|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2006 : 14:51:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
No, we do not. Maybe you do, Michael, but only because you still so seriously misunderstand running difference images.
Oh please!
You lost all credibility with me the moment you claimed "everyone" understood RD images. Hardly anyone even knows what a running difference image is. Fewer individuals have ever sat and watched gigabytes of RD images. Fewer still would understand them well enough to attempt to explain them, let alone explain them accurately, certainly not you. You completely toasted your credibility with me by claiming that the persistent patterns we see in the RD images were created by the processing technique itself. They are not. The patterns cannot be created by, or perpetuated by, the software subroutines you posted earlier. These persistent patterns are created by persistent processes on the sun as I explained to you a long time ago. While Dave has credibility in this field, obviously you do not, and no amount of postruring now is going to restore your credibility with me on this issue. I stopped believing anything you had say about RD images the moment you claimed that the persistent patterns were due to the RD imaging process rather than solar processes.
quote:
There is no "light source" in any conventional sense in a running difference image.
That's simply a false statement. There's a light source in both the original images, namely the light from the coronal loops. Any "lightness" or "darkness" in the resulting difference image is a direct result of an increase or a decrease of light in that pixel of the original images. The intensity changes in the photons in the original images directly correspond to light or dark pixels in the "graph" of a RD image.
quote:
Any brightness we see, that which you are misinterpreting as a light source or reflection,
What? You evidently are better at sticking words in my mouth than you are at understanding what I'm actually saying. The *patterns* (not the brightness) are what I interpret as "reflections" (in most cases) in this image. The brightness has nothing to do with my arguement about persistent patterns in the image. You just don't seem to "get it", even now.
I'm not doing this with you line by line again. I'll continue my discussions with Dave, but frankly, you're just posturing now to cover up for sticking your foot in your mouth about the persistent patterns in the image, and since you refuse to just admit that you blew it, I'm not going to waste my time with you.
You do *not* understand what you're looking at Geemack, and the patterns in the image have nothing whatsoever to do with the processing technique, only the persistent patterns in the original images.
|
 |
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 15:09:48 [Permalink]
|
Talking about pixel temperature measurements.
THE INADEQUACY OF TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS IN THE SOLAR CORONA
THROUGH NARROWBAND FILTER AND LINE RATIOS
"We conclude that a proper thermal analysis of coronal loops
must focus on the full DEMs, not on temperatures determined
from line or filter ratios. We believe that the recent discovery
of a class of 1–2 MK isothermal loops may be an artifact of
the narrowband filter ratio technique and that the results of
Schmelz et al. (2001) point toward significant heating near the
loop tops."
http://physics.memphis.edu/SOLAR/publications/Inadequacy.pdf#search=
%22Methods%20of%20Temperature%20and%20Emission%20Measure%20Determination
%20of%20Coronal%20Loops%22
I would also think talking about the temperature being above 2MK is really a moot point since we know the the range is from 6000k(photosphere)to 2MK(corona). So to say that in a 19.5nm or 17.1nm image dark areas might be hotter is pretty much a moot point. They might be up to 500,000K hotter but its doubtful that it would be dark as you can see from this chart that in 17.1nm it would still look bright UP to 2mk.
http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif
The only areas of elevated temperature that are higher than the corona are loop footprints and plasma z and x pinch events that happen on the surface. In these areas the CNO cycle may happen.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633 :-)
This is my favorite image of the suns surface at 17.1nm. This is where the 6000K BB emission comes from.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
So according to Skeptics this is the layer above the photosphere. The structure in the lower middle under the loop is taller than the photosphere, chromosphere and transition layer put together, and its opaque to UV. So any imaging of the sun in UV (of sunspots etc) comes from above this layer? I dont think so.
Besides that both ESA and NASA say the the loops originate under the photosphere.
The mainstream model says that the suns BB emission curve comes from the optically thick core.
They even say that optically thick plasma has BB emission. No, it has lines unless under pressure.
