|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:51:18 [Permalink]
|
http://www.physorg.com/news6674.html
Let's go back now to the Rhessi satellite system again and test another prediction we can make based on what we know about the effects of lightning discharges here on earth. We know they also release free neutrons. If we want to use this information to make some predictions that relate to Rhessi, we can predict that we should see signs of free neutrons, and possibly neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops. Indeed, that Trace/Overlay image shows that there is a fair amount neutron capturing going on areas in and directly around the coronal loops. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:55:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let's expand our use of satellites here for just a second and let's look at x-rays and how they manifest themselves in electrical discharges on earth, and let's predict and test for them in Yohkoh images as well.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021782.shtml
According to this link, x-rays are a natural byproduct of electrical discharges here on earth from plasma created in the discharge. We can now make a second prediction about the presense of x-rays. If the coronal loops are electrical discharges as we believe, we should see that they emit x-rays.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Indeed, we see thw examples where the coronal loops do in fact emit x-rays as we would predict with our hypothesis. That's two bits of information, and two satellite confirmations to verify that we're on the right track.
You are implying that xrays only come from electrical discharge - which of course is not true.
But that is not the point, let's move on...
Explain the how electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas.
You have said your model can explain the heating, please explain. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 12:59:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Lots of "unclear" and "uncertain" comments there. Indeed, this is again an example of what I call a "Mozina Citation"-- try to prove that something you are talking about is a clear and indisputable fact by citing some article or press release that tangentally references one thing or other.
Woah. First of all, I'm ont claiming to know *how* the gamma rays are even being created (yet), I'm simply noting that they are created in electrical discharges and that allows us to predict their presense in Solar discharges.
I posted this paper earlier that showed these gamma rays have been observed on the ground, and these gamma ray emission are certainly something that has been associated with the actual lightning discharge, not some other source.
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf
quote:
Above you flatly state "lightning on earth creates gamma radiation and Rhessi has been able to image this" but your article says that there is probably a relationship, but they aren't sure, and if there is, they don't know how it works. If we were talking about inflation and the Big Bang, you'd have rejected this sort of argument without a second thought.
Perhaps so, but I'm not basing my opinion on that one link.
quote:
Great, but again-- since the observations on earth aren't well understood, it seems silly to say that when you look at them on an object 93 million miles away, and since that object may or may not be like earth-- it's a stretch.
They are well enough understood here on on earth to directly associate them with lightning discharges. That's all I'm certain of, but not just from the single link. You can type in "lightning gamma rays" and find all sorts of links on the subject.
The point is that whatever high energy emissions we might find in electrical discharges here on earth my very well be duplicated by electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, even if we don't know the exact mechanism that releases these types of photons, or that releases the free neutrons. Los Alamos has alread made great strides at duplicating this process in plasma.
There's no real stretch here, and by the way, we're just getting started. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 13:10:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.physorg.com/news6674.html
Let's go back now to the Rhessi satellite system again and test another prediction we can make based on what we know about the effects of lightning discharges here on earth. We know they also release free neutrons. If we want to use this information to make some predictions that relate to Rhessi, we can predict that we should see signs of free neutrons, and possibly neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops. Indeed, that Trace/Overlay image shows that there is a fair amount neutron capturing going on areas in and directly around the coronal loops.
You are implying that the neutrons can only come from 'lighning'. There are obviously many other sources for the neutrons, why should we ASSUME they are from 'lightning'.
Again, this is not the point move on...
Let's assume that it is all electrical in nature how are the electrical currents capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas (remember IMO is not scientific evidence).
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 13:12:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
You are implying that xrays only come from electrical discharge - which of course is not true.
No, that is not what I'm implying. I'm simply saying they *do* come from electrical discharges and *if* the coronal loops are discharges, they should emit them too.
quote:
But that is not the point, let's move on...
Explain the how electrical currents are capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas.
You have said your model can explain the heating, please explain.
http://www.focusfusion.org/what/z-pinch.html
The current flow heats the plasma and a z-pinch is formed in the coronal loops. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 13:19:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
You are implying that the neutrons can only come from 'lighning'.
No. I'm only sure they *can* be released by lightning, and I'm predicting they might be being released and captured in coronal loops *if* coronal loops are electrical discharges. That's three for three now. I'm not trying to exclude anything else, I'm simply trying to verify what we see in discharges here on earth are duplicated in some way on the sun.
quote:
There are obviously many other sources for the neutrons, why should we ASSUME they are from 'lightning'.
What other sources are you concerned about that also release x-ray and gamma-rays that you're also considering as an explanation? I need to know what else you're considering so that I know how construct a precition to excude one option or the other?
quote:
Again, this is not the point move on...
Let's assume that it is all electrical in nature how are the electrical currents capable of generating million-plus Kelvin temperatures in the coronal plasmas (remember IMO is not scientific evidence).
