|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2006 : 18:51:22
|
From the previous thread:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Meanwhile, this crew seems to exclude the corona from laws of physics.
Not at all. We're just not sure which laws of physics apply (though we can demonstrate that blackbody laws do not), and it's probable that new physical laws will be introduced before the corona is entirely explained.quote:
They have no explanation for something as simple as a coronal loop.
That's not true, either, you just reject the explanation.quote:
They can't explain the heat source of the corona but somehow they are sure electricity ins't involved...
That's not true either, you just equate "it's not an electrical discharge" with "it's not electricity" out of either prejudice or ignorance.quote:
...and dark areas in 171A and 195A Trace images are hotter than the brightest regions of the same image. In short, we haven't gotten very far.
Nope, and we're going backwards, as you'll see below.
Previous Post:quote:
You might checkout how charged particles behave in the magnetic fields that surround a current flow. They will tend to form a spiral around the current flow in the direction of the current flow. Perhaps then you'll understand my interpretion of that helix affect I'm trying to describe that Gordon drew. That green line in his image is the current flow. The yellow line in his spiral image is the path the outside plasma forms as it flows along the arc.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/MagField.html
They even layed out the math for us. :)
And in exactly the same way that you cited a web page on blackbody radiation, but then ignored what it said, here you are citing an article on magnetic fields and the behaviour of charged particles within them, and ignoring what it says in favor of your own personal "interpretation."
In no uncertain terms, Michael, it says that a charged particle (like an electron) entering a magnetic field where all the field lines are parallel to one another will experience a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and to its own vector (and even spelling out the right-hand rule for you). Since the magnetic field created by an electric current is not a field of parallel lines, but tubular around the current (thus making electromagnets possible), the force experienced by charged particles entering such a field will generally be to spiral around the tube lines themselves (thus making "can crushers" a fun high-current hobby). In other words, they'd trace out helical "donuts" perpendicular to the current, not spirals around the current.
By the way, the "math" only describes the radius of the circle that charged particles would trace in a field of parallel magnetic field lines. It describes the path of an electron in the scenario Holson described in Scientific American (which is precisely why he described them that way), and not in the precisely backwards scenario you'd have us believe. In no way, shape or form does it state that electrons "will tend to form a spiral around the current flow in the direction of the current flow" (and especially not that last clause, since the article you cited specifically discusses the effect of electrons of opposite vectors entering the same magnetic field - and circling in opposite directions to each other).
Of course, all of the above can be falsified if you've got some evidence that the "quantum" "waves" of electrons in your model don't behave according to the laws of physics, and instead create magnetic field lines parallel to their path, instead of perpendicular to it like they do in all other forms of electric current (right-hand rule, again).quote:
My case is essentially predicted upon the whole concept of the TRACE satellite program, and every paper that's ever been written about that program. A lot of papers, by all the key insiders, put upper and lower ranges on these filters as it relates to plasma temperatures. By assigning one of these filters as "hotter" than another, even their method works based on the theory that some photons of one filter are generally "hotter" than the photons from another. There is no way around this assumption even in their method.
The two filters in question on TRACE have massively overlapping ranges in which the theoretical peak brightness in the 171A filter is caused by ions which emit in that passband at temperatures only 600,000 kelvin lower than the theoretical peak emission of the primary ion in the 195A passband. Both passbands "see" from about 160,000 K to 20 million K, it is only their peak intesity which is slightly shifted as regards temperature.quote:
I'm making a lot *fewer* assumptions than they are.
Again, every time you say that someone else is assuming something, you've been wrong.quote:
I'm not "assuming" I can guarantee which photons came for FeIX vs. FEXX vs. Calcium ions.
Neither is Lockheed, since such a trick is impossible.quote:
I make no assumptions about reflection rates of plasma in the atmosphere.
Neither does Lockheed.quote:
This is a simple a method as it gets.