The BB emission curve from the sun matches a condensed matter curve better than a pressurized gas curve.
|
| Edited by - upriver on 08/29/2006 15:14:33 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 15:42:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
This is my favorite image of the suns surface at 17.1nm. This is where the 6000K BB emission comes from.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
So according to Skeptics this is the layer above the photosphere.
Really? And here I always thought that the photosphere was the layer that radiated 6000k Black-Body radiation. |
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 - 08/29/2006 : 16:07:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I think I'm going to try to work this angle first if you don't mind.
According to gas model theory, something, or some process inside the sun is presumably keeping these magnetic field lines "stable" to within a few hundred kilometers at a distance of 220,000 km away from the surface. What is the process that creates magnetic fields in the first place? How does that process result in such stable fields over the distance of 220,000 Km?
In other words, what process or feature inside the sun creates such stable magnetic fields that can hold their position to within a few hundred kilometers over such vast distances in one place, yet change position in another region relatively rapidly? Why wouldn't current be flowing through and with these magnetic fields starting 220,000km where they originate? Why do they pick the position they pick to then take off at acute angles at the location in atmosphere where the loop interact?
quote:
And the "location" is whereever the million+ Kelvin plasma happens to be, which has been visually confirmed to be well above the photosphere.
How were *all* the coronal loops visually verified to be limited to the areas well above the photosphere?
quote:
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.
I don't think you understand my point here. It doesn't matter where you attempt to stick the "transitional region", wherever the transitional region is, it's the area where we see solar moss activity, and these "peeling" like events we see in the Gold RD image as well as your own raw movie of the same event. That "process" takes place as a specific point in the solar atmosphere. If you believe that the these loops originate above the photosophere, why do they begin at that particular location rather than say 1000KM higher or lower in the solar atmosphere? What makes them "light up" at that location? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 16:28:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
All that assumes that any differences are due to scattering.
Actually the "fuzziness" of the 284A image in particular might be due to scattering differences, but there is also an absorption issue going on, particularly in the bottom right image at 1600A. We seem to be looking at part of a completely different surface that has a completely different set of structures in it, and is positioned above the features being imaged in the iron ion filters.
quote:
Or now you say "interference," but I don't know what you mean by that.
I mean that the 1600A image in particular is not penetrating as deeply or as clearly as the other images, and it's picking up features from some sort of emissions taking place higher in the solar atmosophere.
quote:
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.
I certainly can have it both ways since I do have the images to verify this.
quote:
(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.)
So why are only the tops of the loops emitting x-rays, or more specifically, why do we only see x-rays in the tops of the loops?
quote:
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?
The wavelengths in that 4 filter image made a difference in what we could see, particularly the 1600A filter.
quote:
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...
Boy do you know how to "spin" what I say. :)
I have no legitimate reason to doubt LMSAL's figures as it relates to the temperature sensitivity and range for the various TRACE and SOHO filters. We *all* agree on what the gear can see and what it cannot see, and we all seem to agree on the temperature ranges these filters are sensitive to. That's never been in dispute. You however seem to want me to demonstrate what has already been agreed to. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 17:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
THE INADEQUACY OF TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS IN THE SOLAR CORONA
THROUGH NARROWBAND FILTER AND LINE RATIOS
Yes, we know. This fails to provide any evidence in favor of Michael's method.
quote:
I would also think talking about the temperature being above 2MK is really a moot point since we know the the range is from 6000k(photosphere)to 2MK(corona).
You'd better tell Michael that, since he's got the impression that the mega-Kelvin temperatures only exist in the coronal loops. Plus, he (and many solar scientists) find temperatures topping out at over 30 MK in the corona.quote:
So to say that in a 19.5nm or 17.1nm image dark areas might be hotter is pretty much a moot point. They might be up to 500,000K hotter but its doubtful that it would be dark as you can see from this chart that in 17.1nm it would still look bright UP to 2mk.
http://trace.lmsal.com/TRACE/Images/pastext.gif
That chart is oversimplified and only points out the temperature ranges at which particular ions emit light. It is not representative of the entire TRACE passband. Ask Michael, he knows what the temperature response curves look like.quote:
The only areas of elevated temperature that are higher than the corona are loop footprints and plasma z and x pinch events that happen on the surface. In these areas the CNO cycle may happen.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633 :-)
Except that with Michael's modified CNO "cycle," there is no cycle and certain isotopes will be enriched in the photosphere, which isn't seen.quote:
This is my favorite image of the suns surface at 17.1nm. This is where the 6000K BB emission comes from.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif
That image is of the lower corona, not the photosphere.quote:
So according to Skeptics this is the layer above the photosphere.
