|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2006 : 14:11:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
One quick question for you Dave. What is the heat source that allows these loops to reach millions of degrees?
Nobody knows with any certainty what heats the entire corona so much. |
- 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 - 08/28/2006 : 15:12:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
One quick question for you Dave. What is the heat source that allows these loops to reach millions of degrees?
Nobody knows with any certainty what heats the entire corona so much.
What makes you say that the "entire" corona is heated "so much"? I see heated coronal loops against a very dark backgound. I see small ones moving around the surface, particularly in the right bottom left hand corner of your raw video, and near and around the central areas. I also see giant coronal loops extending upwards into the atmosphere, traversing extreme distances.
I see these loops twisting and turning and doing all sorts of interesting things against an otherwise "cool" atmosphere. What makes you think the "entire' corona is hot enough to emit light in these wavelengths? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/28/2006 16:05:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2006 : 19:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Well, Michael, I have no idea how you can say the background is "cool" when the whole area is lit up in the Yohkoh movie. And I know you don't want to admit it, but a five-million Kelvin plasma is just as dark to TRACE's 171A camera as a 500,000-Kelvin plasma would be. There's no way, from just the one camera, to determine what's hot and what's not.
I see no reason to believe that the whole corona isn't "hot." I wish I could find again the report which stated that Yohkoh's data showed that even the most-tenuous "features" of the corona top out at two million Kelvin, but I can't. But working from your logic, since the Yohkoh video you provided shows no area near the Sun to be as dark as the lower-left corner of the video (well away from the Sun), then everything lower than about 1.2Rsun or so is very hot, indeed.
Unless you're going to claim that all that glowing is just "scattering," in which case I'll ask you to run the appropriate numbers through the appropriate scattering laws (since they're all nice math formulas), and demonstrate that enough scattering can happen from just the obvious loops.
But this is all ridiculous stonewalling from you, anyway. If the reason that everything in the second "gold video" image you selected looks bigger is due to the overall brightening of the image, then why is it that the dark areas got bigger, too? |
- 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 - 08/29/2006 : 08:57:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, Michael, I have no idea how you can say the background is "cool" when the whole area is lit up in the Yohkoh movie.
I can see it's cooler than the loops because scattering happens.
quote:
And I know you don't want to admit it, but a five-million Kelvin plasma is just as dark to TRACE's 171A camera as a 500,000-Kelvin plasma would be. There's no way, from just the one camera, to determine what's hot and what's not.
But I'm not using just one single camera, rather *every* camera that is sensitive to high energy photons, from high temperature plasma. The coronal loops are always the brightest things in the sky. They light up the relatively dark atmosphere.
quote:
I see no reason to believe that the whole corona isn't "hot." I wish I could find again the report which stated that Yohkoh's data showed that even the most-tenuous "features" of the corona top out at two million Kelvin, but I can't.
Any temperature study you hand me needs to include some concept of scattering, or I will consider it about as useful as LMSAL's notion of heat signatures.
quote:
But working from your logic, since the Yohkoh video you provided shows no area near the Sun to be as dark as the lower-left corner of the video (well away from the Sun), then everything lower than about 1.2Rsun or so is very hot, indeed.
No. By my logic, most of what we're looking in 171A is happening inside the confines of the photosphere. Some of the "big boys" venture out into the corona, but most of the coronal loop action is happening lower in atmosphere, down by the surface.
quote:
Unless you're going to claim that all that glowing is just "scattering," in which case I'll ask you to run the appropriate numbers through the appropriate scattering laws (since they're all nice math formulas), and demonstrate that enough scattering can happen from just the obvious loops.
You're working both sides of this street now from my perspective. First you wish to suggest that the 171A light can't come from beneath the photophere because the photosphere is "opaque", but then you have little or no regard to the possibility that scattering is happening in a significant way. Assuming that these arcs do originate under the photosphere, a lot of scattering could be occuring. Location is a key issue. In addition there could be complications related to specific absorbtion and scattering of particular wavelengths, and the actual composition of elemental plasma layers may have a dramatic effect as well. Why do you insist we run to oversimplified math formulas based with unknown conditions related to plasma composition or density, or temperature? I don't get it. If we knew for sure that plasma were not mass separated, and we knew for sure the temperatures and density of every layer, then maybe we could apply math adequately to this issue. Right now however, I don't think we can do that, but you keep insisting we do so anyway. This issue has all the earmarkings of the "blackbody" debate. You seem to be insisting that we oversimplify this problem to a generic and simplified math formula that may or many not accurately apply to this specific circumstance.
