|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2006 : 09:35:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, and apparently you can't remember your own posts, either: you demanded that I prove that the imaging equipment is perfect.
That is because you claimed that every pixel sees photons so every area of the sun represented plasma in the million degree range. I've now shown you there are two different reasons, why that is *untrue*, and you have never dealt with *either* issue.
quote:
That's your false dilemma and reversal of the burden of proof.
Boloney. Even the engineers of this equipment do not make the same claim you do. They acknowledge there are many issues that affect these images and they don't associated every photon with million degree plasma as you are trying to do. They acknowledge the equipment recieves false hits for a variety of reasons, whereas you only left one possible option on the table, an option that requires *perfection* as it relates to system design.
quote:
I never claimed it was perfect, either.
In order for every photon *hit* to represent plasma in the million degree range, the equipment would need to be not just "close" to perfect, but *absolutely perfect* in every way. It's not.
quote:
And you can post all the technical details you want, but they're not going to make a bit of difference unless you can actually post the deconvolution they use to "partially" remove the difraction effects. And you still haven't been able to provide any measurement of the reflectivity of the coronal material, so we've got nothing to work with there, either.
In other words you simply *assume* you are right, and you'll make everyone else prove you are wrong? Excuse me? You can't do that Dave. You can't do what you won't let me do. We all know that some deflection will occur, both in the atmosphere, and in the filtering mechanisms they use to select specific wavelengths. You *never once* attempted to account for these affects, and now you insist that *I personally* do it for you. Boloney! I already offered you a legitimate way to deal with some of these issues, and you ignrored me. You ignored the atmosphereic and filter reflection issues entirely! Your statement is simply false, and you refuse to admit it, and you refuse to validate your claim scientifically. Instead you *assume* you are right, and you ignore logic, common sense, and the actual design specification of the equipment involved.
quote:
The point has always been that we have no way to tell which low-intensity pixels are reflections, or defractions, or whatever, and which are actual low-density, high-temperature plasmas. Demonstrating that there are problems with the telescope actually helps prove my point, Michael.
Only in Dave's world could that rediculace rationalization possibly seem even remotely logical. The fact there are problems with the telescope shows conclusively that you cannot *assume* that every photon hit represents plasma on the sun that is a million degrees! Even if there wasn't any reflections in the solar atmosphere, the physical limitations of this equipment precludes you from claiming that every photon represents plasma in the 160,000 to million degree range. That is simply boloney and everyone here knows it.
quote:
Of course, none of that would matter if you'd go back to discussing the basic electrical model you've got in mind, since getting a full, working description which doesn't conflict with the laws of physics would, in the end, tell us all exactly where the heat and light are concentrated, without having to correct any image for any equipment effects.
Lightning does not conflict with the laws of physics, and it produces the same kinds of effects we see in the solar atmosphere, including million mile per hour discharges. The fact you all are still dragging your feet on these issues and none of you have any alternatives to offer is quite telling Dave.
quote:
Why is it that you refuse to take such a straightforward and easy path, and instead insist on all this analysis nonsense?
Because is we *refuse* to analyse the equipment, we might get weird ideas about what a photon hit might represent. If you don't spend any time at all understand the stuff you have to work with, you'll never have a clue what the data represents.
quote:
Nobody ever made such a claim, Michael. You really do need a break if you're just going to keep making stuff up.
In order for your claim to be true Dave, every single "photon" we see would have to perfectly filtered, and there were have to be no interference in the atmosphere, and no interference anywhere between the CCD itself and the sun. That simply doesn't occur in the real world, particularly not when we are staring at something as energetic as a sun. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 10:12:56 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:08:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Wow is right. What a rediculace denial routine. The irrational behaviors around here are simply incredible.
If that is true, why do you bother?
I'm starting to ask myself that same question Dr. Mabuse.
I originally started posting here because I wanted to discuss these ideas publically and scientifically. I wanted to be sure that these ideas would hold up to serious scientific scrutiny. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that some very good scientific 'skeptics' do in fact frequent this forum. I also appreciate the fact that this forum is "open" and places a high value on free speech.
