|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2006 : 00:52:34 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to return to this composite image again between Yohkoh and Trace for just a moment. Here we have TRACE looking at the event in 171A in Blue and Yohkoh's SXT view that is represented in yellow. If we go back to that heat concentration comment that the author made earlier, he claimed that the consensus was that the areas "above" the loops *might* be hotter than the base. Of course when we look at this image *all* the light emissions of both images is focused in and directly around the coronal loops we see rising from below and glowing at the top. One could easily be forgiven for thinking that the tops are hottest part of the loop, but that is only true if the the whole verticle depth of the atmosphere is shallow and composed of the same material and absorbs and reflects exactly the same way. Both images show that the heat is concentrated *inside* the arcs. The tops are very bright and may indeed heat up the light material of the corona directly above the loop in a very dramatic way, but the heat source is the loop since the yellow lines follow the same coronal loops that are seen in TRACE.
All the light from all the high energy photons seen by all the filters of all these satellites shows that the light originates inside the arcs/loops. As the author said, either it's more dense, or a higher temperature or both. If it's more dense, you've got a mass separation problem on your hands, particuarly if you think this thing actually originates and terminates in the corona. If it's hotter, you have to explain the heat. If it's both, you have to explain both.
This image tells us some important facts. Trace sees the whole loop, including the base of the coronal loop, whereas Yohkoh only sees that material once it get to the top of the loop. Now again, the tops of the loop are MORE dense, have a greater temperature, or the light is simply less absorbed by the atmosphere once the loop reaches a certain height. It could be all of the above. Which option(s) do you choose and why? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2006 00:57:35 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 12:49:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
*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).
I didn't miss any of that stuff, it's simply not relevant to showing that "brighter" does not equal "hotter."quote:
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.
So both you and N.V. Nitta believe that it's hot inside the loop.quote:
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.
Yeah, right after he gets done telling us that the brightest areas are not necessarily the hottest. Either the author is a ball of contradictions, or you are lacking in reading comprehension.quote:
Even still, he personally puts the 20Mk lines *inside* the arc.
Since he still shows that the hottest areas are not the brightest, you're still wrong on that point (you're just refusing to admit it by glomming onto these irrelevancies).quote:
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.
So what?quote:
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.
Except you appear to be overlooking the images that Nitta presents.quote:
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 note that you haven't made a peep about the reflection or absorbtion rates, either, Michael. Oh, sure, you bring them up as problems that other people have failed to overcome (like the above), but you've never once said what you think those rates are (other than "not zero," obviously). But, of course, you need to assume that there is non-zero reflectivity within the corona or else the light well away from any loop becomes a problem for you.quote:
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.
You don't have a clue about those rates, either.quote:
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.
Now you're simply crazed. Nitta describes a very complex process for determining temperatures, including all sorts of caveats (as well as saying that he's not sure about some of the data), and you are trying to oversimplify the whole mess into "look at where the light is concentrated." Your "brighter equals hotter" was so massively oversimplified that it was wrong.quote:
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.
An increase in density is now mass separation? Holy crap! What a massively broad definition for "mass separation" you've got, Michael. Why, I had no idea that the water at the bottom of the oceans here is where it is because it is "mass separated" from the surface waters!  What you're basically saying now, Michael, is that you think that the standard solar model contradicts basic knowledge we have about gravity and buoyancy (because you claim that the standard solar model rejects "mass separation"). But it's quite obvious that the standard solar model predicts the area of highest density will be in the core, with generally lower and lower densities as you increase R.quote:
Of course the a |
- 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 - 03/29/2006 : 15:57:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, the passband of Yohkoh's SXT is less than 3.7 nm, while TRACE's 171A and 195A filters together have a passband of almost 5 nm. Beyond that, Yohkoh's passband doesn't overlap TRACE's at all. And still beyond that, whether something can be modelled as a black body has nothing to do with the passbands of the instruments used to image it. Talk about irrelevant!