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, elegant and wrong." - H. L. Menken.quote:
It would be the same concept as looking at a lightening strike on all the high energy spetrums we find, noticing that the arc always emits the most light regardless of high energy wavelength selected, and determining that: "Yep, that arc sure is hot". :)
Such a method doesn't measure temperature, it measures brightness. And since you've conceded the argument that these materials behave like black bodies, your "brighter equals hotter" argument is moot.quote:
That is a close to pure physics with fewest possible assumptions as we can get IMO.
No, it isn't even "pure physics," because you're assuming that "brighter equals hotter" is valid physics, when in one of your last posts, you agreed that it isn't.quote:
The rest of these "methods" require we know all sorts of stuff we just don't know.
You only say that because you're ignoring the experimental evidence of ionic emissions as they relate to temperature and density.quote:
I've now layed out the math for the spirals for you.
Using your own personal "interpretation," you have, but it doesn't match reality.quote:
I think it's now logically up to yo to at least give me a reasonable alternative to work with if you will not consider my point of view.
Otherwise I will continue to "feel" like you are simply throwing out roadblocks and not discussing the idea in a fully scientific manner with both give *and* take. I've tried to bend over backwards and accept my responsibility in any confusion here, and I've spent considerable time and effort documenting my position on this subject specficially. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point Dave, expecially if you don't really have any alternatives and you provide me with no math at all. Again, I've given you a mathematical model of this arc, right down to the spiraling plasma. What now will you offer me, if this is still not acceptable to you?
The stupidity in the above paragraph is this, Michael: you started laying out a model, and I asked you questions because I told you that I didn't understand where you were coming from. You offered more details, and I told you again that I didn't understand. You're now demanding that I understand you, or present an "alternative," while you toss out math that is so bad that it's not even wrong.
It is easy to see that your model now defies the laws of physics, because of the interpretation you made of the math that you provided. Once again, you're entitled to your own opinions about that math, but not your own facts. Thus, as an "alternative," I offer any and every solar model which agrees with the actual physics of electric and magnetic fields (and currents), instead of your apparent nonsense. Anyone who's taken a highschool physics class has done the experiments themselves which demonstrate that an electric current creates a magnetic field perpendicular to the current flow, not parallel to it. You would have us all believe otherwise, demanding that we not agree with our own experimental results.quote:
I agree. I handed you the underlying physics. I guess we'll just go from there.
We can't go anywhere from false premises, Michael. Explain to all of us how an electrical "discharge" that you continue to liken to a lightning bolt can create a magnetic field with parallel field lines along the direction of the flow of current. And then explain how charged particles trapped in such a field would preferentially flow in the same direction as the main current (thus per the standard laws of electromagnetic physics, creating opposing magnetic fields to the main current). And then explain how a whole bunch of these currents, running more or less parallel to each other, going in both directions, still give rise to magnetically polarized field images, instead of the uniform gray that we should see under such conditions.
|
- 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 - 04/09/2006 : 19:33:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not at all. We're just not sure which laws of physics apply (though we can demonstrate that blackbody laws do not), and it's probable that new physical laws will be introduced before the corona is entirely explained.
Ok, I'll bite. Why would it be "probable" that we need "new" physical laws to explain how hot columns of dense plasma heat up lighter layers of plasma?
quote:
That's not true, either, you just reject the explanation.
What explanation? Be specific now Dave. What explanation? What generates the excess heat in the corona, and how do you know it's not electricity flowing through the coronal loops?
quote:
That's not true either, you just equate "it's not an electrical discharge" with "it's not electricity" out of either prejudice or ignorance.
Describe the difference here Dave and be specific. I can fully related to accepting that hot columns of rising plasma driven by electrical currents can heat the corona. I've yet to hear your personal explanation of coronal heating.
quote:
Nope, and we're going backwards, as you'll see below.
No Dave *you* are going backwards. You've failed to provide *any* mathmatical models to demonstrate heat concentrations in the corona, and you insist these are not electrically heated columns. You refuse to put any options on the table, and you absolutely reject electrical currents flowing through the coronal loops. In short you've done nothing but reject every option offered you to determine the light source and the temperature signatures of the corona.
