|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2006 : 17:49:00 [Permalink]
|
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0032-1028/20/11/007
I've posted this link before, but just in case you have any doubts that these same principles apply to plasma, you can see from this study that these same well understood principles of physics certainly do apply to plasma as well. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 21:20:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are confusing magnetic fields and heat Dave. They are not one and the same thing.
I'm not confusing anything. Quantum theory explains the light source as being mostly hot ions undergoing cooling.quote:
It's not the presence of magnetic field lines I have a problem with, although you would still need to explain such strong fields so far away from the core.
As does your model, actually. How much electrical current is required to generate a 4,000-Gauss field 120,000 km from the surface in your model, Michael?quote:
It's your suggestion that these field lines have anything to do with "heat" without the flow of electricity I have a tough time with.
And I've already explained how different electrical processes will generate different amounts of heat given the same electrical power to work with, and asked you to explain how your alleged electrical "arcs" are generating heat in a plasma. You've decided not to answer.quote:
But my faith is based on observation and experimentation Dave.
No, I think your faith is based upon your interpretations of the observations and experiments. Nobody in their right minds has faith in an observation; observations are not something that one needs to believe in without evidence.quote:
This statement rings a little hollow from my persective as well. While it's "easier" to play devil's advocate and profess to not "take sides" in a debate, usually the motivation behind someone's "disbelief" is "belief" in something else. In this case, it's clear we both have internal biases. I'm simply up front about mine and the reasons behind these biases.
No, you're simply so incredibly biased that you are projecting your own motivations and biases onto others. I don't have any "belief" in the gas model whatsoever: like the scientists who work with it everyday, I view it as simply a mathematical description of the gross characteristics of the Sun, and nobody needs to "believe in" it any more than they need "faith" that force equals mass times acceleration to a large number of decimals in non-relativistic scenarios. That you admit your faith is simply a sign that you're not even trying to understand the science.quote:
quote:
By saying it is irrelevant.
It's not "irrelevant" to begin with. The gas model is the model we were all handed in school, and the model that we continue to invest millions of dollars in. While a gas model problem may not be "direct evidence" that the Birkeland model is accurate, it's still relevant to this discussion.
And if the gas model didn't exist, I'd still be asking you the same questions about your model. So, the gas model is irrelevant.quote:
quote:
Obviously you're so biased that when I say the "gas model is irrelevant," you hear "the gas model is correct."
No, I hear you attempting to defending "interpretations" of the gas model as in the your first paragraph, so I find it hard to believe you are as 'detached' as you claim.
You asked a question about the gas model and I answered it. If you were to ask me a question about Hitler's underwear and I managed to come up with an answer, would you also claim that I was defending the Holocaust?quote:
The issue here is pretty simple really. You've invested a great deal of time into finding aspects of Birkeland's theory that I can't fully explain. You seem to equate a "lack of an explanation" with some "major flaw" in Birkeland's model.
See, this is wrong. When I've found major flaws in your model, I've addressed them as major flaws. When you've admitted to being unable to explain something, I just consider it a symptom of your faith in your model, in effect telling me "I don't know how it works, but it works."quote:
The problem however is that even gas model theory can't seem to explain even simple aspects of solar activity. If it can't explain a coronal loop for goodness sake, what good is it?
By analogy, the standard solar model is like the first week of an auto shop class: it explains in general terms what makes the car (Sun) go. Your demands on it are like expecting the auto shop teacher to go into detail about why the tread pattern on a Michellin XG7 R-15 tire is the way it is: wholly out of place and in denial of the scope of the explanation put forward.
I happened to be watching the NASA channel recently, and got to hear someone from Lockheed talking about TRACE. He basically said that TRACE is giving scientists the ability to do for the Sun what a microscope allows a kid to do with pond water. That is, it's letting us see the details for the first time. The analysis of those details is far from complete, and (if history is any indicator) "the gas model" will never stop changing in response to new data.
Your ideas, Michael, about what the gas model should be able to explain right now, are simply not a compelling argument that the gas model is seriously flawed.quote:
You however continue to see one model as inferior by virtue of a lack of understanding on my part, while you ignore the fact that you also have a lack of understanding on your part.
Once again, you show yourself to not have a clue about my point of view. I see your model as simply a bunch of conjecture and speculation because you can't answer basic questions which are in the model's scope, and it takes numerous back-and-forth posts before you'll admit that you can't answer the questions. On the other hand, scientists promoting one of the numerous sta |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 21:38:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, let me preface my response by saying I *certainly do* appreciate the effort that you put into this, and for explaining your "methods".
I'm simply trying to follow the best practices of science, in which explaining the method used is actually more important than the conclusion reached.quote:
Having said that, just eyeballing the two images, I'd be inclined to say that the RD version show more of the "surface detail" that is consistent with the gold video, whereas the averaged image seems to blur the detail or remove it altogether.