No, it's not the chromosphere, either.quote:
The structure in the lower middle under the loop is taller than the photosphere, chromosphere and transition layer put together...
What "structure?"quote:
...and its opaque to UV.
You've got evidence that something in that image is opaque to UV?quote:
So any imaging of the sun in UV (of sunspots etc) comes from above this layer?
No, the imaging of extreme UV (like the 171A photo, above) comes from where we know the temperatures are high enough for iron to emit that light: the corona.quote:
I dont think so.
Your disbelief does not qualify as evidence of anything.quote:
Besides that both ESA and NASA say the the loops originate under the photosphere.
Yes, the magnetic fields originate 200,000 km under the photosphere. Since the photosphere is opaque to all frequencies of light (thanks to Michael for pointing out Thompson Scattering once again), we can't see anything under its 550-km depth.quote:
The mainstream model says that the suns BB emission curve comes from the optically thick core.
This is simply false.quote:
They even say that optically thick plasma has BB emission.
It would have to, with the Thompson Scattering and all sorts of other scattering going on.quote:
No, it has lines unless under pressure.
Prove it: show me a lab test of a 550-km thick plasma under the pressures, densities and temperatures of the standard model. You can't. Your insistence that the photospheric plasmas would result in emission lines is based upon the idea that you can simply "scale up" some small-scale lab findings for which Thompson Scattering is close to zero. And so your generalization fails.quote:
The BB emission curve from the sun matches a condensed matter curve better than a pressurized gas curve.
Prove it.
Hey, Michael: your pal here is undermining some of your arguments. I think you should stop him before he does any more damage to 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 : 18:23:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think I'm going to try to work this angle first if you don't mind.
According to gas model theory, something, or some process inside the sun is presumably keeping these magnetic field lines "stable" to within a few hundred kilometers at a distance of 220,000 km away from the surface.
No, gas model theory says nothing about them being "stable," which they aren't. They come and go on a timescale between hours and days. The "gold" video is the 1.5 hours around a CME event within a flare that lasted for at least three days according to the Yohkoh movie you provided.quote:
What is the process that creates magnetic fields in the first place?
Nobody knows the answer to that any better than you know the answer to "what is the density of the neon plasma layer?"quote:
How does that process result in such stable fields over the distance of 220,000 Km?
Well, the Earth's magnetic field is very much more "stable" (moving around on only a 1,000-year basis), but it's formed from a liquid core that's less dense than the Sun is at the tachocline.quote:
In other words, what process or feature inside the sun creates such stable magnetic fields that can hold their position to within a few hundred kilometers over such vast distances in one place, yet change position in another region relatively rapidly?
That's what scientists are trying to create a theory about, Michael.quote:
Why wouldn't current be flowing through and with these magnetic fields starting 220,000km where they originate?
What do you mean, why wouldn't current be flowing? It's all plasma, Michael. Currents flow every which way at the whims of the magnetic fields, and because those currents create magnetic fields of their own, they twist the massive ones from the tachocline into interesting shapes.quote:
Why do they pick the position they pick to then take off at acute angles at the location in atmosphere where the loop interact?
Michael, don't try to anthropomorphize magnetic fields. They don't "pick" anything.quote:
quote:
And the "location" is whereever the million+ Kelvin plasma happens to be, which has been visually confirmed to be well above the photosphere.
How were *all* the coronal loops visually verified to be limited to the areas well above the photosphere?