I showed you that composite between Trace and Yohkoh that clearly demonstratred a strong correlation between high temp plasma and coronal loops, and the Trace/Rhessi overlay that shows a strong correlation between the base of the loops and positron/electron annihilation, and neutron capture signatures. Since Trace is capable of seeing plasma in the 4M and even the 10-20 million degree range, your point is moot Dave. It doesn't really matter what *might* be happening in the corona, we can see for ourselves that the coronal loops are much brighter than the majority of the corona. It's just that simple.
By every single piece of satellite evidence we can muster, we find a direct correlation to the intensity of highest energy photons and the location of coronal loops. We also find a lot of evidence for a significant amount of scattering in the solar atmosphere. That's all we can really "know" at this point in time based on what we "observe" in these images.
quote:
But this is all ridiculous stonewalling from you, anyway. If the reason that everything in the second "gold video" image you selected looks bigger is due to the overall brightening of the image, then why is it that the dark areas got bigger, too?
This is really a handwave at this point. Demonstrate what you mean exactly. The pixel intensities change with time. The "local" loops (the ones closest to the surface) will tend to affect the individual pixel intensities, just like the big ones do. All along the bottom left side of your raw image video, you can see movements of these small discharges closest to the surface. Whereas the surface features in the RD images remains stable, the light source in the raw images do not. It's most obvious in the bottom left side of your raw video. The surface patterns are consistent in the RD images, but the light sources in the raw images look more like fireflies darting around near the surface. Those are smaller discharges, closer to the surface. These changing discharge patterns are reflected off the surface and that is what we see in the RD images. We also see some artifacts from the largest loops. All of these factors can combine to create the illusion of one pixel change or a small outline change in some particular area. You however are suggesting it applies to everything, and I don't "see" that. You'll have to show me what you mean.
FYI, this week is going to be slow going for me. Our company is pretty much at the peak of our season, and I've got a lot of programming to complete this month. I'll work on the images here with you, and as I get time I'll work on the electrical discharge presentation for you, but that presentation will take some time to do right.
These two issues however are directly related, and we will need to discuss them simulateously. Your raw video shows these patterns of discharges in the solar atmosphere. Most of the "small" (firefly-like) discharges are occuring underneath the photosphere, and the loops never come up through the photosphere. Other loops, like the largest ones seen in this same image, come all the way out into the corona. These are the light sources of all the 171A images, and they are directly related to discharges in the solar atmosphere, just as in Birkeland's experiments.
To "properly" analyse that RD image, we will have to have some kind of agreement |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/29/2006 11:29:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 09:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nothing. I see nothing to support the idea that they are "anchored" in the first place.
Why do they have the same overall "patterns" of discharge then?
quote:
Why do you think they have to move in just 1.5 hours?
I can see them moving around in your raw images, especially in the central region where the CME even occurs. That peeling we see is directly related to the movements of the coronal loops. In addition there are smaller movements to be seen throughout the images, particularly along the bottom left side of the image. It's not a matter of expecting them to move, it's a matter of "observing" them move.
quote:
Why won't you answer that question?
I have answered it, and your movie actually "shows" them changing in some areas in black and white. Those little firefly patterns are changing consistently along the left side as well. Lots of changes are occuring in some areas, whereas some areas show a continous pattern of discharge, particularly at the base of the largest loops.
How does pure plasma keep everything fixed to a point like this, and then create so many angular patterns at one "layer" of the atmosphere?
quote:
quote:
Why do they take off at such odd angles from that specific point on the "surface"?
They're magnetic fields. What is a "normal" angle (as opposed to an "odd" angle)?
