|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:28:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, the *every* comment you made is your own strawman.
If the only way I can get you to address anything is to make a strawman out of it, it's a poor indicator indeed.quote:
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.
The corona does not meet the definition of a black body, and so the black body principles do not apply.quote:
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.
And the corona still isn't a black body, per the defintion.quote:
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?
You said that the only difference between the corona and the photosphere was density, Michael. I didn't force you to use the word "only." So I want to know what evidence you've got that the corona is the same temperature as the photosphere.quote:
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?
Nice strawman you've got there. The definition of a black body is one which absorbs most of the radiation which hits it, and emits most wavelengths of light. The corona meets neither definition, because the ions in it are emitting (and absorbing) only at specific wavelengths, per the laws of quantum physics. For example, Fe XII emits less than a couple thousand distinguishable lines.quote:
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.
I asked if you knew the wavelength at which its emissions peak. I'll take your non-sequitor as a "no" answer.quote:
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...
When you claim that the loops are both hotter and denser, you're ignoring the aspects of his work which say that they aren't necessarily both at the same time.quote:
...and agreed with him about the probable location of the hottest materials, namely *inside* the loop!
So what?quote:
No Duh! It's *Lockheed and NASA* that associate a temperature range with these filters Dave, not me!
It's also the Naval Research Laboratory, the University of Cambridge (UK), the Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, the University of Central Lancashire, George Mason University and University College London, Mullard Space Science Laboratory (and probably ever other solar science team in the world) who associates ionic emission lines with temperatures.quote:
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.
Actually, they generate the temperature range from the emission lines which they see.quote:
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.
As you said, "duh."quote:
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.
Or a magnetic field constraining a plasma.quote:
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!
Why is it that you think that if black body principles don't apply, then it would have some effect on what we see? I'm saying no such thing, Michael, you're just making this crap up.quote:
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 th |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:35:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm going to skip all the unrelated side issues.
Mass separation is now a "side issue?" Baloney. You just don't want to admit that your statements were self-contradictory.quote:
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.
I have no evidence that any portion of the corona emits zero 171A photons.quote:
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.
Given that there are no zero-value pixels, I see evidence of temperatures between 160,000 and 20,000,000 kelvin material in all places that TRACE has imaged, bright and dark alike.quote:
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!
What utter bullshit, Michael. You've got some stick up your ass which tells you that if black body principles don't apply to the corona, then it doesn't emit light at all. Take the stick out, and lay off the strawmen.quote:
Which is it? Can we see hot material in the corona (loops) or not?
We can see lots of stuff in the corona, but that doesn't mean you can apply black body equations to it.quote:
Is it more dense, or hotter or both than other materials in the corona? Pick something!
It doesn't matter to whether or not black body principles apply. |
- 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 : 13:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael, I am really starting to think that you have some mental defect.
Think what you like furshur, I can't stop you. If I was worried about what people might think of me, I never would have started this project. I certainly wouldn't be out here arguing these points in cyberspace.
quote:
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.
But this statement simply shows me that you aren't being honest with any of this. I'm not the *ONLY* human being living on earth today that thinks this way even if I am in a minority position.
People also thought that Galileo was a nut case for insisting that the earth revolved around the sun. Folks ridiculed Einstein at first too. Being ridiculed and being in the minority position have nothing to do with being right. It's not as though this particular solar model was even invented by me in the first place. In fact, it was invented at least 100 years ago by a guy who was a lot smarter than both of us. Birkeland was ridiculed too for awhile, but it turns out that he was simply 60 years ahead of his time. That is how long it took for us to figure out that there really are Birkeland currently flowing through the solar system. It may take another 60 years to prove he was right about his solar model too. So what?
quote:
EVERYBODY else is blind.
Not everybody furshur, just many folks in the mainstream astronomy community. I get supportive emails every week from all over the planet from people from different walks of life. Not everyone on earth thinks that the sun is a giant ball of gas.
quote:
The scientist that are operating the equipment measuring the sun are clueless.
Talk about stawmen and false statements! The guys that designed, built, launched and continue to maintain this equipment are my personal heroes. These are my kind of "scientists". At worst, my only beef is with those few folks at NASA and Lockheed who are in charge of the "intrepetation" of these images.
quote:
All the astrophysicist are lost and and are clinging to a failed solar model.
All? Birkeland doesn't count as an astrophysicist eh? Manuel doesn't count at a scientist either? Nobody in the whole world besides me counts eh?
quote:
How can everybody else be so completely wrong and yet it is so obvious to you?