Show me one that isn't. I'll give you a hint: they're called coronal loops. Show me a single scientific study that detailed million-Kelvin temperatures within the photosphere (since we won't see Fe X ions where there isn't million-Kelvin plasma).quote:
I don't think you understand my point here. It doesn't matter where you attempt to stick the "transitional region", wherever the transitional region is, it's the area where we see solar moss activity, and these "peeling" like events we see in the Gold RD image as well as your own raw movie of the same event. That "process" takes place as a specific point in the solar atmosphere.
No, it doesn't Michael. What you think is "peeling" is actually a top-down look at a big magnetic-loop "fan" just like the one center stage in upriver's "favorite" photo of the Sun. The one in the "gold" video is smaller, but it's the same process. And the "moss," if I read the Lockheed caption correctly, is a result of RD processing on quickly changing magnetic fields.quote:
If you believe that the these loops originate above the photosophere...
I don't. The magnetic fields originate some 200,000 km below.quote:
...why do they begin at that particular location rather than say 1000KM higher or lower in the solar atmosphere? What makes them "light up" at that location?
That's where there's enough heat to make the highly-ionized plasmas which can be seen by TRACE's cameras. TRACE's 171A filter can only image the really hot stuff, Michael. The chromsphere and photosphere are too cold for it to see, but the magnetic fields go through them, as shown by the magnetometer images (which are at photosphere level), and images of sunspots. |
- 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 : 19:36:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You lost all credibility with me the moment you claimed "everyone" understood RD images. Hardly anyone even knows what a running difference image is. Fewer individuals have ever sat and watched gigabytes of RD images. Fewer still would understand them well enough to attempt to explain them, let alone explain them accurately, certainly not you. You completely toasted your credibility with me by claiming that the persistent patterns we see in the RD images were created by the processing technique itself. They are not. The patterns cannot be created by, or perpetuated by, the software subroutines you posted earlier. These persistent patterns are created by persistent processes on the sun as I explained to you a long time ago. While Dave has credibility in this field, obviously you do not, and no amount of postruring now is going to restore your credibility with me on this issue. I stopped believing anything you had say about RD images the moment you claimed that the persistent patterns were due to the RD imaging process rather than solar processes.
You can continue to misrepresent my comments 'til the cows come home, Michael, if it makes you feel all good inside, but since nobody else questions the meaning of what I've said, I'll just accept that your own lousy communication skills are the hold-up in your understanding me. And as for your taking Dave as credible, I'm willing to bet he fully understands and agrees with my comments regarding running difference images.
quote:
The *patterns* (not the brightness) are what I interpret as "reflections" (in most cases) in this image. The brightness has nothing to do with my arguement about persistent patterns in the image. You just don't seem to "get it", even now.
You've made that bogus claim before, yet when asked to specifically point out patterns which are caused by something other than brighter and darker pixels, you immediately pointed out "hills" and "valleys" which are certainly patterns caused by brighter and darker pixels. The fact is every pattern in every image is caused by the relative brightness of pixels, running difference images or otherwise. Without brightness of certain pixels there wouldn't be any patterns for you to be carrying on about. Maybe someday you'll get it, but apparently not soon.
quote:
I'm not doing this with you line by line again.
Of course not. You always seem to stop after you take a couple of shots and do your crybaby whine for a bit, but before you actually explain how images from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere could possibly show anything thousands of kilometers below the photosphere. You'd have to either admit that it isn't possible, or claim that you have some kind of magical powers. One would destroy your primary base of support for your entire claim, and the other would demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're as crazy as a loon. 
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 19:52:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
There is no "light source" in any conventional sense in a running difference image.
That's simply a false statement. There's a light source in both the original images, namely the light from the coronal loops. Any "lightness" or "darkness" in the resulting difference image is a direct result of an increase or a decrease of light in that pixel of the original images. The intensity changes in the photons in the original images directly correspond to light or dark pixels in the "graph" of a RD image.
No Michael, GeeMack is correct.
Yes,as you have stated, the original images have a light source. That the source is the coronal loops is a separate issue, and is your assertion, not a fact.