That would probably depend on what you figure generates these magnetic alignments in the first place. We see all sorts of odd interactions and angular patterns occuring in one particular areas of the solar atmosphere. Why only there in the solar atmosphere, and why not lower in the solar atmosphere, or higher in the solar atmosphere. Why do these form in these shapes at this location?
I'm going to have to think about how to proceed here, since this is a critical issue, and I need to understand what you think generates and keeps these magnetic alignments stable in the unsual patterns that we see in the loops. I need to understand what you figure holds these magnetic fields stable *over top of* a photosphere that is boiling and changing in 8 minute intervals.
quote:
quote:
In your movie, we see material getting ejected from the surface and then being sucked back into the middle region again. What's that about?
You know exactly what it's about - some of the material ejected in the CME got caught up in a magnetic field loop and followed the path determined by the physics of the situation.
Yes, it does allow us to follow the flow of particles from the surface, into the solar atmosphere, and follow them back to the surface again. In fact this dark cloud was practically sucked back to the same place it orginated. There is direct evidence of a density change in this image by the way. Notice how the material is "darker" than the atmosphere and creates dark "rivers" of material that flow back and forth. In addition, something is sucking that material right back to one point on the surface. That is rather odd behavior for a cloud of non mass separated plasma wouldn't you say? How do you explain that behavior? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 11:35:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I can see it's cooler than the loops because scattering happens.
And yet you cannot or will not apply the physical laws that you say are appropriate and calculate the amount of scattering that will occur in your model's photosphere or corona in order to demonstrate your conjecture to be correct.quote:
quote:
And I know you don't want to admit it, but a five-million Kelvin plasma is just as dark to TRACE's 171A camera as a 500,000-Kelvin plasma would be. There's no way, from just the one camera, to determine what's hot and what's not.
But I'm not using just one single camera, rather *every* camera that is sensitive to high energy photons, from high temperature plasma. The coronal loops are always the brightest things in the sky. They light up the relatively dark atmosphere.
That's an entirely different argument, as we were just talking about the TRACE imagery of the "gold" video. You claim that the dark areas seen in it are cooler than the bright areas, yet you have no imagery from other cameras of the same area at the same resolution. How do you know that none of the darker areas in the "gold" video are hotter than the bright areas?quote:
quote:
I see no reason to believe that the whole corona isn't "hot." I wish I could find again the report which stated that Yohkoh's data showed that even the most-tenuous "features" of the corona top out at two million Kelvin, but I can't.
Any temperature study you hand me needs to include some concept of scattering, or I will consider it about as useful as LMSAL's notion of heat signatures.
Yours doesn't include any of the physics of scattering. Your inclusion of the "concept" of scattering is simply a handwave to explain away inconvenient data.quote:
quote:
But working from your logic, since the Yohkoh video you provided shows no area near the Sun to be as dark as the lower-left corner of the video (well away from the Sun), then everything lower than about 1.2Rsun or so is very hot, indeed.
No. By my logic, most of what we're looking in 171A is happening inside the confines of the photosphere. Some of the "big boys" venture out into the corona, but most of the coronal loop action is happening lower in atmosphere, down by the surface.
No, the Yohkoh video you provided shows massive amounts of high-energy photons coming from well past 1.0R, Michael.quote:
You're working both sides of this street now from my perspective. First you wish to suggest that the 171A light can't come from beneath the photophere because the photosphere is "opaque", but then you have little or no regard to the possibility that scattering is happening in a significant way.
What the hell are you talking about? The photosphere is opaque because it is an effective scatterer of light. The corona, on the other hand, is highly transparent. We can even see distant stars through it.quote:
Assuming that these arcs do originate under the photosphere, a lot of scattering could be occuring.
If a lot of scattering is occuring, and the loops originate under the photosphere, then we should be able to see the loops get fuzzier as they increase in depth.quote:
Location is a key issue.
Yes, and you seem to be in denial of that.quote:
In addition there could be complications related to specific absorbtion and scattering of particular wavelengths, and the actual composition of elemental plasma layers may have a dramatic effect as well.
Show us how.quote:
Why do you insist we run to oversimplified math formulas based with unknown conditions related to plasma composition or density, or temperature?