Z pinch forces are what allow CNO and hydrogen fusion to occur in these loops. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 14:56:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is our first bit of direct satellite confirmation of the idea that coronal loops are likely to be the result of electrical discharges.
How do you rule out all the other possible sources of gamma rays to reach this conclusion?
Especially if we compare the characteristics of the Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes (TGFs) with, say, the characteristics of solar gamma rays?
TGFs are associated with the area above thunderheads, so are not directly the result of a lightning bolt (there's some process going on in-between), while the gamma-rays coming from solar flares are associated directly with loop "footpoints."
TGFs are associated with electrons with energies around 35 MeV, while solar flares generate gamma rays from electrons with energies in the tens of keV (1,000 times less energetic, note that the power in TGFs is being compared to quasars and black holes, not the Sun).
Nobody has yet been able to associate a TGF with a particular lightning bolt (to measure time between lightning and TGF event), but flare gamma rays are directly associated with a particular "phase" in the "evolution" of a solar flare.
TGFs last from 0.2 to 3.5 milliseconds (while a lightning stroke takes just 0.07 milliseconds), while gamma rays from flares can be generated more-or-less continuously for hundreds of seconds (while a particular coronal loop can last for days).
Both solar flare and TGF gamma rays are created by bremsstrahlung, a non-thermal process.
Lightning, with its average cross-section of about 75 cm2 delivers up to 100,000 amps, or nearly 1016 electrons per cubic centimeter, while the electron density associated with solar flare gamma rays is nearly a billion times lower.
So, once again, when we examine the proposed homology, it seems that while TGFs look like solar flares in a superficial way, when we look at the details, the similarities start falling away. I see only one strong one, bremsstrahlung, which isn't associated with either high temperatures or electrical "current" as one normally thinks of it. Arguments from similarity just aren't all that strong, Michael.
More importantly, TGFs aren't even associated with the 50,000-degree lightning strokes themselves, anyway. Therefore, this logic is flawed:- P1: Coronal loops are associated with gamma rays
- P2: Gamma rays appear here on Earth associated with lightning
- C: Therefore, coronal loops are the solar equivalent of Earth lightning
Because P2 is actually incorrect, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. And even if it were true, it still doesn't follow that the temperatures are due to electrical currents resistively heating the loops.
By the way, in reading up on this stuff, I found this article, which discusses RHESSI's imaging system and shows that RHESSI images aren't "direct observations" but that because Hard X-ray and Gamma-ray photons can't be focused, they infer the images from time-dependent photon counts and the rotation of the spacecraft. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 20:09:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I posted this paper earlier that showed these gamma rays have been observed on the ground, and these gamma ray emission are certainly something that has been associated with the actual lightning discharge, not some other source.
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf
So I read it. The gamma rays have been observed from the ground, but appear to have originated 6,000 to 8,000 meters up. The authors of the paper conclude, in part, that the source of the gamma rays is "the runaway breakdown of air" up in the clouds. They certainly don't focus on the actual visible lightning bolt as the source. How "the runaway breakdown of air" could occur in solar plasmas is now something you've got to describe to keep this going, Michael.quote:
...and by the way, we're just getting started.
Yes, and it's a little annoying that you won't lay out all of your evidence for the arcs being the cause of the heat all at once. |
- 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 - 08/17/2006 : 07:04:54 [Permalink]
|
So your model incorporates this new unexplained effect?
quote:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060308_sandia_z.html
quote:
From the article:
A very strong magnetic field compresses the plasma into the thickness of a pencil lead. This causes the plasma to release energy in the form of X-rays, but the X-rays are usually only several million degrees.
So in your current model the heating is from magnetic fields and not electrical arcs as you thought earlier? The magnetic field emits xrays (I assume by bremsstrahlung) and is not from lightning as you earlier postulated?
quote:
From the article:
One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma's ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.
Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines theorizes that some unknown energy source is involved, which is providing the machine with an extra jolt of energy just as the plasma ions are beginning to slow down.
Have you contacted Sandia Labs and told them that you already have a solar model that explains coronal heating using the unknown energy source they discuss. I am sure they would be very interested to see the research that lead you to this conclusion.
Because certainly you didn't just google plasma and high temperatures and then say, "this is part of my solar model too".
I missed when you changed your model to emphasize magnetic fields instead of electrical arcs.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 08:30:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So I read it. The gamma rays have been observed from the ground, but appear to have originated 6,000 to 8,000 meters up. The authors of the paper conclude, in part, that the source of the gamma rays is "the runaway breakdown of air" up in the clouds. They certainly don't focus on the actual visible lightning bolt as the source. How "the runaway breakdown of air" could occur in solar plasmas is now something you've got to describe to keep this going, Michael.
