|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2006 : 17:55:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
That which is highlighted in a running difference image is the difference (whod've thunk it?). What remains the same from image to image (like say, a solid surface) is removed.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, let's start by dispelling a few misconceptions right from the start. Unless the lighting conditions stay *exactly* the same from one frame to the next, and the surface never moves, the surface will reflect light differently at different times.
True, if the light source changes significantly enough. You are assuming, of course that there is a light "source" above your "surface". If it is the arcs as you are suggesting some things need to be true:
1. Your "surface" needs to diffusely reflect 171A light. Have you any evidence of this?. (The image itself is not evidence, the photon source could well be emission from something other than your "surface", in fact that's certainly a more intuitive observation in my opinion.)
2. As you are claiming that we can "see" the source, and this source is presumably emitting "up" and "down" equally, where are the streaks/lines from the source itself?
3. Following on from point 2, the TRACE insturment should be recording 171A light directly from the source itself as well, for there to be enough contrast between this and the "surface", the surface is going to have reflect (still diffusely, if we are to see it's structure as you describe it) a high proportion of the light. What mass separated material do you have in mind that meets this requirement?
Analogy: Imagine holding a light globe, fluorescent tube or some other distributed point source which is at least vaguely arc-like over a section of ground around 1 meter square. In my analogy, I'm not sure how far above the surface the source should be (how far above your surface are the arcs?), whether it's several mm or a few metres, the analogy still works. Now go a few kilometres away and take a picture of it. Would you expect to be able to see the light source? Would it be brighter or darker than the features it illuminates?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're comparing apples to oranges. No one is going to deny that might be able to you create "similar" kinds of images in running difference images using software and graphic programs. These images weren't created that way, and your example really doesn't explain anything that relates to these actually images, or relates to anything happening on the sun.
Excellent, Seeing as you know how these images were created, you can explain it to me. I can't find a good description on the TRACE web site. I'm going to attempt to re-create some of the analysis from raw data I've received. Any other inside information you have regarding the methodolgy for generating the "gold" video would be much appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only thing that seems to be the "same" as far as I can tell is the fact you subtracted one image from the other. The rest really doesn't apply to all the angular structures we see in the Lockheed RD image, nor does that explain how or why all these "structures" stay in the same relationships to one another while floating on something thinner than aerogel that is boiling and convecting and changing it's cells every 8 minutes or so.
My previous point addresses some of this. Remember though, we don't see any structures. You are interpreting features in a running difference image as structures.
If you want my opinion, what we are seeing is changes in topographic distibution (as the direct source of the Iron ions, not reflecting them) of a plasma. I won't pretend to understand the fluid dynamics going on to produce them, but considering the size of the pixels, anyone would be kidding themselves to think the could "see" exactly what is going on. After a quick perusal of earth oceanographic and geological studies, I would suggest that it's not at all unusual to see fluid "structures" maintain their relationships with respect to others at different or similar temperatures, pressures and/or compositions, be it 8 seconds, 8 minutes or 8 weeks.
I intend to study the raw data I now have to give some more detail where I can.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually the raw images show these same "structures", albeit with a kind of "fog" over them. The RD image simply removes the 'fog' we typically see in the raw SOHO images. Flares tend to have the same affect by the way.
That's not how any difference algorithm I've ever seen works. So somehow it discriminates between moving (due to illumiation changes) surfaces and moving (either because it actually moves, or the same illumination changes) fog? How do flares have a similar effect, are they enhanced or removed?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Artifacts don't rotate uniformly from pole to equator, and artifacts don't have mountain ranges and valleys.
They do if the underlying causes do. If a fluid has the approriate intensity/spatial distribution, it could look exactly "like" a mountain range or valley. Remember, the "structures" you "see" in an RD image don't actually exist as you "see" them anymore than ghosts I "see" in a multiple exposure (running sum, in this instance) picture taken of crowd.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
If the entire surface of the sun was a sea-like plasma of iron, with storms, tidal waves and tsunamis's of the scale of Earth's seas, with the resolution of the instruments we have, the sun's surface would appear completely flat.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I agree, which is why I think the surface is solid. If it were plasma, it would behave much like the photosphere, move around relatively quickly like the photosophere, convect heat like the photophere and be relatively flat like the photosphere.