What "unknown conditions?" You and Dr. Manuel provide our reference for photospheric composition, and your references of Dr. Kosovichev provide us with information on its density and temperature. Oh, that's right: you claim your own references are wrong.quote:
I don't get it. If we knew for sure that plasma were not mass separated, and we knew for sure the temperatures and density of every layer, then maybe we could apply math adequately to this issue.
And you're too ambivalent about the whole thing to even make educated guesses in order to move the discussion along. You could have proven your "scattering" conjectures by now, but instead you blow all this time pontificating on why you should avoid doing so.quote:
Right now however, I don't think we can do that, but you keep insisting we do so anyway.
I'm saying that if you refuse, then it is you who are stalling the discussion. It's your model, after all, not mine.quote:
This issue has all the earmarkings of the "blackbody" debate. You seem to be insisting that we oversimplify this problem to a generic and simplified math formula that may or many not accurately apply to this specific circumstance.
It's your model, Michael, so it's up to you to select the approp |
- 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 - 08/29/2006 : 11:38:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why do you think they have to move in just 1.5 hours?
Let's try this angle as well:
Plasma moves. Why do you think they have to stay stable in plasma that is presumably less than 1/15th the consistancy of aerogel? Where exactly are you claiming these magnetic fields orginate, and what is "holding" them to very specific points on the surface? Why specifically are the coronal loops lit? Why do these patterns form "here" (wherever that is) in the solar atmosphere as opposed to anywhere else in the solar atmosphere? What makes this location so special?
I think if we start with these questions, you'll have a much better feel for where I'm coming from as it relates to explaining these images. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 12:04:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nothing. I see nothing to support the idea that they are "anchored" in the first place.
Why do they have the same overall "patterns" of discharge then?
The same as what? The same before and after 1.5 hours? They don't, as I showed with the difference image of the two frames of the "gold" video you picked.quote:
quote:
Why do you think they have to move in just 1.5 hours?
I can see them moving around in your raw images, especially in the central region where the CME even occurs. That peeling we see is directly related to the movements of the coronal loops. In addition there are smaller movements to be seen throughout the images, particularly along the bottom left side of the image. It's not a matter of expecting them to move, it's a matter of "observing" them move.
Yes, and I see them moving, too. I see the results of that motion in the "gold" video, also. I thought you were talking about "fixed patterns," though, and not the small amounts of motion seen in the larger "features" of the flare, which show up in the RD movie as varying patterns of light and dark pixels.quote:
quote:
Why won't you answer that question?
I have answered it, and your movie actually "shows" them changing in some areas in black and white. Those little firefly patterns are changing consistently along the left side as well. Lots of changes are occuring in some areas, whereas some areas show a continous pattern of discharge, particularly at the base of the largest loops.
And you wouldn't expect to see that from magnetic fields? Why not?quote:
How does pure plasma keep everything fixed to a point like this, and then create so many angular patterns at one "layer" of the atmosphere?
Pure plasma does no such thing. That's your old strawman again. Why do you refuse to drop that lame, overused and fallacious "objection" to what I've been saying?quote:
That would probably depend on what you figure generates these magnetic alignments in the first place. We see all sorts of odd interactions and angular patterns occuring in one particular areas of the solar atmosphere. Why only there in the solar atmosphere, and why not lower in the solar atmosphere, or higher in the solar atmosphere. Why do these form in these shapes at this location?
Because that's where the million+ Kelvin plasma is that TRACE can see.quote:
I'm going to have to think about how to proceed here, since this is a critical issue, and I need to understand what you think generates and keeps these magnetic alignments stable in the unsual patterns that we see in the loops.
I don't. It is your contention that they are "stable" and "unusual." I do not agree with your assessment, and see no reason to agree with your assessment. So, don't look to me for help in understanding a position with which I disagree.quote:
I need to understand what you figure holds these magnetic fields stable *over top of* a photosphere that is boiling and changing in 8 minute intervals.
What does the "boiling" photosphere have to do with the stability of magnetic fields, Michael?quote:
Yes, it does allow us to follow the flow of particles from the surface, into the solar atmosphere, and follow them back to the surface again. In fact this dark cloud was practically sucked back to the same place it orginated. There is direct evidence of a density change in this image by the way. Notice how the material is "darker" than the atmosphere and creates dark "rivers" of material that flow back and forth. In addition, something is sucking that material right back to one point on the surface. That is rather odd behavior for a cloud of non mass separated plasma wouldn't you say? How do you explain that behavior?