I think I'll pickup the remaining issues, one item at a time as I get free time today. I'll start with this one
Yohkoh's SXT filter is specifically designed to isolate and observe the majority of the *high energy* X-ray spectrum. It's a relatively short spectrum, but not as short as you seem to think. these filters show us where the *highest* energy photons are concentrated. This is not about selecting a *large* spectrum to begin with, it's about the energy state of the spectrum it is able to image. What does size of the wavelength *range* have to do with this conversation? If we want to see where the high energy photons are concentrated, we need to look at the highest energy spectrum, and Yohkoh has quite a range of view in this particular energy range.
quote:
Alrighty, then... Let's do it: TRACE's filters pass 16.0 through 21.0 nm light, 26.5 through 31.0 nm, and 100.0 nm through daylight. Yohkoh is tough to find data on, but I know it can at least see some bands between 0.3 and 4.0 nm. SOHO images a similar range to TRACE (in lower resolutions) of 15.0 nm through 160 nm (various instruments). RHESSI - I'm no good at converting electron volts to photon wavelengths, but perhaps you are? GOES' SXI images from 0.6 nm through 6.0 nm. So far, there's still a huge gaping hole between 6 nm and 15 nm which no satellite is imaging (unless maybe RHESSI).
Actually between all five SXT filters (when they all worked), the working wavelength range of the SXT equipment was from 2A up to 200A, and there was an overlap in the wavelength sensitivity ranges between the SXT gear and TRACE in the 171A and 195A wavelengths. In fact a number of studies (including the one I cited earlier) show that both satellites can often see the same events like the Bastille day flare. Both images show that the heat and light are concentrated in the coronal loops. Since there are more Trace pixels for every Yohkoh pixel (in zoomed images it's something like 25 to 1) the Yohkoh images tend to be "fuzzier" than the TRACE lines.
Here's one link on Yohkoh wavelength range:
www.mtk.nao.ac.jp/SBmeetings/SB_Sci05XRT.pdf" target="_blank">http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/SBmeetings/SB_Sci05XRT.pdf
quote:
No, not invisible, Michael. You just don't know how to interpret the data correctly.
Boloney. Lockheed doesn't know how to interpret the data correctly. Show me even *one* raw (not reversed) high energy satellite image from any solar satellite that shows us dark coronal loops surrounded by a white background. You can't use any reversed images that intentionally change the bright area to dark areas. If you can show me even a single high energy image that works that way, I'll consider to your explanation. If you can't find one however, you're going to have a tough time getting me to believe that "invisible" heat exists that is magical and somehow can't be seen in any high energy satellite image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2006 16:59:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 19:07:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yohkoh's SXT filter is specifically designed to isolate and observe the majority of the *high energy* X-ray spectrum. It's a relatively short spectrum, but not as short as you seem to think. these filters show us where the *highest* energy photons are concentrated.
Then what the hell is Yohkoh's Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT) for?quote:
This is not about selecting a *large* spectrum to begin with, it's about the energy state of the spectrum it is able to image.
Right, especially with the HXT, for which the response is usually listed in electron volts rather than wavelength.quote:
What does size of the wavelength *range* have to do with this conversation?
You're the one who brought up Yohkoh's larger range (as compared to TRACE), so you tell me.quote:
If we want to see where the high energy photons are concentrated, we need to look at the highest energy spectrum, and Yohkoh has quite a range of view in this particular energy range.
And still, for Yohkoh, brighter doesn't equal hotter.quote:
In fact a number of studies (including the one I cited earlier) show that both satellites can often see the same events like the Bastille day flare. Both images show that the heat and light are concentrated in the coronal loops.
Since brighter doesn't equal hotter, and you haven't yet defined what you mean by "loop," I cannot possibly agree.quote:
Here's one link on Yohkoh wavelength range:
http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/SBmeetings/SB_Sci05XRT.pdf
What the hell are you talking about, Michael? That's a write-up on the Solar-B's XRT. The authors compare it to Yohkoh's SXT, but it's not Yohkoh's SXT.quote:
quote:
No, not invisible, Michael. You just don't know how to interpret the data correctly.
Boloney. Lockheed doesn't know how to interpret the data correctly.
Gee... He-said/they-said. Who to believe? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who thinks the corona can be modeled as a black body? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who makes no distinction between electrical currents and huge sparks? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who kept insisting that "brighter equals hotter?" Hmmm...quote:
Show me even *one* raw (not reversed) high energy satellite image from any solar satellite that shows us dark coronal loops surrounded by a white background. You can't use any reversed images that intentionally change the bright area to dark areas. If you can show me even a single high energy image that works that way, I'll consider to your explanation. If you can't find one however, you're going to have a tough time getting me to believe that "invisible" heat exists that is magical and somehow can't be seen in any high energy satellite image.