Any process which approximates a difference algorithm destroys the concept of a light source. There is no light source in a running difference image. It's not an image of anything. A running difference image is a derived image. You seem to understand how the individual pixel intensities are derived, and yet you still want to maintain that a running difference image has a light source. That is simply absurd. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 22:40:01 [Permalink]
|
A couple more things:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
How the heck do you see "loops" in the bright "fuzz" way away from the Sun?
quote:
How do you know it's an "effective scatterer" of 171A or 195A light specifically?
Because your reference to Thompson Scattering gave us the plasma physics to know that that form of scattering is independent of wavelength, and so only one photon out of 107 (or so) will get through the standard model photosphere.
But you've got an "atmosphere" (between your alleged surface and the top of the neon layer) which is 8.73 times thicker than the standard model's photosphere, so that reduces the odds that any photon will get from the surface all the way through the photosphere without scattering off some free electron to only 1 photon out of 934. But wait: for your model to match Kosovichev's dozens of 0.1% density differences, your "atmosphere" has to be significantly more dense than the standard model. Let's be conservative, and say it's a factor of 1,000. Now only one photon out of every 934,000 get from your alleged surface all the way through and out of the neon layer without being affected by Thompson scattering.
That means that 99.999893% of all photons in your model's "atmosphere" get scattered, just from Thompson scattering. We haven't even taken into account Compton or other forms of scattering yet. Do you seriously expect me to believe that taking other forms of scattering into account will decrease that number to near 0% for 171A, 195A or any other wavelength of light you care to mention? |
- 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 : 22:54:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nobody knows the answer to that any better than you know the answer to "what is the density of the neon plasma layer?"
Nobody knows? Thousands if not millions of scientists have worked on gas model theory for decades and "nobody knows"? For a "model" that you seem to feel is "better" than the one I've provided, it sure comes us short when it comes to explaining even the basics. At least my model explains the magnetic fields of the sun, what causes them, and why the loops stay fixed to a single location over hours.
quote:
Well, the Earth's magnetic field is very much more "stable" (moving around on only a 1,000-year basis), but it's formed from a liquid core that's less dense than the Sun is at the tachocline.
But the earth's core is presumably covered with solids Dave, and it's outer shell (of the core) is presumably composed of a lot of iron.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm
Is that how you suggest the sun's core works too?
quote:
That's what scientists are trying to create a theory about, Michael.
In other words, unlike a Birkeland solar model with an neutron core, contemporary gas model theory can't even explain something as fundamental as the magnetic fields of the sun, or the heat source of the corona. What exactly makes gas model theory "superior" in your opinion?
quote:
What do you mean, why wouldn't current be flowing? It's all plasma, Michael. Currents flow every which way at the whims of the magnetic fields, and because those currents create magnetic fields of their own, they twist the massive ones from the tachocline into interesting shapes.
But you said it yourself, the plasma is moving and flowing, and these flow patterns in the plasma create current flow. Why then would you doubt the loops are "hot" in relationship to the rest of the atmosphere? If the twists relate to moving plasma, why are all the "twists" taking place in one areas of the solar atmosphere?
quote:
Michael, don't try to anthropomorphize magnetic fields. They don't "pick" anything.
You're skirting my question here. Why do the all the footprints begin at *any* location in the solar atmosphere?
quote:
Show me one that isn't. I'll give you a hint: they're called coronal loops. Show me a single scientific study that detailed million-Kelvin temperatures within the photosphere (since we won't see Fe X ions where there isn't million-Kelvin plasma).
Most of them start or terminate far below the photosphere Dave, and I can't hand you folks that agree with my interpretation as to location other than Hilton, Sumeet and Oliver who've all done papers with me.
Consider your recent answers Dave. You yourself claim that the magnetic fields that create these loops start far below the photosphere. You suggested (if I understand you correctly) that magnetic fields create flowing plasma, which in turn leads to current flow. Why then would the loops be limited to lighting up only in the corona?
quote:
No, it doesn't Michael. What you think is "peeling" is actually a top-down look at a big magnetic-loop "fan" just like the one center stage in upriver's "favorite" photo of the Sun.
But those "fans" as you call them all have bright bases at their footprints. Why?
quote:
The one in the "gold" video is smaller, but it's the same process. And the "moss," if I read the Lockheed caption correctly, is a result of RD processing on quickly changing magnetic fields.