So it has to be either solid or a plasma which behaves like the photosphere? Not a false dichotomy perhaps? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 18:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off your allegedly solid surface.
Oh Balony. You literally handwaved away the whole Lockheed RD image I see. You never did explain how all those "structures" remained fixed even while the arcs moved around during the time in question.
What you "See" isn't evidence. I see difference images showing changing emission intensities from a plasma surface of some sort. You "see" fixed surfaces via reflection of iron ions from another source. Both are just handwaving without supporting evidence. "Look at the pictures - they look solid to me" isn't evidence, especially when it isn't an image of anything real in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You have presented no evidence that 171A light reflects off of dust.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael MozinaThe how about tackling that Lockheed RD image in earnest and tell me what that dust drifting off to the left is all about? How come we see it? What temperature is it? Why is it moving when none of the rest of these structures moves?
We don't even know it is dust! It could be the result of something overhead shadowing the "surface" underneath, or something cooler (or simply not iron ions or reflecive of them) pushing through the surface.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 18:55:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The arc is the light source of all the iron filters on SOHO and TRACE, and that is most certainly true of the SXT filters on Yohkoh as well. The arc has all the electricity and all the heat. That's why they emit light as we see in this Yohkoh images near the dawn of the new millennium:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/millenniummini.jpg
Are you seriously suggesting that an arc with this sort of geometry:
Is the illumination source for the following images:
I think you need to do way better than that.
1. How is the illumination source so local?
2. Why does the illumination not grow/move uniformly over the visible frame (don't forget the relative scale differences between the first image and my collage).
3.Why doesn't the incredibly brightly illuminated "mountain" region in section 2 illuminate some of the "ground" around it? It would seem that the "rays" from the illumantion source must be directed ina beam the same shape as the "mountain" itself. It's bright enough to saturate the detector on the mountain peak (which is usually angled and therefeore less reflective than flash parts around it) section of the image, but leave relatively untouched a section directly in between some of the saturdated regions.
4. Why do the curved shadow regions in the top-centre parts of sections 3 and 4 grow so much when none of the illumiation of the rest of the image changes accordingly?
None of these observations make sense for the external, overhead illumination source of being "reflected" off the solid surface as you have proposed.
I can imagine all of these features being produced quite easily by a plasma surface with varying iron ion emission properties, be it though local temperature, geometry or other methods. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 02/16/2006 21:17:04 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:38:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Are you seriously suggesting that an arc with this sort of geometry:
.....
Is the illumination source for the following images:
Yes. Then again the arcs in the top image are only the largest arcs, the ones that stick out of the photosphere. Most of these arcs are much smaller and closer to the surface itself.
quote:
I think you need to do way better than that.
1. How is the illumination source so local?
If the bulk of the major electrical activity is localized to a specific area, then the lighting from the surface will reflect this localized light.
quote:
2. Why does the illumination not grow/move uniformly over the visible frame (don't forget the relative scale differences between the first image and my collage).
Why would you expect it to grow uniformly in the first place? The local conditions near the surface will dictate when and where the light changes. You'll notice that all the lit areas are along the right hand sides of these structures. This is because the plasma covering the surface is moving from right to left and the plasma flowing over the surface features causes greater electrical activity on the "windward" side of the mountain ranges.
quote:
3.Why doesn't the incredibly brightly illuminated "mountain" region in section 2 illuminate some of the "ground" around it?
It does iluminate some of the mountian range just to the north and right on the left base (foot) of the arc.
quote:
It would seem that the "rays" from the illumantion source must be directed ina beam the same shape as the "mountain" itself. It's bright enough to saturate the detector on the mountain peak (which is usually angled and therefeore less reflective than flash parts around it) section of the image, but leave relatively untouched a section directly in between some of the saturdated regions.
I get the feeling that you are expecting only the largest arcs to illuminate the surface. More likely based on what we see it is the smaller, but more intense electrical activity near the surface itself that affects most of the lighting differences from on frame to the next.
quote:
4. Why do the curved shadow regions in the top-centre parts of sections 3 and 4 grow so much when none of the illumiation of the rest of the image changes accordingly?