According to you, eyeballing is not an acceptable method of measuring anything.quote:
Though I have played with RD versions of these images, I've not really played around much with a averaging function, nor have I been able to completely duplicate the video using strickly RD techniques.
That's a pretty far cry from your "I can tell you it is relatively easy to duplicate these images using Photoshop and FITS files" from last November.quote:
I can't say I can rule out an averaging technique in this process, but I'm skeptical of that based on the loss of detail in the averaged image.
To my eye, the brightest areas of the "gold" video are missing much of the details present in the original images. |
- 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 - 03/26/2006 : 18:16:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not confusing anything. Quantum theory explains the light source as being mostly hot ions undergoing cooling.
The light from your toy plasma ball is explained exactly the same way. How does that address my point?
quote:
Michael: It's your suggestion that these field lines have anything to do with "heat" without the flow of electricity I have a tough time with.
Dave:And I've already explained how different electrical processes will generate different amounts of heat given the same electrical power to work with,
What electrical power? You just got through telling me that these are *not* electrical discharges.
quote:
and asked you to explain how your alleged electrical "arcs" are generating heat in a plasma. You've decided not to answer.
I did answer. The arcs are actually ionizing surface metals, and producing heat in the plasma that is directly related to resistance. Plasmas are *not* perfect conductors!
quote:
No, I think your faith is based upon your interpretations of the observations and experiments. Nobody in their right minds has faith in an observation; observations are not something that one needs to believe in without evidence.
Fine, then I have no "faith" at all, just obvious observations of electrical discharges.
quote:
No, you're simply so incredibly biased that you are projecting your own motivations and biases onto others. I don't have any "belief" in the gas model whatsoever: like the scientists who work with it everyday, I view it as simply a mathematical description of the gross characteristics of the Sun, and nobody needs to "believe in" it any more than they need "faith" that force equals mass times acceleration to a large number of decimals in non-relativistic scenarios.
That is nothing but a big fat juicy rationalization from where I sit Dave. You can't explain a coronal loop, but you keep defending aspects of the gas model. You've never explained the significant details of that Lockheed RD image using gas model theory, but you still defend it and use it, and rely upon the explanation offered by others who put their faith in gas model theory. Even your placement of the transitional layer is based on "faith" in someone elses opinion on the matter.
quote:
That you admit your faith is simply a sign that you're not even trying to understand the science.
Oh bologna. It simply shows that I am honest about my biases and the reasons for my baises. The fact you keep trying to marginalize your baises is simply a sign that your not trying to understand the science I'm presenting you with.
quote:
And if the gas model didn't exist, I'd still be asking you the same questions about your model.
Yes, perhaps so, but you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my interpretations. You would not be claiming that the Trace 171A and 195A images come from the corona. The fact you insist that I demonstrate that 171A images can be seen lower in the atmosphere shows that you do have a bias that favors one particular interpretation. If however you checkout the "flash spectrum" of the chromosphere, you find it too has calcium and iron emissions in it too.
quote:
See, this is wrong. When I've found major flaws in your model, I've addressed them as major flaws.
There are no "major flaws" in this model Dave. You simply "percieve" that there are "major flaws.". It is you however that subjectively decided what is a "major" issue, and what is a "minor" one. You can't even seem to explain the heat of a coronal loop, yet you don't seem to see that as a "major" problem?
quote:
When you've admitted to being unable to explain something, I just consider it a symptom of your faith in your model, in effect telling me "I don't know how it works, but it works."
Sort of like your *I don't know how magnetic fields cause heat, they just do"?
quote:
By analogy, the standard solar model is like the first week of an auto shop class: it explains in general terms what makes the car (Sun) go. Your demands on it are like expecting the auto shop teacher to go into detail about why the tread pattern on a Michellin XG7 R-15 tire is the way it is: wholly out of place and in denial of the scope of the explanation put forward.
Bad analogy. You can't even explain the "spark" that ignights the gasoline! For all we know this could be an electric vehicle in the first place! You are the one wanting to know the purpose of tread patterns and details that aren't even relevant to satellite image interpretation. The light and heat source are *directly* related to satellite image interpretation. You can't even really begin to interpret these images at all unless you comprehend the light and heat sources that enable these images to exist!
quote:
I happened to be watching the NASA channel recently, and got to hear someone from Lockheed talking about TRACE. He basically said that TRACE is giving scientists the ability to do for the Sun what a microscope allows a kid to do with pond water. That is, it's letting us see the details for the first time.
I agree with that comment.
quote:
The analysis of those details is far from complete, and (if history is any indicator) "the gas model" will never stop changing in response to new data.
Yes, and it's going to have to change again to deal with that surface we see in these images, particularly the Doppler and RD images.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/26/2006 18:24:42 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 18:46:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
According to you, eyeballing is not an acceptable method of measuring anything.