The lighted ridge is also clearly visible in your raw image movie as well. It's therefore not an artifact of the processing technique, rather the process itself is simply highlighted by the technique. Just as the bases of the fans are "bright", so too, these regions are bright at the base. Why?
quote:
quote:
If you believe that the these loops originate above the photosophere...
I don't. The magnetic fields originate some 200,000 km below.
Ok. Let's get specific then. At what location do we begin seeing light from these magnetically aligned loops? In other words, would we expect to see *some* emissions at say 10 meters below the surface of the photosphere? Would we see these emisisions in the chromosphere? Where would we begin seeing light from the loops?
quote:
That's where there's enough heat to make the highly-ionized plasmas which can be seen by TRACE's cameras.
Why is there "heat" only there? Where is that heat coming from, and how does the corona get it's heat? If the corona is providing heat, why is corona relatively dark compared to the loops themselves?
quote:
TRACE's 171A filter can only image the really hot stuff, Michael.
On that point we both seem to agree.
quote:
The chromsphere and photosphere are too cold for it to see, but the magnetic fields go through them, as shown by the magnetometer images (which are at photosphere level), and images of sunspots.
But if the loops are hot *within* a cooler background, we would still expect to see them even in the chromosphere. Again, I see not reason or explanation as to why they only get "hot" in the corona. This is a very puzzling explanation since:
A) There is not a greater amount of light coming from a very h |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/29/2006 23:06:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 22:59:39 [Permalink]
|
More:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
I certainly can have it both ways since I do have the images to verify this.
No, you don't, since for that image to be evidence of what you say, you still have to assume that the photosphere is scattering the X-ray light.
Actually, your "atmosphere" can't just be scattering the X-rays, or otherwise the yellow would suffuse the entire image. Scattering is, after all, what makes Earth's sky blue (if air just absorbed blue light, we'd see a redder Sun against a black sky with stars in the middle of the day). Instead, you have to posit an "atmosphere" which actually absorbs X-ray light, and fails to re-emit it. That'd be more like Earth's atmosphere, which isn't a plasma.quote:
So why are only the tops of the loops emitting x-rays, or more specifically, why do we only see x-rays in the tops of the loops?
As your buddy Nitta argued, only the loop tops are hot enough to emit X-rays.quote:
I have no legitimate reason to doubt LMSAL's figures as it relates to the temperature sensitivity and range for the various TRACE and SOHO filters. We *all* agree on what the gear can see and what it cannot see, and we all seem to agree on the temperature ranges these filters are sensitive to. That's never been in dispute. You however seem to want me to demonstrate what has already been agreed to.
No, you've continually refused to acknowledge that the response curves of the cameras in question peak in the middle of the temperature range, which means that dimmer areas in the raw frames that make up the "gold" video could be either hotter or colder than the bright loops. You have no images of the appropriate resolution to tell us whether or not any dark areas in the raw frames are also dark to Yohkoh or RHESSI or any other satellite. If you did, you could have shown them and claimed victory long ago.
Instead, all you've got is good ol' mossyohkoh.jpg, which shows bright yellow areas over top of bright and dark blue areas, which mean that some places in which TRACE sees few photons, Yohkoh saw lots of 'em, proving the point that brighter doesn't equal cooler to the TRACE filters. Do you have the two originals that went into mossyohkoh.jpg? If so, link to them here and I'll be happy to write some more code to prove what I'm talking about. |
- 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 : 23:04:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
No Michael, GeeMack is correct.
No, Geemack is absolutely wrong about the patterns in the image, and he's completely oversimplifying even the pixel colorization process John. The light in all the images is directly related to the number of photons coming from the sun striking that particular CCD pixel, and therefore any patterns in the RD image are directly related to patterns in the light output from the sun. The brighter pixels represent areas that are *increasing* in intensity between the two images, whereas the darker areas relate to pixels where fewer photons are seen in the second image. All the intensities or shades are directly related to changes in the photon output of the sun, and how many pixels arrive at a particular CCD pixel.
quote:
Yes,as you have stated, the original images have a light source. That the source is the coronal loops is a separate issue, and is your assertion, not a fact.
