|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2006 : 11:51:11 [Permalink]
|
Now to blackbody.
Blackbody radiation curves are exclusively a property of 'condensed' matter. In other words
gas or plasma produces emission lines except in the specific case of gas under pressure, which produces a quasi-continuuium. This is distinguishable from blackbody by its elevated 'wings'.
What does this mean for the sun? Well if its(the sun) temperature curve is blackbody then it has a solid component. Which is what is seen. A BB curve with absorbtion lines from the intervening plasma. And BB is only emitted from a surface, not from a volume.
So the BB curve does not come from the photosphere, it comes from the condensed matter underneath.
The opacity of the photosphere is determined by the EOS from the top of the photosphere and extrapolated using the fusion model, which is obviously not correct since it appears to be transparent at infra red.
Here is a little page I put together with some pictures.
http://www.strangeeye.net/universe/blackbody.htm |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 11:59:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Anyone else misunderstand my explanations of running difference images?
I read you loud and clear, GeeMack. I can see no flaw in your presentation of DR-images.quote:
Anyone here believe they show solid features or a surface on the Sun as Michael asserts?
I don't. I think "the crater" could possibly be an artifact produced by a super-ganule |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 12:01:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
Hello everyone.
I have to put my 2 cents in since I've been following this discussion with some interest.
A difference image is just that. An image that shows the difference between two time periods.
The image is a representation of the light that is transmitted from a subject.
The difference image is what has changed in that time period.
If a line of 50 pixels is lit in the first image and in the second image that line is shifted 4 pixels to the right, that represents a movement of that feature on the object of interest.
It's that simple. If that feature is recognizable over several images, it's not a processing error.
They really are images of features on the sun. And the lifetime of these features is really reflected by the RD images.
Hey upriver! I'm glad to see that you're following along in these discussions. I admire your persistance at the BA forum by the way, and I continue to read almost everything you post there.
What's really nice about this place is that it honors and respects free speech. You gotta appreciate that. Things can get a little rough and tumble at times, but it's certainly better than the inquisition routine that goes on at the BA forum. Dave and Dr. Mabuse keep things interesting around here as I'm sure you've noticed. They're both pretty good "skeptics" and rather knowledgeable on a range of topics. Some other here are pretty cool too. Dave can get a little "testy" at times but he's been very helpful and I can't help but like him anyway. His knowledge of heliosiesmology is exceptional and that in particular has been very helpful to me.
Keep in mind that a pixel intensity change can also occur over much shorter timelines if the lighting source changes in between images. This can occur if a coronal loops shifts position or changes in some way. The loops are very active, making is possible to discern intensity changes reflected from the surface. I suspect that the Lockheed image is actually a running average image, which works in a very similar way, but that process tends to average out the instensity changes over time.
As you know, it's the "rigid patterns" in the image, and the movement patterns in the images that are the key issues. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 12:16:14 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 12:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Is than any more clear?
I'm afraid not.
The crust of a neutron star is supposedly remnants of the star/white dwarf that ultimately became the neutron star. If that is so, and Dr Manuel used asteroids and comets to extrapolate the relative abundances of elements in the sun, then the neutron-star crust should be treated as a separate entity and not be included in the calculations of the relative abundance of elements.
How does a neutron star loose weight?
How can a close-to-perfect sphere form around such an extremely dense object? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 12:21:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Anyone else misunderstand my explanations of running difference images?
I read you loud and clear, GeeMack. I can see no flaw in your presentation of DR-images.
Neither did I. He just never dealt with three things I asked him for, specifically an explaination for the rigid and numberous geometric patterns of the image, the movements seen in the image, and an explanation of how the CME manifests itself in this image.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 12:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
Blackbody radiation curves are exclusively a property of 'condensed' matter.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has an almost perfect Black Body curve. Does that mean that the entire universe was solid at one time?
If there is such a restriction that BB-radiation can only come from solid objects, why does Wikipedia not mention such an important fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation
In the decription however, of experimental black body objects, they are not described as solid surfaces, but hollow cavities. Which means mostly empty, just like gas and relatively cool plasma. |
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. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 13:05:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has an almost perfect Black Body curve. Does that mean that the entire universe was solid at one time?
