|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2006 : 19:51:49 [Permalink]
|
Not that this will do any good whatsoever...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...and even if the corona was relatively thinly populated, that does not prevent it from being examined using standard black body principles related to photon emissions.
Okay, I've got a 75-Watt "bug light" out back (one of those yellow ones). Since you insist that bodies which don't emit as black bodies should still be analyzable as black bodies, I conclude (using your logic), that because the primary wavelength coming from the 75-Watt bug light is yellow, like the Sun, then the glass envelope of the bug light is 4,800 kelvin since that is what Wein's Law (a blackbody calculation) states. Not only that, but I use Stephan's Law (another blackbody calculation) to calculate that because the light, perhaps 5 cm in diameter, is at 4,800 K, then the power it is radiating is over 236,000 Watts.
How is it possible for a 75-Watt bulb to radiate 236,000 Watts? It isn't. The glass envelope of the bulb isn't a black body, and so (obviously) shouldn't be analyzed as if it were a black body. Doing so simply gives wrong answers.
Similarly, since the corona of the Sun is also not a black body (it fails to meet the definition in multiple ways), attempting a black body analysis of it is simply bad science. Your insistence, Michael, that such an analysis is appropriate amply demonstrates your inability to properly conduct this sort of science, and also your inability to use simple logic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 05:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How is it possible for a 75-Watt bulb to radiate 236,000 Watts? It isn't. The glass envelope of the bulb isn't a black body, and so (obviously) shouldn't be analyzed as if it were a black body. Doing so simply gives wrong answers.
Dave, the problem is that you're not taking mass separation into account.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 07:46:15 [Permalink]
|
The problem arises when one tries to explain exactly how all this magnetic field energy is converted into heat, accelerated particles and ejected material. One possibility come simply from a consideration of any electric circuit, which is characterized not just by the current it carries and the voltage driving the flow of charge but also by the electrical resistance present. The filament in a lightbulb, for example, offers resistance to the electric current flowing through it, dissipating electrical energy by turning it into light and heat. The solar atmosphere offers electrical resistance because the charged particles making up the electric currents sometimes collide with one another, impeding their motion and warming things up. Also, the voltage that drives the current has an electric field associated with it. If this electric field is strong enough, electrons and ions will be accelerated out of the hot plasma. Voilà: heating and high-energy particles, the components of a flare.
This neat explanation, alas, does not hold up very well under scrutiny. One reason is that the electrical resistance in the corona is typically quite low — too low to account for the explosive rate at which solar flares brighten. And even if the resistance were higher, explaining how the required amount of magnetic energy could be concentrated in one place and released in a sudden burst would still be difficult. Investigators concluded decades ago that the generation of a voltage driving a simple, single current could not heat the solar atmosphere quickly enough or produce a flux of accelerated particles that is sufficient to make a flare.
— “The Mysterious Origins of Solar Flares,” by Gordon D. Holman. Scientific American, April 2006, pages 38-45 Which just reminds me:For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.
— H. L. Menken |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 08:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Similarly, since the corona of the Sun is also not a black body (it fails to meet the definition in multiple ways), attempting a black body analysis of it is simply bad science. Your insistence, Michael, that such an analysis is appropriate amply demonstrates your inability to properly conduct this sort of science, and also your inability to use simple logic.
Talk about inappropriate analogies Dave! Geez!
Your own "expert" suggested that the cause of light would be related to A) heat, B) density, or C) both. We should be able to "see" any photons that come from plasma that is in the temperature range of these filters. Atoms of this temperature will radiate in black body fashion, albiet less "densely packed" in some areas. You cannot simply start excluding atoms in the corona as being exempt from the laws of physics, or black body principles, simply by virtue of being less densely packed. The atoms will still radiate in the less densely packed regions provided they reach the temperatures that these filters can image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 08:55:04 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 09:03:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The problem arises when one tries to explain exactly how all this magnetic field energy is converted into heat, accelerated particles and ejected material. One possibility come simply from a consideration of any electric circuit, which is characterized not just by the current it carries and the voltage driving the flow of charge but also by the electrical resistance present. The filament in a lightbulb, for example, offers resistance to the electric current flowing through it, dissipating electrical energy by turning it into light and heat. The solar atmosphere offers electrical resistance because the charged particles making up the electric currents sometimes collide with one another, impeding their motion and warming things up. Also, the voltage that drives the current has an electric field associated with it. If this electric field is strong enough, electrons and ions will be accelerated out of the hot plasma. Voilà: heating and high-energy particles, the components of a flare.