But it's ok when you do it?
quote:
That's a pretty far cry from your "I can tell you it is relatively easy to duplicate these images using Photoshop and FITS files" from last ovember.
You are taking my comments out of context now. I have certainly created many running difference images Dave, mostly SOHO images, and a few Trace RD images as well. What I have not yet done is duplicate this *exact* Lockheed RD image as of yet, certainly not with that kind of precision. That doesn't mean it's *not* a running difference image, it just means I don't know the exact start and end times, the exact images used, or the time difference used between each of the images. There's a distinct difference between these two ideas Dave.
quote:
To my eye, the brightest areas of the "gold" video are missing much of the details present in the original images.
Perhaps so, but the averaged images show even less of the detail than the Lockheed RD image. In fact, based on a few of the structures we see in your RD image, I'd say your first shot seems to at least be in the ballpark as far as timing between images goes, but that would mean you'd need to use additional shots that are outside of the timelines you've already stated. That was the only way I could get myself in the ballpark as well which I think is the primary reason I selected a longer "duration time" for the images than you did when describing this movie. You may be right about the actual duration of the time in question which is actaully a different issue from determining the duration and timelines of the images used to create the RD image. There must be a certain amount of time between each image used so the duration of images used is going to be longer than the duration of the actual event. The more I think about it, the more I think you are right about the actual duration of the event, but you'll still need a longer set of images to create that movie and a longer timeline of fixed patterns remained fixed in relationship to one another. Again, we are talking about consistency in these images that is way beyond that 8 minute intervals of photosphere structures, and you've yet to explain that phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 01:51:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not confusing anything. Quantum theory explains the light source as being mostly hot ions undergoing cooling.
The light from your toy plasma ball is explained exactly the same way. How does that address my point?
Well, your point seemed to be that the standard solar model doesn't "explain the light source" of an image, and my counterpoint is simply that the standard solar model doesn't even attempt to explain the "light source" since quantum theory tells us how the photons are generated.quote:
What electrical power? You just got through telling me that these are *not* electrical discharges.
You tell me what electrical power, Michael: it's your damn model.quote:
quote:
and asked you to explain how your alleged electrical "arcs" are generating heat in a plasma. You've decided not to answer.
I did answer. The arcs are actually ionizing surface metals, and producing heat in the plasma that is directly related to resistance. Plasmas are *not* perfect conductors!
And I did a calculation which showed that if Birkeland's model were "scaled up," it would result in less than 2 watts of heat generated in an entire 120,000-km "arc." But then you went on to say that the million-kelvin temperatures aren't even "necessary," so why you're so focused on "the heat" is beyond me.quote:
Fine, then I have no "faith" at all, just obvious observations of electrical discharges.
Then you'll be able to tell me the amperage of the current flow that you've observed. After all, it isn't obvious if you just look at a lightning bolt that it's an electrical discharge.quote:
That is nothing but a big fat juicy rationalization from where I sit Dave. You can't explain a coronal loop, but you keep defending aspects of the gas model. You've never explained the significant details of that Lockheed RD image using gas model theory, but you still defend it and use it, and rely upon the explanation offered by others who put their faith in gas model theory. Even your placement of the transitional layer is based on "faith" in someone elses opinion on the matter.
Utter nonsense, all of that. The heat of the coronal loops aren't within the scope of the current solar model, so I have never, never attempted to defend any hypothesis about coronal loops using the gas model. Not once, and I'll never do so until such a time as the standard solar model is capable of explaining them.
That you can make such a tremendous mistake about what I've been saying simply shows your inability to have a scientific discussion about this subject, Michael.quote:
Oh bologna. It simply shows that I am honest about my biases and the reasons for my baises. The fact you keep trying to marginalize your baises is simply a sign that your not trying to understand the science I'm presenting you with.
No, the fact that I'm trying to marginalize my biases shows that I'm trying to act in a skeptical manner. Celebrating one's biases doesn't make them go away. Were my biases for the standard solar model actually the reason I don't accept your arguments, I'd have to invent parts of the model which don't exist yet. I haven't done so, but you seem more than willing to invent strawman version of the standard model in order to shoot it down.quote:
Yes, perhaps so, but you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my interpretations. You would not be claiming that the Trace 171A and 195A images come from the corona. The fact you insist that I demonstrate that 171A images can be seen lower in the atmosphere shows that you do have a bias that favors one particular interpretation.
Yes, but not because of the standard solar model. Instead, I look at - for example - this image on your website, and I can easily see that 171A light comes from thousands of kilometers above the bulk of the Sun (everything in the top half of the image, for example). Could some of the pixels in that image be lighting up because of iron ions below the photosphere? It is possible, but I can't tell from that image. So the only place I know for a fact that lights up in 171A light is the corona itself.
