|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2006 : 22:12:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes, except in this case, these principles apply to real things, namely *atoms*, and all *atoms* will radiate energy, given the extra energy to spare.
Actually, no, it is the free electrons in a blackbody which emit the blackbody radiation, not the atoms.quote:
Why are you including *some* atoms and excluding other again?
Because not all atoms radiate like a blackbody would. You really don't understand blackbody radiation at all.quote:
The fact that you dumbing this down and you are trying to include some atoms and excluding others is what results in "wrong" answers Dave.
No, you've got that precisely backwards, Michael. When I try to model the corona as a blackbody, I get the wrong answers.quote:
Boloney. I am insisting we look at what *all atoms* do based on physics.
Michael, the reason that "blackbody radiation" is a term of art in physics is because it is not true that all atoms radiate as if they are black bodies. The atoms in glass don't do so. The atoms in air don't do so.quote:
quote:
That's a strawman, since I never claimed that the corona doesn't meet the definition because it's less dense.
You mean you actually *assumed* the whole atmosphere above the photosphere is a far greater temperature as well?
What are you talking about? That makes no sense whatsoever.quote:
So why does the 6000 Kelvin plasma count, and say the chromosphere plasma doesn't count again?
Uh, because if the corona were a black body, the Earth would be absorbing so much radiation that the oceans would have evaporated long ago. It's an absurd answer, which means that the chromosphere can't possibly be a black body.quote:
So you arbitrarily picked one layer and excluded everything else?
No, I picked the whole bulk of the Sun, and excluded the chromosphere and corona, because the first meets the definition of a black body and for it the equations offer correct answers, and because the equations fail to describe the properties of the latter two and they don't meet the defintion of a black body. There's nothing arbitrary about it.quote:
How do you *know* that the photosophere is the coolest part of the sun in the first place? Why do we find temperatures that are *cooler* than your photosphere material in the umbra...
How much surface area do sunspots take up at any given time? We can work the black body calculations again once we know that figure.quote:
...and how do you know there isn't a cooler layer under the photosphere?
It doesn't matter if there's one under there or not, unless it's producing more light than the photosphere.quote:
What? There is no such thing as a "perfect" black body! There are physics involved that ultimately relate back to real atoms in the body, but nothing is a perfect blackbody. No atom completely absorbs all energy or complete and perfectly emits all energy on every wavelength. It's not something that actually exists in reality Dave. It is an entirely *theoretical construct* to which we apply mathematical formulas.
You're just showing that you've got no clue about modelling in physics at all.quote:
You are trying to apply these principles to a *star* now, and claiming that these same principles apply to what you claim is a mostly hydrogen plasma ball! You now are trying to apply these principles not to anything solid, but to something you claim is mostly hydrogen and helium plasma. As it relates to the subject of astronomy, these concepts *are* being mostly applied to plasma! Man, you are amazing at times.
What's amazing is that you have the facts of this discussion precisely backwards, as it is you (you, Michael Mozina) who are claiming that applying blackbody physics to the corona of a star is appropriate and logical. You're the one who started this whole mess, not me.quote:
quote:
Yup, not the corona, which is external to a star.
External to the star? You really mean "external to the photospohere" don't you?
Did you fail to understand my meaning, or are you just trying to play semantic games now?quote:
Suddenly *some* atoms take on a magical quality of never emitting *any* pertinant energy? Are you claiming now that no energy of any sort is released in the chromosphere or the corona?
Ah, another strawman, and further evidence that you believe that everything emits black body radiation, whether it meets the definition of a black body or not.quote:
What? How am I making anything up? You are trying to use blackbody principles and you are trying to relate these concepts to plasma.
Well, that last sentence is made up, since I'm the one claiming that you cannot use black body principles to describe the corona. But that doesn't answer your qu |
- 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 - 04/07/2006 : 22:23:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If a blackbody process from the photosphere is completely capable of explaining the temperature of the corona, why all the mystery about the heat source of the corona John?