These are simply the areas that are experiencing the most electrical activity at that time. Again, it's not so much the largest arcs that provide the bulk of the light we see. The whole surface is 'active', at least on a smaller scale. The best way to get a handle on what's going on near the surface is to checkout the H-alpha emissions seen in BBSO images. The arcs themselves are not limited to just the "big boys". In fact, there is activity all along the surface.
quote:
None of these observations make sense for the external, overhead illumination source of being "reflected" off the solid surface as you have proposed.
You neglected to notice all the shadowing going on along the left side.
quote:
I can imagine all of these features being produced quite easily by a plasma surface with varying iron ion emission properties, be it though local temperature, geometry or other methods.
You have a serious problem trying to explain this as plasma, since these structures remain in fixed relationships to one another throughout this multi-hour long video. The structures of the photosphere are created and destroyed every 8 minutes on average. The plasma in the photosphere shows very clear signs of differential rotation and structure change over *very* short timelines because of it's "texture". The plasma of the photosphere acts much like a liquid. It convects heat to the surface of the penumbra much like boiling liquid convects heat into the air. The movement of plasma is very different than this 'rigid' behavior where none of the structure move in relationship to one another. In fact there is one point, just after the CME, where particles from the surface are lifted into the plasma atmosphere and drift off to the upper right. This shows us the direction of travel of the plasma in relationship to the surface features, and that direction of movement explains why the right side of all these mountain ranges are lit up, while the left half is in shadow. The right side, facing the plasma flow is the most electrically active. It therefore outshines the activity on the left side of these mountain ranges, leaving a shadow affect on the left each of the structures in the image.
You'll even notice a "pealing" affect going on along the right side of this image where the base of the electrical arcs are eating away the outer surface layer. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/17/2006 10:40:40 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:53:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
What you "See" isn't evidence. I see difference images showing changing emission intensities from a plasma surface of some sort.
If we were looking at just a single image, technically it 'could' be a surface made of plasma. We however are looking at a TIMEFRAME of images that far and away exceeds the 8 minute recreation of convection cells in the photosphere, and the photosphere is very dense and less active in comparison to anything above the photosphere. The fact that we see no *change* in these structures, over such long periods of time however demonstrates that it cannot be a plasma. You wouldn't likely see shading in plasma that favored a particular side of the image. In other words, we wouldn't expect to see all the shadows on the left side of the surface areas if the surface is emitting this light.
quote:
We don't even know it is dust! It could be the result of something overhead shadowing the "surface" underneath, or something cooler (or simply not iron ions or reflecive of them) pushing through the surface.
We have every reason to think that these are 'particles' of the surface since that is where they seem to come from, not just in the center mind you, but we see this happening all over the surface. We do see these particles move from the bottom right toward the upper left. That movement of these particles is completely unlike the fixed behavior of the surface itself. This shows us the movement of the plasma in relationship to these structures. The structures however remain quite fixed in relationship to the movement of the plasma.
The bottom line here is that plasma doesn't behave like this. Kosovichev has documented "waves" on the plasma layer of the photosphere that resemble what you'd expect to see in water. The waves even ripple out from a central point in that tsunami video on my website. Plasma isn't rigid. It moves and flows like the convection cells on the photosphere in a way that resembles the movement of liquid or thick gas. The structures of the photosophere are created and destroyed every 8 minutes on average. We simply do not see this kind of rigid behavior in plasma.
Again, I point you to the fact that these structures remain in fixed relationship to one another, even over the course of many hours. In fact in the SOHO RD image, you can see that the whole surface has such "structure", and these structures rotate uniformly from pole to equator and they last for days, and even weeks. That is not what we see in the plasma layers. These layers change much more dynamically, and there is obvious differential rotation in these plasma layers.
FYI, I'll try to "keep up" as I get time, but I'm going to be a bit less active here over the next few weeks. I've got a lot of projects to complete, and this job doesn't pay my bills. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/17/2006 11:13:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 12:08:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I've actually requested and downloaded a data package from the TRACE site. I've got around 50MB worth of data from 28-AUG-00 17:00:00 to 28-AUG-00 17:10:00. I'm going to see what I can extract from these (hopefully raw) images and see what that tells us about illumination sources, amongst other things. If nothing else I might be able to determine the type of algorithm used.
There are what, 44 or 45 images in those ten minutes? Hell, this is confusing. Michael says the "gold" video spans at least 3 hours, but it's only about 76 frames. There were 154 171A-images taken between 16:00 and 19:00 on August 28th of 200.