This is just more of your inability to understand showing through, Michael. Neither TRACE nor Yohkoh take images of "heat." They aren't thermometers, the temperature has to be inferred from the photon counts through a 3-D medium with temperature variations all along the line of sight. You're so oversimplifying the problem that your answer is nearly guaranteed to be wrong. |
- 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 - 03/29/2006 : 20:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then what the hell is Yohkoh's Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT) for?
It find these hard xrays originate at the base of the arcs, where Rhessi sees evidence of positron/electron anihilation. What about the HXT images? Images of the sun taken by HST tend to be quite "dark". All I asked for was one single high energy image where the backgound glows brighter than the coronal loops. You're welcome to use the HXT images if you think they help you case in some way.
quote:
Right, especially with the HXT, for which the response is usually listed in electron volts rather than wavelength.
So where does the HXT see light Dave? Does it show us a bright background with dark loops in raw images?
quote:
You're the one who brought up Yohkoh's larger range (as compared to TRACE), so you tell me.
I was talking about it's greater *temperature* range and it's ability to see higher energy photons than TRACE or SOHO. It has a better ability to discern if there is a high energy emission we might be overlooking in TRACE images. It doesn't see any invisible heated plasma either, not in XST image or HXT images. None of them shows this missing heat you keep claiming exists in the corona. It shows us exactly the same kinds of patterns that Trace shows us, namely the coronal loops are the most dense, and hottest and brightest things in the atmosphere.
quote:
And still, for Yohkoh, brighter doesn't equal hotter.
That is false Dave. You cite *one* guy and who himself is convinced the 20Mk plasma is *in* the loop and even he admits there isn't really even a consensus as to whether that method even works right! I can tell you from looking at the original images that it doesn't work right if you are going to try to tell me that the blue regions are hotter than the green ones in the processed image. That is physically and scientifically impossible given the fact that the coronal loops are brighter in *both* images and Yohkoh sees no "invisible" (to Trace) heat sitting outside the coronal loops.
quote:
Since brighter doesn't equal hotter, and you haven't yet defined what you mean by "loop," I cannot possibly agree.
Oh for crying out loud Dave, you cited one guy who's talking about using the same method that I'm questioning in the first place! He never said a peep about absorbion/emission/reflection rates associated with these filters. He himself puts the high temps *inside* the arcs, and he points out there isn't even a consensus to begin with as to whether this "method" even works in the first place! Worse yet, you overlooked the *reason* he made that claim, specifically because it could be *more dense* which implies mass separation, *or* it's hotter, *or* what he fails to mention entirely is that it could be *both* of these things.
quote:
That's a write-up on the Solar-B's XRT. The authors compare it to Yohkoh's SXT, but it's not Yohkoh's SXT.
Grr, I hate answering these posts at work with distractions going on.
Let's try it this way:
http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_SolarAYohkohXraySolarObservatory.html
It's actually a 3-60A wavelength range. Of course this has nothing to do with the key issue. Even at these (and HXT) wavelengths, the light and heat is still concentrated in the arc. Even if there is actually a "missing" part of the spectrum between TRACE and Yohkoh (nevermind the fact they see the same events), it wouldn't matter one iota. Yohkoh equipment (including HST) is still looking at the upper, most extreme end of the energy spectrum. It sees plasma in the 2 to 20 million kelvin range. No matter how you slice it and dice it, if Yohkoh and Rhessi can't see it, it's not that hot. It's evidently not that hot.
quote:
Gee... He-said/they-said. Who to believe? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who thinks the corona can be modeled as a black body? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who makes no distinction between electrical currents and huge sparks? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who kept insisting that "brighter equals hotter?" Hmmm...
Now talk about your blatent appeals to authority fallacies! :) First of all, if we can see the coronal loops and there is no mass separation, you've got an *impossible* task to explain why we see one and not the other if they are all the same density and temperature. Even if they are different densities, that doesn't automatically mean the dark material is hotter than the bright material. If you can see one source of heat, what not all of it?
Now of course these are the same "scientists" that you ignore whenever and however you feel like it. You never even picked your poison Dave. Is the plasma more dense or hotter, or both? Why?