How? For probably the exact same reasons that I was able to look at these solar satellite images for nearly 15 years without being able to fully explain them. I was *indoctrinated* into a belief system that happened to be full of crap. It's not easy letting go of that kind of conditioning, not to mention the peer pressure. Why do people seldom let go of their religious indoctrination? It's human nature to believe what you're taught. It's a lot less comfortable thinking outside of that conditioning let alone operating outside of it.
quote:
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?
Well of course it sounds *a lot* delusional at the moment. It goes against everything that you and I were taught in school about the sun. If it's true, it would suggest that we would need to rethink our whole perspective of the universe around us, and that scares the hell out of folks. It's much more comfortable and it's much easier to believe that the minority position is simply false. It is however no guage of truth to make decisions based on what happens to be the "vogue" belief system at the moment.
The electric universe theory is another great example of the resistance that people have to new ideas. We've documented the existence of Birkeland currents already, but the mainstream astronomical community seems to have a hard time with EU theory even still! Go figure!
The good think about being a skeptic, and being comfortable being a skeptic is that you aren't swayed by other peoples opinions, just science and logic and common sense. If you have science to offer here that you believe disproves Birkeland's solar model, put it on the table. If not, your concerns about my mental health are totally unfounded, and represent irrational fears on your part. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2006 13:44:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well of course it sounds *a lot* delusional at the moment. It goes against everything that you and I were taught in school about the sun.
Hell, Michael, the solid-surface model, as advocated by you, contradicts the principles of buoyancy as discovered by Archimedes, now!quote:
If you have science to offer here that you believe disproves Birkeland's solar model, put it on the table.
It has already been demonstrated that your model is nothing like Birkeland's model. You refuse to admit this fact, or to rebutt the arguments showing it to be fact, yet you continue to deny it's a fact. In other words, you're not acting in the manner of a skeptic. |
- 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 : 14:05:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If the only way I can get you to address anything is to make a strawman out of it, it's a poor indicator indeed.
I've been trying for weeks now to get you to address this density and heat distribution issue in a logical and rational and scientific way. You have done about everything you can think of from dealing with it directly, including the use of strawmen. When I do that, you whine and complain to high heaven.
Pick your poison Dave, density and/or temperature. Your own expert only left you two options, neither one of which fits with your position.
quote:
The corona does not meet the definition of a black body, and so the black body principles do not apply.
Boloney! The atoms in the corona will radiate according to the same thermodynamic laws that affect atoms of the photosophere. The vary only by *temperature* and density. Other than this, they are exactly the same, and the same laws of physics apply to all the atoms in the system.
quote:
And the corona still isn't a black body, per the defintion.
You're 'tweaking' the definition as you go. You don't explain why we see the light in loops and not in the shadows. You don't explain why less densely packed atoms are somehow immune from the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of physics still apply here Dave, and these atoms will still emit photons if there is energy and heat to cause them to release photons.
quote:
You said that the only difference between the corona and the photosphere was density, Michael. I didn't force you to use the word "only." So I want to know what evidence you've got that the corona is the same temperature as the photosphere.
Leave it to you to latch onto a sentence and build a strawman you know I don't even agree with! These kinds of statements are designed to keep us from focusing on the key issues, namely *temperature* *and* *density* and photon emissions.
quote:
quote:
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?
Nice strawman you've got there.
See Dave. I can't even get a straight answer out of you. We *do* see material inside the coronal loops that does follow the process of black body radiation principles. When that material is heated, it emits *lots* of visible light in the spectrum we expect to see it. Only your "dark" regions seem to be immune from the laws of physics.
quote:
The definition of a black body is one which absorbs most of the radiation which hits it, and emits most wavelengths of light.
You're hiding behind some sort of definition (one of your choosing by the way) and ignoring the underlying physics. Hot things emit light. The coronal loops are an example of a hot thing emitting light. The dark regions are not necesarily anywhere near that same temperature.
quote:
The corona meets neither definition, because the ions in it are emitting (and absorbing) only at specific wavelengths, per the laws of quantum physics. For example, Fe XII emits less than a couple thousand distinguishable lines.
Dave, all atoms emit energy in distinct wavelengths. That is how Lockheed and NASA assing temperatures to wavelengths in the first place. No one is denying this. If however iron exists in these dark areas and it's just as hot as the loops and just as dense as the loops, it will emit FE ions just like the loops. Since it doesn't emit photons like the loops, we have to conclude that A) it's not that dense, B) it's not that hot, or C) it's not as plentiful in iron, or D) all of the above. I choose D. Which do you chose and why? Quit dancing around this now and explain your position. Your own expert put the high temperature plasma in the arc, so I can only conclude he presumed the arc to be more dense *and* a greater temperature than anything else in the atmosphere, just as I did.