Forget what I said about 'losing' your grip on the facts, Michael, because the above question shows that you've completely lost hold of reality. |
- 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 - 04/08/2006 : 13:50:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
No, I refuse to believe that the temperatures are what you say they are just because pixels in one image or another are brighter or darker. Demonstrate that this is so using real physics and you may change my mind.
Of course when Lockheed and NASA claim the emission seen in these images relate to temperatures in the millions of degrees, you have no trouble with their "real physics". The fact that they equate one filter with one very high temperature, and one filter with another very high temperature seems to be fine by you as well. However, when I put the two images together to demonstrate that the coronal loops are still the most brightly lit parts of *both* images, you balk at accepting these brightly lit regions as being hotter than the darkest areas of the exact same image. The rationalization areound here are so thick you need a chain saw to cut through them! Can you even offer me a scientific alternative as it relates to isolating the hot zones from the cool ones?
quote:
No, you got the black body physics wrong. A reasonably competent high school physics student could see this.
A high school physics student might indeed just buy into this irrational song and dance routine, but I'm not buying it for a second. If you can't explain why the bright regions (that supposedly represent plama in the millions of degrees according to NASA) are not more energetic than the dark regions of these same images, then I see no reason to deny the obvious here. Hot areas will emit light. Cooler areas will emit less light. That is simple physics, and both of you are now hiding behind a word that has very specific physical limitations, and very specific physical implications. If you have any way to prove the dark regions are hotter than the bright regions, I'm all ears, otherwise I'm going to assume that this is nothing more than cheap debate tactic to ignore reality entirely.
quote:
Then you started handwaving about not using the words "black body" because it was confusing, but still using the principles as if that would fix things. It's not amazing, just either bad science and/or dishonesty.
That is simply false. You are taking a theoretical construct that does not actually relate to anything that truely exists in the real world, being *extremely* picky and when and where you'll apply such principles, and then exempting some material entirely from the same principles. Worse yet, you freely admit that these principles cannot explain the heat concentration of the corona, but even yet you refuse to add any of the extra energy from the corona to any concept of total heat output from the sun. Amazing!
quote:
The atoms will emit photons. Some of these photons may reach the earth. If they do, they will "heat" it. What are you getting at?
I'm getting at the fact that these blackbody principles you are using do not explain the energy state of the corona. There is extra heat to be explained and accounted for in the solar output that these simplistic equations do not account for.
quote:
By the way, if you're going to ask for a yes/no answer, I'd suggest asking a single question, or at least making your assumptions clear.
Well, first I had to get some idea of what you were willing to agree to, and how much of these issues you intended to avoid.
quote:
I've no idea which "total energy output calculations" you are referring to. Please be specific. If you mean "temperature calculations" then please say so. If you mean "black body calculations" please say so.
I'm talking about calculating the total energy output of the sun. If blackbody theory was capable of giving us a complete picture of the sun's total output, why doesn't it account for the excess energy of the corona?
Let me give you big hint John. That excess energy in the corona has a lot to do with the energy you see in those coronal loops. It's is not accounted for in your simplistic calculations of solar output using a simple calculation from the photosophere only. If and when you get real about dealing with the excess energy of the corona, and are willing to apply these same principles to the excess heat of the corona, let me know. As it is, you're not making a lot of sense from my perspective. You freely admit that BB calculations do not account for the heat of the corona. You don't seem to be willing or capable of explaining what causes this excess heat in the corona. Even though the coronal loops are considerably brighter and more energetic in terms of photon output, you refuse to consider these the heat source of the other darker regions of the corona. None of that makes any sense from where I sit.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/08/2006 16:08:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 13:56:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Because the coronal loops emit more photons per unit area than the areas around them at these two wavelength ranges, when corrected for the filter responses in these ranges.
Why?
quote:
That's a difficult question. First some qualifications:
Are the "coronal loops" well defined and able to be isolated in the images in question?
Yes. You can see them glow rather brightly above the surface of the sun. You can see them in the TRACE overlay image I provided earlier, and also in the image I put together for Dave that showed the photon concentration patterns in the solar atmosphere. The loop is the lit region.
quote:
Are you assuming that there must be a way to determine the temperatures by image analysis?