Up to this point in time, I have honestly appreciated the fact that you, Dave, John, furshur, HH and others have been able to provide a reasonably fair, yet "skeptical" review of these ideas. It's been a great scientific reality check from my perpective, and I've learned a great deal through this process. The learning process in particular has made the effort worthwhile from my perspective.
Recently however the conversations have become very illogical from my perspective. I spent the whole last thread trying to keep this conversation focused on the light source and the heat source of these images so that we could actually begin to analyse a few of these very important satellite images. Instead of finding any consensus on these issues, the process has now become bogged down and mired in personalities and illogical premises. This, in spite of the fact that I've done my best to not let my own personal biases and ego get in the way.
Based on the equipment we have, and the limitations of this equipment, the dark regions of these images we cannot possibly determine these regions to be a greater temperature than the brightest regions of these same images. None of you however is willing to concede this point, even with all the visual evidence in the world to demonstrate this point.
Dave has now began with a strange 'premise' that he has never attempted to substanciate from a scientific perspective. He now seems to expect me to "disprove" his claim as though he is "right" by default. We all know that true skepticism doesn't work that way. If Dave believes that *every single photon* represents plasma that is millions of degrees, and no atmospheric interference is happening, then he has to account for why we see no reflection in the atomsphere and he must account for the imperfections of the equipment itself. He has done neither of these two things, but insists he's right anyway.
Furshur can't offer me an rational alternative to million mile per hour events, but somehow seems certain these aren't electrical discharges none the less.
You and John have been awefully quiet about the mechanics behind the bright discharges we see in these image.
At this point I'm not sure there is any headway that can be made on these issues. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:22:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave has now began with a strange 'premise' that he has never attempted to substanciate from a scientific perspective. He now seems to expect me to "disprove" his claim as though he is "right" by default. We all know that true skepticism doesn't work that way.
Michael, the "default" is that you are wrong. We begin by assuming you that what you say might not be correct. Since you are the one offering a claim, you must prove the validity of your assumptions step by step until we all can agree the evidence supports your theory.
If you want us to consider the brightest areas of an image the hottest, you need to show how one arrives at that conclusion. No one needs to show that those areas aren't hotter (they might not be), but until you show that they are, your assumption is not justified. That's what "showing your work" means. Do not expect a free pass on any of your assumptions. Prove why they are correct.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/12/2006 10:26:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 10:42:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Only in Dave's world could that rediculace rationalization possibly seem even remotely logical. The fact there are problems with the telescope shows conclusively that you cannot *assume* that every photon hit represents plasma on the sun that is a million degrees!
I'm not assuming any such thing, Michael. You're again making stuff up. You're the one who's claimed that we must take reflection and equipment defects into account, but the fact that you refuse to take them into account in your own analysis just shows you're unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards as you hold everyone else.quote:
Even if there wasn't any reflections in the solar atmosphere...
You have yet to demonstrate that there are.quote:
...the physical limitations of this equipment precludes you from claiming that every photon represents plasma in the 160,000 to million degree range.
That's not what I was saying.quote:
That is simply boloney and everyone here knows it.
Right back at you, Michael.quote:
Lightning does not conflict with the laws of physics...
Lighting doesn't have charged particles spiralling around it, either.quote:
...and it produces the same kinds of effects we see in the solar atmosphere...
No, it doesn't produce spiralling charged particles.quote:
...including million mile per hour discharges.
Who gives a damn about the speed? What a lame "effect."quote:
The fact you all are still dragging your feet on these issues and none of you have any alternatives to offer is quite telling Dave.
I'm not the one dragging my feet, Michael. I told you how your model is in conflict with the laws of physics, and you haven't replied to that point at all.quote:
Because is we *refuse* to analyse the equipment, we might get weird ideas about what a photon hit might represent.