This paragraph was important:
quote:
Both satellites image photons at every pixel, Michael, which means that both the brightest and the darkest portions of the images is someplace between 160,000 and 20,000,000 kelvin.
False! That is the nature of your error in a nutshell Dave. By your logic every reflection of sunlight we see off the water represents an area of the water that is considerably hotter than the water. That is false. There are reflection and absorbtion/reemission issues that you have never accounted for. I showed you a logical way to deal with these issues too, simply by subtracting X amount of photons from each pixel. You refused to accept that method because it blows your whole show. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 14:06:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
It only defies the laws of physics if you disregard thermodynamics. Heat is transported to the surface from the hot core via convection. This convection constantly stirrs the pot, causing the material in and under the photosphere to mix. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 14:14:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hell, Michael, the solid-surface model, as advocated by you, contradicts the principles of buoyancy as discovered by Archimedes, now!
I'd bite, but I refuse to get sidetracked again. So does this sphere by the way:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
Oh no Mr. Bill! The whole universe must be wrong now!
quote:
It has already been demonstrated that your model is nothing like Birkeland's model. You refuse to admit this fact, or to rebutt the arguments showing it to be fact, yet you continue to deny it's a fact. In other words, you're not acting in the manner of a skeptic.
No, it has only been "aledged" by you that this is not a Birkeland model, but you refuse to explain how plasma could behave in the same manner as a solid surface, and you've never shown lab results to back up your statements. I therefore find that argument to be false.
His solar model had all the right components, a solid surface, an elecromagnetic core, gas over the shell, and the flow of electricity. We see all these things in satellite images. It's certainly a Birkeland solar model. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 14:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
It only defies the laws of physics if you disregard thermodynamics. Heat is transported to the surface from the hot core via convection. This convection constantly stirrs the pot, causing the material in and under the photosphere to mix.
That doesn't happen on earth, and the laws of thermodynamics seem to work just fine here. By this logic, our own solar body should be "mixed magma" that is "stirred" by the convection forces from the core. You also never acknowledged the presense of that stratification layer seen in heliosiesmology at .985R to .995R that is sitting right smack dab in the middle of your convection zone. It also blocks the flow of plasma. The rising plasma under this layer is pushed up and *away* from the rising column as it reaches the stratification layer. This is the same area where changes in sound speed travel happen to occur. The downdrafting plasma also stops downdrafting at 4800KM. The stirring mechanism has something sitting in the way of those upwelling and downdrafting currents of plasma.
You can't demonstrate that these convection forces would keep the plasma "mixed". You simply "assume" that to be true. How then do you explain something like a coronal loop or coronal rain? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 14:38:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's also the Naval Research Laboratory, the University of Cambridge (UK), the Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, the University of Central Lancashire, George Mason University and University College London, Mullard Space Science Laboratory (and probably ever other solar science team in the world) who associates ionic emission lines with temperatures.
So certainly it isn't just me that associates wavelengths of light with temperature Dave. We all expect that heated plasma will emit light, and we all seem to agree that the lit parts of these images represents plasma with a temperature in excess of 160,000K. I have no problem "agreeing" that that part of their assesment. Where I don't agree with YOUR assessment (Nitta and I seemed to agree) is that dark regions of this image are somehow hotter than the brightest areas. That composite images disproves that analysis. The whole basis of your error and their error is centered on the reflection/absortion/emission issues that you keep ignoring. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 15:23:30 [Permalink]
|
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Here Dave, read section 2. These are just a few of the successful predictions of Dr. Bruce's Electrical Discharge theory that Mr. Holman seems to think "cannot" apply because some unnamed generic "investigators" concluded it could be written off decades ago. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 18:53:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael
I certainly wouldn't be out here arguing these points in cyberspace.
That is part of my concern you aren't discussing - you're ideas are getting DESTROYED at every turn, but you seem oblivious to this fact.
quote:
It's not as though this particular solar model was even invented by me in the first place. In fact, it was invented at least 100 years ago by a guy who was a lot smarter than both of us. Birkeland was ridiculed too for awhile, but it turns out that he was simply 60 years ahead of his time. That is how long it took for us to figure out that there really are Birkeland currently flowing through the solar system. It may take another 60 years to prove he was right about his solar model too.
