|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2006 : 15:32:49 [Permalink]
|
By the way I didnt just arrive at these conclusions over night.
Because of the work I'm doing, I am involved in time resolved spectrographic analysis of high pressure sonoluminescence, which has a lot of the problems of ICF except that we cant see UV or x-ray because of the intervening liquid. Streak cameras, spectrographs, emissionline analysis, picosecond lasers, MIE scattering, etc. are some of my tools.
The fact that only condensed matter(graphite specifically) produces a blackbody curve is something that I dont know why it been over looked. Maybe because most of its theory but it pretty obvious once you start digging that gas/plasma produces lines and matter produces a BB curve.
a quote from the JET site.
"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level."
Even the big boys are finding descrepancies between theory and experiment.
http://www.jet.efda.org/ |
 |
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 15:37:39 [Permalink]
|
| Gone to Montana till Friday. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 15:38:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
Yes, and it's lovely to have another one too.  |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 17:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Oh for crying out loud... Earth to Geemack, come in Geemack! It's hardly news to me that some "experts" in the field are not in agreement with me about the sun having a solid surface. In fact I have Dr. Kosovichev's quote posted on my website pointing out his opposition to the idea. I also publicly thanked Stein from NASA/ESA and he certainly didn't agree with me either.
I didn't ask you if LMSAL or NASA or Neal agreed with me about the existence of a surface. I asked you or Neal (or anyone) to explain the persistent patterns in the image, and the movements we see in the image, and to provide some explanation of how the CME manifests itself in this image. You didn't address any of that!
Michael, I didn't ask Dr. Hurlburt if he agreed with you about there being a solid surface on the Sun. One more time: I asked him if the patterns you see in the running difference images are an effect which occurs as a result of producing the images, or if those patterns are actually showing a solid surface. He said they are not a solid surface.
quote:
What you have evidently latched onto is an appeal to authority fallacy, appeals to popularity fallacies, and for some odd reason you actually seem to think that kind of arguement is going to mean something to me. Get a clue Geemack. I don't really care if Neal agrees with me or not about the existence of a solid surface, especially if he can't explain the patterns in the image and doesn't have the professional coutesy to even return my emails.
I never asked Dr. Hurlburt, and he never mentioned whether he agrees with you or whether he believes your crazy fantasy about the Sun. So you're just babbling irrelevant nonsense here, again. But concerning what I did ask about, again, he said running difference images do not show any solid features or surfaces.
quote:
Now answer the actual questions I asked you about for a change and demonstrate that you really understand what you're looking at in a RD image or just shut up.
I answered the questions, thoroughly and often. Apparently you're incapable of recognizing that. If anyone else expresses any concern that I've left anything out, I'll address those aspects again.
And really, you're the one making the claim that running difference images do show a surface. And you have yet to demonstrate that in any way whatsoever. Your exclusive method for supporting that position is your continued claim that it must be so because it looks like it to you. Let's try this part again, the part that you avoid every time it comes up...
If you really do want anyone to believe you're correct in your assessment of those running difference images, why don't you go get a direct quote from any professional astrophysicist who agrees with your mistaken notion that they actually show a solid surface. Get their explanation about light sources, intensities and angles, about altitudes of the mountains and depths of the valleys. Get their explanation of how data gathered by TRACE from the corona results in images from thousands of kilometers below that. Get their explanation about how images of those particular wavelengths show anything a few thousands kilometers below the photosphere, when current scientific consensus is that the photosphere is opaque beyond a few hundred kilometers at any wavelength.
Then bring those explanations on in here. You see, Michael, you have utterly failed to convince a singe person here that running difference images show your solid surface. Be it your stupidity, lousy reading skills, poor communication skills, mental illness, or whatever other reason, you just don't have what it takes to make your case. If anybody else on Earth accepts your interpretation, maybe they have the ability to explain it in a way that is understandable to other people. And moving along...
quote:
Originally posted by upriver...
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.
You are wrong in your understanding of running difference images, upriver. A running difference image is a graph, a chart, a graphic representation of the difference between the brightness value of each pixel in one image and each corresponding pixel in another image. The brightness of a pixel, or group of pixels, or a whole area in the output may appear to be constant over a series of running difference images even though the brightness of the corresponding pixels in the original images change drastically across the series. I've explained that before, but since you're new here...
Let's say a particular pixel in original Image 1 is 90% bright. The same pixel in Image 2 is 65% bright. In Image 3 that pixel is 40% bright. And the pixel at that location in Image 4 is only 15% bright. Across those four images that pixel goes through an extreme change from very bright to very dim. But that same pixel would be exactly the same brightness in all three output images created from those originals, running difference images 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. The video made from those running difference images would show no change at all in that spot. No light sources from the original images are contained in running difference images. Every pixel is given a brightness value based exclusively on the difference between the brightness values of the input pixels. This has been explained dozens of times in these threads, in several threads over at BAUT, and by some of the professional astrophysicists who actually participate in image acquisition and analysis for the SOHO program with NASA and the TRACE program with LMSAL. It has been clearly demonstrated in fact by a few participants here who actually wrote software to show how it works.