Then, to give your model the benefit of a doubt, I say to myself "maybe some of the light in the lower half is coming from below the photosphere," and then I ask you for evidence of that, and you have replied with nothing but an argument that depends upon assuming that light can penetrate all three plasma layers in your own model. But that's your hypothesis, and so cannot be evidence that your hypothesis is correct.quote:
If however you checkout the "flash spectrum" of the chromosphere, you find it too has calcium and iron emissions in it too.
From which ions? Not that it matters much, since the upper chromosphere reaches a million kelvin according to the solar scientists, anyway.quote:
There are no "major flaws" in this model Dave. You simply "percieve" that there are "major flaws.". It is you however that subjectively decided what is a "major" issue, and what is a "minor" one.
No, I only actually decide it's a major flaw when I point it out and you try to handwave it away instead of addressing it with an answer backed by evidence. That's when I know it's such a major flaw that it's probably fatal to the whole theory.quote:
You can't even seem to explain the heat of a coronal loop, yet you don't seem to see that as a "major" problem?
|
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 02:03:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
According to you, eyeballing is not an acceptable method of measuring anything.
But it's ok when you do it?
No, I asked you for a better method of determining the center of the "crater," and all you came up with was a different version of eyeballing it, which I pointed out. Furthermore, I suggested that you to go ahead and do the measurements yourself, but you obviously couldn't be bothered. So, lacking a better method or better data, all that's left is my stuff for discussion purposes.
And all that flies in the face of your claims that to criticize your model, one must provide something better. It is you, Michael, who have a demonstrable double-standard. You felt free to criticize my method of determining the center of the "crater" without providing a better method in its place. Such hypocritical behaviour does nothing to convince me that you're correct about anything. |
- 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 - 03/27/2006 : 14:45:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, your point seemed to be that the standard solar model doesn't "explain the light source" of an image, and my counterpoint is simply that the standard solar model doesn't even attempt to explain the "light source" since quantum theory tells us how the photons are generated.
Oh come on. That isn't even a scientificallly legitimate expanation for these emissions, in fact it's only half of an explanation. You have to explain what *heats* the atoms to the point that they feel complelled to release photons and you need to explain what energy keeps these loops heated for hours at a time! Magnetic fields do not in and of themselves generate heat.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/m171_20001108.mov
This is a six hour sequence and the loops just keep growing and glowing.
The only reason plasma tends to be attracted to magnetic fields is due the *current* that tends to flow through these lines. You are not explaining the heat source in any meaningful or scientific way Dave. You are only suggesting that atoms emit photons and cool off, but you've never explained what heats these atoms up in the first place!
quote:
Utter nonsense, all of that. The heat of the coronal loops aren't within the scope of the current solar model, so I have never, never attempted to defend any hypothesis about coronal loops using the gas model. Not once, and I'll never do so until such a time as the standard solar model is capable of explaining them.
In other words, you don't know what causes the coronal loops to light up so you have no legitimate way to even begin to analyse the high energy satellite images. Somehow however, you're pretty sure it's not electricity that heats up these loops.
quote:
No, the fact that I'm trying to marginalize my biases shows that I'm trying to act in a skeptical manner.
You are *not* "marginalizing" your biases in any way. You act as though every unanswered question is yet another nail in the coffin of the Birkeland solar model, meanwhile you ignore the fact that standard gas model theory can't explain something as basic as the light and heat source of the lit parts of these satellite images.
quote:
Celebrating one's biases doesn't make them go away.
I'm not celebrating my beliefs, I'm noting them and the actual cause for these beliefs.
quote:
Yes, but not because of the standard solar model. Instead, I look at - for example - this image on your website, and I can easily see that 171A light comes from thousands of kilometers above the bulk of the Sun (everything in the top half of the image, for example). Could some of the pixels in that image be lighting up because of iron ions below the photosphere? It is possible, but I can't tell from that image. So the only place I know for a fact that lights up in 171A light is the corona itself.
So? You don't have any idea where the transitional region sits in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. You are simply *assuming* that the arcs originate in the corona. I can show you evidence during an eclipse that the chromosphere does emit iron and calcium emisisons, but I see you've shifted arguements now to include extreme heat in the upper chromosphere along with the corona. You're shifting the goal posts to suit yourself at this point.
It's pretty busy at work today and I keep being interupted. I'll come back to the rest of this post after work assuming it's not all rehash of the same issues. The key issue is still the same. You've yet to identify a heat source for the coronal loops. It is therefore impossible to begin to analyse these images, since you have no idea what is generating the light or the heat we see in these images. It's really that simple. The worst part IMO is that the arc is brightly lit in 195A image just as it is brightly lit in the 171A image. Since the arcs are brighter in *both* images, it is *impossible to determine* (from a physics point of view) that the loops are somehow "cooler" than the darkest areas of the 195A image. It's not even logical that you would balk here, but you are. Why? How in the world can the lit parts of the 195A image be *cooler* than the dark regions? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2006 14:45:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 15:59:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh come on. That isn't even a scientificallly legitimate expanation for these emissions, in fact it's only half of an explanation.