Yes. Are you assuming there is *no* way to determine the temperatures by image analysis? Do you have a better option than the one I provided? I personally added all the images together, including the Yohkoh SXT images, Rhessi image and Geos images, to the TRACE images. When I do that, I see a very consistent pattern of light from many spectrums coming primarily from the loops.
quote:
Is it my responsibility to provide a method to perform these calculations for you? If I fail to do so, does that somehow validate any method you might suggest?
If you do not accept my methods, which are based upon the laws of physics, then you need to provide a rational alternative. If you can't do that, then why in the world would you assume that the coronal loops are not the heat source of the corona when they glow most brightly in image after image after image on high energy wavelengths galore? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/08/2006 15:25:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 14:09:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
So you completely ignore my responses to your questions, and ignore my related questions to you and just throw in another seemingly random question instead. Nice.
It may have seemed random to you, but I had a very specific purpose in asking you this question, and I wanted your response before I responded to your other points.
quote:
Did I, or for that matter, anyone here, ever make that statement Michael?
Yet you seem to think it's just fine to ignore this excess energy in BB calculations of the sun's total output?
quote:
Who has asserted that a black body "process" is completely capable of explaining the temperature of the corona?
It they don't explain the temperature of the corona, then we have a valid scientific reason to *add* this excess energy of the corona to our solar output calculations John. If you can't use these princicples to explain the total heat in the corona, then we have clear evidence that these equations are *oversimplified*.
quote:
That doesn't even make sense. There is no black body process Michael, there is a scientific method called black body analysis which can be used very effectively provided the system being analysed meets the appropriate criteria.
These calculations are used to determine the total output of energy from the sun. They do not accurately describe it. They heat signature of the corona defies this simplistic explanation, so what good are these BB calculations anyway? The are *overly simplistic* and to not deal with, or account for the heat signatures of the corona. They certainly then do not define the total energy output of the sun!
quote:
Dave has explained this quite succinctly, but seriously, do we have to teach you such basic science?
I feel the same way as you do John. I should not have to explain to you that the most energetic parts to two (actually many) high temperature spectrums that both (all) show that the light is concentrated in the arcs is serious evidence that the arcs are hotter and more dense than the surrounding material. This is bush league stuff, but it seems to be quite the difficult concept to grasp. If you won't accept this based on the observational evidence of light being concentrated in the loop, then what alternative are you willing to consider and how is "better" than the method I'm offering you?
quote:
The only mystery appears to be the process by which you decide to answer questions or not or just go off on tangents without first addressing other issues you yourself brought up.
I'm entitled to my own methods and though processes John. I'm simply trying to figure out where you stand on some interrelated issues so I might figure out how to reach you more effectively. I've answered your questions and given you my responses now based on your answers to these interrelated issues.
The key here is this: By you own admission, these BB principles do *not* account for the heat we see in the corona. That excess energy is *not* accounted for in the simplistic BB math that is typically applied to the sun. In short this BB calculation *utterly ignores* the excess heat in the corona, so all possibly could be is a *very rough* approximation of the sun's output. These rough approximations do not mean you can logically exclude the excess heat in the corona, and they do not exempt the corona from the same laws of thermodyanamics and physics. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/08/2006 15:00:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 14:40:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, no, it is the free electrons in a blackbody which emit the blackbody radiation, not the atoms.
I would have sworn you told me that electrons don't emit photons. Now you're equating photons to electrons, but you won't accept the flow of electricity as being involved in this output. Hoy Vey. The rationaliations around here are thick indeed.
quote:
Because not all atoms radiate like a blackbody would.
But they all radiate energy Dave, and your simple BB calculations do not begin to account for the heat signature of the corona. Essentially they are rough calculations that are oversimplified.
quote:
You really don't understand blackbody radiation at all.
You really don't understand the physics behind these principles at all Dave. If you won't accept the fact that the corona emits photons too that must be accounted for in solar energy calculations, and are not not explained by the radiation from the photosphere in a simplified BB output calculation, then what will you accept Dave?
quote:
No, you've got that precisely backwards, Michael. When I try to model the corona as a blackbody, I get the wrong answers.