It's a plasma, Michael, following a set of magnetic field lines. There's nothing "sucking" it besides gravity and magnetism. I see nothing at all "odd" about this.
How do you explain it in your model? |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 12:11:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why do you think they have to move in just 1.5 hours?
Let's try this angle as well:
Plasma moves. Why do you think they have to stay stable in plasma that is presumably less than 1/15th the consistancy of aerogel? Where exactly are you claiming these magnetic fields orginate, and what is "holding" them to very specific points on the surface? Why specifically are the coronal loops lit? Why do these patterns form "here" (wherever that is) in the solar atmosphere as opposed to anywhere else in the solar atmosphere? What makes this location so special?
I think if we start with these questions, you'll have a much better feel for where I'm coming from as it relates to explaining these images.
Michael, they are magnetic fields. Nothing "holds them" to any point on any surface. What we see are the results of the interactions between the fast-moving plasma and the generally slowly-moving magnetic fields loops coming up from some 200,000 km below the photosphere. And the "location" is whereever the million+ Kelvin plasma happens to be, which has been visually confirmed to be well above the photosphere.
Where you are "coming from" is apparently an attempt to make the mainstream ideas about the corona fit into your solid-surface model. It's not going to work. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 12:19:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave, I'd like you to take a long look at this BBSO high cadence H-Alpha video. In this closeup video, we can see the movement of the 'smaller' arcs that traverse the surface.
All I see is the plasma of the photosphere, Michael. Why would the H-alpha emission line highlight electrical arcs down at your alleged surface where there can't be much hydrogen due to the mass separation, anyway?quote:
These small loops look like ants that follow the terrain.
I see nothing like that.quote:
They crawl all over the surface terain in very consistent ways that are related to the lay of the land.
I see direct contradictions to that.quote:
Around some regions (like the dark hole in this image), the movements form spiral like patterns around a single position.
The "dark hole" is a sunspot.quote:
The whole surface is active, and that firefly activity you see in the raw TRACE video is directly related to this surface activity.
There is no surface seen in that video, it's all 4,800 km above your alleged surface. Higher than that in your model, anyway, since you place most of the hydrogen up in the chromosphere and/or corona.quote:
The large loops are the exception to the rule.
Indeed. Large loops are less common than small loops, which are in turn less common than areas without visible loops at all. Is that supposed to be important? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 12:32:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
These changing discharge patterns are reflected off the surface and that is what we see in the RD images.
No, we do not. Maybe you do, Michael, but only because you still so seriously misunderstand running difference images. There is no "light source" in any conventional sense in a running difference image. Any brightness we see, that which you are misinterpreting as a light source or reflection, comes simply from the process which applies a given amount of brightness to any particular pixel or group of pixels, that based exclusively on the difference in brightness between the corresponding pixels from the two original input images (or generated by applying a difference averaging algorithm across multiple input images).
quote:
To "properly" analyse that RD image, we will have to have some kind of agreement as to the nature of the light source, and how it factors into these "patterns".
The "light source" of a running difference image is the cathode ray tube or other monitoring device used to view the image. It factors into the "patterns" by making certain pixels bright and other pixels dim. And when, for example, there is a group of brighter pixels to the right and dimmer pixels to the left in a particular area, it can look like there's a light source to the right causing a "hill" to be lit up. The dimmer pixels to the left can make it look like there's a shadow to the left, creating an effect that might be mistakenly perceived as a surface feature on the Sun. We actually are in nearly unanimous agreement as to the nature of the "light source".
quote:
Other loops, like the largest ones seen in this same image, come all the way out into the corona. These are the light sources of all the 171A images, and they are directly related to discharges in the solar atmosphere, just as in Birkeland's experiments.