"Nobody knows yet" isn't an explanation, it's a scientifically legitimate answer to a question. A theory is an explanation, and as of right now, there appears to be no solid theory about the heating of the corona.quote:
You have to explain what *heats* the atoms to the point that they feel complelled to release photons and you need to explain what energy keeps these loops heated for hours at a time!
No, you have to do so in a way which is compatible with the rest of your model and with the rest of physics in general. I'm not defending the gas model (but you're too busy today to not go off on a tear after a few paragraphs), I'm simply telling you what the solar scientists have to say. You're the one trying to turn this into a head-to-head comparison of your model against the standard model, while I just find that to be completely inappropriate at this time.quote:
Magnetic fields do not in and of themselves generate heat.
Yeah, nice strawman you've got there.quote:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/m171_20001108.mov
This is a six hour sequence and the loops just keep growing and glowing.
So what?quote:
The only reason plasma tends to be attracted to magnetic fields is due the *current* that tends to flow through these lines.
Prove it. First demonstrate that the plasma in these images is "attracted" to anything (if it were, one would expect to see only a single "footprint" of a loop being brightly lit up, as it's the positively charged ions which are the primary light source), and then demonstrate that an electric current is the cause.quote:
You are not explaining the heat source in any meaningful or scientific way Dave.
I never even made an attempt at doing so, and I reject your insistence that I try to do what solar scientists have been generally failing to do for decades.quote:
You are only suggesting that atoms emit photons and cool off...
No, not "and" but "as they."quote:
...but you've never explained what heats these atoms up in the first place!
Honestly, I don't much care anymore since you continue to fabricate positions for me to take, it appears that my own thoughts on this subject are irrelevant.quote:
In other words, you don't know what causes the coronal loops to light up so you have no legitimate way to even begin to analyse the high energy satellite images. Somehow however, you're pretty sure it's not electricity that heats up these loops.
Had you bothered to finish reading the post you replied to, you might have learned that such is not the case.quote:
You are *not* "marginalizing" your biases in any way. You act as though every unanswered question is yet another nail in the coffin of the Birkeland solar model, meanwhile you ignore the fact that standard gas model theory can't explain something as basic as the light and heat source of the lit parts of these satellite images.
I'm doing no such thing. I'm acting as though because you can't answer what seem to me to be logical questions (such as "how much power does it take to "erode" the surface as quickly as you imply is happening?"), you're not a good spokeperson for your own model (rather incompetent, in my opinion).quote:
I'm not celebrating my beliefs, I'm noting them and the actual cause for these beliefs.
While holding onto them as tightly as you can, it appears.quote:
So? You don't have any idea where the transitional region sits in relationship to the surface of the photosphere.
That's right.quote:
You are simply *assuming* that the arcs originate in the corona.
No, I'm waiting for you to provide unambiguous evidence that they "originate" someplace else (even though "originate" is an extremely poor word choice).quote:
I can show you evidence during an eclipse that the chromosphere does emit iron and calcium emisisons, but I see you've shifted arguements now to include extreme heat in the upper chromosphere along with the corona. You're shifting the goal posts to suit yourself at this point.
Not at all - if you wish to contend that there is a sudden jump of temperatures instead of a continuum, you're free to provide evidence for that, and I'll assess it as best I'm able. It's also not apparent to me how "iron and calcium emissions" would provide evidence of anything, since much, much cooler Fe I and II will emit photons as well, but not in the wavelength passbands visible to TRACE.quote:
It's pretty busy at work today and I keep being interupted. I'll come back to the rest of this post after work assuming it's not all rehash of the same issues.
No, much of it is different stuff about your inability to do science.quote:
The key issue is still the same. You've yet to identify a heat source for 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 - 03/28/2006 : 15:09:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Nobody knows yet" isn't an explanation, it's a scientifically legitimate answer to a question. A theory is an explanation, and as of right now, there appears to be no solid theory about the heating of the corona.
Yes, there are "solid theories" about the heating of the corona, at least according to Carolus Schryver at Lockheed. He contended that the majority of the heating of the corona is caused by electricity. You are the one claiming there isn't an answer, not Lockheed.
quote:
No, you have to do so in a way which is compatible with the rest of your model and with the rest of physics in general.
I already did. Electical discharges from the surface are what heat up the atmosphere of the sun. We have electrical discharges here on earth too. Electricity is the heat source. I've identified the heat source and it fits with the rest of the physics involved as Birkeland demonstrated 100 years ago.
quote:
I'm not defending the gas model (but you're too busy today to not go off on a tear after a few paragraphs), I'm simply telling you what the solar scientists have to say.