That is because you intentionally oversimplied the issue. In order to get a *complete* picture of the sun's total output, we would have to do some adjustment for density. You did not. You are trying to oversimply the process to one plasma at one temperature when there many plasmas at many temperatures none of which are truely "black bodies".
quote:
Michael, the reason that "blackbody radiation" is a term of art in physics is because it is not true that all atoms radiate as if they are black bodies. The atoms in glass don't do so. The atoms in air don't do so.
Yet you *assume* that whatever material (you don't actually know what it's made of) sits at the surface of the photosphere does act like a black body and that alone can explain the total solar output? What about that excess heat in the corona Dave that isn't explained by these simplistic equations? Shall we just ignore it because you say so?
quote:
Uh, because if the corona were a black body, the Earth would be absorbing so much radiation that the oceans would have evaporated long ago. It's an absurd answer, which means that the chromosphere can't possibly be a black body.
All the plasmas on the sun are "partial" black bodies. In fact all matierals, including solids are less than *ideal* black bodies. You *do not* account for this less than idea scenario in any of your calculations Dave, and you've never explained that excess heat in the corona or accounted for it in any of these simplistic calculations you apply to *one* plasma that is thinner than aerogel at that location according to you.
quote:
No, I picked the whole bulk of the Sun, and excluded the chromosphere and corona, because the first meets the definition of a black body and for it the equations offer correct answers, and because the equations fail to describe the properties of the latter two and they don't meet the defintion of a black body. There's nothing arbitrary about it.
Yes there is. If these areas really *could* be excluded, their relative temperature would be explained by the formulas you are trying to use. They are not. The corona is *way* too hot to be explained by these forumalas and that excess energy is ignored by you only by personal choice.
quote:
How much surface area do sunspots take up at any given time? We can work the black body calculations again once we know that figure.
You ignored the implication of my point. We have evidence that lighter plasma gets hotter as we move away from the photosophere. If there is a more dense layer under the photosphere, it's likely to be much cooler than the photosphere. That cool material comes from somewhere Dave. Where does it come from?
quote:
It doesn't matter if there's one under there or not, unless it's producing more light than the photosphere.
More light at *what wavelength*?
quote:
You're just showing that you've got no clue about modelling in physics at all.
Boloney. I know way too much about it to believe it has any basis in reality. These are ROUGH approximations, and they don't explain the corona temperatures. That excess heat is *not* accounted for in your little overysimplied equation.
quote:
What's amazing is that you have the facts of this discussion precisely backwards, as it is you (you, Michael Mozina) who are claiming that applying blackbody physics to the corona of a star is appropriate and logical.
You are the one Dave who is applying these formulas to the surface of a plasma that is only 1/15 the thickness of aerogel at this particular distance according to you. Now you wish to exclude both the plasma of the chromopshere and the plasma of the corona from these same energy output forumulas. You are the one only *partially* applying this concept to *some* plasma and not others.
quote:
Did you fail to understand my meaning, or are you just trying to play semantic games now?
No, I actually failed to grasp the point of you suggesting that part of the atomsphere of the sun out of being considered "inside" the sun. The chromosphere is simply a different kind of plasma in the atmosphere, somewhat thinner and somewhat hotter, but it's still a part of the solar atmosphere as much as the photosphere.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/08/2006 14:48:42 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 14:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Once again, you're not entitled to your own facts: Kosovichev found many density stratification layers, not just one.
Yes Dave, he found many density stratification layers, just as my model would predict, each one associated with a different temperatures and density, whereas you picked ONE plasma at ONE depth to use in your calculation.
There really shouldn't even be a stratified layer at .995R however since that is supposed to be an open convection zone according to gas model theory. Yet when we look at the mass flows we see plasma rising from underneath that moves up and away from the rising column, and we plasma above that stops decending at a specific depth. None of this behavior was predicted by early gas model theory, and no one has really explained it using gas model theory even to this day. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 15:10:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There's no place in any of the equations for density to go in. Density is irrelevant to the peak frequency and the shape of the spectrum emitted, which is clear from the underlying physics of how black bodies radiate.