The light source of the 171Å wavelength images is, as Michael states above, and as can be clearly seen in 171Å images taken near the limb of the Sun, from the corona. We know the location of the light in these images because we know the diameter of the Sun and the field of view of the equipment used to gather the images. In turn we know the dimensions of the viewed arc of the horizon and we have the ability to apply some simple (warning: scary word coming up Michael...) math. We can therefore easily know where the 171Å light in these images originates. So far we aren't aware of any mysterious change in the source of that light as the CME rotates around the Sun. So that source, when we view the CME at the limb of the Sun, can be safely assumed to be the same as when we view the CME from more directly above.
So we start with a sequence of two original images at 171Å, both with light sources coming from many thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers above Michael's allegedly solid surface. Then we compare them to determine the difference in brightness between corresponding pixels in those images. The resulting running difference output will show brighter pixels where pixels became brighter in the second original image, and show darker pixels where the pixels became dimmer in the second image. Since all those pixels of any brightness in both original images came from the corona, the running difference image does not, and in fact can not, show any surface existing as much as tens of thousands of kilometers below.
The consistency of features in the running difference video, the consistency Michael mistakenly attributes to a solid surface, is simply the result of the fact that coronal loops and flares can, and very often do remain quite consistent over periods of hours or even days. An hour and a half is trivial to the potential lifetime of a coronal flare, as Dave has pointed out many times. He and others have also clearly pointed out that what may appear to some to be stable features, supposedly right down to the pixel, actually aren't. And the only evidence Michael provides for his claim to the contrary comes from simple mistakes in his logic. He continues to claim that what he sees in running difference images is actually a surface, and his support for that being true is his belief that it is true, a tautology, and his lack of understanding the explanations which show that it is likely not true, his incredulity.
So one more time here's where we stand, running difference images do not show any solid features or surfaces on the Sun. No evidence or explanation has been provided to demonstrate that they even can show such things. Thorough explanations have been provided to show that they do not. And of course, even as simple as it is, I don't expect everyone to understand this stuff. So as always, if anyone other than Michael has any questions...
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 13:15:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet you cannot or will not apply the physical laws that you say are appropriate and calculate the amount of scattering that will occur in your model's photosphere or corona in order to demonstrate your conjecture to be correct.
Technically I maybe *could* work backwards, but I don't know the densities of the plasma layers yet, so even that would be a "guestimate" and a half at best case, so what would be the point?
Even if I did it that way (worked backwards based on depth and presumed layers), you'd never agree with my methods for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact I don't know the densities of of any of the layers.
I did however show you that image of 4 different wavelengths of the same surface area so you could see the relative amounts of "interference" in each filter. The 195A and 171A had the least amount of obvious signs of absorption or scattering. The 284A filtered showed more signs of scattering. The x-rays in the Trace/Yokhoh overlay are nearly completely blocked by the photosphere. Everything will be highly depending on the elements of the layers, the wavelengths in question, and the particle physics involved in these forms of scattering events in these elemental layers.
quote:
That's an entirely different argument, as we were just talking about the TRACE imagery of the "gold" video.
But even Trace has higher sensitivity peaks related to calcium ion emissions and Fe XX and FeXXIV emissions Dave. Even that one filter has a very large range of sensitivity that is far and away greater than anything in the photosphere or chromosphere.
quote:
You claim that the dark areas seen in it are cooler than the bright areas, yet you have no imagery from other cameras of the same area at the same resolution.
But I do have Yohkoh images, including that overlay image of coronal loops:
The light comes from the loops Dave. There is a direct correlation here between loops and light. There is also either less x-rays being emitted at the base of the loops, or far more absortion of x-rays compared to the absorption of 171A or 195A images.
quote:
How do you know that none of the darker areas in the "gold" video are hotter than the bright areas?
In the RD image, intensity is not related to temperature, just the change in light intensity between images. There is no correlation between light and dark pixels and temperaturate in RD images. In *your* raw footage however, there is certainly a direct correlation between light and high temperature plasma.
quote:
Yours doesn't include any of the physics of scattering. Your inclusion of the "concept" of scattering is simply a handwave to explain away inconvenient data.
Boloney. My method assumes it happens and assumes it's a complex process related to elements, density, and wavelength. It does however pinpoint the light source, and therefore the high temperature plasma very accurately.
