|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2006 : 09:35:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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 I observe that it mostly absorbs the x-ray light in the photosphere, and it mostly scatters the 171A and 195A light in that region. There may be some "scattered" x-ray light reaching the surface of the photosophere, but obviously not much.
quote:
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.
I agree.
quote:
That'd be more like Earth's atmosphere, which isn't a plasma.
What difference does that make?
quote:
As your buddy Nitta argued, only the loop tops are hot enough to emit X-rays.
Why are they only hot at the top? You mean to suggest that million degree plasma (seen in Trace) is incapable of emitting x-rays?
quote:
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.
Dave, I've shown you images now from every major solar satellite program that consistently shows a direct relationship between high energy photon emissions and coronal loops. I did declare victory on that front a very long time ago. You've simply been dragging your feet and refusing to put any observational evidence on the table to support your ideas.
quote:
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.
But Dave, scattering of x-rays would still occur in the chromosphere and corona. In fact some few scattered photons might excape through the photosphere as well. A few photons seen by Yohkoh would demonstrate absolutely nothing. Here are links to information about the dates and times of the original images however in case you wish to play with them.
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss7.htm
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/30/2006 09:36:24 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 10:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Here's a link to a paper that shows that Trace filters can actually see Calcium plasma around 4 million kelvin, and FE XX ion photons up to 20 million Kelvin.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
quote:
Yes, the magnetic fields originate 200,000 km under the photosphere.
Yet somehow they supposedly only become visible 1000Km over the photosphere. This perception problem goes back to Alfven's work. Astronomers still seem to be oblivious to the notion that magnetic fields and current flow and moving particles all go hand in hand as Alfven explained in his work on MHD theory.
Instead, astronomers wish to separate one thing from another and try to talk about "frozen" magnetic fields in *light plasma* something that Alfven clearly warned them about and they never acknowledged. Instead of using his *whole* body of work, they use an oversimplified version that fails to acknowledge his later work, and his warnings about the fact that *light plasma* behaves very differently than *dense plasma*, and kinetic energy, and current flow is part of the behaviors of light plamsa around magnetic fields.
quote:
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.
This is an *allegation* made by gas model theorists, and it has never been demonstrated that *all* wavelengths are absorbed by a mostly neon photosphere. Gas model theoriests simply *assume* that no mass separation occurs and the photosphere is somehow a perfect absorber and emitter of *all* wavelengths of light. This is a gross oversimplification since the material will factor into any absorption rates, as will the wavelengths in question. Instead of acknowledging this point, Dave would have you believe we can use a generic, and grossly oversimplified math formula that takes nothing into account as it relates to the plasma materials.
quote:
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.
I didn't see him undermine anything related to my model Dave. As usual, you're "spinning" statements to suit yourself. :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 13:33:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That rings a little hollow from my perspective...
Your incredulity is not a valid scientific objection to any argument.quote:
...especially since you've been needleing me about what *I personally* don't understand about a Birkeland model.
Yes, and while you continue to get his model wrong, your own model will probably be wrong, too.quote:
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.
No, gas theory right now can't explain either one of them: the mass is an independent variable, which is only measured and not explained. Your theory can't explain the mass of the Sun, either. And even though you say that you can explain the magnetic fields, you still haven't done so.quote:
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.
Once again, your incredulity isn't evidence of anything. The fact that you have utterly failed to learn anything about the model you so freely criticize says only that you don't give a damn about whether it's right or wrong, you have faith that it has to be wrong because you have faith that your model is correct. Such faith precludes knowledge.quote:
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.
Of course, you don't have any evidence that anyone is assigning properties to the magnetic fields willy-nilly, but you feel free to suggest that people are doing so to prop up your fragile ego.
After all, they aren't "mystery magnetic fields" even if mainstream science cannot explain their presence. They're obviously there and can be measured and hypothesized about. They can be compared to lab experiments and described by Alfven's magnetohydrodynamics. Even Alfven, though, was just guessing about what causes them.quote:
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.
Your incredulity isn't evidence of any failures on anyone's part.quote:
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.
Except that you can't explain how a shell "inflates" around a neutron core, or how it remains in place against the gigantic gravitational fields. Nor can you actually explain the magnetic fields, but instead handwave at the problem of a simple plausibility calculation falling 1,000 times too low.quote:
The stable location of these surface fields however is related to something Birkeland discovered in his lab.
That's your theory, where is your evidence?quote:
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.
Yes, and your argument from similarity fails after that.quote:
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.
Oh? In what publication did he manage to explain the cause of solar magnetic fields?quote:
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.