And...
quote:
Can you tell me how density would affect the peak frequency of the light from any black body?
And so Michael responds with:
quote:
You dumbed [the black body equations] down to suit yourself Dave. You included no adjustment for density, an no adjustment of density as it relates to the photosphere either.
So Michael again accuses Dave of failing to account for something which clearly doesn't need to be accounted for and for which he will provide absolutely no rationale. Michael, smoke-screen bullshit like this is the reason that you no longer have any credibility. Whenever anything about your model is questioned with hard numbers, you immediately beginning spinning about why those numbers aren't accurate, though you never make any attempt to provide numbers which are accurate.
Dave didn't take density into account? Fine, then you do so and show here how that changes the results. If you can't or refuse to do so, then we'll all see that you are full of shit and completely uninterested in science, which seeks to rigorously test its models, not tirelessly defend them from testability, as you do with yours.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/08/2006 15:11:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 15:15:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should we worry about density?
Wein's Law: the peak wavelength of emissions of a black body is equal to 0.002898 divided by its temperature.
Stefan's Law: the power radiated by a black body is equal to the Stefan-Boltzman constant times the surface area of the body times the fourth power of its temperature.
Planck Energy Distribution Formula: the power per unit area per unit wavelength is equal to a complex formula dependent upon several constants, the wavelength of emissions, and the temperature of the black body.
This is a very important issue Dave. You are *absolutely* correct that these calculations *do not* include any sort of density adjustments of any sort. Why then do we have to worry about density? The answer is that density will play a role in the sun's total energy output, expecially since no plasma is a perfect blackbody. These simplified BB equations from the photosphere are incapable of explaining the heat signature of the corona. There therefore isn't a lot of evidence that these priciples alone will allow us to accurately define the solar output, especically if they don't and can't explain the heat we find in the corona. If we do not account for that excess energy we see in the corona, then our calculations of the solar output will be less than accurate. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 15:23:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So Michael again accuses Dave of failing to account for something which clearly doesn't need to be accounted for
If you expect to get an accurate picture of the solar output, then the excess energy of the corona *does* need to be accounted for. You can't simply ignore that energy!
quote:
and for which he will provide absolutely no rationale.
I did layout the rational quite clearly. These simplified BB formulas do not accurately explain the temperatures we see in the corona, so they cannot give us a *complete* picture of the solar output. At best they give us a rough approximation.
quote:
Michael, smoke-screen bullshit like this is the reason that you no longer have any credibility. Whenever anything about your model is questioned with hard numbers, you immediately beginning spinning about why those numbers aren't accurate, though you never make any attempt to provide numbers which are accurate.
If I was trying to come to agreement on solar energy output, I might make some attempt at doing that. Since I am trying to find some agreement about the temperature of coronal loops vs. the rest of the corona, it's not exactly high on my priority list at the moment. How much are these simply BB calcuations off by not including or explaining the excess energy of the corona? I don't really know. It's not really important in determining whether or no the the loop is a greater temperature than the corona itself.
quote:
Dave didn't take density into account? Fine, then you do so and show here how that changes the results. If you can't or refuse to do so, then we'll all see that you are full of shit and completely uninterested in science, which seeks to rigorously test its models, not tirelessly defend them from testability, as you do with yours.
Man do you like to resort to rediculace strawmen. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 15:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Let's try this approach:
I will grant you Dave (and John), that since blackbody formulas do not include adjustments for density, and since my original post at the bautforum included no adjustment for density, that my original mathematical "disproof" of Lockheeds claim was an entirely inappropriate method to disprove Lockheeds claim. Furthermore I will grant you that *no* blackbody formulas make any allowances for density, so my attempt to use *only* these principles to describe events in the corona are also meaningless and a mistake on my part from the very beginning.
What I *should* have asked at the Bautforum was: "Does Lockheed Martin understand the laws of physics?"