You might want to review the past couple of thousands postings in these threads to get a much better understanding of running difference images. And check out Michael's replies to the concerns about how data gathered from the Sun's corona results in what he believes to be images from thousands of kilometers below that. Look for his explanation about how running difference images are created from original images of particular wavelengths even though, according to current scientific consensus, they can't possibly show anything thousands of kilometers below the opacity of the photosphere. And if you can't find a |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 18:45:56 [Permalink]
|
Just when I think GeeMack can't clarify this any better, he does it! Not that he should have to, obviously. You are worthy of being called a patient man, GeeMack!
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 20:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
Show me a laboratory plasma emission that has a BB curve.
Show me a laboratory capable of housing 550 km of 6,000+ Kelvin plasma with a handful of atomic matter and even some water molecules thrown in. Of course you can't.
But you're destroying Michael's argument, anyway, by claiming that the Sun emits a near-blackbody curve because it's got a solid surface. Michael, after all, was trying to convince us that blackbody physics is a myth. You can't try to prove his thesis using the ridiculously oversimplified "nice math formulas" of blackbody physics after Michael has spent so much time explaining to us how they're unreliable dogma foisted upon unsuspecting college kids!
That would leave poor Michael with egg on his face.
|
- 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 - 08/21/2006 : 20:47:14 [Permalink]
|
Nothing like sticking my foot in my mouth.
It would seem that now I have to take back every bad thing I ever said about LMSAL. Neal did email me back today, and he tells me he did *not* personally put together that particular image. I suppose that's what I get for trusting Geemack. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 20:58:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 20:52:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Show me a laboratory capable of housing 550 km of 6,000+ Kelvin plasma with a handful of atomic matter and even some water molecules thrown in. Of course you can't.
In other words, you can't provide a lab test to verify your belief that light plasma can act like a black body.
quote:
But you're destroying Michael's argument, anyway, by claiming that the Sun emits a near-blackbody curve because it's got a solid surface. Michael, after all, was trying to convince us that blackbody physics is a myth.
No, I said it was a gross oversimplification of the processes going on in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
You can't try to prove his thesis using the ridiculously oversimplified "nice math formulas" of blackbody physics after Michael has spent so much time explaining to us how they're unreliable dogma foisted upon unsuspecting college kids!
I don't object to black body principles being applied to solid objects like Carbon that do in fact tend to emit and absorb like a black body. On the other hand I certainly *do* have a big problem when you try to apply such concepts to plasma that is presumably 15 times lighter than aerogel!
quote:
That would leave poor Michael with egg on his face.
Only if you can demonstrate that plasma does emit and absorb like a black body, but obviously from your response, the whole idea has never actually been "lab tested" in the first place. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 20:57:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just when I think GeeMack can't clarify this any better, he does it! Not that he should have to, obviously. You are worthy of being called a patient man, GeeMack!
The moment that Geemack actually explains the cause of the rigid patterns in the image, and the movements we see in the image, and shows us how the CME manifests itself in these image, *then* you can claim he "clarified" anything. As it is, all he's done is explain how individual pixels get lighter and darker and this is not what I asked him to explain. I already agreed with him about the cause of light and dark pixels. What he's never answered, and no one has answered is why those geometric patterns remain consistent throughout the movie, the movements in the image, and how the CME manifests itself in these series of images.
Those are the "tough" questions, and the questions he keeps avoiding.
I did email Dr. Hurlburt back with those specific questions. If he responds to these questions and provides answers, I'll post them here, unless Neal would prefer to keep his comments "private". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 21:03:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 21:11:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In other words, you can't provide a lab test to verify your belief that light plasma can act like a black body.
Just like you can't provide a lab test to show that your "math" regarding the satellite images works reliably to determine relative temperatures.
No, instead you infer that it will do so from other aspects of what you know about the recording systems. Just like solar scientists infer the opacity of the photosphere from what they know about Thompson scattering and the constituents of the plasma.
Your double-standard is showing again, Michael: you demand "lab tests" when you're unwilling (or unable) to provide any of your own.quote:
No, I said it was a gross oversimplification of the processes going on in the solar atmosphere.
But you were never able to show that the numbers are off by a large percentage, even though to damned them for being unreliable.quote:
I don't object to black body principles being applied to solid objects like Carbon that do in fact tend to emit and absorb like a black body.
Why is the best laboratory blackbody a hollow cavity, Michael?quote:
On the other hand I certainly *do* have a big problem when you try to apply such concepts to plasma that is presumably 15 times lighter than aerogel!