Since we can't measure the magnetic fields inside the Sun, you're correct: measuring the Sun's density is trivial in comparison, yet your model utterly fails to make any predictions about the Sun's density. Complex, hidden things are difficult to explain, while the easy stuff like density is explained by the standard solar model, and not your model.quote:
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 amount of time you spent arguing about it says otherwise.quote:
The neutron core can be substancially smaller than 1 solar masses.
How much smaller?quote:
quote:
or how it's powered,
|
- 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 - 08/30/2006 : 14:35:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually I observe that it mostly absorbs the x-ray light in the photosphere, and it mostly scatters the 171A and 195A light in that region.
How is it that you can "observe" that when there's no indication in mossyohkoh.jpg of where the photosphere is in relation to anything else, and the 171A image is very clear?quote:
There may be some "scattered" x-ray light reaching the surface of the photosophere, but obviously not much.
What's that supposed to mean?quote:
quote:
That'd be more like Earth's atmosphere, which isn't a plasma.
What difference does that make?
Well, see, a non-plasma atmosphere isn't going to be affected by Thompson scattering, since it'd have so few free electrons in it. And then there are all the other physical differences between gasses and plasmas.quote:
quote:
As your buddy Nitta argued, only the loop tops are hot enough to emit X-rays.
Why are they only hot at the top?
Good question, and as Nitta says, it's being investigated.quote:
You mean to suggest that million degree plasma (seen in Trace) is incapable of emitting x-rays?
TRACE is incapable of seeing X-rays, for one thing. For another, I don't know the minimum temperature for some plasma or other to emit X-rays due to thermal processes. Do you? I know that X-rays can be emitted by free electrons undergoing accelerations, but that's a non-thermal process.
quote:
Dave, I've shown you images now from every major solar satellite program that consistently shows a direct relationship between high energy photon emissions and coronal loops.
Yes, and your argument assumes that the brightest pixels in each are emited by the hottest plasma seen by each, but the temperature response curves show that to be false.quote:
I did declare victory on that front a very long time ago. You've simply been dragging your feet and refusing to put any observational evidence on the table to support your ideas.
Me? You're the one with an idea, Michael, and you're refusing to provide a known-temperature test.
quote:
But Dave, scattering of x-rays would still occur in the chromosphere and corona. In fact some few scattered photons might excape through the photosphere as well.
Until you come up with a way of quantifying the scattering you claim happens, I'm free to ignore it as wild speculation, Michael. I've already agreed that the amount of scattering is more than zero, but most of the time that you bring up "scattering" the rate has to be significantly high to match the observations you're claiming. We know the scattering rate in the corona is very low, because there's a whole lot of corona (and so if the rate were even a few tenths of a percent per kilometer, the corona would be effectively opaque).quote:
A few photons seen by Yohkoh would demonstrate absolutely nothing.
I'm not talking about "a few photons," but some of the brightest yellow in the image, Michael.quote:
Here are links to information about the dates and times of the original images however in case you wish to play with them.
Thanks. |
- 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 - 08/30/2006 : 14:58:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here's a link to a paper that shows that Trace filters can actually see Calcium plasma around 4 million kelvin, and FE XX ion photons up to 20 million Kelvin.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
Good, that's the one I was thinking of, I lost my bookmark to it.quote:
quote:
Yes, the magnetic fields originate 200,000 km under the photosphere.
Yet somehow they supposedly only become visible 1000Km over the photosphere.
No, they only become visible to TRACE when the temperatures are high enough for TRACE to see the radiation. The magnetic fields are also quite visible in white light as sunspots on the photosphere.quote:
This perception problem goes back to Alfven's work. Astronomers still seem to be oblivious to the notion that magnetic fields and current flow and moving particles all go hand in hand as Alfven explained in his work on MHD theory.
What is it about Alfven's work to which I am oblivious, Michael?quote:
Instead, astronomers wish to separate one thing from another and try to talk about "frozen" magnetic fields in *light plasma* something that Alfven clearly warned them about and they never acknowledged.
Oh, good, you're not talking about anything I've said, after all. You're just preaching to your choir.quote:
Instead of using his *whole* body of work, they use an oversimplified version that fails to acknowledge his later work, and his warnings about the fact that *light plasma* behaves very differently than *dense plasma*, and kinetic energy, and current flow is part of the behaviors of light plamsa around magnetic fields.
Should we use the "*whole* body of work" of other Nobel Prize winning fruitcakes like Linus Pauling? Or should we instead recognize the point where they went off the deep end before the pool had filled up?quote:
This is an *allegation* made by gas model theorists, and it has never been demonstrated that *all* wavelengths are absorbed by a mostly neon photosphere.