No, you are not accurately representing *every* position. I quoted you a paragraph from Sky and Telescope where Carolus Schryver described the primary heating mechanism of the corona as electricity. You are the one insisting that there isn't an explanation in spite of the quote I handed you. Why?
quote:
You're the one trying to turn this into a head-to-head comparison of your model against the standard model, while I just find that to be completely inappropriate at this time.
Since you can't seem to identify the heat or light source of these images, there isn't much of a comparison IMO. I don't see how in the world you expect to do *any* solar satellite image analysis if you can't identify the light and the heat source we see in these basic satellite images.
quote:
Yeah, nice strawman you've got there.
I wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out that the presense of magnetic fields is not an explanation of coronal heating.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/m171_20001108.mov
quote:
So what?
So what? So there has to be a *cause* for this behavior, one that is consistent with what we see. Such "structures" are easily explainable as electrical discharges being fed from the surface. Their continued existence and their continued expansion over time is directly related to the amount and duration of the current running through these arcs.
quote:
Prove it.
I already handed you a quote awhile back that described that process in plasma. The *current flow* is the part that attracts the plasma, and the magnetic field lines prove exactly zero in the way of heat.
quote:
First demonstrate that the plasma in these images is "attracted" to anything
The movements of the plasma show that they are flowing in patterns that are completely consistent with an electrical arc. The plasma can even change directions in mid flight and be redirected in mid flight. There is definitely a force that drives these movemements.
quote:
if it were, one would expect to see only a single "footprint" of a loop being brightly lit up, as it's the positively charged ions which are the primary light source),
I'm not sure how you get that since the whole surface is electrically charged.
quote:
and then demonstrate that an electric current is the cause.
I already demonstrated via the UofM data that current flows during these events. I've demonsrated that Lockheed believes that current flow is the "primary" heat source of the corona. I've demonstrated that these arcs form, and stay "lit" for very long periods of time. They have a bright footprint just as we expect to see in an electrical arc. They emit light that is consistent with electrical discharges and they travel at speeds that are consistent with electrical discharges. What more do you want and why? What's the alternative you're worried about anyway?
quote:
I never even made an attempt at doing so, and I reject your insistence that I try to do what solar scientists have been generally failing to do for decades.
Evidently not *all* them "failed" to define the heat source of the corona. That seems to be something *you* failed to do, but it is not something that Lockheed failed to do.
quote:
Honestly, I don't much care anymore since you continue to fabricate positions for me to take, it appears that my own thoughts on this subject are irrelevant.
Huh? I'm trying to be *extremely* fair with you and I'm being very careful to not try to put words in your mouth. All I'm trying to do at this moment in time is get you to agree that the coronal loops are hotter than the rest of the corona, particularly the dark regions. That seems to be quite a difficult feat for some reason, even though we can both see that the coronal loops in the 195A image are brighter and hotter than the surrounding material. It really doesn't matter what the ration is, the loops are still the brightest part of *both* images. There is no way then for the coronal loop to be *cooler* than the dark regions of the image.
quote:
I'm doing no such thing. I'm acting as though because you can't answer what seem to me to be logical questions (such as "how much power does it take to "erode" the surface as quickly |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/28/2006 15:22:12 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 21:41:52 [Permalink]
|
I'll put this up front, so you're sure to see it, Michael:
It seems that for Yohkoh, at the very least, brighter does not equal hotter:SXT is great in following dynamic phenomena in the solar corona, frequent brightenings here and there. The images are so beautiful. But we should remember that a brightening can be due to an increase in density, rather than temperature, meaning that bright areas in SXT images do not necessarily represent locations of heating... ...even though a flare is a bright object in X-rays, detection of high-temperature areas is limited by count statistics, because such areas tend to occur where the intensity is much less than the brightest pixel. Indeed, the following scatter plot (click to enlarge) shows that high-temperature pixels tend to have low brightness.
— "Temperature of Flares from Yohkoh Data" But where were we...?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes, there are "solid theories" about the heating of the corona, at least according to Carolus Schryver at Lockheed. He contended that the majority of the heating of the corona is caused by electricity. You are the one claiming there isn't an answer, not Lockheed.
Since when when has a suggestion ("However, SOHO and TRACE oservations suggest that the corona is heated primarily by electrical currents") equate to a "solid theory?" It doesn't. Also, I never claimed there isn't an answer, I claimed that we don't know the answer, and one Lockheed employee's suggestion (especially an employee you consider to be 66.67% wrong) is surely not a scientific consensus.quote:
quote:
No, you have to do so in a way which is compatible with the rest of your model and with the rest of physics in general.
I already did. Electical discharges from the surface are what heat up the atmosphere of the sun. We have electrical discharges here on earth too. Electricity is the heat source. I've identified the heat source and it fits with the rest of the physics involved as Birkeland demonstrated 100 years ago.