I'm not letting this converstion drag into yet *more* distractions before we at least agree to the light source and the heat signature of the corona. Then *and only then* will I get into the rest of these issues with you.
The responsibility is now upon you to give me a rational method to determine the light source, energy source and heat signatures of the high energy emissions since you continuously have refused to do so, and there is absolutely no way to proceed on anything remotely related to satellite image interpretation until you do. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2006 20:12:48 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The two filters in question on TRACE have massively overlapping ranges in which the theoretical peak brightness in the 171A filter is caused by ions which emit in that passband at temperatures only 600,000 kelvin lower than the theoretical peak emission of the primary ion in the 195A passband. Both passbands "see" from about 160,000 K to 20 million K, it is only their peak intesity which is slightly shifted as regards temperature.
So how exactly does that information help your case Dave? If both filters are capable of seeing plasma in the same temp range and plasma up to 20 million K, and both images show the loops glow more brightly than the rest of the corona, how is that helping your case?
quote:
Again, every time you say that someone else is assuming something, you've been wrong.
Boloney. You won't even put your math on the table Dave. On the other hand you claim that both images can show plasmas up to 20 Million K. In both images we see bright loops surrounded by a darker atmosphere, just as we might see any electrical discharges through a "relatively" cool atmosphere. We also see photons reflected off the atoms in the atomosphere, just like an electrical discharge reflects off the atoms in the atmosphere of earth. How about showing the math you are using and some method of determining reflection rates so we can see if their method even works?
quote:
Neither is Lockheed, since such a trick is impossible.
So that bright plasma can be anywhere between 20 Million K down to 160,000 K. How then can the darkest regions be "hotter" than the brightly lit regions Dave?
quote:
Neither does Lockheed.
How do you know that? You couldn't even tell me the math formulas they are using. You've never explained how they determinine reflection rates to even begin comparing wavelengths.
quote:
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, elegant and wrong." - H. L. Menken.
That is totally meaningless slogan since you've offered no rational alternatives Dave. There are also many difficult solutions to a problem that are also equally wrong. So what?
quote:
quote:
It would be the same concept as looking at a lightening strike on all the high energy spetrums we find, noticing that the arc always emits the most light regardless of high energy wavelength selected, and determining that: "Yep, that arc sure is hot". :)
Such a method doesn't measure temperature, it measures brightness. And since you've conceded the argument that these materials behave like black bodies, your "brighter equals hotter" argument is moot.
What useless crap! These bright emissions are not *only* indicative of brightness Dave, they give us some idea of temperature, specifically plasma from 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin in this case. My arguent about brighter being hotter is not mute and I never agreed to any such thing! I'm simply *insisting* we use *all* the laws of physics, not a limited subset of these formulas.
quote:
No, it isn't even "pure physics," because you're assuming that "brighter equals hotter" is valid physics, when in one of your last posts, you agreed that it isn't.
That isn't what I agreed to Dave. I agreed that no math that ignores density is definitive *in this particular case*, and that my first attempt to falsify Lockheeds position wasn't going to be definitive in this case. I did not say the dark regions are hotter than bright regions, or that my main point was somehow invalid. You are twising my words even when I *did* make a serious attempt to move this converstion forward.
quote:
quote:
The rest of these "methods" require we know all sorts of stuff we just don't know.
You only say that because you're ignoring the experimental evidence of ionic emissions as they relate to temperature and density.
What? You are the one ignoring the physics here Dave. The lit regions of these images represent plasma up to potentially 20 Million Kelvin. The dark regions do not necessarily represent plasma in that temperature range, and the photons seen in these images could simply be refections of the light released from the coronal loops. That is all we can determine *for sure* from these two images. When we add them together, we see *both* images show the brighest emissions from the loops, not the whole atmosphere.
quote:
The stupidity in the above paragraph is this, Michael: you started laying out a model, and I asked you questions because I told you that I didn't understand where you were coming from.
