|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2006 : 10:38:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1606906.htm
Evidently Dr. Manuel isn't the only chemist who seems to think that isotope analysis of lunar soil samples presents giant problems for current theory.
From that article:
quote:
Instead, the study indicates that while the Sun is dissimilar to bodies like the Earth and meteorites, it has lower levels of oxygen-16 than expected.
Wasn't Dr. Manuel's work predicated on the idea that the composition of the sun is similar to the Earth and meteorites?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 12:08:37 [Permalink]
|
Interesting article in Nature, as they said in the article, "Depending on the [other data] results some new ideas might be required.
The article does not support Dr. Manuel, and it certainly does not support your iron shell idea.
Michael, are you going to get a chance to define 'electrical discharge' to clear up any confusion?
|
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 : 13:34:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Wasn't Dr. Manuel's work predicated on the idea that the composition of the sun is similar to the Earth and meteorites?
Well, sort of. It's a bit more complicated however as it relates to Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen. You are correct however that the sun would in fact be expected to be *most* similar to meteorites but not necessarily to the earth itself.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/Data/1976Data.htm
In this case, the oxygen 16/18 ratios that were observed in this study would tend to plot into the lower left corner, suggesting that the sun is mainly composed of ordinary chondrites, or that there is more to the story behind this oxygen ratio. It should be noted that we have also proposed a process of CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere, and this process may also play a noticeable role in the solar atmospheric composition, particularly as it relates to Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen isotopes. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 13:42:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Interesting article in Nature, as they said in the article, "Depending on the [other data] results some new ideas might be required.
I certainly have some new ideas. :)
quote:
The article does not support Dr. Manuel, and it certainly does not support your iron shell idea.
I would tend to have to agree with that statement since Manuel's model allows for both *higher* and *lower* oxygen 16/18 ratios than current gas model theory, and it really can't predict one specific ratio that *must* apply. This data does however blow big holes in current gas model theory and it does demonstrate that gas model "predictions" haven't matched well with direct observation. It also demonstrates that most of the gas model's "sucessuful predictions" have simply been modified to fit with observation *after* the fact.
quote:
Michael, are you going to get a chance to define 'electrical discharge' to clear up any confusion?
Why do you wish me to do this when Dr. Bruce already did this for you and you've already read his material? I am of course "assuming" that you got past the second sucessful prediction he made. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2006 13:48:59 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:01:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
It occurs to me that this assumption of yours is actually wrong for two reasons, not one.
The light from the coronal loops will strike each and every pixel of the ccd image Dave. Light does not travel from only one area of the surface to only one pixel on the ccd. The light from a single point would in fact light up every single pixel of such an image. You're wrong for two reasons, not one, and reflection is actually the least of your worries. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2006 16:20:17 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:01:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do you wish me to do this when Dr. Bruce already did this for you and you've already read his material? I am of course "assuming" that you got past the second sucessful prediction he made.
Nope.
Why are you being coy?
I simply asked you what your definition of an electrical discharge was. Do you want there to be confusion in the terminology we are using in this discussion? Why in the world would you want that?
|
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 : 16:10:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Why do you wish me to do this when Dr. Bruce already did this for you and you've already read his material? I am of course "assuming" that you got past the second sucessful prediction he made.
Nope.
Why are you being coy?
I simply asked you what your definition of an electrical discharge was. Do you want there to be confusion in the terminology we are using in this discussion? Why in the world would you want that?
I'm not being coy. You can look up the term on Google if Bruce's description isn't adequate. I personally think Bruce does a pretty excellent job of explaining these principles as they relate to plasma. He's ultimately my point of reference as it relates to these points. You would be better served by getting these ideas from the horses mouth, rather than hearing these ideas second hand. That is true of Birkeland's work as well.
I get the "feeling" here that everyone is being rather evasive at this point but me. You accused me of having no credibility for not "coming clean" in your opinion. You could hardly accuse me of that now.
How about some "give" at your end as well? I've yet to hear you explain an alternative that fits the evidence here furshur, and this feels more like a stall tactic. If you don't believe this is electricity traveling through plasma, what do you believe drives these million mile per hour events? How does your explanation fit with the *observed* evidence? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2006 16:11:42 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:28:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not being coy. You can look up the term on Google if Bruce's description isn't adequate.