Why should gas model theoriests demonstrate something about your model, Michael? They know that the photosphere isn't anywhere close to mostly being neon, and your name on a paper which uses the conclusions of Dr. Manuel's mass fractionation work as premises says that you agree. You should take your name off those papers if you disagree with Dr. Manuel's work.quote:
Gas model theoriests simply *assume* that no mass separation occurs...
That's not true and you know it, Michael.quote:
...and the photosphere is somehow a perfect absorber and emitter of *all* wavelengths of light.
Oh, what a complete crock of shit, Michael.
Your gross distortions of what the scientists say is far more destructive to any atmosphere of rational discussion than any "cheap shot" I might level at you, Michael. You're wrong about what the "gas model theorists" say about how opaque the photosphere is. It takes time to correct and recorrect your stupid misrepresentations.
If you're not going to present the arguments of your self-appointed "opponents" correctly, then it's clear that you're out for nothing but rhetorical and political gain here, Michael, and that you don't give a damn about the science (regardless of your transparent protestations to the contrary).quote:
This is a gross oversimplification since the material will factor into any absorption rates, as will the wavelengths in question.
This is true for Compton and Rayleigh Scattering, but not true for Thompson Scattering. Your repetitive denial of these facts is symptomatic of your inability to do science.quote:
Instead of acknowledging this point, Dave would have you believe we can use a generic, and grossly oversimplified math formula that takes nothing into account as it relates to the plasma materials.
And now you're doing it again: no matter how many times I acknowledge the half of your point that's correct, you "misunderstand" and claim that I've done no such thing.quote:
I didn't see him undermine anything related to my model Dave. As usual, you're "spinning" statements to suit yourself. :)
No, you're just trying out the "big tent" strategy of accepting everyone with a viewpoint somewhat similar to yours in an attempt to show that your ideas are "accepted" by more than just four people. It's a strategy that has served the religious right in America very well, but their tent is starting to rip at the seams as the disagreements between factions in the tent are becoming heated. You should learn their lesson, and thus fail to repeat history. Otherwise, in ten years, you and upriver will be at each other's throats as you continue to argue over coronal temperatures. |
- 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 : 16:21:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your incredulity is not a valid scientific objection to any argument.
Then likewise any of your incredulity toward my model over any percieved "weakness" you feel is a problem, carries exactly the same weight with me. If it's "ok" for gas model solar theory to leave such an important aspect of the solar operation utterly unexplained, then any "minor" little issues you might see in my model certainly cannot be any sort of scientific objection to my model.
I can at least explain the strong magnetic fields of the sun, and I can explain why the coronal loops stay in relatively fixed positions over extended periods of time. Gas model solar theory cannot do either of these things. Two points in my column.
quote:
Yes, and while you continue to get his model wrong, your own model will probably be wrong, too.
:) Ok, I'll bite. What did I get "wrong" about his model in your opinion?
quote:
No, gas theory right now can't explain either one of them: the mass is an independent variable, which is only measured and not explained. Your theory can't explain the mass of the Sun, either. And even though you say that you can explain the magnetic fields, you still haven't done so.
Yes I have. There is a spinning neutron core in the middle that rotates once every 5 minutes relative to *it's* spin axis, which is not necessarily aligned to the shell's spin axis. There are many theories about how neutron stars create magnetic fields, and that literature is not limited to myself and/or Dr. Manuel. Arxiv has lots of reference for you to peruse.
quote:
Once again, your incredulity isn't evidence of anything.
Then likewise, you objections to what I *cannot* explain in my model amounts to nothing more than incredulity on your part.
quote:
The fact that you have utterly failed to learn anything about the model you so freely criticize says only that you don't give a damn about whether it's right or wrong, you have faith that it has to be wrong because you have faith that your model is correct. Such faith precludes knowledge.
Pots and kettles Dave. You've actually taught me a lot about current solar theory that I didn't know. In fact you've more then freely pointed out it's weaknesses over the last few months. It's frankly worse than I thought, and I realize that now thanks in large part to what you've told me over the last few months.
I do in fact have "faith" that my interpretation is accurate, because of direct observation via a half dozen different satellite systems, and ground based observations. My faith is founded in "observation" however, not blind alegiance to any particular solar model, including my own. In fact I've changed my mind over the last year about something as important as the solar core. That should demonstrate to you that I am willing to listen and respond to valid criticisms.
You on the other hand keep defending a solar model that can't explain the heat source of the corona, offers no math to explain the heat signatures of the corona, can't explain the magnetic fields of the sun, and assumes that plasmas don't mass separate to any greate degree in the presense of strong magnetic fields sitting in a huge gravity well.