Personally I'll take the guy that acknowledges some basic physics and acknowledges that in *most* instance that might apply to these images, *brigher is hotter*. The fact that this same group somehow ignores the fact that the bright regions of *both* images, and didn't say a single word about absortion/emission/reflection signatures of each filter tells us everything we need to know about their analysis. It stinks! It's like taking two images of a lightning bolt in two wavelengths, not having a clue how either wavelength is affected by the air, and running a math formula on them and determining it's safer and cooler inside the lightening bolt than any of the dark areas around the bolt. Sorry Dave, but I don't buy it. I don't buy the concept, and I see *obvious* and *blatent* problems with that method starting with the fact they haven't a clue how the atmosphere affects either filter. I'll take a guy with common sense that knows electrical discharges are hot thanks.
quote:
This is just more of your inability to understand showing through, Michael. Neither TRACE nor Yohkoh take images of "heat." They aren't thermometers, the temperature has to be inferred from the photon counts through a 3-D medium with temperature variations all along the line of sight. You're so oversimplifying the problem that your answer is nearly guaranteed to be wrong.
Man, you are pulling outrageous rationalizations out of every concievable corner of your very creative head at |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2006 20:36:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 20:23:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, right after he gets done telling us that the brightest areas are not necessarily the hottest. Either the author is a ball of contradictions, or you are lacking in reading comprehension.
No Dave, the author was fine. The problem is you.
The only "out" he actually offered you was *dense* plasma, and you utterly ignored that key issue and avoided my question about picking your poison.
That density issue is the *only* way that *might* give you an out. There's no guarantee of course that this is actually an out in your case, expecially since the author himself agreed with [b]me]/b] that the 20MK temps are coming from *inside* the loop, not from outside of it. I had no problem with the authors comments. He even pointed out that there *is no* consensus on this point, just a general "proceedure" that *some* of these folks *think* might work. Of course he never once mentioned a word about absortion/emission/reflection rates associated with this technique, so we can all see for ourselves how down right primitive a method it really is.
Worse yet they *oversimplied* the process by picking *two* and only two filters when *5* (later 4) were actually available. Never mind the fact that Yohkoh can't see this magically hot plasma around the loops as they describe it. Never mind the fact that for the blue region of that image to actually be hotter than the green region, that blue area should light up like a Christmas tree in Yohkoh images and doesn't. That whole arguement is totally bogus, and even the author hedged his bets. So much for finding a true consensus at Lockheed. They aren't even entirely convinced the method works. I know for sure that it doesn't. I know this based on the laws of physics. Hot objects emit photons. Cool objects tend to emit less photons. If the arcs were cooler than the surrounding material, we'd see that. We don't. We see activity in every satellite image that is completely consistent with the fact that the coronal loops are both the light source of these images and the primary heat source of the corona. That's what we see in black and white. It's a plain as the nose on your face, but you attempt to complicate the idea and obfuscate the data with meaningless jibberish that has no scientific credibility in the first place since no one has a clue how the atmosphere might absorb/emit/reflect these two different wavelengths.
I honestly can't believe at this point that you can look at any GEOS, Yohkoh or RHESSI image and somehow conclude that the coronal loop are cooler than dark regions seen in the same image. That is simply irrational and it's one big fat juicy rationalization on your part.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2006 20:26:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 20:54:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I can't agree, since you haven't specified what you think is "an arc" in this image and what isn't.
Everything that is lit in blue and yellow is part of an electrical discharge, or reflecting or absorbing and emitting energy from these solar discharges. The big arcs in the middle are of most interest to us since we can see which part of the arc that Yohkoh is capable of seeing, namely the top and the base of the arcs.
You have a major delimma with this composite image since both satellites actually see material inside these arcs. If the dark regions in Trace's view were lit up in Yohkoh's view, you might be able to convince me that the dark regions of a Trace image are hotter than the bright regions. We however see just the opposite.
Rather than Yohkoh observing any heat in the dark regions of the TRACE image, instead it only is capable of seeing emissions from the same arcs, but only once they reach a particularly height. Most telling however is the fact that Yohkoh *only* observes light from the arcs, not light from the dark regions of the Trace image. There is no way in the world of physics that you can continue to deny these facts. It's right there in front of you in living color. There is no magic heat in the corona. The coronal loops *are* the heat source of the corona. The corona is still relatively cool compared to the arcs that Yohkoh can actually observe.