Geez! Fine here is what I found:
quote:
An electrostatic discharge (ESD) is a sudden flow of electric current through a material that is normally an insulator. A large potential difference across the insulator generates a strong electric field, converting the material's atoms into ions that conduct a current.
I guess you see the problem. Plasma is not an insulator. There can be no electrical discharge on the sun. A difference in potential won't build up because the entire surface of the sun is made up of charge carriers. So you must be using a different definition of electrical discharge than this. Will you now tell me what your definition of an electrical discharge is?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:29:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Actually, I don't think there's much dispute about the light source in most cases. It's your belief in direct correlation between intensity and temperature that most of us have issues with.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Instead he wants me to explain these discharges again in my own words even though Bruce explained it quite clearly.
Michael, you have demonstrated a number of times that your terminology isn't always "conventional", so a little clarification on your part would go a long way. I don't think anyone's asking for a major treatise on discharge theory. A couple of sentences about what you see as a discharge versus a current and other basic issues (which I think Dave has also requested), would probably make life a lot simpler for all. You're using the term now, not Bruce, we want to know what you mean. You've cited other peoples work before with entirely different meanings to the authors, so I think it's safer, where possible, that we determine your meaning from what you say.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave is still claiming that every pixel in these images that show *any* light whatesoever represents plasma that is over a million degrees.
I think if you read it again you'll see that he's saying that every non-zero pixel is evidence of some material in the region represented by the pixel being somewhere within the temperature range correlating to wavelengths passed by the filter for specific species in this temperature range. (There's more on this at the bottom of this post, which I've brought in from another of your posts to me, as it's relevant here).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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!
If you have evidence that the materials in the solar atmosphere will reflect wavelengths in this range, and do so well enough to be significant when taking into account the dynamic range and resolution of the filter and sensor, then it may be an issue. Your analogy is somewhat inappropriate without a lot more information, even then, I feel the situations are too dissimilar for it to be of much use.
Again, no one is saying the area around/beside the loops has to be hotter than the loops themselves, however, you can't assume the converse either. Brighter pixels are evidence of more photons in the pass band. If you want to infer that this is also representative of temperature in the solar atmosphere then you need to show how and why.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
Why? Because it's true. There are no assumptions in this explanation, it describes the phenomenon (if not the underlying cause) correctly.
Why do they do that? Perhaps because there is more material emitting photons in that region. There is more than one possibility for what might cause this population/density increase, but you cannot determine that cause from looking at pictures alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
As much as you would like it to be otherwise, it is not up to us to provide an alternative to your model. If there are flaws in your assumptions and/or methodology, then they will remain regardless of any counter-model anyone else may or may not provide. Your model is what we're discussing.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I will say again that I have no particular loyalty to the gas (or any other) model. My interest is in the science itself. I'd find it quite interesting if your model proved to be true, but you are going to have to convince me, scientifically, that it has merit.
(From another post, but relevant here)
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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?
By using species specific emission lines and the temperatures that bring them about. They do this because black body principles don't apply. If they did, it wouldn't really matter what the ions were, a few discrete spectral samples would give us a very good value for temperature. That however, as Lockheed and NASA understand quite well, is not the case. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:37:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I guess you see the problem. Plasma is not an insulator. There can be no electrical discharge on the sun. A difference in potential won't build up because the entire surface of the sun is made up of charge carriers. So you must be using a different definition of electrical discharge than this. Will you now tell me what your definition of an electrical discharge is?
I could only assume by this response that you didn't thuroughly read Dr. Bruce's explanations, nor do you seem to understand why he believed it was necessary to have low enough temperatures for non plasmas to form.
You also cannot assume that charges cannot "build up" since the sun has a very strong magnetic field, and these "disharges" are occuring with the express intent of neutralizing these potential differences. Birkelands model even demonstrated that the "bumbs" or higher surface elevations tend to be the points where these discharges are concentrated. Plasma itself is not a "perfect" conductor by the way.
Do you even have an alternative explanation that fits the speed requirements? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:43:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The light from the coronal loops will strike each and every pixel of the lens Dave.
The lens doesn't have pixels, Michael.quote:
Light does not travel from only one area of the surface to only one pixel on the lens.