Like I said Dave, pots and kettles.
quote:
Of course, you don't have any evidence that anyone is assigning properties to the magnetic fields willy-nilly, but you feel free to suggest that people are doing so to prop up your fragile ego.
Oh but I do have evidence they are assigning properties to the fields "willy-nilly" in the form of Alfven's comments in his later papers. Light plasma moves in the presence of magnetic fields. Currents flow, and kenetic energy becomes a factor. Alfven explained all that in his later work, but did the astronomical community listen? No, they ignored all his later work, and even his chastizement for the community latching onto that idea of "frozen" magnetic fields. The oversimplified his work, even after he chastized them for it. I certainly do have evidence of this Dave, and your comments about them "just" being magnetic fields demonstrates my point very clearly. They cannot be "just" magnetic fields in the presense of light plasma.
quote:
After all, they aren't "mystery magnetic fields" even if mainstream science cannot explain their presence. They're obviously there and can be measured and hypothesized about. They can be compared to lab experiments and described by Alfven's magnetohydrodynamics. Even Alfven, though, was just guessing about what causes them.
But like Alfven explained Dave, these fields are not "frozen" in light plasma. Particle movement and current flow are also factors, but these aspects of his work have been totally forgotten.
quote:
Your incredulity isn't evidence of any failures on anyone's part.
You seem to have to say this quite often. I would think then that if this works for gas model theory, it should work for any solar theory. Lack of an explanation evidently can't rule out a solar model, and no solar model is immune from not being able to explain something important.
quote:
Except that you can't explain how a shell "inflates" around a neutron core, or how it remains in place against the gigantic gravitational fields.
As I said, I believe that charge repulsion, and the same forces we saw in that water bubble video play a roll. If you can't explain the magnetic core, then surely it's ok for me to "theorize" an explanation of charge repulsion, even if I can't demonstrate it yet. You haven't even put a good theory on the table to explain strong, stable magnetic fields at the surface, so I'm at least ahead of you in "ideas".
quote:
Nor can you actually explain the magnetic fields, but instead handwave at the problem of a simple plausibility calculation falling 1,000 times too low.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 17:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How is it that you can "observe" that when there's no indication in mossyohkoh.jpg of where the photosphere is in relation to anything else, and the 171A image is very clear?
I didn't phrase that particularly well. I simply meant that most of the x-ray light is being absorbed, while that does not seem to be the case for the iron ion photons. As you note, the 171A image is clear to the base and it is exposed for almost 28 seconds. There does not seem to be a lot of absorption happening at 171A, just *some* amount of limited scattering.
There is a very obvious indicator of where teh photosphere is in relationship to these loops, specifically the delineation point between the blue areas and the yellow ones. The tops of the loops are "bright" and "hot" because they come *through* the photosphere into hotter and thinner regions of the solar atmosphere. As they reach into the corona, the x-rays are no longer absorbed, and the lack of (relatively) cool plasma causes the arcs to glow brightly in these regions.
quote:
quote:
There may be some "scattered" x-ray light reaching the surface of the photosophere, but obviously not much.
What's that supposed to mean?
That means that while most of the x-ray light seems to be being absorbed by the photosphere, some of it may not be absorbed and a few photons may have been "scattered" in the photosphere, but still exit the photosphere.
quote:
Well, see, a non-plasma atmosphere isn't going to be affected by Thompson scattering, since it'd have so few free electrons in it.
Ok.
quote:
And then there are all the other physical differences between gasses and plasmas.
There are also some important similarities as well. The reason we can pin certain wavelengths to certain elements is because elements tend to emit and absorb energy on very specific wavelengths. One thing they would have in common is that the element in the atmosphere, and the wavelength in question would be relevant in any absortion or emission spectrums.
quote:
quote:
Why are they only hot at the top?
Good question, and as Nitta says, it's being investigated.
Meanwhile I already offered you the answer from a Birkeland perpective. Another point in my column.
quote:
TRACE is incapable of seeing X-rays, for one thing.
Yes, but Yohkoh would see it, if it's there and not being absorbed.
quote:
For another, I don't know the minimum temperature for some plasma or other to emit X-rays due to thermal processes. Do you? I know that X-rays can be emitted by free electrons undergoing accelerations, but that's a non-thermal process.
I don't really think this *is* a purely thermal process. The XST data does talk about plasma temperature minimums. I'd have to look and find some references for you, but you could probably Google it for yourself.
quote:
Yes, and your argument assumes that the brightest pixels in each are emited by the hottest plasma seen by each,
Not exactly. My arguement assumes that hot plasma will show up in filters that are designed to see hot plasma, and it assumes that scattering happens. Those are the only two assumptions I'm making. All these filters find hot plasma inside the coronal loops. I can't really be sure of the temperature of the corona itself, particularly in the darkest regions of the image, but is likely to be far less than the peak ranges of these filters, or collectively we'd see some evidence to that effect. We don't.
quote:
but the temperature response curves show that to be false.
