow, just as we would expect in any electrical discharge event.
But there are plenty of examples of high-energy (both thermal and nonthermal) "action" which happens well away from any electrical discharge, as well.quote:
There's no great mystery here where the high temperatures are concentrated. If you have any doubts that the atmosphereic plasma might be too hot to be imaged, look at a Yohkoh image, or a Rhessi image or a Geos image. All the light and high energy emissions come from *inside* the arc.
The Yohkoh images I've seen show emissions from a much broader area than a single "arc."quote:
It has everything to do with *heat concentration* to a single point on the retina. Light and heat are still *directly* related, and I fail to understand how you cannot see that.
I don't see it because I'm not talking about burning someone's retinas, I'm talking about the heat generated by whatever it is that generates the light. Watt-for-watt, an incandescent bulb is less efficient than an LED, and thus generates more heat for a given luminosity than an LED. There is no one-to-one relationship between the temperature and light output of processes which convert electric current into light.quote:
Sure, let's examine my claim that a lightning bolt is hotter than the surrounding atmosphere. By all means, let's do that.
Okay, demonstrate that 240,000 km long coronal loops are created by the same process which creates lightning.quote:
So Lockheed seems to think we can look at a lightning bolt in two wavelengths and tell something about the atmosphere around the bolt. Got it.
No, I doubt Lockheed would be so stupid as to try to measure the temperature of lightning bolts using the same methods they use to measure coronal loops, since the Earth's atmosphere is highly opaque to EUV light.quote:
First question: Even if we hope to measure the temperature around the bolt using this method of Lockheed's, the bolt is still going to be brightest and therefore hottest in both images unless everything around the bolt is somehow hotter than what's inside the bolt. Seems rather doubtful in this scenario that this is the case since the background of the photosphere is only 6K and the chromosphere is about 20K.
Images of loops past the Sun's limb (the upper-right corner of the set of images you selected) do not have either the photosphere or the chromosphere as a background, it's all corona.quote:
Second question: How do we know the exact absortion and reflection rates of these wavelengths on this particular plasma?
A good question: why don't you tell us those values for the plasmas in your model so we can discuss your model and the effects it might have on Lockheed's calculations?quote:
I disagree. The single image sees plasma from around 160,000K (well above the |
- 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 - 03/16/2006 : 11:32:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Demonstrate that the coronal loops can be nothing else but high-energy electrical discharges.
I can "demonstrate" that they are electrical in nature, via the data from the UofM and from life's work of Dr. Charles Bruce. It is not up to me to prove they can be 'nothing else' but high energy discharges. We see photon emissions that are directly related to the flow of electrons, and we see photon emission over a very broud spectrum that is consistent with high temperature electrical discharges. If it walks, like a duck, and has feathers like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I say it's a duck. If it's not an electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere, it certainly moves in a manner that is consistent with electrical discharges.
quote:
Lightning largely occurs through a non-plasma atmosphere,
Which it promptly turns into plasma almost instantly.
quote:
which is why it generates lots of heat in the first place - air is not a good conductor.
Whereas the plasma in the solar atmosphere will be an excellent conductor.
quote:
The plasma through which coronal loops pass, however, is entirely plasma.
And? Plasma will simply facilitate the flow of electrons. I fail to see why you think that's a problem. An arc has the ability to create plasma out of air, but plasma is certainly flowing through the arc at all times.
quote:
No, Bruce presented the idea that every visible feature of the Sun was due to discharge, which contradicts your model.
That's really not relevant IMO. Bruce didn't have SOHO and TRACE images to work with. He certainly documented the electrical discharge nature of what's happening in the solar atmosphere. The UofM paper talks about two distinct types of emissions from CME's, heat related photons, and photons related to electron flow. There is really no other way to explain this flow of electrons through plasma without accepting it's an electrical discharge. You can't sit on the fence here forever. If you won't describe this flow of eletrons through plasma, that heats plasma to a million plus degrees as an electrical discharge, what *are* you going to call it?
quote:
No, the UofM paper documents radiation emitted from high-energy electrons, not a high-energy electrical arc.
How are you going to get high energy electrons without the flow of electricity?
quote:
That you don't differentiate between the two types of events is one of the reasons we don't agree on these issues.
There are two types of events here, heat related output, and electrical related output. They go hand in hand. It's the flow of electricity through the plamsa that heats the plasma to millions of degrees. They are interrelated processes. Every electrical discharge in the earth's atmosphere is also emits photons in this manner and at these wavelengths, including gamma ray emission.
quote:
Your evidence is uncompelling.
Exactly which alternative option do you find "more" compelling, and how does it *not* involve the flow of electrons through plasma?
quote:
On that we agree.