No, all the weird ideas have come from you, Michael, and your refusal to try to understand my point.quote:
If you don't spend any time at all understand the stuff you have to work with, you'll never have a clue what the data represents.
It no longer matters what the images represent, because you apparently have a model which should predict the images, if it's correct. But you're unwilling to discuss the underlying physics, and instead give us this telescope-error runaround.quote:
In order for your claim to be true Dave, every single "photon" we see would have to perfectly filtered...
The only claim I ever made was that since you refuse to divulge any measurements of the corona's reflectivity, I had no evidence that the photon counts were not of high-temp plasmas. Now you've provided evidence that the images aren't accurate. But now your own image analysis must take all of those problems into account (including intermittent hot pixels), or otherwise you'll be holding yourself to a lower standard than you expect us to meet.quote:
...and there were have to be no interference in the atmosphere, and no interference anywhere between the CCD itself and the sun. That simply doesn't occur in the real world, particularly not when we are staring at something as energetic as a sun.
And none of that matters if you'd deign to discuss the underlying physics. But you won't, and instead rely on a piss-poor argument from analogy (with lightning), despite the fact that lightning doesn't cross the Earth from point-to-point, nor does it have a temperature profile matching that of the corona loops (what do you think that profile is, anyway)? |
- 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 - 04/12/2006 : 11:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, the "default" is that you are wrong.
Actually, there is no "default". The only "default" is that *all* claims need to be verified via evidence. That is true of *my* claims as well as the claims of all participants.
quote:
We begin by assuming you that what you say might not be correct.
That is fine. I assume the same. I do not automatically believe Dave (or anyone for that matter) when he claims that all pixels have photons, therefore all pixels show plasma in the sun's atmosphere that is a very high temperature. These are *claims* that Dave made. Dave must now verify these claims. He must account for atmospheric reflection issues and equipment limitation issues. I've demonstrated there are equipment limitations, and atmospheric relection is something that logically *must* be occuring.
quote:
Since you are the one offering a claim, you must prove the validity of your assumptions step by step until we all can agree the evidence supports your theory.
If I am obligated to go through that process, then *everyone* who makes claims in this thread must also show evidence that supports their statements as well. If Dave believes that all photons denote plasma in the 160,000K + range, then he must account for the reflection issues and the imperfections in the TRACE imaging system.
quote:
If you want us to consider the brightest areas of an image the hottest, you need to show how one arrives at that conclusion.
I've already done that. These emmissions are directly related to high tempeatures by NASA and by Lockheed. I believe them as it relates to this issue. That is the only "assumption" I am making in fact.
quote:
No one needs to show that those areas aren't hotter (they might not be), but until you show that they are, your assumption is not justified. That's what "showing your work" means. Do not expect a free pass on any of your assumptions. Prove why they are correct.
This process however must work both ways. These bright regions have already been linked to high temperatures by NASA and Lockheed. The darker regions are not *necessarily* anywhere near the same temperature as the bright regions. Dave claims they are. He must now *demonstrate* that claim. He refuses to do so. He has shown no math to substanciate such a view point, whereas I have shown the math I have used to demonstrate my case, as well as the observations that support my case. Dave has not provided any mathematical support of his claims, and he has not shown observation to substanciate this claim. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 11:15:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 11:31:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Based on the equipment we have, and the limitations of this equipment, the dark regions of these images we cannot possibly determine these regions to be a greater temperature than the brightest regions of these same images. None of you however is willing to concede this point, even with all the visual evidence in the world to demonstrate this point.
Actually, Michael, your claim was that the bright parts of the images are necessarily hotter than the dark parts. We are still waiting for you to prove that assertion. Your attempts to get other people to instead prove an opposing idea of your own creation are nothing but a distrcation.quote:
Dave has now began with a strange 'premise' that he has never attempted to substanciate from a scientific perspective.
My only premise is that you need to substantiate your assumptions.quote:
He now seems to expect me to "disprove" his claim as though he is "right" by default.