Yes, 100 years ago many people thought that the sun was made of iron and gravity or burning of gases were the power source of the sun. Science has progressed and the current solar model answers questions that the earlier inferior models could not. Birkeland answered the mystery of the aurora. He did a fine job on that. But no, the rings of Saturn are not caused by electical discharges and the sun is not a big electrical sparking machine.
quote:
Manuel doesn't count at a scientist either? Nobody in the whole world besides me counts eh?
Dr. Manuel is a scientist, but he is definately not an astrophysicist. He just reiterated recently that he believes the core of the sun is a neutron star, this is wrong on many levels that have already been discussed. And finally, no Michael you don't count either, you appear totally unable to even consider any point no matter how well evidenced that would jepordize your beliefs.
quote:
I get supportive emails every week from all over the planet from people from different walks of life.
I'll bet very few if any of those 'walks of life' are scientific in nature.
quote:
Talk about stawmen and false statements! The guys that designed, built, launched and continue to maintain this equipment are my personal heroes.
But those guys are clowns and there endevors are doomed to fail. They have not taken dark matter/energy into acount when calculating the gravitational atraction of the different celestial bodies in our vicinity. Don't even get me started about them ignoring the acceleration in the Z axis.
quote:
If you have science to offer here that you believe disproves Birkeland's solar model, put it on the table.
HOLY FUCKING CRAP!! Haven't you been paying attention to last 80 or 90 pages?
I guess it is not possible to convince a lunatic he is crazy.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:16:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm" target="_blank"> http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Here Dave, read section 2. These are just a few of the successful predictions of Dr. Bruce's Electrical Discharge theory that Mr. Holman seems to think "cannot" apply because some unnamed generic "investigators" concluded it could be written off decades ago.
quote:
From this site:
The theory may be said to have started with a successful prediction during Sydney Chapman's Kelvin lecture(3.1) on the sun to the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 8th May, 1941, when he referred to a solar prominence which had reached a height of a million miles in an hour.
Considering that a solar prominence can have velocities from hundreds of thousands of km/hr to many millions of km/hr it seen ludicrous to pick the velocity of one prominence and say it proves your prediction.
Michael your evidence is not evidence, you wave your hands so much they are a freaking blur.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:22:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've been trying for weeks now to get you to address this density and heat distribution issue in a logical and rational and scientific way. You have done about everything you can think of from dealing with it directly, including the use of strawmen. When I do that, you whine and complain to high heaven.
Pick your poison Dave, density and/or temperature. Your own expert only left you two options, neither one of which fits with your position.
And I, like you, pick both because a combination of the two isn't a problem. In fact, I don't know why you're waiting on me when we're discussing your model.quote:
Boloney! The atoms in the corona will radiate according to the same thermodynamic laws that affect atoms of the photosophere.
Baloney. But you weren't interested in the real answer, you're too busy building strawmen like "The vary only by *temperature* and density."quote:
Other than this, they are exactly the same, and the same laws of physics apply to all the atoms in the system.
Indeed, but the laws governing radiation from non-ionic matter are different from those governing ionic matter. Electrons shared by atoms in a molecule (like water or carbon monoxide, both of which exist in the photosphere) are free to radiate at any wavelength - they aren't constrained to radiate at only specific energy levels, like electrons firmly bound to atoms. That, Michael, even though you don't want to hear it, is what makes the photosphere different from the corona, and is why the photosphere can be modeled as a black body but the corona cannot.quote:
You're 'tweaking' the definition as you go.
Not at all.quote:
You don't explain why we see the light in loops and not in the shadows.
That's a new term for the corona: shadow. I don't know what it means relative to these images which show photons coming from everywhere.quote:
You don't explain why less densely packed atoms are somehow immune from the laws of thermodynamics.
I never claimed they were immune to the laws of thermodynamics. Why don't you tell me which law(s) they'd be breaking if black body calculations were inappropriate (just as they are for lasers and lightbulbs and air and water and a host of other normal, everyday substances).quote:
The laws of physics still apply here Dave, and these atoms will still emit photons if there is energy and heat to cause them to release photons.
Duh, Michael. Not being a black body doesn't mean the ions don't emit light. What kind of crappy science teachers did you have, anyway? No wonder you're rebelling against what they taught you: it's all garbage.quote:
See Dave. I can't even get a straight answer out of you. We *do* see material inside the coronal loops that does follow the process of black body radiation principles. When that material is heated, it emits *lots* of visible light in the spectrum we expect to see it. Only your "dark" regions seem to be immune from the laws of physics.