No, they don't. If I remember correctly off the top of my head, the temperature response for the Yohkoh image is something like 2.5 to 5 million degrees, whereas the Trace filter is around a million degree peak temperature, with a small FE XX ion photon spike/sensitivity at 10 million degrees Kelvin.
Rhessi peaks out at somewhat higher energy states, but I can't recall reading any plasma temperature numbers associated with this satellite. There is probably some literature on this equipment on this issue as well.
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/objectives.htm
quote:
Me? You're the one with an idea, Michael, and you're refusing to provide a known-temperature test.
What kind of temperature test would you like, and how would that satisfy your needs? Would two images taken of a lightning bolt suffice. I meant to round you up such an image a while back and I got distracted and forgot about it. I'm sure I can find such images to demonstrate my technique works as specified. Why would you doubt this data related to temperature sensitivies?
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
quote:
quote:
But Dave, scattering of x-rays would still occur in the chromosphere and corona. In fact some few scattered photons might excape through the photosphere as well.
Until you come up with a way of quantifying the scattering you claim happens, I'm free to ignore it as wild speculation, Michael. I've already agreed that the amount of scattering is more than zero, but most of the time that you bring up "scattering" the rate has to be significantly |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 19:38:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The light in all the images is directly related to the number of photons coming from the sun striking that particular CCD pixel
As long as by "all the images" you mean "all the raw images". You really need to be more careful with your language in a scientific discussion, Michael.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
and therefore any patterns in the RD image are directly related to patterns in the light
output from the sun.
Features (patterns if you like) in the RD image are "directly related to" changes in patterns in the light output from the sun. Notice the extra word? It's like saying that the wavelength of atomic emission spectra is "directly related to" electronic energy levels, when really is's actually directly related to changes in electron energy levels. It's an important distinction which you seem to be be having difficulty with.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No one,as far as I'm aware, has suggested otherwise. But this says nothing about the fact that there is no light source for a difference image.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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?
Before I answer this, are you seriously suggesting that neither I or anyone else has posited any alternative light source for the images?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In the sense that the light source is a "functional representation" of the *changing lighting conditions*, then sure, it's an "abstraction" of sorts.
No, its an absolute abstraction. A light source for a a difference image is a non sequitur. Unless of course you want to re-define "light source".
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Of course everything in any image, raw or calculated, is ultimately determined by photon intensities. This statement really doesn't provide any useful information.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I agree that understanding the light sources for the raw images is important. However talking about the light sources for the differences images is pointless and demonstrates a failure to understand the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Geemack doesn't understand this because he claimed that the patterns were a result of the processing technique, and that is patently false.
The patterns are a result of the processing technique and the raw images themselves. I'm pretty sure I've read all of GeeMack's comments, and I haven't seen any evidence of mis-understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The "patterns" in the original images come from "patterns" in the light output from the sun.
So far so good.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is a direct correlation here between fixed light output patterns on the sun, and fixed patterns in the RD image.
If my "direct correlation" you mean "mathematical relationship", sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Nothing about the processing technique itself could possible create rigid patterns. Geemack is dead wrong on this point.
The technique doesn't "create" anything, it is a clearly defined process for getting from A and B to C. (Although, it should be pointed out that we don't know what the exact process is that was used to generate the "gold" video). This may seem to be semantics, but it isn't.
Algorithm's are chosen or designed to hig |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2006 : 19:53:01 [Permalink]
|
Michael, throughout this discussion you have consistently confused your guesses about the sun (your hypotheses), with "explanations" of certain features of the sun.
A guess is only a possibility, but as Dave has pointed out to you in the past, there are an infinite number of possibilities for any given phenomenon.
You don't get "points in your column" for unsubstantiated guesses. When you are able to fully tackle the problem and present a detailed explanation of your model, then, and only then, can you truthfully say your model explains something better than the standard solar model. Whining that the problems your model faces are too complicated for current mathematical formulas doesn't help you in the least. It only means that you have that much further to go before your model can be said to contribute anything noteworthy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/30/2006 19:53:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 09:23:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Then likewise any of your incredulity toward my model over any percieved "weakness" you feel is a problem, carries exactly the same weight with me. If it's "ok" for gas model solar theory to leave such an important aspect of the solar operation utterly unexplained, then any "minor" little issues you might see in my model certainly cannot be any sort of scientific objection to my model.
Who the hell said it was "ok" Michael?