Well, I've put my math on the table to explain my position, whereas nobody else has done so. If math is the primary determination between truth and fiction, then my explanation as to the light source wins hands down. If you think there is a different light source for these images, what is it?
quote:
Any process which approximates a difference algorithm destroys the concept of a light source. There is no light source in a running difference image. It's not an image of anything. A running difference image is a derived image. You seem to understand how the individual pixel intensities are derived, and yet you still want to maintain that a running difference image has a light source. That is simply absurd.
In the sense that the light source is a "functional representation" of the *changing lighting conditions*, then sure, it's an "abstraction" of sorts. It's a graphic representation of the changes in photon reception in a single CCD pixel however, and all the shades are directly determined by photons, and changes in photon intensity.
The reason this is a "big deal" IMO is that the to really understand the "features" of the image, you have to identify the light source, and you have to understand that patterns in the light sources correspond to patterns in the RD image. Geemack doesn't understand this because he claimed that the patterns were a result of the processing technique, and that is patently false.
Dave's original movie shows that Geemack is wrong in black and white. The "patterns" in the original images come from "patterns" in the light output from the sun. There is a direct correlation here between fixed light output patterns on the sun, and fixed patterns in the RD image. Nothing about the processing technique itself could possible create rigid patterns. Geemack is dead wrong on this point. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/29/2006 23:09:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 23:17:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Nobody knows? Thousands if not millions of scientists have worked on gas model theory for decades and "nobody knows"?
Many more scientists have been trying to work out the origins of life on this planet, and we've got next to nothing for all that effort, too. How about a cure for cancer? Nope. Your incredulity at the difficulty of the problem isn't evidence of anything.quote:
For a "model" that you seem to feel is "better" than the one I've provided, it sure comes us short when it comes to explaining even the basics.
Since when are the source of the magnetic fields a "basic," Michael? Your model doesn't even have density figures, nor do you know the mass of the Sun, or how it's powered, so your model doesn't explain the magnetic fields either.quote:
At least my model explains the magnetic fields of the sun, what causes them, and why the loops stay fixed to a single location over hours.
No, you've just speculated about some stuff, but you won't be able to explain it until you can demonstrate that the current in the "arcs" is strong enough to create 4,000 Gauss magnetic fields.quote:
But the sun's core is presumably covered with solids Dave, and it's outer shell (of the core) is presumably composed of a lot of iron.
No, the Sun's core in your model is the one "covered with solids" and has an "outer shell." Keep your models straight, Michael. The standard solar models posit plasma all the way down.quote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040122083025.htm
Is that how you suggest the sun's core works too?
Didn't I just get done telling your buddy upriver that the magnetic fields of the Sun don't come from its core?quote:
In other words, unlike a Birkeland solar model with an neutron core, contemporary gas model theory can't even explain something as fundamental as the magnetic fields of the sun, or the heat source of the corona. What exactly makes gas model theory "superior" in your opinion?
The fact that it can explain why the Sun has the radius, density, temperature, luminosity, opacity and neutrino flux that it has. Your model can't do any of that. But that's mostly because you don't understand what a scientific explanation (or prediction) is.quote:
But you said it yourself, the plasma is moving and flowing, and these flow patterns in the plasma create current flow.
No, you're going to have to quote me saying that "flow patterns in the plasma create current flow." I never said any such thing. It's completely stupid.quote:
Why then would you doubt the loops are "hot" in relationship to the rest of the atmosphere?
The loops are nothing but magnetic fields, Michael. Current flows throughout the corona, as does the heat.quote:
If the twists relate to moving plasma, why are all the "twists" taking place in one areas of the solar atmosphere?
They aren't, you're just ignoring the fact that TRACE can only see what's happening in the corona.quote:
You're skirting my question here. Why do the all the footprints begin at *any* location in the solar atmosphere?
I answered you later on in the post, Michael, and you even quoted me doing so. I skirted nothing.