I honestly respect you enough to believe that you will ultimately "see the light" here Dave. You're an intelligent person, but you are stuck at the moment. You're stuck because Lockheed is stuck and NASA is stuck and your experts are stuck. They can't explain the heat and light signatures because they "don't get it". To them it's merely a "hypothesis" that isn't even a theory! Our universe is electric Dave, and those are electrical discharges we're looking at. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2006 20:56:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 21:43:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only "out" he actually offered you was *dense* plasma, and you utterly ignored that key issue and avoided my question about picking your poison.
You're obviously not reading my posts any more, because I asked you pointed questions about the density issue after you brought it up. When are you going to respond to them?
When are you going to respond to my point about the UofM paper, which doesn't even contain the words "current" or "flow" (or other terms related to current flow) at all? When are we going to be enlightened about why lighting is not brighter at its endpoints, while your alleged "arcs" are? How about the details of what insulator Birkeland coated his sphere with before seeing point-to-point arcs across it?
All this crap about the "heat" is nothing more than a distraction. And you can't even answer questions about it fully:quote:
Everything that is lit in blue and yellow is part of an electrical discharge, or reflecting or absorbing and emitting energy from these solar discharges.
Which pixels are which? How the hell can you claim to be "analyzing" an image without knowing which pixels are direct emissions, which are reflections, and which are absorbtions and re-emissions? What is the reflectiveness of the coronal material, Michael? How wide is the typical "arc?" Why do you refuse to answer these questions about your own model?quote:
I honestly respect you enough to believe that you will ultimately "see the light" here Dave.
You've shown, over and over again, that you don't respect me at all. Patronizing me shows it most of all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 05:17:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg
I really liked this movie from the press release. They even show the coronal loop coming up from underneath. How then can the base of these arcs orininate in the corona?
It's a nice animation. I did a quick search and couldn't find the page describing the movie. Without knowing what the different "layers" and features are meant to represent, the intention of the animation and the known limitations, it's little more than a distraction, however pretty.
If you could post the accompanying description (press release?) or, better yet, the actual NASA page the link came from, it might be possible for others to comment in context. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 05:18:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
My explanation of the Lockheed RD image is not the least bit affected by this particular error on my part, and the only attention to detail I've ever heard about this image came from Lockheed's website when it talked about the ejected material we see in this image.
Perhaps not, but it does illustrate quite clearly that you "see" raw images and calculated images as showing the same types of features and properties. Yet you still claim to be the only person interpreting these images "in detail", regardless of the fact that numerous people have pointed out to you, scientifically, why what you see isn't what you assert. But, I forgot, Michael Mozina doesn't make mistakes in regard to image interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As I said, I half expected that someone would come along and drop a gas model explanation on the table that was attentative to detail and could explain at least "some" of the details we see. Unfortunately that has not occured.
No one has to use any particular model to point out flaws in your arguments. No matter how many times people say it, you keep assuming that everything has to prove the gas model correct, otherwise, by default, your model is correct. My arguments regarding the imaging, and your incorrect interpretations have nothing to do with the gas model. Nothing. No one can give an explanation which will satisfy you unless they first agree that what you see in the images represent an actual picture (in the conventional, photographic sense) of solid surfaces and other features.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
If and only if brighter==hotter.
You can't use black body principles in one post and then ignore the ramifications of these same principles in the next post.
I never tried to explain anything using black body radiation. I simply used it as part of an example illustrating exactly why brighter is not necessarily hotter.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In all electrical discharge events, brighter is hotter. By all black body principles, bright is hotter.
Wrong. Wrong again.
Unless you take wavelength into account (and all the associated wavelength dependant properties of the observation system), this is meaningless. Brighter where Michael?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This all comes back to simple laws of physics, logic and common sense.
The physics I'll grant you, on "simple", I beg to differ. Logic and common sense can get you into a lot of trouble if you don't understand the context completely. Trying to apply logic and common sense to situations which are far from "common" to our everyday experience is not even sensible. I'll take the scientific method over common sense every day, and twice on Tuesdays.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If we both saw an electrical discharge through the earth's amosphere, you would not suggest the earth atmosphere is "hotter" than the plasma in the arc.