No, I expect you to prove your own assumptions, instead of assuming that you are correct by default.quote:
We all know that true skepticism doesn't work that way.
We all know that, but you, Michael, appear to be unwilling to follow that precept.quote:
If Dave believes that *every single photon* represents plasma that is millions of degrees, and no atmospheric interference is happening, then he has to account for why we see no reflection in the atomsphere and he must account for the imperfections of the equipment itself. He has done neither of these two things, but insists he's right anyway.
No, it is you who have failed to provide evidence for coronal reflections, and you who have failed to take less-than-perfect equipment into account in your own analysis. Once again, you are doing nothing more than attempting to shift the burden of proof away from your own claims.quote:
At this point I'm not sure there is any headway that can be made on these issues.
As long as you refuse to explain your physics fully, and instead focus on irrelevant things like image faults and the speed of the loops, then no headway will ever be made. It's all on you, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 11:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've demonstrated there are equipment limitations, and atmospheric relection is something that logically *must* be occuring.
Michael you say this kind of crap all of the time. The sun is outside of what we call normal due to the gravity, temperatures, plasma, and magnetic fields. Applying logic in exotic environments can get you in trouble.
If you fire single electrons at a 2 slit grid, logic would tell you that the electrons will go through either one or the other slit. But PHYSICS tells us that a single electron can also go through both slits at the same time.
I don't care what you beleive.
I don't care what your opinion is.
I don't care what you think is logically feasible.
Show me da proof.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/12/2006 11:53:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 12:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I've demonstrated there are equipment limitations, and atmospheric relection is something that logically *must* be occuring.
Michael you say this kind of crap all of the time. The sun is outside of what we call normal due to the gravity, temperatures, plasma, and magnetic fields. Applying logic in exotic environments can get you in trouble.
Suggesting the environment is all that "exotic" can also get you in trouble. The environment in this case is still made up of atoms. The laws of physics still apply to atoms. The atmosphere of the sun is not *so* different than the atmosphere of any solar body that we can't determine it's "hot spots". We can still deduce things from the data set using the same laws of physics we've always relied on in the past.
quote:
If you fire single electrons at a 2 slit grid, logic would tell you that the electrons will go through either one or the other slit. But PHYSICS tells us that a single electron can also go through both slits at the same time.
Let's stay focused to "this issue". All you are proving is that light could come out of the arc, and reach us through "multiple" paths.
quote:
I don't care what you beleive.
I don't care what your opinion is.
I don't care what you think is logically feasible.
Show me da proof.
In a very real way, you just did that yourself IMO. By demonstrating that double slit experiments show multiple paths in waves from the same event, you've demonstrated that diffusion will occur and reflection is likely. If you believe this will *not* happen, then it become beholden upon you to demonstrate *why* these same laws of physics would *not* apply. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 12:39:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, Michael, your claim was that the bright parts of the images are necessarily hotter than the dark parts.
Whereas *your claim* was that since all pixels have photons, all areas are necessarily *hot* by the filter standards in question. They are not.
My premise is simply based on all the laws of physics we rely on every day of our lives.
quote:
We are still waiting for you to prove that assertion.
I already did that mathematically for you and everything. I even showed you pretty 'pictures' to "show" you the math. The math is clear. The focus of energy is in the loops. That is where the high energy photons are concentrated, and where they originate. You simply refuse to "see" (literally).
quote:
Your attempts to get other people to instead prove an opposing idea of your own creation are nothing but a distrcation.
I'm focusing in on your *assumption* that was inaccuate Dave, simply to point out where you are in error. You cannot equate the presense of photons in individual pixels as indicators of plasma in the same plane (layer(s)) as the coronal loops in the same temperature range. Even were light to come straight at us and there were no other external factors to consider, the distance involved requires that we consider reflection from the original events being recieved as well. We can't simply *assume* as you did that *some* relatively small amount of photons in that pixel equate to hot plasma in the same atmosophere as the coronal loops. There is no such one to one relationship.
quote:
My only premise is that you need to substantiate your assumptions.