This neat explanation, alas, does not hold up very well under scrutiny. One reason is that the electrical resistance in the corona is typically quite low — too low to account for the explosive rate at which solar flares brighten. And even if the resistance were higher, explaining how the required amount of magnetic energy could be concentrated in one place and released in a sudden burst would still be difficult. Investigators concluded decades ago that the generation of a voltage driving a simple, single current could not heat the solar atmosphere quickly enough or produce a flux of accelerated particles that is sufficient to make a flare.
— “The Mysterious Origins of Solar Flares,” by Gordon D. Holman. Scientific American, April 2006, pages 38-45 Which just reminds me:For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.
— H. L. Menken
Well, let me show you where the resistance comes from in one very "explosive" event.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T195_020527_18M2.mov
The problem Mr. Holman refers to is based on the notion that everything in and around the solar surface is made up of the same type and density of plasma. It is not. There are mass separated layers and even solids on the surface. The surface particles are the material that form and sustain these arcs and the surface provides the materials that we see 'light up'. The surface particles sustain this current flow, not the materials of the corona. The resistence of the corona is indeed very low as this author states, but the solids on the surface are quite different, as are the lower plasmas. In that movie, we see a part of the surface material, and heavier calcium plasma rise up from the surface in a cloud where it is promptly obliterated in the current flow. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 09:56:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 10:08:00 [Permalink]
|
| I find Holman's arguement to be quite interesting Dave. It shows the exact nature of the bias that prevents the gas model theoriests from comprehending these events. Because they assume that no mass separation occurs in these plasmas, they can't explain the density of the coronal loops, and they can't explain the current flow properly. They seem to accept the notion that current flow *could* be responsible for these events, but they just don't "get it" as it relates to the mass separation issue. That issue is what provides the source for the material that they are looking for. It's hard to believe they don't accept the notion of mass separation consider the notion of coronal rain. The rain "glows" more brightly than the surrounding materials of the corona as it falls back to the surface. It glows because it's hot and dense plasma from the arcs that is falling back through the solar atmosphere, and back to the surface from where it first came. They can't explain the coronal rain either. The whole problem with gas model theory comes back down to the mass separation issue. Furshur's comments are a bit ironic. They may not have applied to your analogy, but that issue is certainly the cause of all the 'mystery' and frustration in gas model theory. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 10:09:52 [Permalink]
|
My prediction that my previous post would do no good has been confirmed.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Talk about inappropriate analogies Dave! Geez!
It's not at all inappropriate, it demonstrated in no uncertain terms that not all substances in the universe can be modeled as black bodies.quote:
Your own "expert" suggested that the cause of light would be related to A) heat, B) density, or C) both.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not a substance can be modeled as a black body.quote:
We should be able to "see" any photons that come from plasma that is in the temperature range of these filters.
Utter nonsense. The filters are wavelength filters, and not sensitive to everything in a particular temperature range.quote:
Atoms of this temperature will radiate in black body fashion, albiet less "densely packed" in some areas.
Then why is it that a line visible to TRACE for Fe IX is more energetic than the visible lines for Fe X? That's completely backwards as far as "blackbody principles" are concerned.quote:
You cannot simply start excluding atoms in the corona as being exempt from the laws of physics, or black body principles, simply by virtue of being less densely packed.
Yet another strawman. I'm excluding them from black body principles because they don't meet the definition of a black body, simply because they are transparent to most light, and do not emit all wavelengths of light. I'm talking about the individual ions, I've said nothing at all about density.quote:
The atoms will still radiate in the less densely packed regions provided they reach the temperatures that these filters can image.
Except the filters don't image based on temperature, they image based on wavelength, as is shown by the fact they can image nonthermal continuum emissions. |
- 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 - 04/03/2006 : 10:20:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The problem Mr. Holman refers to is based on the notion that everything in and around the solar surface is made up of the same type and density of plasma.
Where is your evidence that Holman is refering to any such thing?quote:
Because they assume that no mass separation occurs in these plasmas, they can't explain the density of the coronal loops, and they can't explain the current flow properly.
Once again, you are claiming that the "gas model" denies gravity and buoyancy. Where is your evidence that such is the case?quote:
They seem to accept the notion that current flow *could* be responsible for these events, but they just don't "get it" as it relates to the mass separation issue.