And yet you've never shown that Thompson scattering doesn't apply to it. Your incredulity isn't evidence that the photosphere isn't a blackbody, since otherwise I could just say, "I have a big problem with the idea that there's a solid surface within the Sun," and claim rheotrical victory. You wouldn't let me get away with that, so why should I let you get away with simple disbelief as a counterargument?quote:
Only if you can demonstrate that plasma does emit and absorb like a black body, but obviously from your response, the whole idea has never actually been "lab tested" in the first place.
Neither has your solid surface idea, Michael, or are you going to claim that some lab somewhere has a Birkeland sphere with a little teeny-tiny neutron core in it? Of course you wouldn't claim anything like that, so as long as your theory hasn't been "lab tested," you've got no room to condemn standard inferential science. |
- 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 |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 21:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It would seem that now I have to take back every bad thing I ever said about LMSAL. Neal did email me back today, and he tells me he did *not* personally put together that particular image. I suppose that's what I get for trusting Geemack.
I don't recall GeeMack ever saying that Neal "personally put together" that image, Michael. Perhaps you could quote him saying something like that?
I did see where he said that Neal was "responsible for" that image, along with all the other TRACE data, but I read it as meaning the same sort of responsibility that a boss has for the actions of his employees. |
- 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 - 08/21/2006 : 22:02:17 [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.
By the way, *this* was a *perfectly* accurate explanation of running difference images. That makes at least two of us now that understand them properly. The consistent "features", and the "lifetime" of these features are key issues of this arguement.
Plasma moves. It's liquid-like in it's consistency. The structures on the photosphere boil away in roughly 8 minutes. The wave on the photosphere seen in Kosovichev's video show the consistency of plasma is not unlike the consistency of water. It's very fluid in it's movements. Light plasma is even more fluid in it's movements. I plasma ball of light plasma demonstrates how current "flows" with the moving plasma filaments. Movement and kinetic energy are a part of this process.
When we look at the movement patterns of light plasma, particularly in an environment as active as a solar surface, the movements are almost haphazzard looking. Some plasma structures move left, some move right, some move around in circles. It's not unlike looking at clouds in the sky during a violent thunderstorm. Things typically change rapidly.
These "features" as upriver described them have a "lifetime" (I love that word by the way) that is unlike the "lifetime" of the structures we see in the plasma of photosphere. These features retain their rigid geometric relationsips to one another. That can only be possible if these features don't move, and plasma doesn't behave like that.
I know now for sure that at least one other individual here understands the nature of RD images and how to explain RD images. Upriver also understand the nature of my arguement and he's explained it even better than I did, in less that a few paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 22:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't recall GeeMack ever saying that Neal "personally put together" that image, Michael.
I just checked, and you're right. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 22:41:40 [Permalink]
|
While I'm looking up some overlapping images of lightning to show my my "lab tests" of my method, you might want to checkout this link I ran accross earlier this evening. There is some evidence to show that if we mix current and metals we can release x-rays and generate plasma temperatures measured in the millions of degrees.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Oct01/Hammer.Xpinch.lh.html
quote:
The Cornell lab has been working for the past few years with Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., to develop an inertial confinement fusion system that uses X-rays. The so-called Z machine that has been built at Sandia is designed to generate an extremely high-power X-ray pulse to create temperatures in the millions of degrees that would result in fusion of the hydrogen fuel. This is the energy source of the sun and other stars, in which hydrogen nuclei combine, or fuse, to produce huge amounts of energy. However, this same research also has yielded the unexpected discovery of X-pinch imaging.
The plasma created by the exploding crossed wires lasts for less than one microsecond, but in that time, it implodes and forms one or two plasma points with temperatures as high as 10 million degrees Celsius that last for less than a billionth of a second. The high-density plasma -- almost the density of a solid -- generates bursts of X-rays that can produce extremely high-resolution radiographs (X-ray photographs) of very small objects.
Because the detail shown in the radiograph is determined by the size of the X-ray source, microscopic details can be shown at very high resolution. Indeed, the plasma points that emit the X-rays are so small that their size is still unknown. "What we're doing now is making little nanofabricated structures, and then we will image those structures and see what the resolution is," says Hammer.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2006 : 22:58:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You are wrong in your understanding of running difference images, upriver. A running difference image is a graph, a chart, a graphic representation of the difference between the brightness value of each pixel in one image and each corresponding pixel in another image.
No Geemack, he nailed the explanation accurately in a few sentences, unlike your endless prattle about pixel colors. As he explained to you, it's the "features" and the "lifetimes" that are at issue here, and upriver understands RD images far better than you do. You claimed the "features" as upriver called them were due to the processing technique itself. That is utterly false. These features are not caused by the processing technique itself and they cannot *be* caused by the processing techinique in question. You of all people should *not* be lecturing upriver on what a running difference image is, and what the "features" in the image might represent, expecially when you absolutely and positively refuse to cognitively identify the key issues of his (and my) arguements, namely the features and the lifetimes of these features. Hoy Vey, you're a trip.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/21/2006 23:02:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