You are attempting to claim that the current standard solar model is "worthless" by expressing your incredulity that it doesn't yet include an explanation of phenomena which are extremely difficult to study. You imply that we should ignore the stuff the standard model gets right just because it can't yet explain everything about the Sun. Nobody makes the claim that the standard solar model can currently explain (to the standards of every other theory of physics) the cause of the magnetic fields. Just because you think it should be able to is a problem with your expectations and your failure to understand what a physics theory is.
You, on the other hand, claim that your model can explain the "strong magnetic fields" of the Sun, but when a simple plausibility check is done on the basic idea, it comes up 1,000-fold too small. So you add more "explanation" on to the basic idea in an ad hoc manner, vilify others for failing to take into account that which you didn't bother to mention at first, and when asked to show how the new "model" of yours comes together, you appeal to pity that you're just one guy, and so can't be expected to have all the answers yet.
Tough luck, Michael. You said your model can explain the magnetic fields, but you demonstrate clearly that as it currently stands, your model cannot explain the magnetic fields. Claiming that some unknown materials under your alleged solid surface might have some unknown effects on the magnetic field generated by a neutron-star core doesn't actually explain anything, it's just a made-up rationalization with no testable details. And so you falsify your own claims about your model.
So there's the contrast: nobody makes any claims about the standard model being able to explain the cause of the magnetic fields, it doesn't, and so complaining that it doesn't won't actually show that what is in the model is wrong. You, on the other hand, claim your model does explain the cause of the magnetic fields, but when pressed for an explanation all you offer is speculation and excuses, so therefore your model doesn't explain the magnetic fields.
The cause of the magnetic fields is currently outside the scope of the standard model. That you choose to prematurely and incorrectly claim it is within the scope of your "model" is your problem, and yours alone. It has no bearing on the value of the standard solar model. |
- 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 - 08/31/2006 : 10:06:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The light in all the images is directly related to the number of photons coming from the sun striking that particular CCD pixel
As long as by "all the images" you mean "all the raw images". You really need to be more careful with your language in a scientific discussion, Michael.
But even the RD images are directly related to the *change* in the number of photons striking any particular CCD pixel.
quote:
Features (patterns if you like) in the RD image are "directly related to" changes in patterns in the light output from the sun. Notice the extra word? It's like saying that the wavelength of atomic emission spectra is "directly related to" electronic energy levels, when really is's actually directly related to changes in electron energy levels. It's an important distinction which you seem to be be having difficulty with.
I didn't seem to have any difficulty with the way you phrased it John.
quote:
No one,as far as I'm aware, has suggested otherwise.
Geemack did suggest otherwise. He claimed the patterns were caused by the *RD technique*, not the solar processes.
quote:
But this says nothing about the fact that there is no light source for a difference image.
I'm struggling here to get you to see the fact that there are light sources in each of the original images. The changes in the light sources are what "ultimately show up in RD images. It's the changes in the light source and in the lighting conditions that create such patterns. There is a direct relationship to many of these features and the light source itself.
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.
I don't frankly know anyone can look at Dave's image and not notice the presense of flowing coronal loops. You may have other ideas about some of the "smaller" light sources, but it's hard not to notice those giant coronal loops in the original images Dave put together.
quote:
Before I answer this, are you seriously suggesting that neither I or anyone else has posited any alternative light source for the images?
I don't recall asking you or anyone this question after Dave put up his video, so I can't say I've asked you or Dave to explain *this* specific image in terms of light source(s). We've all talked about it generically, but I'm simply trying to get more specific and relate things back to Dave's movie of the raw images.
quote:
No, its an absolute abstraction. A light source for a a difference image is a non sequitur. Unless of course you want to re-define "light source".
But there is a direct correlation to the light source in the original images and some of the "features" in the RD image. IMO, there is no *complete* abstraction of data in the sense you are suggesting. In order to explain some of the features in these images, you have to notice the changes to the light source, or in this case the changes to the coronal loops during the time in question. These changes show up in the "features". If you don't understand the relationship between the patterns in the image, and the changes to the light source, some of these "features" are unexplainable in purely abstract terms.
quote:
Of course everything in any image, raw or calculated, is ultimately determined by photon intensities. This statement really doesn't provide any useful information.
I'm trying to make my position more clear as we go. The only way I can explain several of the features in this image is to show you changes in the light source in this region between the raw images in Dave's video. Having the two movies side by side like this makes the "analysis" a lot easier, but the first thing you have to acknowledge is that any "patterns" in these images is related to patterns in the solar output, not the technique itself.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I agree that understanding the light sources for the raw images is important. However talking about the light sources for the differences images is pointless and demonstrates a failure to understand the process.