Okay, yeah, I recounted and got 76 frames in the "gold" video again. The X-shaped lens flare seen in Lockheed's single frame they say was taken at 17:07. There are multiple frames at 17:07, however. But, the brightest frame with lens flare is at 17:07:35, and by my count, this corresponds with frame 48 of the movie.
Note that the very next 171A image is so badly hazed over that it's obvious it's not included in the movie. In fact, it looks like every frame with a deviation of less than 25.0 has been skipped, as they're all really crappy (the ones with an EXP of 1.0 instead of 16.4). So, redoing the search with a minimum DEV of 25.0 gives us, coincidentally, 154 images between 15:00 and 19:00.
Now, there's a nifty bunch of dots which appear quite obviously in the upper-right corner of movie frames 38 and 39. If I'm right about which frames are included and which aren't, then counting backwards from frame 48 (at 17:07:35) tells us that frames 38 and 39 are images at 17:03:11 and 17:03:35, and indeed the 17:03:11 and 17:03:35 images are peppered with instrument transients.
So, figuring that because my prediction above appears to be correct, then counting backwards a further 37 images from the one at 17:03:11 gets us to the image at 16:01:55 being frame 1, and counting forward from the lens flare would make the image at 17:36:57 the last frame of the movie.
The movie, then, spans a whole hour and thirty-five minutes (and two seconds).
Or maybe not. Searching between 16:00 and 17:40 for 171A images with a Std. Dev. of 25.0 or more results in 80 images, only three of which are outside the times specified above, so I must have miscounted (80-3=77, not 76) somewhere. Of course, I didn't actually break the movie apart, but have been trying to count frames in MediaPlayer and/or QuickTime, neither of which has an easy "single frame forward" function. |
- 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 - 02/17/2006 : 12:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is because the plasma covering the surface is moving from right to left and the plasma flowing over the surface features causes greater electrical activity on the "windward" side of the mountain ranges.
Now, considering that the photosphere rotates around the Sun faster than your allegedly solid shell (according to your stated rotation rate), and they're both going from left to right, and the material launched by a CME can go pretty much in any direction, how is it that you know that the "plasma wind" is going against the primary flow?
(Actually, comparing just the 16:01:55 image and the 17:36:57 image makes it obvious that all of the "action" has shifted by a good 15 pixels or so from left to right, so my hypothesis - that the frames in the movie have been "recentered" so that they don't show the rotation of the Sun - looks to be correct.)quote:
You have a serious problem trying to explain this as plasma, since these structures remain in fixed relationships to one another throughout this multi-hour long video.
An hour-and-a-half, it seems.quote:
The structures of the photosphere are created and destroyed every 8 minutes on average.
Once again, you have still failed to show any reason at all why we should expect corona regions to show the same 8-minute differences as the photosphere.quote:
The plasma in the photosphere shows very clear signs of differential rotation and structure change over *very* short timelines because of it's "texture".
You still have the wrong idea about what "differential rotation" means, as it simply will not be seen at all on an eight-minute timescale when it is measured in degrees per day, always less than 15°/day, in fact. Eight minutes' time will show perhaps 0.08° of rotation, and you and I both know that any rotation you'd care to measure of the granules or filaments is far greater than 0.08°. "Differential rotation" does not measure the eight-minute changes in the photosphere, it records the differences in rotation rates of sunspots around the Sun's axis as one goes from equator to pole.quote:
The plasma of the photosphere acts much like a liquid. It convects heat to the surface of the penumbra much like boiling liquid convects heat into the air. The movement of plasma is very different than this 'rigid' behavior where none of the structure move in relationship to one another.
Since neither your explanation or the standard explanation of this movie involves the photosphere at all, your continued attempts to compare the standard explanation to the movement of the photosphere is simply a straw man argument, Michael.quote:
In fact there is one point, just after the CME, where particles from the surface are lifted into the plasma atmosphere and drift off to the upper right. This shows us the direction of travel of the plasma in relationship to the surface features...
If they drift off to the upper right, then the "plasma wind" must be going left-to-right, and not right-to-left as you claimed earlier in this same post. Or, you meant "upper left" in the above paragraph. |
- 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 - 02/17/2006 : 13:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The fact that we see no *change* in these structures, over such long periods of time however demonstrates that it cannot be a plasma.