Of course not, but where does the light go after it hits the lens?quote:
The light from a single point would in fact light up every single pixel of such an image.
If that's the case, then why aren't the images all a uniform gray or white? Shouldn't all the pixels be as bright as the brightest pixel?quote:
You're wrong for two reasons, not one, and reflection is actually the least of your worries.
Actually, it seems that you're just making up "facts" about optics now, too. Rather than support your claim that the corona is reflective, you appear to be just inventing "problems" out of whole cloth in order to avoid a real discussion.
You also haven't shown where "demand answers from your critics" is a part of the scientific method (it isn't). Michael, rather than get on with testing your theory against observations, you just want to discuss the observations over and over again. So, as far as I can tell, it's you who are actively trying to stall these threads.
From a previous post:quote:
That logic is *utterly* bogus, and the fact you won't cop to it, shows that you're not serious here Dave.
Until you provide evidence that there are reflections within the corona, it's the only logic possible. Your logic relies upon the speculation that the corona reflects some light, mine doesn't.
From an earlier post:quote:
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.....
No, I looked at the same analysis of the high-temperature response of TRACE that you provided, and I see that the highest response of the TRACE telescope is to 1,000,000-kelvin ions in the 171A passband, and to 1,600,000-kelvin ions in the 195A passband. They say nothing about the brightest pixels being "accounted for" by higher-temperature plasmas. Nothing. In fact, their graphs show that the really high-temperature stuff will appear to be only 1/1,000th as bright as the million-kelvin stuff. But you rejected that assessment because they based it upon the best measurements they had of the relative abundances of ions in the corona. Your rejection of their inferences, however, doesn't give you free rein to insert any made-up facts you want to about the temperatures in the corona and their appearance in the images. Whatever you wish to replace their work with must be verifiable, at the very least.
From a still earlier post:quote:
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?
What does that have to do with the method of coronal heating? You seemed to be saying that the coronal loops heat up the rest of the corona through a simple heat-transfer process, like an open flame can heat up a room. That was news to me, since there's more than one possible method of heat transfer, and we hadn't actually discussed it at all. The rest of the questions I asked you were an attempt to determine how well such a process could work. Since you refuse to answer them, we cannot get on with the scientific method and test how well your theory matches reality. |
- 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 - 04/10/2006 : 16:50:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Actually, I don't think there's much dispute about the light source in most cases. It's your belief in direct correlation between intensity and temperature that most of us have issues with.
Then it seems to me that you folks owe me a logical explanation as to why you take issue with this. Lockheed and NASA assigned these filters to certain temperature ranges. You cannot assume as Dave has assumed that *some* light striking the darker regions of the CCD image automatically means the light seen in that darker pixel came from on spot on the surface. The only areas we know for "certain" are much hotter than the rest are the areas with highest light concentration. You wouldn't look at a couple of images of a lightning bolt on two wavelengths and claim that all the dark regions in the image are the same temperature as the light regions. Why do that now?
quote:
Michael, you have demonstrated a number of times that your terminology isn't always "conventional", so a little clarification on your part would go a long way.
It is precisely because my terminology isn't always conventional that I would prefer he get this information from the source. I would refer you to Birkeland's work on certain points, and Manuel's work on certain points. I would do that here with Bruce's work, since he IMO is the actual authority of these ideas. I am merely a parot, and my "interpretation" of his work may not be to your personal liking.
quote:
I don't think anyone's asking for a major treatise on discharge theory. A couple of sentences about what you see as a discharge versus a current and other basic issues (which I think Dave has also requested), would probably make life a lot simpler for all.
I've tried to make things as "simple" as I can here John, and to keep my ego out of the issues, and to keep the topic focused. Bruce's work speaks for itself. I really think that all I might do is open up another distraction by putting things in my own words.
quote:
You're using the term now, not Bruce, we want to know what you mean. You've cited other peoples work before with entirely different meanings to the authors, so I think it's safer, where possible, that we determine your meaning from what you say.