No John. Not talking about the light sources in the original images that directly affect the difference images demonstrates a failure to understand the process. The light sources are critical in understanding a number of features in the RD image. We can't understand the RD image features in some cases unless we understand the "changes" that occured in the light sources in the original images. We can't abstract thing completely and expect to understand what's going in in RD images.
quote:
The patterns are a result of the processing technique and the raw images themselves. I'm pretty sure I've read all of GeeMack's comments, and I haven't seen any evidence of mis-understanding.
quote:
Geemack: There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the im |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/31/2006 10:17:04 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 10:41:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, throughout this discussion you have consistently confused your guesses about the sun (your hypotheses), with "explanations" of certain features of the sun.
A guess is only a possibility, but as Dave has pointed out to you in the past, there are an infinite number of possibilities for any given phenomenon.
Then this is also true of every "guess" of gas model theory as well. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, then why do astronomers fixate on *one* possible explantion of solar activity based on gas model "guesses"?
quote:
You don't get "points in your column" for unsubstantiated guesses.
I don't have any "unsubstanciated guesses", just observations and good scientific explanations for these direct observations.
quote:
When you are able to fully tackle the problem and present a detailed explanation of your model, then, and only then, can you truthfully say your model explains something better than the standard solar model.
I already see many ways that a Birkeland solar model is superior to gas model solar theories, and I have given a "detailed" explanation of many things related to a Birkeland model, including a couple of key prediction for the STEREO data. I've already been in touch with Russ Howard who's in charge of the Secchi gear on STEREO about the timeline between the launch of STEREO and the data release. He's also answered some questions for me about the format of the data release. Based on what Russ has told me, STEREO should start returning images in about 3 months so we can start "testing" some of my predictions.
quote:
Whining that the problems your model faces are too complicated for current mathematical formulas doesn't help you in the least.
The only thing I've really "whined" about is your need to oversimplify every solar process just to shoehorn everything into some simplified math forumula. The total output of the sun, and the temperature of a sunspots are perfect examples of this gross oversimplification process that goes on in astronomy today. Evidently if you can't quantify something mathematically with a sophisticated model, the next best thing to do is oversimplify the process so it can be shoehorned into a simplified math formula for the purposes of writing a paper.
quote:
It only means that you have that much further to go before your model can be said to contribute anything noteworthy.
Well, so be it. It won't be "my" model then that ultimately becomes 'noteworthy' over time as you put it. It will be *our* model (as in lots of people working on the problem) that does so. All I'm trying to do right now is explain the basics of how the sun functions based on direct satellite observations of solar activity. I have no illusions about the fact that it will take time for a Birkeland solar model to "mature". It won't fully "mature" until others have joined the cause. If you have some illusion about expecting me to personally do all the work on this model to make it "noteworthy", let it go. That won't happen. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 11:04:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Geemack did suggest otherwise. He claimed the patterns were caused by the *RD technique*, not the solar processes.
No, Michael. You can back pedal all you want. You can continue to intentionally misrepresent what I've said and what I mean all you like, but your quote mining and intentional misinterpretation of my comments does not change the meaning or intent of my comments. It makes you a liar. As I've said several times before, since you're the only one who misunderstands what I've said, I'm willing to accept that it's your lousy communication skills and/or your total lack of scientific integrity creating your problem.
But in case there's some remote possibility that you might understand with one more attempt, here you go. I stated that running difference images do not show any solid features or surfaces on the Sun. I stated that what you believe to be light sources and shadows in running difference images, the "patterns" that you mistakenly believe show solid surfaces, are in fact an effect which occurs because of the processing involved in creating running difference images. There are no light sources in running difference images. I have always been aware that input images are necessary to create a running difference output, and that there are indeed light sources in those original images. Got it?
The bottom line is this: The running difference images under consideration are assembled from data which was gathered from thousands of kilometers above your allegedly solid surface. For you to continue to claim the running difference results might somehow magically show a solid surface several thousand kilometers below the opaque surface of the photosphere, when in fact the data used to produce the original images came from thousands upon thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, makes you look like a complete idiot.
The running difference images you claim as evidence supporting your fruitcake fantasy do not show any solid structure or surfaces. You've been asked to demonstrate that they do, but instead of doing so, you'd rather try to push the burden of proof back onto other people. And when that ball-less tactic doesn't work, all you can do is start into your juvenile semantics games and toss around more strawmen. If you had a way to actually support your silly claim you would have done so by now. It's safe to say that you can't. 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 11:45:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Who the hell said it was "ok" Michael?