You are simply amazing at the lengths you go to in an effort to be insulting. You are definitely *not* trying to "understand" my point of view as it relates to the heat signatures of the light source of these high energy filters Dave. You have instead consistently refused to explain the coronal heating source, you refuse to put *your* math on the table, and you refuse to give me a serious scientific objection to electrically driven plasma columns being the heat source of the corona. Even when I offered you a good faith gesture to move things forward in this conversation, you continue to drag your feet and you refuse to offer anything that is a rational or scientific alternative that fits with the observational evidence. You have *not* shown any math related to heat signatures in the corona, and you've given me no rational reason to believe that dark regions of this image are hotter than the brightest areas of this image.
 |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2006 20:28:12 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:13:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What useless crap! These bright emissions are not *only* indicative of brightness Dave, they give us some idea of temperature, specifically plasma from 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin in this case. My arguent about brighter being hotter is not mute and I never agreed to any such thing! I'm simply *insisting* we use *all* the laws of physics, not a limited subset of these formulas.
As I suspected, you want to use black body principles and calculations without using the term "black body" because it's too "confusing". Too bad it's invalid.
I can no longer reply directly to messages in the locked thread, but I will go back and cut/paste as appropriate, once I'm convinced there's some chance of a physics discussion breaking out. Edit: I'll probably do this anyway, masochism is obviously contagious. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/09/2006 20:43:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
As I suspected, you want to use black body principles and calculations without using the term "black body" because it's too "confusing". Too bad it's invalid.
Huh? How do Lockheed and NASA assign a temperature "range" to these filters John?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2006 20:32:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, I'll bite. Why would it be "probable" that we need "new" physical laws to explain how hot columns of dense plasma heat up lighter layers of plasma?
Oh, you think it's a simple thermal transfer going on? That's new. What's the average temperature of the corona, Michael? What is the volume of coronal material covered in that average? How many coronal loops of what volume and temperature are in existence at any moment (average)? What is the thermal conductivity of the coronal material?quote:
quote:
That's not true, either, you just reject the explanation.
What explanation? Be specific now Dave. What explanation?
Appeals to ignorance don't mean that explanations haven't been put forth. I'm not going to help you with your memory problems tonight.quote:
What generates the excess heat in the corona...
What do you mean by "excess" heat?quote:
...and how do you know it's not electricity flowing through the coronal loops?quote:
That's not true either, you just equate "it's not an electrical discharge" with "it's not electricity" out of either prejudice or ignorance.
Describe the difference here Dave and be specific.
Well, electrical currents make my computer function. If the insulators within my computer broke down and there were electrical discharges in there, then my computer would stop functioning. A discharge involves the breakdown of an insulator, Michael. One can have electricity without electrical discharges. Like in a lightbulb. Lightbulbs don't light up because of electrical discharges and "arcs."quote:
I can fully related to hot columns of rising plasma driven by electrical currents can heat the corona. I've yet to hear your explanation of coronal heating.
Grammatical nightmare aside, I don't have an explanation, and your explanation apparently rests upon electrical currents creating magnetic fields parallel to the direction of current, which is brand-spanking-new physics, Michael.quote:
quote:
Nope, and we're going backwards, as you'll see below.
No Dave *you* are going backwards. You've failed to provide *any* mathmatical models to demonstrate heat concentrations in the corona...
You've yet to provide a mathematical model of the heat concentrations in the corona which can be currently verified as being accurate.quote:
...and you insist these are not electrically heated columns.
No, I've said that I don't believe they're the result of electrical discharges, and I've also reported the failures of solar scientists to agree that they're electrically heated. Why don't you quote for us Schyvner's explanation of why he thinks the corona is electrically heated from that Sky & Telescope article? Or at least summarize his reasons for believing what he said in the quote you already provided.quote:
You refuse to put any options on the table...
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific option, Michael.quote:
...and you absolutely reject electrical currents flowing through the coronal loops.