No, but unless I understood everything that goes on during this brief, electrostatic discharge, I also wouldn't claim the converse. I would also wonder whether or not "hotter" was a meaningful parameter for a one off event like a terrestrial lightning strike. I certainly wouldn't try and apply my gut feelings about terrestrial lightning to an arc (or something else "electrical in nature" ) travelling between two points on a solid surface, through a plasma in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Until you can show me how light and heat are NOT related in solar-like conditions, I see no reason to believe they are not related processes, since they are certainly related processes in electrical discharges, and Bruce has shown a correlation between solar atmospheric movements and electrical discharges.
Ah, so I must prove a negative (and an impossible one at that, I certainly can't define "solar like conditions" to a sufficient level of accuracy and completeness to prove this negative) in order for your assumption not to be true. I keep forgetting you were absent the day they taught science in science class.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The situation is more complex than that, the background temperature profile is not uniform, there are electric fields and the photon-atom interactions to understand. It happens, whether or not you are in the forest to "see" it Michael.
Perhaps under very specific scenarios, it's 'possible' but I have ample examples in every thunderstorm where the lit regions are quite a bit hotter than the darker ones. If you really expect me to change my position on this point, you will have to site me some way for this to happen that is consistent with solar conditions and Bruce's findings.
You mean something consistent like a single point to point electrostatic discharge through an insulating medium, causing ionization and the resulting optical emissions, from the terrestrial atmosphere to ground (in the truest sense of the word) being similar to some sort of sustained current flow from tone part of the solar surface to another in the same plane through the solar plasma? I could posit just about any scenario involving some electrons moving about resulting in some photon generation and the similarity would be about on par with yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
You mean the energy that is absorbed by the copper |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 05:22:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Even Lockheed Martin talks about rising and falling ejected material which directly supports Manuel's analsys that suggests the sun is mass separated.
It directly supports Manuel's analysis? I'd love to hear that logic.
I'm consistently amazed at how you are able to throw the "mass separation" issue in any old time as if it's relevant. Whenever there are two adjacent materials not of the same atomic number and isotope, you can claim they are "mass separated". By itself this means absolutely nothing.
"Look at this iron oxide film on this metal surface. Notice the mass separation? Direct evidence that rusting too supports the theory for the solid surface of the sun".
Mass separation can refer to either a process or a state of matter at a particular time. Without the correct context, and an explanation of why the situation is what it is, it provides no useful information whatsoever. Metallic ions in solution are separated by electrolysis, the resulting system could be said to be "partially mass separated". Of course, mass has nothing to do with it. Apparently even increases in density support mass sepration:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
specifically because it could be *more dense* which implies mass separation
Wow.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If we want to see where the high energy photons are concentrated, we need to look at the highest energy spectrum, and Yohkoh has quite a range of view in this particular energy range.
This is only true for a black body. Otherwise you can only infer temperature information based on the spectral properties of known atoms at particular temperatures. Looking for higher energy photons won't do you any good if the materials present don't emit photons in that range. Prove that it makes sense to treat the solar atmosphere as a black body and you're in with a chance, otherwise this is rubbish.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Everything that is lit in blue and yellow is part of an electrical discharge, or reflecting or absorbing and emitting energy from these solar discharges. The big arcs in the middle are of most interest to us since we can see which part of the arc that Yohkoh is capable of seeing, namely the top and the base of the arcs.
(Emphasis mine) How you can write analysis like this and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me. Your description of imagery is pretty much your entire case, and this is, unfortunately, a typical description of your "model". To quote Furshur, "pitiful". |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 10:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All I asked for was one single high energy image where the backgound glows brighter than the coronal loops.
Right, you're asking me to satisfy your complete strawman, which I have no intention of doing.quote:
quote:
And still, for Yohkoh, brighter doesn't equal hotter.
That is false Dave. You cite *one* guy and who himself is convinced the 20Mk plasma is *in* the loop and even he admits there isn't really even a consensus as to whether that method even works right!
It doesn't matter where the 20 Mk plasmas are, the article demonstrates in no uncertain terms that brighter doesn't always equal hotter, which is your contention. You simply refuse to admit that you are wrong on that one point.quote:
I can tell you from looking at the original images that it doesn't work right if you are going to try to tell me that the blue regions are hotter than the green ones in the processed image. That is physically and scientifically impossible given the fact that the coronal loops are brighter in *both* images and Yohkoh sees no "invisible" (to Trace) heat sitting outside the coronal loops.