Then we should also be able to agree that the coronal loops are electrical discharges that emit photons in pretty much the same way.
quote:
The gamma rays are not the product of heat, they are the result of nonthermal particle interactions.
Here you keep trying to use one idea to counter another. I didn't in fact suggest the gamma rays were *only* heat related. I'm suggesting it's an electrical discharge phenomenon that is also related to the flow of electricity. You on the other hand are noting that flow of electricity is involved, but then you refuse to acknowledge it to be an electrical discharge. That isn't logical IMO. You can't have your cake here and eat it too. If it's an electrical discharge that releases these gamma rays, then the coronal loops are an electrical discharge.
quote:
The hard X-rays aren't the result of thermal processes, either.
Again, I'm not suggesting that any of these emission is *entirely* heat related. The arcs are certainly hot, but they are also highly electrically active as well. There is no "either/or" process involved in these photon emissions. It's a "process" that fascilitates photon output over a broad spectrum, just like it works here on earth.
quote:
And some of the soft X-ray emissions are thermal, while others are not.
Which would make perfect sense in a Birkeland model. This is predicted in fact.
quote:
Both are non-thermal processes.
Again, it doesn't mater if it's a totally thermal, or a totally electrical, or a combination of both in a Birkeland model. In each case there will be photons related to heat and electrical discharges in general. It's an interrelated process from the beginning.
quote:
But there are plenty of examples of high-energy (both thermal and nonthermal) "action" which happens well away from any electrical discharge, as well.
Show me one in any satellite image that didn't begin as an electrical discharge from the surface.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/16/2006 12:53:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 12:06:12 [Permalink]
|
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19278
quote:
The astronomers are surprised to discover that the more massive brown dwarf is the cooler of the pair, contrary to all predictions about brown dwarfs of the same age. Either the two are not the same age and may be captured bodies, or the theoretical models are wrong, say researchers.
I found this article in todays news to be rather interesting and related to our topic about the density of the penumbral filaments. In this case, the temperature of two objects 35 and 55 times more massive than Jupiter have been "measured". These objects presumably form just as a sun forms. The mathematical calculations we attempt to use to predict temperature based on size do not seem to hold up to serious scientific scrutiny. Even if these objects aren't same age, so what? Neither of them is presumably sustaining a fusion reaction, so what difference does age make?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 12:32:30 [Permalink]
|
http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/ar_lines_1993.txt
Fe XVI seems to be the "brightest" of the Fe emissions, but as you can see virtually all the Fe ions are represented in the spectrum, as well as Nickel and several other "metals". This spectrum is exactly as we might expect in a Birkleand solar model from a metal sphere composed of metal alloys. The atoms from the surface are being stripped of electrons in the arc and the atoms are being turned into plasma in the arc. When the arcs lose electricity, the heavy plasma in the arc rains back down on the surface as coronal rain. All of this evidence adds up and fits a Birkeland solar model quite nicely. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/16/2006 12:34:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 13:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I can "demonstrate" that they are electrical in nature, via the data from the UofM and from life's work of Dr. Charles Bruce.
Sigh.quote:
It is not up to me to prove they can be 'nothing else' but high energy discharges.
If you want your argument to be compelling, then yes, it is up to you.quote:
You have photon emission that is directly related to the flow of electrons, and you have photon emission over a very broud spectrum that is consistent with high temperature electrical discharges. If it walks, like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I say it's a duck. If it's not an electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere, it certainly moves in a manner that is consistent with electrical discharges.
Since it's also consistent with other processes, your argument is not compelling.quote:
quote:
Lightning largely occurs through a non-plasma atmosphere,
Which it promptly turns into plasma almost instantly.
So?quote:
quote:
which is why it generates lots of heat in the first place - air is not a good conductor.
Whereas the plasma in the solar atmosphere will be an excellent conductor.
Yes, and excellent conductors don't heat up.quote:
And? Plasma will simply facilitate the flow of electrons. I fail to see why you think that's a problem.
Because you're unaware that the heat generated by electricity is directly related to the resistance of the material it flows through.quote:
An arc has the ability to create plasma out of air, but plasma is certainly flowing through the arc at all times.
And your model is inconsistent with reality.quote:
That's really not relevant IMO. Bruce didn't have SOHO and TRACE images to work with. He certainly documented the electrical discharge nature of what's happening in the solar atmosphere.
Your argument there is self-contradictory, or do you really think Bruce wouldn't have a lot to say in the face of images from those satellites?quote:
The UofM paper talks about two distinct types of emissions from CME's, heat related photons, and photons related to electron flow.