Now you're back to completely misrepresenting my position.quote:
In short you've done nothing but reject every option offered you to determine the light source and the temperature signatures of the corona.
And I told you that a better option is to go through the underlying physics, because the conseqeunces of those processes will firmly indentify where the heat should be concentrated. We have no need to rely on your precious images, Michael, since you claim to know the configuration of the electrical "arcs" which create those images in the first place.quote:
I'm not letting this converstion drag into yet *more* distractions before we at least agree to the light source and the heat signature of the corona. Then *and only then* will I get into the rest of these issues with you.
And the issues I'm trying to get to will tell us exactly where the light and heat of the corona is coming from. If we can agree on the underlying physics (which I doubt if your prior post on the matter was any indication), then the images will be predicted and no judgement calls of any sort - and no half-assed "add the images together" methods - will be needed; the light and heat will come out of the equations.quote:
The responsibility is now upon you to give me a rational method to determine the light source, energy source and heat signatures of the high energy emissions since you continuously have refused to do so...
There's no need for me to do so, since I'm not offering any explanation of those things. And you not only need to offer a rational method for doing those things, but one which is currently testable. If you cannot offer a currently testable method, then this conversation is over until your methods for identifying the light source, energy source and heat signatures of the coronal images (not just the high-energy emissions, but all the 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 21:22:03 [Permalink]
|
Even though you states you didn't want to talk about this other stuff, I guess you wanted to talk about it anyway:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So how exactly does that information help your case Dave? If both filters are capable of seeing plasma in the same temp range and plasma up to 20 million K, and both images show the loops glow more brightly than the rest of the corona, how is that helping your case?
My "case" is only that you haven't provided a testably accurate method of determining the light and heat sources within the corona. Pointing out any/all factual errors on your part helps my case immensely.quote:
quote:
Again, every time you say that someone else is assuming something, you've been wrong.
Boloney. You won't even put your math on the table Dave.
That's utterly irrelevant to whether or not your statements about other people's assumptions are correct. They're not, and you've got a detailed history of telling us what other people assume and being wrong about it every damn time. Your "baloney" doesn't prove otherwise.quote:
On the other hand you claim that both images can show plasmas up to 20 Million K. In both images we see bright loops surrounded by a darker atmosphere, just as we might see any electrical discharges through a "relatively" cool atmosphere.
You're now ignoring the filters.quote:
We also see photons reflected off the atoms in the atomosphere, just like an electrical discharge reflects off the atoms in the atmosphere of earth.
You haven't demonstrated that there are reflections at all, Michael.quote:
How about showing the math you are using and some method of determining reflection rates so we can see if their method even works?
How about you demonstrate that any of those pixel values represent light which has been reflected, as you claim?quote:
quote:
Neither is Lockheed, since such a trick is impossible.
So that bright plasma can be anywhere between 20 Million K down to 160,000 K. How then can the darkest regions be "hotter" than the brightly lit regions Dave?
The bright regions can be anywhere between 160,000 K and 20 MK. So can the dark regions. You've assumed that brighter equals hotter. I haven't made any such assumption. Why don't you explain to me how the bright regions must be hotter than the dark regions, especially since while Nitta agreed with you, he only said it was opinion, not a fact.quote:
quote:
Neither does Lockheed.
How do you know that? You couldn't even tell me the math formulas they are using.
Lockheed's discussions of the emission line ratio images would have to begin with "assuming thus-and-such about reflectivity rates in the corona..." if they made any such assumptions. I see no evidence of any such assumptions, and doubt you can provide any, either.quote:
You've never explained how they determinine reflection rates to even begin comparing wavelengths.
Where is the evidence that reflection rates are important?quote:
quote:
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, elegant and wrong." - H. L. Menken.
That is totally meaningless slogan since you've offered no rational alternatives Dave. There are also many difficult solutions to a problem that are also equally wrong. So what?