I hear you on this point John, and these no guarantee that I personally will represent Dr. Bruce's ideas adequately. Since I keep refering back to them, I would simply refer you to his ideas and his explanation of these ideas. I see no point in reinventing the wheel here.
quote:
I think if you read it again you'll see that he's saying that every non-zero pixel is evidence of some material in the region represented by the pixel being somewhere within the temperature range correlating to wavelengths passed by the filter for specific species in this temperature range. (There's more on this at the bottom of this post, which I've brought in from another of your posts to me, as it's relevant here).
Yes, and as I explained, that assumption is wrong for two *major* reasons, and reflection is the least of Dave's worries frankly.
quote:
If you have evidence that the materials in the solar atmosphere will reflect wavelengths in this range, and do so well enough to be significant when taking into account the dynamic range and resolution of the filter and sensor, then it may be an issue. Your analogy is somewhat inappropriate without a lot more information, even then, I feel the situations are too dissimilar for it to be of much use.
Fine. Forget that issue entirely if you like. The light from the loops will strike even the darker CCD pixels. You can't automatically assume that *some* few photons means that a dark region is hot.
quote:
Again, no one is saying the area around/beside the loops has to be hotter than the loops themselves, however, you can't assume the converse either. Brighter pixels are evidence of more photons in the pass band. If you want to infer that this is also representative of temperature in the solar atmosphere then you need to show how and why.
Yes I can. Lockheed and NASA already set the temperature minimums and maximums. I'm not assuming anything that hasn't been lab tested according to Dave.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The lens doesn't have pixels, Michael.
Yes Dave, I noted my sloppy verbage and I editted that wording accordingly. Leave it to you to ignore the main point I made and focus on trivial wording. Care to explain now?
quote:
If that's the case, then why aren't the images all a uniform gray or white? Shouldn't all the pixels be as bright as the brightest pixel?
Are you for real? It's not grey for the same reasons a ccd image of a lightning strike isn't "grey". For crying out loud, and to think you guys accuse *me* of having no credibility.
I don't know how you can continue to peddle this nonsense Dave. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 16:58:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
It occurs to me that this assumption of yours is actually wrong for two reasons, not one.
The light from the coronal loops will strike each and every pixel of the ccd image Dave. Light does not travel from only one area of the surface to only one pixel on the ccd. The light from a single point would in fact light up every single pixel of such an image. You're wrong for two reasons, not one, and reflection is actually the least of your worries.
Not content with trashing black body theory, now you're going to single handedly discredit the entire optical imaging field too. Well done.
Do you not think a fairly significant amount of progress has been made towards designing optical systems that image particular regions of space onto a specific imaging plane?
If your "light from a single point would in fact light up every single pixel" is true, how on earth (haha) do we ever take images of point sources, or distant stars for that matter? Diffraction, dispersion and other optical system non-idealities certainly impose constraints on the design of imaging, or any optical system for that matter, but what you are suggesting is patently absurd.
Stick with the reflection issue if you think it is one, this new postulate is a worthless diversion.
(Edit: I posted this after seeing Dave has already noticed and replied to your absurd suggestion, my objection, however, still stands. I have spent many years studying, designing, building and testing optical systems for all sorts of applications, some terrestrial, some not. You can claim "appeal to authority" all you like, but remember, it's only fallacious if it's inappropriate authority. If you think it's relevant, please describe your experience with optical systems). |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/10/2006 17:13:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:07:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes Dave, I noted my sloppy verbage and I editted that wording accordingly.
Gee, Michael, I guess you edited it while I was typing.quote:
Leave it to you to ignore the main point I made and focus on trivial wording. Care to explain now?
No, I'd still like you to explain how, if light from every point on the "surface" hits every pixel in the CCD, the images show anything but the sum-total of the brightness of the entire Sun.quote:
Are you for real? It's not grey for the same reasons a ccd image of a lightning strike isn't "grey". For crying out loud, and to think you guys accuse *me* of having no credibility.
I don't know how you can continue to peddle this nonsense Dave.
You're the one who is claiming that the light from a single point on the Sun's "surface" will be picked up by every pixel on the CCD, Michael, not me. Indeed, how do you think a lightning bolt can be resolved if the light path in a camera is so sloppy? Really, how is it that I can take a picture of my wife and her eyes show up in the right places relative to everything else?
Michael, I'm not peddling anything, I'm questioning your grasp simple optical science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