As someone who respects you, I tell you quite directly that you are backpeddling, dragging your feet, and ignoring the laws of physics, not to mention what you can see with you own two eyes.
quote:
No, I expect you to prove your own assumptions, instead of assuming that you are correct by default.
How would you suggest I go about that Dave? Given the data we have. How would you suggest I go about that? I've already shown you evidence from multiple satellite programs that show a direct correlation between high energy emissions and the coronal loops. What exactly will you accept if you won't believe what you can see with your own eyes?
quote:
We all know that, but you, Michael, appear to be unwilling to follow that precept.
Dave, you can't claim that the presense of light in a CCD pixel equates to hot plasma in the corona. There are three dimensions and you are accounting for only two and ignoring the laws of physics in the process. QM insists these photons will "spread out" and arrive from the same event by different paths Dave.
You too made claims, and you can't just ignore your responsibility to demonstrate what you claimed. There is no evidence of hot plasma in darkest regions of these images. There is only evidence of quantum effects of light in these pixels. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 14:01:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, Michael, your claim was that the bright parts of the images are necessarily hotter than the dark parts.
Whereas *your claim* was that since all pixels have photons, all areas are necessarily *hot* by the filter standards in question. They are not.
My premise is simply based on all the laws of physics we rely on every day of our lives.
You are constantly opting out physical principles that are not in direct focus of the discussion. (See example below)
quote:
quote:
We are still waiting for you to prove that assertion.
I already did that mathematically for you and everything. I even showed you pretty 'pictures' to "show" you the math. The math is clear.
Your math is too simplistic to be a approximate representation of reality. 1+1=2
While it is a nice picture, you're still working with two normalized pictures where we cannot say how much UV-light is present compared to the other picture. A pixel brightness of 50% in the first pic does not represent the same energy output as 50% in the other pic.
quote:
The focus of energy is in the loops.
I never contested that. The energy concentration is in the loops. But not because they are necessarily hotter, but because they contain a much higher amount of ions emitting those frequencies.
The temperature - also know to physicists as the average kinetic energy of the atoms/ions - can be as high, or even higher outside the loops. It's just that since the density is so much lower than in the loops themselves, the energy-concenration will be lower in the corona compared to the loops. Hence, the corona will glow less than the loop.
But you seem to conveniently ignore that fact, even when we try to explain that to you. Since you have trouble accepting physical principles we explain to you, I feel like throwing pearls to the swines.
Your constant manufacturing of strawmen from Dave's arguments is also one of the reasons I'm constantly asking myself why I bother. Regarding optics (I'm an amateur astronomer, and through my hobby I have gathered a greater understanding that the average Joe about optics) I agree with John and Dave, and think that you either misunderstood Dave's position, or you are wilfully misrepresenting his position. While it certainly looks like the latter, I would prefer to give you the benefit of a doubt, and ask you to go back and re-read what he (and John) initially wrote about it.
Yes, we know the imaging devices aren't perfect, and we don't demand them to be.
No, we do not think that the imperfections are so bad as to have an impact. Otherwise NASA wouldn't have bothered sending the stuff up in the first place.
quote:
Dave, you can't claim that the presense of light in a CCD pixel equates to hot plasma in the corona. There are three dimensions and you are accounting for only two and ignoring the laws of physics in the process. QM insists these photons will "spread out" and arrive from the same event by different paths Dave.
John's example of astro-photography proves your QM-assumtion to be wrong, since he recorded zero value pixels. This is just smoke screen. Or a red herring. I wonder if I will ever learn which is which.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/12/2006 14:05:12 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 14:53:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Your math is too simplistic to be a approximate representation of reality. 1+1=2
Ok, I'll bite. How do you *know* that to be the case? You are essentially alledging that (1+1)(+-*/)(someothermathematicallyundefinedthing) = -1
quote:
While it is a nice picture, you're still working with two normalized pictures where we cannot say how much UV-light is present compared to the other picture. A pixel brightness of 50% in the first pic does not represent the same energy output as 50% in the other pic.