Neither do I. How does mass separation make a difference to the electrical power available?quote:
That issue is what provides the source for the material that they are looking for.
Where is your evidence of this?quote:
It's hard to believe they don't accept the notion of mass separation consider the notion of coronal rain. The rain "glows" more brightly than the surrounding materials of the corona as it falls back to the surface. It glows because it's hot and dense plasma from the arcs that is falling back through the solar atmosphere, and back to the surface from where it first came.
Completely backwards from all other physics, in which hot stuff is typically less dense than its surroundings, but you failed to address that little problem before, too.quote:
They can't explain the coronal rain either. The whole problem with gas model theory comes back down to the mass separation issue.
Except that you cannot describe that "issue" well enough to have it make the least bit of sense. First you claim that the Sun's atmosphere is "mass separated right down to the isotope," but then you allow for mixing and huge flows of extremely heavy ions up through what should be nothing but light ions (coronal loops). Then, you claim that dense stuff falling through less-dense stuff is evidence of mass separation, despite Dr. Manuel's insistence that the separation he's talking about is not due to gravity. And then, you make the unsupported statement that the loops are both denser and hotter than their surroundings, despite the fact that denser material should sink through less-dense stuff in a gravitational field.quote:
Furshur's comments are a bit ironic.
furshur's comment was sarcastic, not ironic, and yet another spot-on prediction, it seems. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 10:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not at all inappropriate, it demonstrated in no uncertain terms that not all substances in the universe can be modeled as black bodies.
No Dave, you created a strawman that was completely different and completely unreated to the topic at hand. And to think you accuse *me* of this kind of stuff!
The only difference between the corona and the photosphere is the density of atoms Dave. The atoms in the corona aren't going to suddenly stop obeying the laws of physics however. They will 'glow' provided there is enough heat to make them glow. Some areas of the corona *do* glow in fact!
quote:
Which has nothing to do with whether or not a substance can be modeled as a black body.
But Dave, the atoms in the corona still have a peak wavelength related to their temperature, and obviously it's not 171A. Some material does glow brightly indicating it's hot and dense. Other areas do not glow as brightly since they are thinner and less energetic in general.
quote:
quote:
We should be able to "see" any photons that come from plasma that is in the temperature range of these filters.
Utter nonsense. The filters are wavelength filters, and not sensitive to everything in a particular temperature range.
Eh? They have no trouble imaging the coronal loops Dave! Why would they have any trouble seeing the dark regions then, particularly if they are a greater temperature? The more heat the merrier if you ask me. These loops emit light from a whole range of temperatures, from 160,000 Kelvin up to 20 million Kelvin according to all the experts. Where is there any evidence that the dark regions reach these high temperatures?
quote:
Then why is it that a line visible to TRACE for Fe IX is more energetic than the visible lines for Fe X? That's completely backwards as far as "blackbody principles" are concerned.
You have electric current ionizing specific forms of metal in these arcs. A lot of different iron ions will be seen, but the abundance numbers will relate to many factors, including the actual matierial that is being ionized. The fact however is that we can "see" the areas where both these kinds of emissions occur, and they occur "inside" the coronal loops!
quote:
Yet another strawman. I'm excluding them from black body principles because they don't meet the definition of a black body, simply because they are transparent to most light, and do not emit all wavelengths of light.
We don't have any trouble seeing the 171 and 195 wavelengths inside the arcs Dave. Why? Why are they lit and not the dark regions?
quote:
I'm talking about the individual ions, I've said nothing at all about density.[quote]
What are you going to say about density Dave? Your expert said they had to be more dense or hotter to emit more brightly. Which option(s) did you pick and why?
[quote]Except the filters don't image based on temperature, they image based on wavelength, as is shown by the fact they can image nonthermal continuum emissions.
Every single article and paper that comes out of Lockheed talks about "temperatures" that are related to these filters. They expect that the brightly lit regions relate to very specific high energy discharges and set a "minimum" and "maximum" heat signature that is based on the release of photons from different temperature plasma. You can't now exclude the dark regions from the same sort of expectations you have for the light regions. If there is no mass separation Dave, and they are all the same density, then they should all emit light at the same temperature. If it's more dense, it can emit *more* light, but again, even less dense plasma should emit light at these temperatures.