But that's completely irrelevant to the disproof of "brighter equals hotter."quote:
quote:
Since brighter doesn't equal hotter, and you haven't yet defined what you mean by "loop," I cannot possibly agree.
Oh for crying out loud Dave, you cited one guy who's talking about using the same method that I'm questioning in the first place!
Indeed, he talks about how complex the problem is, while you're vastly oversimplifying it with "brighter equals hotter."quote:
He never said a peep about absorbion/emission/reflection rates associated with these filters.
And you've never quantified them so they can be added to your own analysis, so therefore (by your logic) you have not "addressed" the issue at all.quote:
Worse yet, you overlooked the *reason* he made that claim, specifically because it could be *more dense* which implies mass separation, *or* it's hotter, *or* what he fails to mention entirely is that it could be *both* of these things.
Again, it's all irrelevant to you being wrong about "brighter equals hotter."quote:
quote:
Gee... He-said/they-said. Who to believe? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who thinks the corona can be modeled as a black body? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who makes no distinction between electrical currents and huge sparks? The actual solar scientists, or the guy who kept insisting that "brighter equals hotter?" Hmmm...
Now talk about your blatent appeals to authority fallacies! :)
Not at all, since an appeal to authority is only fallacious when it's an appeal to an inappropriate authority. Appealing to solar scientists when talking about solar science isn't a fallacious appeal to authority.
Besides which, I wasn't appealing to them, just comparing them to you, who seem to be ignorant of many basic physical models, and twist others to suit your personal needs. All you offered was a contradiction to the experts in the appropriate field, saying they were wrong, and offering a strawman by way of justification. You are not a compelling witness for your own model, Michael. You should find someone else who can do the job better than you.quote:
First of all, if we can see the coronal loops and there is no mass separation, you've got an *impossible* task to explain why we see one and not the other if they are all the same density and temperature. Even if they are different densities, that doesn't automatically mean the dark material is hotter than the bright material. If you can see one source of heat, what not all of it?
Why don't you explain it without density differences as a part of your model. I know what the solar scientists would say, but if I repeat it here, you'll just accuse me of defending the gas model.quote:
Now of course these are the same "scientists" that you ignore whenever and however you feel like it.
When did I ever ignore any of them? I happen to agree with them on every point they've made, since they're consistent and have data and physics to back them up. What I dispute is your oversimplified interpretations of what they say (because you can't help but put words in their mouths to try to make them look like idiots because it's the only way you can "win" a debate).quote:
You never even picked your poison Dave. Is the plasma more dense or hotter, or both? Why?
I'm still waiting for you to describe how if it were denser, it would be a problem (especially in light of the fact that you claim the Earth's atmosphere is "mass separated," but varies in density all over the place).quote:
Personally I'll take the guy that acknowledges some basic physics and acknowledges that in *most* instance that might apply to these images, *brigher is hotter*.
You didn't say "most," you said "always."quote:
The fact that this same group somehow ignores the fact that the bright regions of *both* images, and didn't say a single word about absortion |
- 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 - 03/30/2006 : 11:08:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're obviously not reading my posts any more, because I asked you pointed questions about the density issue after you brought it up. When are you going to respond to them?
I am reading your posts Dave. I'm also carefully picking and choosing which issues I want to resolve and focus on rather than going through blow by blows with you. I'll be happy to respond to your questions but you need to start responding to a few key issues I've asked you about.
Specifically the issue I'm interested in at that moment are the temperature/density of the coronal loops vs. the corona itself. That is the issue I keep returning to because it's critical that we resolve this before we try to move forward. This is no "minor" issue, it's a "major" issue.
The author you cited gave you *two* options to explain the light concentration patterns. Of course he left open the obvious explantioin and he himself chose this option as it relates to 20Mk temps. He put these temperatures inside the loop.
The other option he mentioned was *density*, which seems to be the one you've latched onto as an "out". This however presents a significant problem for your explanation since you claimed that all this takes place in the corona, and you've provided nothing in the way of explaining this density difference.
Now of course the author doesn't mention the fact that it could be more dense *and* a higher temperature, but based on the fact he put the higher temps inside the loop, that seems to be what he's suggesting is happening, even if he's trying to give the other idea some credence.