I see tons of change in just 1.5 hours.quote:
You wouldn't likely see shading in plasma that favored a particular side of the image.
The "shading" is an artifact of the algorithm used.quote:
In other words, we wouldn't expect to see all the shadows on the left side of the surface areas if the surface is emitting this light.
If the material is emitting that light, then those aren't shadows at all, and any attempt to explain them as shadows will obviously fail.quote:
This shows us the movement of the plasma in relationship to these structures.
That's true if (and only if) you assume the CME occured straight up from the "surface," and all the motion is due to your alleged wind. If, however, a powerful CME occured at an angle against the "wind," we would see precisely the same thing as is in that video. In other words, the video by itself is not enough to determine the wind direction, you also have to know the angle at which that material was ejected from the "surface."quote:
The bottom line here is that plasma doesn't behave like this.
The bottom line is that we have no reason to believe that the plasma in the photosphere behaves exactly the same as the plasma in the corona. In fact, because we know that convection occurs below the photosphere, and we have no evidence of convection in either the chromospher or corona, we know that the photosphere and the corona will behave in very different ways.quote:
We simply do not see this kind of rigid behavior in plasma.
I don't see much rigid behaviour in the movie, actually.quote:
Again, I point you to the fact that these structures remain in fixed relationship to one another, even over the course of many hours.
1.5 hours.quote:
In fact in the SOHO RD image, you can see that the whole surface has such "structure", and these structures rotate uniformly from pole to equator and they last for days, and even weeks.
I already showed that their rotation was not uniform, and all you had to say was "why did you measure it on such a long timebase," further reinforcing the fact that you've got no idea what "differential rotation" means despite being corrected over and over again.quote:
FYI, I'll try to "keep up" as I get time, but I'm going to be a bit less active here over the next few weeks. I've got a lot of projects to complete, and this job doesn't pay my bills. :)
Just don't forget that you've still got:- circular evidence that soft X-rays are absorbed by the photosphere while extreme UV isn't,
- no evidence that TRACE can see anything 3,480 km (or 4,800 km) below the photosphere,
- self-generated evidence that all of helioseismology is invalid,
- no evidence that acceleration affects our ability to accurately measure mass,
- no evidence that dark matter or dark energy could generate even a 0.007% difference in our measurement of the Sun's density,
- an isotope analysis which fails to work for Earth (so why should we think it'll work for the Sun?),
- no evidence of mass separation within the Sun which doesn't rely upon the assumption that there is mass separation within the Sun,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model used an iron sphere,
- no evidence that Birkeland's model wouldn't be applicable to a big ball of plasma,
- no evidence that electric arcs can accelerate electrons to high energies,
- your own statement that your assertions of a neon layer and a silicon layer are wild guesses,
- a superb ability to ignore people who point out your flawed methods of analysis (for one example, see "blackbody radiation" and your attempt to apply it to iron ions),
- an even more fantastic ability to redefine terms and then refuse to divulge your own personal meanings,
- a super-incredible ability to quantify almost nothing about your model, and still claim its validity,
- and so, in short, you've got no evidence that there is anything solid in the Sun.
|
- 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 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 18:53:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This should hardly be surprising by the way, since our own sun has quite a thick layer of silicon in the umbra.
It's not even surprising without an unknown thickness of unverified silicon in an undefined place called "the umbra." |
- 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 - 02/18/2006 : 17:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What does his website have to do with your model?
Pretty much everything Dave, since the coronal loops are the light source. You can't really "interpret" solar images without understanding the light source, and the cause of the light source. If Lockheed can't distinguish between "hot" areas and "cool" ones, then they have a "very" serious problem.
I'm going to try to catch up a bit today, but I can see I missed a lot of posts, and I've got things of my own to finish today.
quote:
Then why is it a smooth line when we deal with solids? Really, Michael, a black body is defined as a material which absorbs most of the radiation which hits it, and emits at all wavelengths. High-temperature iron and calcium plasmas fail to meet the definition, because they're transparent to most radiation and emit only at specific frequencies (except for the continuum, which is generated by electron collisions and not electromagnetic radiation).