So? Both the 171A and 195A image show very clearly that the light in *both* images is concentrated in the coronal loops.
quote:
I never contested that. The energy concentration is in the loops. But not because they are necessarily hotter, but because they contain a much higher amount of ions emitting those frequencies.
How? Why? What evidence do you have that the darkest areas of this image are *anywhere near* 160,000K plus?
quote:
The temperature - also know to physicists as the average kinetic energy of the atoms/ions - can be as high, or even higher outside the loops.
Can be, could be, might be? As I said, what evidence do you have that the darkest regions are anywhere near the temperatures of the brightest regions? If you aledge it *is* a greater temperature, demonstrate it. If you can't, I can't simply *assume* it's that temperature.
quote:
It's just that since the density is so much lower than in the loops themselves, the energy-concenration will be lower in the corona compared to the loops. Hence, the corona will glow less than the loop.
I'm assuming you meant to say the density was "higher" in the loop, but again, what *evidence* do you have to suggest this in the first place?
quote:
But you seem to conveniently ignore that fact, even when we try to explain that to you.
Huh? I'm not "ignoring" that fact, I'm *explaining* where the higher density plasma comes from. You never even explain that much! According to Dave these emissions initiate in the corona and take place *only* in the corona, so where did that high density plasma come from in the first place?
You convieniently *ignore* the fact that it can be *both* more dense *and* a greater temperature!
quote:
Since you have trouble accepting physical principles we explain to you, I feel like throwing pearls to the swines.
It's funny you should say that. I can definitely relate to that "feeling". Put yourself now in my shoes. You can't define the energy source of the corona. You can't determine which areas are hotter even though every satellite image shows a direct correlation between highest energy wavelengths and the coronal loops. You can't define a light source because you claim it's all glowing, even though quantum mechanics can explain these stray photons without ever suggesting that the whole corona is hot. Even though we know that plasma inside a lightning bolt is capable of releasing this emssions and operating at these speeds, you refuse to believe it's electrical current that causes these emmissions, and you insist the air around and outside the arc *could be* thinner and hotter than the plasma inside the arc.
quote:
Your constant manufacturing of strawmen from Dave's arguments is also one of the reasons I'm constantly asking myself why I bother.
That works both ways. Dave does that all the time to my arguements. I simply pointed out where he claimed that the presense of *some* photons in the darker pixels automatically correlates to *some* plasma in the 160,000 range. QM and all the laws of physics "say that ain't so". Dave can't ignore the relfection aspects, but he's doing so, and you aren't saying a word about that!
quote:
Regarding optics (I'm an amateur astronomer, and through my hobby I have gathered a greater understanding that the average Joe about optics) I agree with John and Dave, and think that you either misunderstood Dave's position, or you are wilfully misrepresenting his position. While it certainly looks like the latter, I would prefer to give you the benefit of a doubt, and ask you to go back and re-read what he (and John) initially wrote about it.
Ok, here's what he wrote:
quote:
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.
QM says that isn't so Dr. What do you want me to say?
quote:
Yes, we know the imaging devices aren't perfect, and we don't demand them to be.
In order for his statement to be true, there would literally have to be *no* (as in none) interference from the solar atmosphere, and *no* interference from the filter, and no interference from anything.
quote:
No, we do not think that the imperfections are so bad as to have an impact. Otherwise NASA wouldn't have bothered sending the stuff up in the first place.
I don't think are "so bad" either Dr. Mabuse. I think they are acceptable, but I know these imperfections exist, so I would never make the claim Dave is making.
quote:
John's example of astro-photography proves your QM-assumtion to be wrong, since he recorded zero value pixels.
No, that doens't demonstrate anything of the sort! Wer |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 14:54:03 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 15:11:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How? Why? What evidence do you have that the darkest areas of this image are *anywhere near* 160,000K plus?