The problem of course with the whole bright=dense material claim is that not a single meantion was made of how they "tuned" this technique, or even how they tested to see how each wavelength was affected by the atmosphere in terms of absortion/reflection, ect. He also points out that while the method is used, it isn't really agreed by everyone that it even works, and he himself hedged his bets which suggest to me that even he isn't sold on the concept.
Either way however, you need to commit here in some way so we can move forward. Is the material more dense, hotter, or both? Why do you choose the option(s) you choose?
quote:
When are you going to respond to my point about the UofM paper, which doesn't even contain the words "current" or "flow" (or other terms related to current flow) at all?
I already did. They use the terms electron density and stuff like that. They are directly suggesting that these emissions are driven by electron excitation and heat. It suggest *both* aspects are involved. When are you going to answer *my* question about what you think drives electron excitation if *not* the flow of electricity?
Since the resolution on that composite image is so limited, and since the brightness on each image is minimal, its likely that everything we see in that image is probably associated with the arc itself rather than any sort of reflection or absortion/emission process.
The rest of your questions are not relevant to the issue of defining the temperature and density of the material in the loop vs the corona itself.
Right now Dave you putting out some concept about "magic", invisible heat. Yohkoh doesn't see it. Geos doesn't see it. Rhessi doesn't see it. Soho doesn't see it, and Trace doesn't see it. In absolutely no "raw" high energy satellite image will we find a dark loop inside a bright corona. The only images that look like that are *reversed* images. Since this heat is evidently invisible to every solar satellite image I've ever seen, I can only assume it's "magic" heat. It never shows up unless we do some bizzare mathmatical manipulation of two image and ignore any pertinant questions about absortion rates of wavelengths.
As I meantioned, this "technique" is comperable to me taking two images of a lightening strike, ignoring the absortion issues, mathmatically manipulating the images, and then trying to claim that this technique of mine shows conclusively that the lightning bolt is cooler than the atmosphere. Boloney! The technique is useless and oversimplified in the first place. The fact that the loop is the most brightly lit in *both* images should be our first clue there's a problem with the math.
This is one of big beefs I have with the current mentality of the astronomical community. They seem overly fixated on any sort of math, regardless of whether the logic was used to decide the math was relavant was even valid in the first place! As long is there's math involved, it seems like some folks with jump at anything, logic and rational thought be damned. You'll accept the premise that we can apply some blind math formula to two image without regard to absortion rates and act like that is "ok". Boloney. First you have demonstrate that the absortion issue is understood, and then you have to prove it jives with what we see. It doesn't jive with what we see. If it did jive with what we see, Yohkoh would show us a cold loop encased in a hot corona. That's not what Yohkoh shows us. Yohkoh shows us a hot loop in a cool corona, just like Trace shows us. Both satellites (even combined) clearly shows that the high energy emission patters are directly linked to coronal loops and that the coronal loops are hotter than the corona itself. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 11:14:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All I asked for was one single high energy image where the backgound glows brighter than the coronal loops.
Right, you're asking me to satisfy your complete strawman, which I have no intention of doing.
This isn't a strawman Dave, this is a reality check and this is what science is all about. In "theory", it could be that Trace is incapable of imaging the heat from the corona because the corona is too hot to be seen by Trace and emits light at a higher energy state. I can't logically rule that idea completely out based on two satellite images. We do however have a simple way to test that concept.
We can use a satellite (in this case Yohkoh) that has a greater ability to see higher energy emissions to see if the corona is emitting photons is these higher energy wavelengths. In this case we can actually overlay both a Trace image with a Yohkoh image and look at what we see. What we see is that *both* not just one image puts the highest energy photons *inside* the coronal loops and the corona is darker than the loops in both images.
You are essentially proposing some sort of magic, invisible heat that is not only invisible to Trace, but seems to be invisible to every single satellite image I've every seen. If you think the corona is hotter than the loops, give me one observation that demonstrates that belief. If you can't do that, I'm going to ignore your magic heat and deny it exists since I see exactly zip in the way of observation to support that claim.
Contrary to your statements you did *not* "disprove" that brighter areas are hotter areas, you "aledged" this based on the statements of a guy that put the high temperature plasma *inside* the arc as I do. Hoy Vey!
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/30/2006 11:20:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