You can't have your cake here and eat it too Dave. I accept that the plasma *could* be more dense as Nitta suggested. It can also be hotter as Nitta suggested. It could be that both are true as evidently Nitta assumed since he too put the highest temperature plasma inside the loop. That is verified by Yohkoh Dave. You can see the results in black and yellow. All the high energy emissions in both the Trace and Yokhoh views is related to the arcs. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 11:21:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave, you created a strawman that was completely different and completely unreated to the topic at hand. And to think you accuse *me* of this kind of stuff!
No, Michael, you seem to think that every substance can be modeled as a black body, which is wrong.
Once again, you've made incorrect statements, and when corrected on them, instead of accepting the correction and moving on, you argue about something else, thus moving the goalposts.quote:
The only difference between the corona and the photosphere is the density of atoms Dave.
You've got evidence that the corona is between 4,800 K and 6,000 K?quote:
The atoms in the corona aren't going to suddenly stop obeying the laws of physics however. They will 'glow' provided there is enough heat to make them glow. Some areas of the corona *do* glow in fact!
So what? Black body principlies do not apply to everything which glows, but only those things which are opaque to most radiation and emit most wavelengths of light. The corona meets neither of those conditions.quote:
But Dave, the atoms in the corona still have a peak wavelength related to their temperature, and obviously it's not 171A.
Obviously. Do you know what the peak wavelength of Fe IX even is, Michael?quote:
Some material does glow brightly indicating it's hot and dense.
Not necessarily, but you refuse to admit that.quote:
Other areas do not glow as brightly since they are thinner and less energetic in general.
Not necessarily, but you refuse to admit that.quote:
quote:
Utter nonsense. The filters are wavelength filters, and not sensitive to everything in a particular temperature range.
Eh? They have no trouble imaging the coronal loops Dave!
Obviously this is confusing to you. The 171A filter on TRACE is designed not so that it images a certain temperature range, but a certain range of wavelengths of photons. The two are not identical, nor even directly related to one another (otherwise, the line wavelengths would drop with increasing ionization number, but that isn't evident).quote:
Why would they have any trouble seeing the dark regions then, particularly if they are a greater temperature? The more heat the merrier if you ask me. These loops emit light from a whole range of temperatures, from 160,000 Kelvin up to 20 million Kelvin according to all the experts. Where is there any evidence that the dark regions reach these high temperatures?
The above has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the corona can be modeled as a black body.quote:
quote:
Then why is it that a line visible to TRACE for Fe IX is more energetic than the visible lines for Fe X? That's completely backwards as far as "blackbody principles" are concerned.
You have electric current ionizing specific forms of metal in these arcs. A lot of different iron ions will be seen, but the abundance numbers will relate to many factors, including the actual matierial that is being ionized. The fact however is that we can "see" the areas where both these kinds of emissions occur, and they occur "inside" the coronal loops!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not black body principles apply to the solar corona.quote:
quote:
Yet another strawman. I'm excluding them from black body principles because they don't meet the definition of a black body, simply because they are transparent to most light, and do not emit all wavelengths of light.
We don't have any trouble seeing the 171 and 195 wavelengths inside the arcs Dave. Why? Why are they lit and not the dark regions?
What does that have to do with whether or not the corona can be successfully modeled using black body equations?quote:
What are you going to say about density Dave? Your expert said they had to be more dense or hotter to emit more brightly. Which option(s) did you pick and why?
This has nothing to do with black body principles.quote:
Every single article and paper that comes out of Lockheed talks about "temperatures" that are related to these filters.
Yes, they can identify a particular emission line, for example 171.073A, with a particular transition of a particular electron within a particular ionized form of iron (Fe IX in this case, the transition being 3p6 1S0.0 - 3p5.3d 1P1.0). Massive amounts of experimentation show that when this line is at its strongest, the Fe IX is at a particular temperature (in its case, about 794,000 K). But you're not interested in the actual science behind all this, instead showing interest only in the bits and pieces which you can twist into support for your model.quote:
They expect that the brightly lit regions relate to very specific high energy discharges and set a "minimum" and "maximum" heat signature that is based on the release of photons from different temp |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 11:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Where is your evidence that Holman is refering to any such thing?
Right here:
quote:
This neat explanation, alas, does not hold up very well under scrutiny. One reason is that the electrical resistance in the corona is typically quite low — too low to account for the explosive rate at which solar flares brighten.