It may have been, but I subscribe to another religion. http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17C
quote:
If there is such a restriction that BB-radiation can only come from solid objects, why does Wikipedia not mention such an important fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation
In the decription however, of experimental black body objects, they are not described as solid surfaces, but hollow cavities. Which means mostly empty, just like gas and relatively cool plasma.
Here is a good description of the original experiment and why BB is the property of a solid.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0507/0507007.pdf
This along with the JET results, talking to Dr. Ott at NIST about gas and plasma, and my own research etc. convince me that this is so.
The fact that Wiki says nothing about this is a testament to herd mentality. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 13:25:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
The fact that Wiki says nothing about this is a testament to herd mentality.
Oh, lovely, we have another one.
|
"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 - 08/21/2006 : 13:45:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
HH said
Oh, lovely, we have another one.
I'm afraid so, upriver also said:
quote:
quote:
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has an almost perfect Black Body curve. Does that mean that the entire universe was solid at one time?
It may have been, but I subscribe to another religion.
It's the old "I can't understand that theory so it must be built on faith", ploy.
Welcome to SFN upriver.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 14:07:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
It may have been, but I subscribe to another religion.
Emphasis above mine.
Strike one.
quote:
http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17C
The "paper" is one of many in a collection which include "new science" like Orgone, and other musings of the certifiable nutjob Wilhelm Reich.
Strike two.
quote:
The fact that Wiki says nothing about this is a testament to herd mentality.
Strike three.
Please explain how no one here but you (and possibly Mozina) know of such a fundamental change in the laws of physics as we know them?
I will withhold my judgement on this one, so you can dig up more references. For one, some attempt to falsify the theory. I will remain skeptical to your claim for now. |
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. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 14:29:14 [Permalink]
|
upriver could you supply a bit of an explanation and some evidence of this, specifically the 'wings' part?
quote:
gas or plasma produces emission lines except in the specific case of gas under pressure, which produces a quasi-continuuium. This is distinguishable from blackbody by its elevated 'wings'.
Thanks
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 14:36:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The crust of a neutron star is supposedly remnants of the star/white dwarf that ultimately became the neutron star. If that is so, and Dr Manuel used asteroids and comets to extrapolate the relative abundances of elements in the sun, then the neutron-star crust should be treated as a separate entity and not be included in the calculations of the relative abundance of elements.
It seems to me that this would depend entirely on whether or not supernova events dislodge some of the iron and nickel crust, or neutron stars disinigrate entirely and blow their crust into oblivian. Such events would ensure that these fragments would eventually join, and become a part of, the overall body of asteriods and comets that make up our solar system.
quote:
How does a neutron star loose weight?
I'm thinking they probably lose weight through elecrical interactions with the universe.
quote:
How can a close-to-perfect sphere form around such an extremely dense object?
I believe that charge repulsion would have to play a role in such a configuration. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 14:43:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
upriver could you supply a bit of an explanation and some evidence of this, specifically the 'wings' part?
[quote]
quote:gas or plasma produces emission lines except in the specific case of gas under pressure, which produces a quasi-continuuium. This is distinguishable from blackbody by its elevated 'wings'.
Yes the outer portion of a spectral line emission is called the 'wings'.
Under pressure they will have a tendancy to lift as the center reaches a BB curve like state.
For instance Argon exhibits this at about 100atm.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 14:48:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please explain how no one here but you (and possibly Mozina) know of such a fundamental change in the laws of physics as we know them?
I don't think that upriver is suggesting any changes to the laws of physics are required. I have personally not suggested that we step outside of any laws of physics. I think we simply both realize that electricity plays a major role in astronomy, and a much larger role than most astronomers realize. |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 15:05:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please explain how no one here but you (and possibly Mozina) know of such a fundamental change in the laws of physics as we know them?
There is no fundamental change in the laws of physics. Do not equate a lack of understanding with a change in physics. Show me a laboratory plasma emission that has a BB curve.
Your assuming that Wiki is the last word in physics??
Herd mentality means that the information is only as good as the knowledge of the ranking member of the group.
quote:
The "paper" is one of many in a collection which include "new science" like Orgone, and other musings of the certifiable nutjob Wilhelm Reich.
That would be your opinion if you were unfamilar with the Correas work. I invite you to examine their work starting with the electroscope experiments.
quote:
It's the old "I can't understand that theory so it must be built on faith", ploy.
Hmmmm...Thats not what I said.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