I would describe this as a runnaway breakdown of surface particles, and of non plasmas in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
Yes, and it's a little annoying that you won't lay out all of your evidence for the arcs being the cause of the heat all at once.
There is simply so much evidence Dave, it's hard for me to even know where to start.
I'd like you to watch the last three or four days of SOHO running difference images from the SOHO archives, particularly yesterday's events. Right now there is a hugely *massive* surface disturbance going on in the lower hemisphere on our side of the sun. The size and the scope of this event is truly staggering, especially when you consider the surface area each pixel represents. The activity seen in these images is typical of surface activity, but in this particular case it's rather unusual in size and scope. The surface interactions are occuring over a very large surface area. This event while not unpresidented, is unusually active, and unusually massive. We are in fact entering into a more active phase now. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 08:34:58 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 08:51:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You just dodged both of the direct questions I asked you because you obviously don't have the first clue how you might begin to answer them. Anyone with half a brain can see what a blatent attempt at misdirection your response was, and nobody is going to miss the fact you didn't answer my questions and you failed to explain what *caused* the patterns as I asked you to do. Nobody is going to miss the fact you didn't explain the movements we see in the image. I won't let them, and I'm not going to go away. I'll keep sticking those two questions right back in your face until you answer them or just admit that you simply don't know the answers. You claim to be quite the expert Geemack, so explain the details and quit stalling.
Holy smokes, what a crybaby you are, Michael. The answers to your questions have been provided dozens (and dozens) of times. But we all realize by now you tend to not understand anything the first several times around (if ever), so here's what I did. I wrote replies again to your questions. This time I let my neighbor's son look over the replies to see if he could understand. He's eleven years old, going into the sixth grade. He got it, the same way everyone else here gets it, the same way I get it, and the same way Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL gets it. So we all know we're on the same plane now, okay?
quote:
Tell me again now the cause of the persistent patterns we see, and why do they persist in the same geometric relationships to one another for more than an hour and a half?
Clearly "we", you Michael, and the rest of us, see different things when we look at running difference images. Everyone else in this discussion, everyone who discussed the issue on the BAUT forums, every professional astrophysicist, the scientists at LMSAL and NASA responsible for assembling and analyzing the data from TRACE, SOHO, and other solar research missions, and probably all other sane intelligent people who consider the issue for more than a few minutes, understand what running difference images are. They are simple graphical representations of the changes in brightness of corresponding pixels found in sequential pairs of original images. You, on the other hand, seem to live with the mistaken notion that running difference images show some actual stuff, things, surface, material, whatever.
The cause of the persistent patterns we see, those of us who get it, is this: When comparing the brightness of pixels in a particular area in a series of original input images, there were similar amounts of change from each image to the next, resulting in a series of similarly bright pixels in that particular location in the output images. In other words, that results in little variation in pixel brightness in that particular spot from one running difference image to the next. A series of running difference images, representing an hour and a half of processed data, and displaying only small changes from each to the next, when viewed in sequence, will appear to have what you call "persistent patterns".
The cause of the persistent patterns you see in running difference images is of course the same, but what causes you to so seriously misunderstand what you're looking at is anyone's guess. There is evidence that you posses significantly below average ability to intellectually process what you view, perhaps some form of autism or mental retardation. It's possible you're on too much medication, or not enough, or the wrong medication. You might suffer from some sort of mental illness, some psychosis or other personality disorder, or maybe you suffer from hallucinations from who knows what other causes.
quote:
What causes the movements we see in the images?
Well, let's say in one running difference image there's an area which contains some amount of relatively brighter pixels, and let's say there's another running difference image which has a similar area of similarly bright pixels, but they are located slightly away from the location of those bright pixels in the first image. Then let's say we have a third running difference image which also has a patch of similarly bright pixels located about the same distance yet further in the same direction from those in the second image. And we continue with a series of a few more running difference images, each having an area of comparatively bright pixels located successively further in more or less the same direction from the patch of bright pixels in each previous image.
Okay, now take that series of running difference images described above, put them in order, and arrange to view them in sequence in fairly rapid succession. Your eyes will play this sort of trick on you and make it appear as though that patch of somewhat brighter pixels is moving. And voila, that's what causes what you perceive as movements in the images! (I can show you how to make a pencil drawing of a bunny rabbit appear to move along the edge of a stack of note cards by flipping through them with your thumb, too, if you'd like.  )
And that brings us to the same conclusion we (those of us who get it) have come to many times before. This is very simple stuff, Michael, and it really should be the last time anyone has to explain it to you. Running difference images don't show any solid physical features, structure, or surfaces. If you believe they do, then it's your responsibility to demonstrate that it is so. So far you've offered no more than your unsubstantiated opinion, oh, and a lot of bitching, whining, and demanding that other people explain to you what you don't seem to have the remotest capacity to grasp for yourself.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