That isn't true. The corona is far more complex than he seems to realize as that movie I posted demonstrates. The corona is not homogeneous. That movie shows that the corona isn't even the primary material that is involved in causing these "explosive events". The corona is simply a lighter layer of plasma, but it is only one of several layers of plasma that are involved in these processes. The other assumption he makes is suggesting this "whole" event originates in the corona. It does not.
quote:
And even if the resistance were higher, explaining how the required amount of magnetic energy could be concentrated in one place and released in a sudden burst would still be difficult.
It's not difficult to explain this energy concentration with a magnetically arranged solid surface to work with Dave. Again, there is an *assumption* in his comments that there is no solid surface to work with.
quote:
Investigators concluded decades ago that the generation of a voltage driving a simple, single current could not heat the solar atmosphere quickly enough or produce a flux of accelerated particles that is sufficient to make a flare.
So that's it eh? We write the whole concept off now because some unknown "investigators" wrote off a "simple, single current", even though we can clearly see from that movie I posted that there is nothing "simple" or "singular" about the current flow?
quote:
Once again, you are claiming that the "gas model" denies gravity and buoyancy. Where is your evidence that such is the case?
The gas model *does* defy the laws of gravity and magnetic separation of plasma. It ultimately defies the laws of physics since plasmas do mass separate in such environments right here on earth. There is no acceptance of this fact however in gas model theory that puts all the elements together in one almost homogenously mixed "goop". They then suggest it mysteriously "thins out" in the corona, but noone really explain how it stays separted between photosphere and chromophere. We then have yet another density change at the corona, but again, this separation, and the cause of this separation is never really explained in gas model theory.
quote:
Neither do I. How does mass separation make a difference to the electrical power available?
For one thing, it gives us "thicker" material to carry the current. It give us higher resistant material to work with. The surface features provide areas that can become positively and negatively charged and help guide and stablize the current flow. It even affects the amount of the current flowing based on plasma flowing past solid matal surfaces.
quote:
Where is your evidence of this?
I showed it to you in movie form Dave. You can see the dark, dense material lift off the surface as it is pushed off by a flare along the left side. As that heavier dense material rises into the atmosphere it is ionized and heated in one giant explosive event, the kind of event that your expert seems to have a hard time explaining.
quote:
Completely backwards from all other physics, in which hot stuff is typically less dense than its surroundings, but you failed to address that little problem before, too.
It's not *less* dense than it's surroundings Dave. It's glowing more brightly so it's *more* dense *and* it's probably a much higher temperature than the corona as well. Sometimes the material seen falling as rain is actually "dark" suggesting that this material is "cooler", but it's also certainly more dense or it wouldn't fall at all.
quote:
Except that you cannot describe that "issue" well enough to have it make the least bit of sense. First you claim that the Sun's atmosphere is "mass separated right down to the isotope," but then you allow for mixing and huge flows of extremely heavy ions up through what should be nothing but light ions (coronal loops).
The "mixing" you're talking about is caused by a gigantic electrical arc Dave! The materials in the arc are far more dense than you seem to realize.
quote:
Then, you claim that dense stuff falling through less-dense stuff is evidence of mass separation, despite Dr. Manuel's insistence that the separation he's talking about is not due to gravity.
The separation by isotope is more than likely caused by electricity and *MAGNETIC FIELDS*. I'm going to take the hit on caps here because you keep ignoring the fact that magnetic *and* gravitation fields both cause mass separation of plasma. You are only looking at *half* of the issue here Dave.
quote:
And then, you make the unsupported statement that the loops are both denser and hotter than their surroundings, despite the fact that denser material should sink through less-dense stuff in a gravitational field.
While the arc is energized, the heavy material is held suspended in the arc. The laws of physics dictate it's travel path, and it is not linearly straight up, or straight down, but is directed by the flow of current. Once the current stops, the laws of gravity and magnentism take over and the heavy stuff falls back down again. There's no mystery here.
What's a really mystery still is your resistance to these ideas. We can clearly see that lit, hot arcs rise off a relatively cool surface, and into a relatively cool atmosphere. These |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 11:35:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:08:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, you seem to think that every substance can be modeled as a black body, which is wrong.
No, the *every* comment you made is your own strawman. I said the corona would not be exempt from the laws of physics or black body principles. You made up a strawman that had nothing to do with what I actually said.
quote:
Once again, you've made incorrect statements, and when corrected on them, instead of accepting the correction and moving on, you argue about something else, thus moving the goalposts.