No, Michael, even the brightly lit regions of the corona aren't black bodies, because they don't meet the definition of a black body.quote:
You're hiding behind some sort of definition (one of your choosing by the way) and ignoring the underlying physics.
Bullshit. Here is a good description of blackbody radiation. A perfect black body is one which absorbs all radiation and emits all radiation, but of course there's no such thing as a perfect black body (soot, at 3% reflectivity, comes closest). But the farther one gets from perfect, the less likely black body calculations are to give correct answers. Since ions aborb and emit only a tiny percentage of the entire spectrum, they're about as far from the perfect black body as one can get - and the farther one gets from the ideal, the less well the equations are going to work.
Once again, let's look at Fe IX. At a million kelvin, Wein's law states that the peak emissions should be at 28.98 A, if Fe IX were a black body. But the closest Fe IX emits to that value is 89.018A (and even that's theoretical, the closest experimentally observed line is 133.356A), it simply doesn't emit shorter wavelengths than that, no matter what temperature it is. That's not the behaviour of a black body, regardless of what your crappy teachers taught you.quote:
Hot things emit light. The coronal loops are an example of a hot thing emitting light. The dark regions are not necesarily anywhere near that same temperature.
The only evidence I have in hand shows that the dark regions are emitting photons in the same passband as the bright regions.quote:
Dave, all atoms emit energy in distinct wavelengths. That is how Lockheed and NASA assing temperatures to wavelengths in the first place. No one is denying this. If however iron exists in these dark areas and it's just as hot as the loops and just as dense as the loops, it will emit FE ions just like the loops.
Nobody is claiming that's it's just as dense or at the same temperature.quote:
Since it doesn't emit photons like the loops, we have to conclude that A) it's not that dense, B) it's not that hot, or C) it's not as plentiful in iron, or D) all of the above. I choose D. Which do you chose and why?
What does it matter what I pick? That's simply a distraction away from the points |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'd bite, but I refuse to get sidetracked again. So does this sphere by the way:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
Oh no Mr. Bill! The whole universe must be wrong now!
No, actually, those spheres obey Archimedes' principles just fine, you're just confusing surface tension with buoyancy, just like people did before Archimedes had his eureka moment. It's clear that you've got a couple thousand years of scientific progress to catch up on, Michael.quote:
quote:
It has already been demonstrated that your model is nothing like Birkeland's model. You refuse to admit this fact, or to rebutt the arguments showing it to be fact, yet you continue to deny it's a fact. In other words, you're not acting in the manner of a skeptic.
No, it has only been "aledged" by you that this is not a Birkeland model, but you refuse to explain how plasma could behave in the same manner as a solid surface, and you've never shown lab results to back up your statements. I therefore find that argument to be false.
His solar model had all the right components, a solid surface, an elecromagnetic core, gas over the shell, and the flow of electricity. We see all these things in satellite images. It's certainly a Birkeland solar model.
No, Michael, Birkeland's currents weren't from point to point across the face of the sphere. Yours are. Birkeland's sphere didn't have an insulator coating it so that it would act like Bruce's electrical discharges. Yours does. Birkeland's spheres weren't non-homogenous mixtures of rock and metals. Yours are. I don't need lab results to point out the areas in which your model fails to match Birkeland's, no more than I need lab results to help my five-year-old with his "which picture is different?" workbook pages. The differences are obvious, Michael, and just keep growing as you further describe your model.
And the only reason I can think of that you're in utter denial about the differences between your model and Birkeland's would be that you need Birkeland's correct hypothesis about Earth's aurorae to buoy your own conjectures about the Sun, because such an argument from similarity (a bogus one, it seems) is the only way you can "prove" your model (with the added support of arguments from authority). |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:51:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So certainly it isn't just me that associates wavelengths of light with temperature Dave.
Nobody else is trying to do so for the solar corona using black body calculations, Michael.quote:
We all expect that heated plasma will emit light, and we all seem to agree that the lit parts of these images represents plasma with a temperature in excess of 160,000K.
Except we don't all agree that all the pixels are lit.quote:
I have no problem "agreeing" that that part of their assesment. Where I don't agree with YOUR assessment (Nitta and I seemed to agree) is that dark regions of this image are somehow hotter than the brightest areas.
You're completely missing Nitta's point, and mine as well.quote:
That composite images disproves that analysis.
I'm supposed to be impressed that you can disprove a strawman?quote:
The whole basis of your error and their error is centered on the reflection/absortion/emission issues that you keep ignoring.
You haven't offered anything rational along those lines, either, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