So what? You're demanding that your "math" be taken seriously because it is simplified. It's an indication that you have only the most-shallow knowledge of Occam's Razor, and think that simpler is always better. Such is not the case.quote:
What useless crap! These bright emissions are not *only* indicative of brightness Dave, they give us some idea of temperature, specifically plasma from 160,000 to 20 million Kelvin in this case.
The darkest pixels, because they are non-zero counts of photons, also respresent temperatures within the same range, Michael. They give us no clue as to which parts might be hotter all by themselves.quote:
My arguent about brighter being hotter is not mute and I never agreed to any such thing!
Unfortunately, your argument about brighter being hotter was based on your admitted mistake about blackbody radiation, so you did agree that it's moot (not "mute," but "moot" - you're certainly not mute, Michael).quote:
I'm simply *insisting* we use *all* the laws of physics, not a limited subset of these formulas.
You're the one who brought the blackbody laws (a limited subset of all of physics) into the discussion and claimed that the corona followed such laws, which means that you considered the corona to be a black body, for which very particular laws apply.quote:
That isn't what I agreed to Dave. I agreed that no math that ignores density |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 21:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Huh? How do Lockheed and NASA assign a temperature "range" to these filters John?
Lockheed, NASA, and all the scientists working on the CHIANTI project assign temperature ranges to particular emission lines from ionized atoms mostly through empirically (experimentally) determining the temperature ranges through which those emission lines are seen coming from such ions. They go through all the trouble of experimentally determining temperature ranges because the blackbody laws don't work.
They can also do so through detailed quantum-theoretical work, but you'll note that none of the emission lines discussed in the papers about the TRACE temperature response are the theoretical ones, since they're usually predicted to be so dim that their contribution to an image from TRACE would be negligible. |
- 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 - 04/09/2006 : 22:15:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, you think it's a simple thermal transfer going on? That's new.
This is just clear evidence that you are *not* even *remotely* interested in having an honest discussion Dave. How many times have I said to you personally that the plasma in the coronal loops was *both* hotter and more dense than the rest of the corona?
quote:
What's the average temperature of the corona, Michael? What is the volume of coronal material covered in that average?
I can't tell the average temperature of the corona from these two images Dave, I can only tell you where the bulk of the high density, high temperature plasma is located, specifically in the coronal loops, and the brightly lit regions of this image Dave.
quote:
How many coronal loops of what volume and temperature are in existence at any moment (average)?
More smoke and mirrors. I guess you keep hoping I'm going to go off on more tangents with you without ever isolating the light source of these images. That isn't going to happen Dave. You tell me on one hand that NASA and Lockheed went to all the trouble to isolate the temperature ranges of these images, yet you deny the brightest regions are hotter than the darkest regions.
Care to explain how from a physics standpoint that even makes any sense? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2006 22:17:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 22:30:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Huh? How do Lockheed and NASA assign a temperature "range" to these filters John?
Lockheed, NASA, and all the scientists working on the CHIANTI project assign temperature ranges to particular emission lines from ionized atoms mostly through empirically (experimentally) determining the temperature ranges through which those emission lines are seen coming from such ions. They go through all the trouble of experimentally determining temperature ranges because the blackbody laws don't work.
And then you *completely* ignore that fact these bright regions have been accounted for by high temperature and you assign the dark regions as being *hotter* than the brightly lit regions. Go figure.....
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 23:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why don't you explain to me how the bright regions must be hotter than the dark regions, especially since while Nitta agreed with you, he only said it was opinion, not a fact.
What and logic and method do you figure he used Dave?
quote:
The darkest pixels, because they are non-zero counts of photons, also respresent temperatures within the same range, Michael.
That is utterly false! By your logic, if we take an image of lightning and any light is reflected into the image, we *must* "assume" that the atoms that reflected this light must *also* be the same temperature as the arc! That logic is *utterly* bogus, and the fact you won't cop to it, shows that you're not serious here Dave. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 06:06:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Holy christ. This is Part 7 of a thread, now, I might add, on the verge of being locked due to length. With 7 parts each with 15 pages, that's 105 pages! And with 10 posts per page, we're talking about a thousand posts on this topic. I wish I had the time to catch up and jump in, but with a thousand posts, I think I'm going to have to just sit back and watch the blur!