What? Boloney! I was refering specifically to plasma in the solar atmosphere. You're the one changing analogies and skipping around all over hell and back. I'm trying to keep this conversation focused on the corona and the coronal loops.
quote:
You've got evidence that the corona is between 4,800 K and 6,000 K?
Grr. Like temperature makes an atom immune from radiating photons?
quote:
So what? Black body principlies do not apply to everything which glows, but only those things which are opaque to most radiation and emit most wavelengths of light. The corona meets neither of those conditions.
Which part of the corona Dave? We have no problem imaging the coronal loops in the corona. Which part of the corona are you claiming is incapable of radiating wavelenghts we can see?
quote:
Obviously. Do you know what the peak wavelength of Fe IX even is, Michael?
According to NASA, it's a much higher temperature than we would expect to see in the photosophere or chromosphere.
quote:
Not necessarily, but you refuse to admit that.
Oh for crying out loud Dave! Your own expert suggested that the brightness was affected by two factors, temperature and density. Now *YOU* refuse to admit that, even though *I* accepted both aspects of his explanation and agreed with him about the probable location of the hottest materials, namely *inside* the loop!
quote:
Obviously this is confusing to you. The 171A filter on TRACE is designed not so that it images a certain temperature range, but a certain range of wavelengths of photons. The two are not identical, nor even directly related to one another (otherwise, the line wavelengths would drop with increasing ionization number, but that isn't evident).
No Duh! It's *Lockheed and NASA* that associate a temperature range with these filters Dave, not me! I'm not the one that does this. Lockheed does this. They list each filter and give it a "temperature range" that they claim it represents. I didn't make this correlation myself Dave. Lockheed and NASA do this in paper after paper after paper. They go by what ions emit photons at these wavelengths at specfic temperatures. They come up then with a "range" of temperatures that each filter can image. The SXT overview however is a high energy/relatively large spectral regions of energy from 3 to 60 A. Where are the photons Dave? Trace doesn't see these these emissions concentrated *outside* the loops, but *inside* the loops as we would expect to see from an electrical discharge. You are the one claiming that only *some* of the coronal material is exempt while other materials (such as the coronal loops) show up just fine!
quote:
The above has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the corona can be modeled as a black body.
Boloney! If we can see coronal loops, then we can see coronal material. If we can't see some material but we can see others, then we have to assume some areas or more energetic than others. Every image of a coronal loop shows up in high energy filters. They show up in Yokhoh x-ray images as well as TRACE images. We cannot deny that material is hot. We don't know squat about the material we can't see, other than the it's much cooler than the temperatures it takes to emit the photons we do see in that composite image.
I'm going to skip the repeat stuff. The issue here is simple.
We see material in the corona that we can tell is 'hot' based on what these filters are designed to image. Lockheed and NASA associated each filter with a temperature RANGE, and whatever the temperature of the corona, it is less than the material inside the coronal loops, even based on your *own* experts opinion. That opinion was verified in the Trace/Yohkoh imaged I handed you. The x-rays also originate in the corona, and if all this material is the same material as gas model theory claims, there not other reason it won't show up other than the fact it not nearly as hot as the material in the loops. You can't ignore the basics of physics and photon emission. The location of these photons, tell us the location of the highest temperature plasmas that we can image. That composite image spans from 160,000K up to 20million K and represents an SXT filter that is far more sensitive to high energy emissions and covers a greater range of high energy discharges. It too sees "dark" regions, exactly where TRACE sees them. That plasma can't be hotter than the plasma inside the loop that both satellite *are* able to image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 12:09:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:23:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That isn't true. The corona is far more complex than he seems to realize as that movie I posted demonstrates. The corona is not homogeneous.
Why not? According to your model, it must be made of nothing but the lightest isotopes.quote:
That movie shows that the corona isn't even the primary material that is involved in causing these "explosive events".
How is that?quote:
The corona is simply a lighter layer of plasma, but it is only one of several layers of plasma that are involved in these processes.
How do the different layers participate to create the phenomena you see?quote:
The other assumption he makes is suggesting this "whole" event originates in the corona. It does not.
I know with utterly certainty that he makes no such assumption, since otherwise he would deny the "gas model's" ideas about the origins of the magnetic fields.quote:
It's not difficult to explain this energy concentration with a magnetically arranged solid surface to work with Dave.