Can we now focus on the light source and heat signatures of the corona using *all* the laws of physics now that I have conceeded that my use of "blackbody" formulas were not helpful in any way? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/08/2006 16:07:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 15:58:54 [Permalink]
|
I have carefully layed out the method that I am using to isolate the light and the heat signatures of the corona. I believe that these two issues, light and heat are directly related *in this case*. I have added together *all* of the high energy images from all the satellites when determing the heat signature of the corona. Since all the satellites show a consistent pattern of high energy photons coming from *inside* the coronal loops, I have good reason to believe that the most abundant high temperature, high density plasma in the corona is located in the corona loops.
Do you have any evidence of any sort that this is not the case? Nitta does not count as evidence against my case since he ultimately agreed with my position and placed the highest temperature plasma inside the loop as I did. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 16:06:16 [Permalink]
|
| I would like Dave and John to explain *why* the coronal loops emit more light than the surrounding coronal material. I would like each of you to explain the light source of these images, and explain *why* some regions are more brightly lit than others. I'd like to have some idea of where you feel the light and heat are concentrated in these images. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 16:48:07 [Permalink]
|
The bright areas in the 171A pictures does not signify temperature.
It signifies that more photons originating in those areas had the right wavelengths to pass the filter, than the surrounding, less bright area.
The bright areas does not necessarily have to have a higher temperature the the surrounding area.
Consider this hypothetical scenario:
The coronal loops and the corona itself has the same temperature. If the density of the matter in the loops are higher than the rest of the corona, then the loops will shine more brightly in the 171A pic, because more photons will come from the loop than the surrounding corona.
Also consider this:
The 171A and the 195A filters have different characteristics because they are made for their respective part of the spectrum. They are not 100% transparent in their window. Because of that, making a A+B addition when merging the photos into one does not paint and accurate picture of the output because the respective pics have themselves been normalised in order to make sense of them in the first place. Thus do not accurately represent the actual (power output) or the number of photons hitting each pixel, especially compared to eachother. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/08/2006 16:49:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 17:29:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's try this approach:
I will grant you Dave (and John), that since blackbody formulas do not include adjustments for density, and since my original post at the bautforum included no adjustment for density, that my original mathematical "disproof" of Lockheeds claim was an entirely inappropriate method to disprove Lockheeds claim. Furthermore I will grant you that *no* blackbody formulas make any allowances for density, so my attempt to use *only* these principles to describe events in the corona are also meaningless and a mistake on my part from the very beginning.
Thank you.quote:
Can we now focus on the light source and heat signatures of the corona using *all* the laws of physics now that I have conceeded that my use of "blackbody" formulas were not helpful in any way?
Actually, I'd much rather go deeper, back to that discussion of your magnetic field/plasma interaction hypothesis. After all, if you can flesh that out some more, then the "light source and heat signatures of the corona" should be predicted by the electron "wave" flow (or whatever it is, I'm still confused) which cause the "source" and "signature." That really does seem like it'd be the most productive avenue of discussion.
Next post:quote:
I have carefully layed out the method that I am using to isolate the light and the heat signatures of the corona. I believe that these two issues, light and heat are directly related *in this case*. I have added together *all* of the high energy images from all the satellites when determing the heat signature of the corona. Since all the satellites show a consistent pattern of high energy photons coming from *inside* the coronal loops, I have good reason to believe that the most abundant high temperature, high density plasma in the corona is located in the corona loops.
Do you have any evidence of any sort that this is not the case?
Acutally, you should be providing evidence that your method is accurate. Asking others for disconfirming evidence is a shift of the burden of proof.
Next post:quote:
I would like Dave and John to explain *why* the coronal loops emit more light than the surrounding coronal material. I would like each of you to explain the light source of these images, and explain *why* some regions are more brightly lit than others. I'd like to have some idea of where you feel the light and heat are concentrated in these images.
I know you'd appreciate such answers, but my previous assessment that any answers I might give will be inconsequential stands. I believe that we actually could make some headway if you continue to describe your model, Michael, and that talking about other models is simply a distraction.
So, let's just get straight back to the underlying physics of your model, Michael. The images should take care of themselves by the time that I (or others) agree that what you describe is plausible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