Birkeland's model was not of point-to-point electrical discharges on the surface of a sphere, it was of a beam of electrons striking a solid sphere from far away (just like solar ions striking Earth's magnetic field cause aurorae). Your model is nothing like Birkeland's. Besides which, you still haven't explained how the plasma layers in your model ever act like insulators to make your lightning analogy an apt one.quote:
No, you are not accurately representing *every* position. I quoted you a paragraph from Sky and Telescope where Carolus Schryver described the primary heating mechanism of the corona as electricity. You are the one insisting that there isn't an explanation in spite of the quote I handed you. Why?
He didn't present electrical heating as current theory, he offered it as a new hypothesis (from what you quoted - I don't get that magazine).quote:
Since you can't seem to identify the heat or light source of these images, there isn't much of a comparison IMO. I don't see how in the world you expect to do *any* solar satellite image analysis if you can't identify the light and the heat source we see in these basic satellite images.
The light source has been identified, the heat source is still in question. And you even question the amount of heat being measured, so I don't see how you can do any analysis, either.quote:
quote:
Yeah, nice strawman you've got there.
I wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out that the presense of magnetic fields is not an explanation of coronal heating.
Well, then you can quit pointing it out as if I'd ever claimed that the presence of magnetic fields explained coronal heating.quote:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/m171_20001108.movquote:
So what?
So what? So there has to be a *cause* for this behavior, one that is consistent with what we see.
Indeed, there is a cause. Expanding magnetic fields through a hot plasma explain what we see in that video quite well, even if it doesn't explain how the plasma got that hot in the first place. Unfortunately for you, if you're going to demand that I explain how the corona gets hot, I'll demand that you explain what powers the Sun (and thus heats the corona) in your model (which I already know you don't know).quote:
Such "structures" are easily explainable as electrical discharges being fed from the surface.
Only if you can explain how a potential develops between two points on an alleged surface to begin with, since plasmas aren't insulators.quote:
Their continued existence and their continued expansion over time is directly related to the amount and duration of the current running through these arcs.
Except you still haven't demonstrated any net current running from point to point on your alleged surface.quote:
quote:
Prove it.
I already handed you a quote awhile back that described that process in plasma. The *current flow* is the part that attracts the plasma, and the magnetic field lines prove exactly zero in the way of heat.
Well, hand it to me again, because I don't remember anything showing anything about plasmas being "attracted to" an electrical curr |
- 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
26021 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 22:57:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Temperature of Flares from Yohkoh Data"[/bq]But where were we...?
*We* were just looking at all the information from this same author that you seemed to have missed (not necessarily in article order, but order of importance IMO).
quote:
Finally, I would like to emphasize that emission measure of the high-temperature areas outside the loop is more than a order of magnitude too small to account for BCS Fe XXV observations. The SXT filter-ratio temperature may be similar to BCS in these areas, but I believe that 20 MK resides in the loop and the HXT L channel source on the basis of considerations on emission measure.
Ephasis mine.
quote:
No conclusive work has so far been shown to this author on the characterization of the SXT point spread function (PSF) for images in these filters. It is clearly an area that needs lots of development. All I can say at the moment is that the effect of slightly different PSFs in these filters would be more pronounced for more compact sources. Judgment of the reality of high-temperature pixels is not fully objective. Often used criteria include (1) their distribution is wider than 1-2 pixels, (2) they appear consistently from one temperature map to next, (3) they occur where the intensity is not extremely low, (4) they do not show strong dependence on changes in the intensity images, etc. I know, some of these criteria are really vague.
So essentially the author is "cautious" about suggesting the brightest areas are *necessarily* the hottest, even though there is no official "consensus" on this point. Even still, he personally puts the 20Mk lines *inside* the arc.
quote:
For flares, it has become almost a consensus (at least at a cartoon level) to locate the energy release region outside or above the magnetic loop bright in soft X-rays.
So now we know that not everyone at Lockheed even agrees with this concept in the first place, and there is no "official consensus", just one the head hanchos will agree to.
Now of course an area that seemed to be "above" the base of the loops could in fact just be light plasma in the loop heating up to very high temperatures. I'd say you are overlooking the obvious as well since *every* channel (not a ratio of multiple channels) shows the light *inside* the coronal loop. Again, simple logic dictates that we look at the big picture first and notice where all the light *in all the filters* comes from. Of course Lockheed is insisting on oversimplifying this process again by arbritrarily picking just two of them to do this with, and not a peep about reflection or absorbtion rates of the two that were chosen. I find it ironic that we want to be careful not to oversimplify the issue, and then they try to use two and only two images to assertain temperature. That's exactly the same problem with the 171 and 195 images. You can't do that! They don't have a clue about the absorbtion rates, the reflection rates, etc. Instead of even looking at where ALL the light is concentrate in *ALL* the images they oversimplified the whole process from start to finish. Not all of them of course, just the ones that ALMOST form a consensus.