I've been keeping my own spreadsheet for the last couple of threads, just so I could find stuff when I needed it. As it turns out, in the last 2 threads, there were 433 individual posts over 30 pages. If that's representative of the lot to date, Dave's estimate is pretty good, and you're looking at around 1515 posts in total.
Based on the last 2 threads alone, Michael is responsible for 52% of the posts, Dave around 21%, 5 of us (me, Mab, Furshur, Geemack and H.) for the next 25% and a few special guest appearances making up the remaining 2%. These numbers aren't really fair to people who did a helluva lot more work early on, like Geemack, my apologies. This is based purely on number of posts, not post length or quality.
Disclaimer(s): These facts are based on a very untrustworthy discipline known as "mathematics", so we'll have to wait for someone to just look at the forum as a whole for a proper analysis.
None of the numbers have been corrected for density, quantum currents, dark matter, mass separation, or the fact that they just interact with the whole universe.
If you like these statistics, then they're mine. If not, they're actually based on a some statistical modelling done by some guy 100 years ago, don't blame me. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 06:52:04 [Permalink]
|
Michael, I have seen confusion many times in this thread on the definiton of terms. So with that in mind, could you please define the terms:
1. Electrical discharge
2. Electrical arc (unless it is synonymous with 1.)
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 06:56:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Disclaimer(s): These facts are based on a very untrustworthy discipline known as "mathematics", so we'll have to wait for someone to just look at the forum as a whole for a proper analysis.
None of the numbers have been corrected for density, quantum currents, dark matter, mass separation, or the fact that they just interact with the whole universe.
If you like these statistics, then they're mine. If not, they're actually based on a some statistical modelling done by some guy 100 years ago, don't blame me.
My reacton to this is identical the emotion my orang friend seems to be expressing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 09:56:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
None of the numbers have been corrected for density, quantum currents, dark matter, mass separation, or the fact that they just interact with the whole universe.
That's pretty funny John. :)
I must say that I've grown a bit discouraged at this point. We've gone through seven full threads now and we still have yet to even agree on the light source(s) of these images or the heat signatures of these high energy images. Without knowing what the light source of these images might be, there is simply no way to begin to analyse even the basic high energy images, let alone running difference images.
I never did get a straight answer out of furshur about an alternative to the million mile per hour events that regularly occur in the solar atmosphere that Bruce documented and explained. Instead he wants me to explain these discharges again in my own words even though Bruce explained it quite clearly.
Dave is still claiming that every pixel in these images that show *any* light whatesoever represents plasma that is over a million degrees. By this logic, every atom around an electrical discharge on earth that that happens to reflect high energy light must also be an even *greater* temperature than the plasma inside the discharge event!
When I've asked you or Dr. Mabuse to explain why the coronal loops are more brightly lit than the rest of the atmosphere of the corona, I get answers like this:
quote:
Because the coronal loops emit more photons per unit area than the areas around them at these two wavelength ranges, when corrected for the filter responses in these ranges.
Why? Why do they do that?
It seems to me that I've done about all I can do here here to move this conversation forward. Frankly however I see little or no evidence to suggest that there really is any serious give and take in these threads. This whole process seems more like a giant footdragging session where *my* questions are never answered and tangential questions are instead thrown my way to attempt to cover up the fact that I don't get any direct answers.
Dave and you have both suggested that you aren't emotionally attached to gas model theory, but I see little if any evidence that this is so. It doesn't seem to matter to either of you that gas model theory can't explain a coronal loop, or the heat source of the corona, or solar moss, or solar rain, million mile per hour discharges, or any of the things that we actually *observe* in satellite images. It doesn't seem to count for anything that I *can* explain *all* these phenomenon rather easily using Birkeland's model. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2006 10:07:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