It's not my fault that LMSAL didn't even consider the effects of scattering Dave, it's theirs. Don't blame me for their failure. My method did not make any assumptions about scattering rates, but it does expect scattering will occur.
quote:
No, the Yohkoh video you provided shows massive amounts of high-energy photons coming from well past 1.0R, Michael.
Ok, I understand what you're saying. Fine, that is true. That's exactly what it shows. In fact, that composite image above shows *why* the emissions are coming from past 1.0R. Prior to 1.0R, the x-rays are mostly absorbed by the atmosphere. Once it reaches the corona however, the loops light up very brightly, and the x-rays are no longer being absorbed by the atmosphere. Virtually everything seen in x-ray comes from loops above the photosphere.
quote:
What the hell are you talking about? The photosphere is opaque because it is an effective scatterer of light.
How do you know it's an "effective scatterer" of 171A or 195A light specifically?
quote:
The corona, on the other hand, is highly transparent. We can even see distant stars through it.
Ok. I have no problem with the layer getting less dense and scattering rates decreasing with distance, in fact I would expect that as well. Again however, how do you know that the photosphere material specifically is opaque to the 171A and 195A wavelengths?
quote:
If a lot of scattering is occuring, and the loops originate under the photosphere, then we should be able to see the loops get fuzzier as they increase in depth.
We see that as it relates to x-rays in that composite image, but the amount of "fuzziness" will be directly related to the amount of scattering. Since the bases of the loops are brighter and typically large anyway, how do you know they aren't "fuzzier"?
quote:
Yes, and you seem to be in denial of that.
Not at all Dave. In fact in this case, location is everything. I'm only in denial of LMSAL's claim that the region we see in 171A images originates above the chromosphere. That's the only thing I "deny". You "deny" that mass separation occurs to any significant degree, but then how you explain that dark plasma thread that cruised through the atmosphere and then got sucked back to the surface in your raw images?
quote:
Show us how.
Different types of plasma will absorb and scatter light in unique ways related to their elemental composition, their density and their temperature. The only way your formula's work is if all the elements are present in every layer and the various elements could the |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 13:45:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I did however show you that image of 4 different wavelengths of the same surface area so you could see the relative amounts of "interference" in each filter. The 195A and 171A had the least amount of obvious signs of absorption or scattering. The 284A filtered showed more signs of scattering. The x-rays in the Trace/Yokhoh overlay are nearly completely blocked by the photosphere. Everything will be highly depending on the elements of the layers, the wavelengths in question, and the particle physics involved in these forms of scattering events in these elemental layers.
Can you clarify this a bit please?
Why are lower energy photons scattering more than mid-energy photons, when high-energy photons are nearly completely blocked?
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 14:42:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I did however show you that image of 4 different wavelengths of the same surface area so you could see the relative amounts of "interference" in each filter. The 195A and 171A had the least amount of obvious signs of absorption or scattering. The 284A filtered showed more signs of scattering.
All that assumes that any differences are due to scattering. Or now you say "interference," but I don't know what you mean by that. So I don't see how such assumptions are warranted.quote:
The x-rays in the Trace/Yokhoh overlay are nearly completely blocked by the photosphere.
That assumes that x-rays are blocked by the photosphere in your model, but you've admitted that you can't calculate any scattering rates now because you don't know the densities. You can't have it both ways, Michael.
(In the mainstream science, these images don't come from anywhere near your alleged "surface," but instead well above the photosphere, and the scattering rates in the corona are quite low, so everything in the images is directly emitted light, none of it is reflected.)quote:
Everything will be highly depending on the elements of the layers, the wavelengths in question, and the particle physics involved in these forms of scattering events in these elemental layers.
But you don't know any of that, so how do you know that the appearance of any plasma will be "highly" dependent upon any of it?
Skipping a bit...quote:
I *did* select the appropriate physics and math (A+B=C) to demonstrate my model is correct. I've overlayed satellite images for you to show you observationally that my method is correct and it works as predicted.
No, you have utterly failed to demonstrate it with something of known temperatures. All that you've done is say, in effect, "Lockheed is wrong about the temperatures, and I'm right, and adding these images together proves I'm right because I'm right about the temperatures."
Maybe more later... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