Michael, where is your evidence that the darkest areas aren't that hot? This is essentially your claim. By claiming the brightest areas are the hottest, you are implicitly making the converse claim, that the darker areas are not as hot.
quote:
Can be, could be, might be? As I said, what evidence do you have that the darkest regions are anywhere near the temperatures of the brightest regions? If you aledge it *is* a greater temperature, demonstrate it. If you can't, I can't simply *assume* it's that temperature.
You shouldn't be assuming anything at this point. If you can't be certain that the darkest regions are cooler, if the possibility that they *might* be as hot or hotter is not ruled out by you, then your claim that the brightest regions are the hottest is invalid. No one has to prove your claims are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily correct. As you admitted, you must back up all your claims with empirical evidence.
So why is this so impossibly hard for you to understand?
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/12/2006 15:21:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 15:12:02 [Permalink]
|
| Dr. Mabuse, the light from the coronal loops on these wavelenghts demonstrate that the plasma in the loops is at *least* 500,000 Kelvin to be seen at all by the 195A filter. We therefore know the minimum temperature of the coronal loops. What evidence will you present to us to demonstrate that the coronal loops are *actually* (not just speculation) more "dense" than the corona material? Remember, I have evidence its hot or it would not emit at this wavelength. What evidence do you have to prove it is actually more dense than the coronal material that is dark? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 15:13:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 15:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, where is your evidence that the darkest areas aren't that hot? This is essentially your claim.
The laws of physics HH. Lockheed and NASA set a minimum temperature range for these filters based on temperatures required to emit such photons. There is a minimum temperature that can be assigned to the brightest regions of the image. There is no such miminum that can be assigned to the darkest regions. I literally have *no evidence* that the darkest regions are anywhere near the temperature range of this filter in the first place. That plasma is not emitting brightly and I have no evidence to suggest it's anywhere near the temperatures that these filters are sensitive to.
quote:
By claiming the brightest areas are the hottest, you are implicitly making the converse claim, that the darker areas are not as hot.
I have evidence to determine the *temperature* in the coronal loops in the form of photons at these wavelengths that suggest that the loops are "hot". I cannot determine the temperature in the darkest regions.
quote:
You shouldn't be assuming anything at this point. If you can't be sure that the darkest regions are cooler, if the possibility that they *might* be hotter is not ruled out by you, then your claim that the brightest regions are the hottest is invalid.
You have this backwards. I do have evidence to suggest the bright regions are hot. I have no evidence to suggest the darkest regions are hot. You are *assuming* they *might be*. I'm not assuming anything like that. You are. I have no evidence to suggest they are anywhere near the temperature of the brightest regions. Since I have no evidence to suggest they are anywhere near as hot as the bright regions, I do not *assume* that they are as hot as the bright regions.
You are making the claim that the darkest regions are hot. I have no evidence of this.
quote:
No one has to prove your claims are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily correct.
False. That's like a creationist demonstrating that macroevolution isn't well understood or well documented, therefore evolutionary principles related to macroevolution *aren't necessarily* correct. We should be looking for a "most correct" solution, not juat any old reason to discount my suggestion.
quote:
As you admitted, you must back up all your claims with empirical evidence.
I have done that! The photons from the bright regions are related to plasma in the million+ degree range, especially in the yellow regions of the composite image below. I don't know what the temperature of the darker region in the lower right corner since, but I do not have evidence to suggest it is millions of degrees. I have no density information from these images at all.
quote:
So why is this so impossibly hard for you to understand?
What is "impossibly hard" for me to understand is how you determined the density of anything based on these images, and what evidence you believe suggests the darkest regions of this image are anywhere near the temperatures as the brightest regions.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/12/2006 15:41:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 15:54:39 [Permalink]
|
| The bottom line is this Dr. Mabuse: These images provide evidence of high temperature plasma inside the coronal loop, but they provide no evidence of density changes *at all*. If you believe there are density changes that affect the heat distrubution, then you are obligated to provide *evidence* to substanciate this position. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