Then let's hear your scientific explanation of how a solid surface concentrates the energy.quote:
Again, there is an *assumption* in his comments that there is no solid surface to work with.
I'm pretty sure that he would disagree with your assessment that he's making such an assumption.quote:
So that's it eh? We write the whole concept off now because some unknown "investigators" wrote off a "simple, single current", even though we can clearly see from that movie I posted that there is nothing "simple" or "singular" about the current flow?
No, Michael. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.quote:
quote:
Once again, you are claiming that the "gas model" denies gravity and buoyancy. Where is your evidence that such is the case?
The gas model *does* defy the laws of gravity and magnetic separation of plasma. It ultimately defies the laws of physics since plasmas do mass separate in such environments right here on earth.
Where the hell on Earth is there 1.9×1030 kilos of plasma?!?!?
Seriously, Michael, despite your insistence that the "gas model" says otherwise, it actually says that the Sun's plasmas are in the process of separating by mass. To say otherwise would deny gravity and buoyancy. Your entire argument is a strawman, simply because you keep yourself willfully ignorant of what the standard solar model actually states. So much easier to claim that it states something that it doesn't in order to "falsify" it.quote:
There is no acceptance of this fact however in gas model theory that puts all the elements together in one almost homogenously mixed "goop".
That's utter crap. You know nothing of the gas model.quote:
They then suggest it mysteriously "thins out" in the corona, but noone really explain how it stays separted between photosphere and chromophere.
Who says it does?quote:
We then have yet another density change at the corona, but again, this separation, and the cause of this separation is never really explained in gas model theory.
That's because you just invented such a discontinuity out of thin air - solar scientists define the corona by temperature.quote:
For one thing, it gives us "thicker" material to carry the current. It give us higher resistant material to work with.
I already did a calculation using solid iron (a relatively poor conductor). Raising the resistance by a factor of 1,000 above that would only generate hair-dryer amounts of heat.quote:
The surface features provide areas that can become positively and negatively charged and help guide and stablize the current flow.
And you've refused to address how the magnetic fields don't look anything like what we'd expect if such a current flow were happening.quote:
It even affects the amount of the current flowing based on plasma flowing past solid matal surfaces.
Where's the equation which governs that process?quote:
quote:
Where is your evidence of this?
I showed it to you in movie form Dave. You can see the dark, dense material lift off the surface as it is pushed off by a flare along the left side. As that heavier dense material rises into the atmosphere it is ionized and heated in one giant explosive event, the kind of event that your expert seems to have a hard time explaining.
You provided a movie of material being lifted off by a flare as evidence for the material which causes the flare in the first place? How much more circular can you get?quote:
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I am really starting to think that you have some mental defect. I know that you will think I am just making fun of you, but consider how you REALLY believe that ONLY YOU can see something so completely obvious as a solid surface on the sun. EVERYBODY else is blind. The scientist that are operating the equipment measuring the sun are clueless. All the astrophysicist are lost and and are clinging to a failed solar model.
How can everybody else be so completely wrong and yet it is so obvious to you?
I think you should take a breath and try to see how ridicules it would be for you to somehow be able to see what others can't. It sounds somewhat delusional - doesn't it?
Good luck.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why not? According to your model, it must be made of nothing but the lightest isotopes.
Are you even *trying* to understand this, or are you just tryin go be a pain the neck?
I'm going to skip all the unrelated side issues. This is a simple issue, and you are obfuscating it and making it "seem" more complicated than it is and getting lost of side issues.
We *can* and *do* image plasma that *Lockheed* and *NASA* claim is representative of plasma that is greater than 160,000 Kelvin in the corona. We can see where this plasma is located. It shines brightly. Some areas of the corona *do not* shine in 171A and *do not* show plasma in that temperature range. Period.
The fact we can image *some* plasma that does show up brightly in these images, precludes you from suggesting that the corona is immune from these same methods that we apply to coronal loops. We see these hot loops. We don't see heat indicative of million degree plasma in the dark regions. This is simple physics Dave. Even you "expert" claimed that these emissions were related to TEMPERATURE *and* density. Now you're trying to claim the corona is immune from being seen at all! Which is it? Can we see hot material in the corona (loops) or not? Is it more dense, or hotter or both than other materials in the corona? Pick something!
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 13:14:45 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