Of course there was one other very key point the author mentions, specifically:
quote:
SXT is great in following dynamic phenomena in the solar corona, frequent brightenings here and there. The images are so beautiful. But we should remember that a brightening can be due to an increase in density, rather than temperature, meaning that bright areas in SXT images do not necessarily represent locations of heating.
So now you have to pick your poison Dave. Will you accept in increase in density (mass separation), or an increase in temperature. Of course the author failed to note it could be both more dense *and* hotter as well which is actually what's going on.
I'll finish up this post after I grab a cup of coffee. This was an interesting article in that it notes the biases inside the inner circles, and it exposes a lot of these biases for what they are. You can't ignore the fact that the light is concentrated inside the arc in 5 separate filters and then only use a formulated ratio between only two of them to somehow construe a notion that the heat is concentrate *outside* the arc. That's simply irrational, and it demonstrates the irrational nature of their arbitrary choices. You can't simply ignore the fact that the light comes from *inside* the arc in *all* the filters. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/28/2006 23:01:47 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 23:33:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since when when has a suggestion ("However, SOHO and TRACE oservations suggest that the corona is heated primarily by electrical currents") equate to a "solid theory?" It doesn't. Also, I never claimed there isn't an answer, I claimed that we don't know the answer, and one Lockheed employee's suggestion (especially an employee you consider to be 66.67% wrong) is surely not a scientific consensus.
Oh I see. He's fine when he's *almost* forming a consensus on something you argee with, nevermind the small fact that the loop is brightest in *both* images. However, when this same insider, someone who's intimately involved with solar theory at Lockheed claims that the heat source is electricity, then he's not "good enough"? You sure are "picky" about your sources of info and when you'll used them and when you'll ignore them. I at least can explain *why* I disagree with him when I disagree with him. Can you?
quote:
Birkeland's model was not of point-to-point electrical discharges on the surface of a sphere, it was of a beam of electrons striking a solid sphere from far away (just like solar ions striking Earth's magnetic field cause aurorae). Your model is nothing like Birkeland's.
You really don't seem to grasp the big picture Dave. It's *exactly* like his model, including the interaction with the currents of the universe itself.
quote:
Besides which, you still haven't explained how the plasma layers in your model ever act like insulators to make your lightning analogy an apt one.
Dense material gets ionized in the arcs. The less dense and less conductive materials tend to insulate the areas of least resistence. We can even watch materials being tossed into the atmosphere, and affecting these currents.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_010322.mov
As this heavy material rains back down again, it becomes the material that bridges the gap, and becomes the conductor for another event.
quote:
He didn't present electrical heating as current theory, he offered it as a new hypothesis (from what you quoted - I don't get that magazine).
Get the magazine or just read the links to his paper that I posted earlier. Evidently an "electric sun" is a new theory! Wheee! :)
quote:
The light source has been identified, the heat source is still in question.
Are you suggesting we both agree the light comes from the coronal loops, we just disagree about whether they are hotter or colder than the surrounding *DARK* material?
quote:
And you even question the amount of heat being measured, so I don't see how you can do any analysis, either.
Well, I simply note that heat and electricity are involved and while the temperatures *could* reach the numbers Lockheed suggests, it's not an absolute requirement. I certainly agree that we see high temperature plasma *inside* the coronal loops, and that this dense hot plasma heats the light cool plasma around it.
quote:
Well, then you can quit pointing it out as if I'd ever claimed that the presence of magnetic fields explained coronal heating.
Well, here's the obvious fork in the road. You can continue to rule out electrical discharge as the cause of this event, even if Lockheed has not. You can choose to cling to a solar model that can't even explain the very first question we have to ask ourselves, namely where the light and heat are concentrated. Evidently we agree the light is concentrated in the loop, but not the heat?
quote:
Indeed, there is a cause. Expanding magnetic fields through a hot plasma explain what we see in that video quite well, even if it doesn't explain how the plasma got that hot in the first place. Unfortunately for you, if you're going to demand that I explain how the corona gets hot, I'll demand that you explain what powers the Sun (and thus heats the corona) in your model (which I already know you don't know).
I do know at least *some* of the energy sources, including the universe itself as Birkeland suggested. The plasma moving over solid terrain is also part of the source of electricity, as is induction as the magnetic field rotates inside an iron shell. I can explain at least *some* of the power sources that are in play. You only have a "theory" about what you *think* is power source and no detailed observations that confirm it.
quote:
Only if you can explain how a potential develops between two points on an alleged surface to begin with, since plasmas aren't insulators.
Birkeland showed that "bumps" on the surface became the focal points of these arcs. The highest regions become positively charged and the lower regions become negatively charged. The whole thing interacts with other bodies in the solar system as well as the universe itself.
I need more coffee. I'll be right back.... :)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