Do you mean besides every college on the planet that teaches an incomplete gas model theory to their students to the exclusion of every other possible solar model?
quote:
You are attempting to claim that the current standard solar model is "worthless" by expressing your incredulity that it doesn't yet include an explanation of phenomena which are extremely difficult to study.
No, I'm trying to point out that there is no useful scientific purpose in putting *any* single solar model on a pedestal, to the exclusion of all other possible solar theories. Even gas model theory leaves *giant* issues utterly unexplained. If gas model theory offers no explanation for the strong and stable magnetic fields we record at the solar surface, then surely Birkeland's lab work which *did* not only explain the process but "simulated" it in a lab, should also be taught in college classrooms today. Birkeland's simulation not only explained these kinds of magnetic fields, it replicated them. Alfven even layed out the plasma movements mathmatically. All of these things require "electricity" however, and that seems to be the one thing that astronomers today absolutely and positively refuse to acknowledge.
quote:
You imply that we should ignore the stuff the standard model gets right just because it can't yet explain everything about the Sun.
I didn't say that Dave. I'm just looking for parity right now, not superiority. You folks have sure implied that we should ingore the things I can explain because of the things I cannot. There can be no double standards here, not in gas model favor, or any other solar theory.
quote:
Nobody makes the claim that the standard solar model can currently explain (to the standards of every other theory of physics) the cause of the magnetic fields.
But Dave, strong magnetic fields at the surface are a significant issue that must be explained. Alfven offered us a way to do that using current flow and MHD theory. Plasma filaments form plasma where current is present. All of these things are related, but gas model theorists refuse to embrace the current flow, and therefore they cannot explain such strong magnetic fields, or the heat signatures in coronal loops. The whole problem relates back to the resistance of accepting that electricity plays a large role in astronomy.
quote:
Just because you think it should be able to is a problem with your expectations and your failure to understand what a physics theory is.
The failure isn't mine Dave. I understand a way to explain this problem through the physics of electrical current flowing through plasma. Alfven already explained a lot of this stuff mathmatically far better than I could ever hope to. I'm learning, but I can see that there is already a physical explanation for these phenomenon that works. The fact that astronomy won't embrace current flow is the where the failure occurs, and it has nothing to do with me.
quote:
You, on the other hand, claim that your model can explain the "strong magnetic fields" of the Sun, but when a simple plausibility check is done on the basic idea, it comes up 1,000-fold too small.
You are absolutely *refusing* to accept all my statements about current flowing through MHD plasma loops.
quote:
So you add more "explanation" on to the basic idea in an ad hoc manner,
I totally resent that statement Dave. There's nothing *ad hoc* that I've added. For months now I've been trying to get you to commit to the heat signatures, and accept that current flows through these arcs. If we had not had tons of conversations about the nature of coronal loops, your statements might make sense, but frankly these comments are downright insulting since *you've* been doing all the footdragging and even my website refers to them as "arcs".
quote:
vilify others for failing to take into account that which you didn't bother to mention at first,
I'm not vilifying you or anyone else here. I actually respect you more than you realize. I don't agree with all of your opinions, but you have a lot of redeeming qualities. I certainly have no desire to vilify you at all. You do know somewhere deep down inside that I did not just "make up" the concept that current flows through these loops. I didn't just "make that up" right now. Virtually the threads will verify that we've discussed these issues in depth. To suggest then that I did not mention these things first, is utterly false.
quote:
and when asked to show how the new "model" of yours comes together, you appeal to pity that you're just one guy, and so can't be expected to have all the answers yet.
Come on Dave, I am just one guy. If gas model theory can be taught in college and leave out explanations for some *highly* important aspects of solar observation, then surely a Birkeland solar model deserves some air time as well. If hundreds of thousands of gas model theorists can fail to explain such critical things as these, then other solar models that can explain such issues certainly deserve consideration, especially with so few individuals currently working on the model.
quote:
Tough luck, Michael. You said your model can explain the magnetic fields, but you demonstrate clearly that as it currently stands, your model cannot explain the magnetic fields.
Yes it can, but only by recognizing the role of elecricity in solar activity.
quote:
Claiming that some unknown materials under your alleged solid surface might have some unknown effects on the magnetic field generated by a neutron-star core doesn't actually explain anything, it's just a made- |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 11:51:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
No, Michael. You can back pedal all you want.
With all the backpeddling you've been doing recently, you really pegged the irony meter on that one. Like I said Geemack, you're the only individual I've met here that is simply incapable of engaging in intelligent and mature dialog. Everyone else here is able to have an adult discussion without all the "fruitcake" and "idiot" comments in every single post. Only an immature, self centered asshole who completely lacks any self confidence would act as you do. Grow up.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