Quote where they talk about "heat related photons," because all I saw was a discussion of nonthermal electron emissions, both of which are also unrelated to current flow, but do involve electrons moving (not necessarily in the same direction). Free-free radiation is directly related to the density of electrons in a plasma, as they interact with the ions (in any direction, no net current flow). Gyrosynchotron radiation is from electrons spiralling through a magnetic field, and again doesn't depend upon current, but only overall electron density.quote:
There is really no other way to explain this flow of electrons through plasma without accepting it's an electrical discharge.
There's no need to explain a "flow" of electrons through a plasma if there is no flow.quote:
You can't sit on the fence here forever.
I'm only sitting on a fence because your argument isn't compelling.quote:
If you won't describe this flow of eletrons through plasma, that heats plasma to a million plus degrees as an electrical discharge, what *are* you going to call it?
You haven't demonstrated any net current flow.quote:
How are you going to get high energy electrons without the flow of electricity?
They get accelerated by the thousand-plus Gauss magnetic fields, just like in a particle accelerator.quote:
It's the flow of electricity through the plamsa that heats the plasma to millions of degrees.
Only assuming that there is a flow of electricity, and only assuming that a current flowing through a plasma will generate a significant amoung of heat. I see no evidence for either assertion.quote:
They are interrelated processes. Every electrical discharge in the earth's atmosphere is also emits photons in this manner and at these wavelengths, including gamma ray emission.
But the discharges in Earth's atmosphere are due to known and quantified processes, and don't involve surface-to-surface electrical arcs.quote:
quote:
Your evidence is uncompelling.
Exactly which alternative option do you find "more" compelling, and how does it *not* involve the flow of electrons through plasma?
Who said that I find any other e |
- 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 - 03/16/2006 : 13:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/ar_lines_1993.txt
Fe XVI seems to be the "brightest" of the Fe emissions...
And since it's emitting at 335.418A and 360.782A, it will be completely invisible to TRACE's 171A and 195A filters, despite more (and less) ionized irons being visible to TRACE. Why is that, do you think?quote:
All of this evidence adds up and fits a Birkeland solar model quite nicely.
And interpreted in a different way, all of it adds up and fits the standard solar model quite nicely, too. |
- 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 - 03/16/2006 : 16:29:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sigh.
I just can't relate to this "sigh" of yours that dismisses the life's work of Dr. Charles Bruce in a single word. I respect you enough to know that isn't your style, and that's not like you. Your arguement about him thinking "all" of it was electrical discharges is not a valid criticm of the point I made, specifically that he already documented the electrical discharge nature of these phenomenon.
quote:
If you want your argument to be compelling, then yes, it is up to you.
Fine. Be specific about exactly *which* other "compelling" alternative you are concerned about. If this however is going to be a "rule out everything" game, this is going to be a waste of time.
quote:
Since it's also consistent with other processes, your argument is not compelling.
According to Dr. Bruce, these events are consistent with electrical discharges. If his life work isn't compelling enough for you, math and all, what exactly would you find compelling from me?
quote:
Yes, and excellent conductors don't heat up.
Sure they do, unless you figure plasma is a "superconductor" of some sort.
quote:
Because you're unaware that the heat generated by electricity is directly related to the resistance of the material it flows through.
I am most certainly not "unaware" of this Dave, I'm counting on it. It's going to "flow though" mostly iron plasma arc, but nothing short of a superconductor is going to have "zero" resistance.
quote:
And your model is inconsistent with reality.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Are you suggesting that we cannot make an arc jump a gap through plasma in lab?
I'm going to stop here since I'm swamped right now, and wait to see how you respond to these issues.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/16/2006 16:30:14 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 17:01:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And since it's emitting at 335.418A and 360.782A, it will be completely invisible to TRACE's 171A and 195A filters, despite more (and less) ionized irons being visible to TRACE. Why is that, do you think?
I'm unclear exactly what you're asking of me since you already answered the question yourself. These emissions are not "seen" because they are in the wrong wavelength to be seen by either filter (a *lower* energy state I might add). I'll bet you a six pack of beer however that these emissions come from the same arcs in the atmosphere, the same arcs that Yohkoh observes in x-ray's as well. These arcs emit light on a *very* wide spectrum. There isn't just one iron ion emitting light, but rather *every* Fe ion according to SERTS.
quote:
And interpreted in a different way, all of it adds up and fits the standard solar model quite nicely, too.
Then explain to me *exactly* what we see in these arcs and why, and tell me how come you know that even *though the arcs are the brightest things we see in both images*, you're still sure they are cooler than the dark regions. I see no evidence of this in *either* of the images, and you've never documented the absorbtion/emission/reflection rates for *either* filter, so I fail to see how you intend to apply any math to anything. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/16/2006 17:03:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