And after dealing with that many of your insults and strawmen, I'm off to bed. |
- 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 - 08/30/2006 : 09:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Many more scientists have been trying to work out the origins of life on this planet, and we've got next to nothing for all that effort, too. How about a cure for cancer? Nope. Your incredulity at the difficulty of the problem isn't evidence of anything.
That rings a little hollow from my perspective, especially since you've been needleing me about what *I personally* don't understand about a Birkeland model. The sun has two primary "givens" lots of mass, and strong magnetic fields, and gas model theory can only explain one of them, whereas I can explain both the core elements.
In fact since you believe the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium, how you figure it could hold a magnetic field fixed over such a large distance without moving around wildy is beyond me. Then again, if you have no explaination for the how the field is there in the first place, I guess it's not sweat to assign all sorts of properties to these mystery magnetic fields anytime you need to.
It just seems "interesting" to me that even after all this time and effort, nobody can explain even things as basic (in the sense of powerful force) as the sun's magnetic fields. I don't even have two years into a Birkeland model and I can do that much with a neutron core, and theories about how neutron cores create their magnetic fields. The stable location of these surface fields however is related to something Birkeland discovered in his lab. He found that by using a sphere that wasn't smooth and had bumps on the surface that the electrical discharges would tend to congregate to that point.
quote:
Since when are the source of the magnetic fields a "basic," Michael?
Since Dr. Manuel explained their existence about 3 decades ago, long before I even got involved in an iron sun theory.
quote:
Your model doesn't even have density figures,
That seems pretty trivial in comparison to the fact gas model theory can't explain the sun's magnetic fields or the heat source of the corona.
quote:
nor do you know the mass of the Sun,
I'm willing to use the current figures for the time being Dave. It may be that there is a difference, but for the purposes of my model, it's not that important. The neutron core can be substancially smaller than 1 solar masses.
quote:
or how it's powered,
It's powered internally and externally through a combination of factors, including induction forces and interations with the flow of current in the universe.
quote:
so your model doesn't explain the magnetic fields either.
Ya it does. Manuel explained that the sun has a neutron core, and their are several theories of how nuetron stars form a field around themselves that were put together by many other competent scientists.
quote:
No, you've just speculated about some stuff, but you won't be able to explain it until you can demonstrate that the current in the "arcs" is strong enough to create 4,000 Gauss magnetic fields.
It's only a matter of time Dave, it's only a matter of time. The theory is all in place, and the foundation is fully developed, and lab tested to boot.
quote:
No, the Sun's core in your model is the one "covered with solids" and has an "outer shell." Keep your models straight, Michael.
My bad. I fixed that sentence later, but obviously you started to respond before I caught that error. I meant to say the "earth's" core, not the sun's core.
quote:
Didn't I just get done telling your buddy upriver that the magnetic fields of the Sun don't come from its core?
Yes, but then you didn't explain where they *do* come from, only where the *don't* come from.
quote:
The fact that it can explain why the Sun has the radius, density, temperature, luminosity, opacity and neutrino flux that it has.
You "alledge" opacity. You cannot verify luminosity with sunspot activity. You *assume* that neutrinos change flavors, and your temperature numbers are "appoximations" at best.
The radius and density I'll grant you for now, but that seems pretty flimsy compared to it's lack of an explanation for the sun's strong magnetic fields, particular at the surface.
quote:
Your model can't do any of that.
Oh boloney.
quote:
But that's mostly because you don't understand what a scientific explanation (or prediction) is.
You sure take a lot of cheap shots along the way. It's utterly unncessary and counterproductive IMO. I put my *predictions* about the STEREO data on the table, months before launch. I haven't seen any gas model theoriests make any public predictions about anything related to STEREO data. I've done my part. Where are your predictions?
quote:
No, you're going to have to quote me saying that "flow patterns in the plasma create current flow." I never said any such thing. It's completely stupid.
Alright, why would you suggest it's a "stupid" idea?
quote:
The loops are nothing but magnetic fields, Michael. Current flows throughout the corona, as does the heat.
Dave, the loops can't be "nothing but |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