Yet somehow you figure that the photosphere emits light as a black body continuum? I'm confused now. When is it "ok" to use black body priniciples on "thin" plasmas, and exactly when do such ideas no longer apply. This whole argument about black body radiation goes "way" beyond this single image. If Lockheed cannot tell the difference between hot areas of the solar atmosphere and cool ones, we can't really depend on anything they might try to "interpret" from satellite images.
quote:
You also can't miss the fact that an million-Kelvin plasma is not a black body and expect to analyze the power output of the Sun correctly.
Wrong! If these plasmas are hot enough to be "seen" by Yohkoh and Trace and SOHO, then they are million degree areas of plasma. If there is no light from the surrounding plasma, then these plasmas are not million degree plasmas. You can't have it both ways. If plasma emits light that is consistent with million degree temps, and other plasma does not, then you can't run around insisting that the dark areas are hotter than the bright ones.
quote:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a blackbody calculation is appropriate.
I'm sort of blown away here. First of all you agreed with me that Lockheed "blew it" on the labeling, dispite the fact that no one, not even the moderators of the Bautforum recognized or admitted to this error during 10 pages of debate. Now in my book that makes you credible on a scientific level. On the other hand, you are ignoring that the whole point of my excersize was to tie back the whole notion of heat concentration to basic principles of black body radiation, something astronomers rely upon to determine sizes of distant objects based on their output, etc. Now we see obvious glowing plasma in areas where light and heat are concentrated, according to Yohkoh's SXT continuum. That instrument has a much more "broader" range of view. When it looks down upon these solar moss events, something blocks the x-ray emissions down where TRACE observes the base of the arc. As the arcs rise though the x-ray "absorbing" layer, the arcs/loops begin to glow in a way that is very consistant with black body principles and million degree plasmas.
That Trace/Yohkoh overlay image shows a lot of very important details about the energy output spectrum of the sun. It demonstrates that the heat is concentrated in the coronal loops, as is the light. From conversation with both NASA and Lockheed, they do not comprehend this most basic of issues. If these principles of black body radiation can be used by astronomers then they must also abide by their principles as it relates to solar light and solar heat. You can't just ignore the fact that the coronal loops, and particularly the base of these coronal loops are the hottest parts of the sun. This is a very important issue, and a very basic issue. If NASA and Lockheed haven't even recognized what you and I have already agreed to, how in the world do you expect me to trust them about anything related to solar satellite image analysis?
quote:
An clearly you don't understand the limits of the blackbody equations.
That is false. The only way you can claim to know if my equations are valid or invalid is to claim to know the position of the transitional layer in advance. You don't know. NASA doesn't know. Lockheed Martin doesn't know either. That third dimension is assumed and has *always* (even before launch) been assumed. It has not ever been verified to exist above the photosophere. If it exists below the photosphere as well as above it, then my equations apply perfectly.
I think to save time, I'm going to skip some redunancy and have you demonstrate that these hot zones exist only above the photosphere. That is your claim, but you have yet to demonstrate it. You wish to make me show equations to demonstrate they could come from underneath the photosphere, but you have never identified the material of the penumbra, or the umbra, or demonstrated that they are even the same material.
quote:
Indeed they do: you haven't grasped why, and because you keep repeating your new "special pleading" mantra, you'll probably never grasp the difference between the photosphere and the corona, besides the temperature.
You've yet to demonstrate that the bulk of these emissions come from the corona in the first place. The special pleading here is trying to claim we already know the location of these emissions.
quote:
I agree that the loops are hot and that something is wrong with that description,
But that is the part that scares the hell out of me Dave. You and I can see that Lockheed Martin has a serious problem with their analysis of this image, but they cannot. I've emailed them about this very image. They defended their position over a period of several days and offered no logical explanation. About all I can do is assume that their ability to discern the light source and heat source of solar satellite images is hopelessly flawed. That is the only logical explanation that exists. You can't then expect me to agree with their placement of the transition layer either. It's just as illogical as the rest of their analysis.
quote:
but I don't agree that a black body calculation is either necessary to show t |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/18/2006 17:43:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 18:32:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sigh. I'm asking you for an algorithm I can use to determine which pixels are direct emissions, and which represent reflections, and which are both.
The algorithms would all relate to proximity to the coronal loops/arcs.
quote:
I don't see any reflections at all in that video, and need to know how you determine these things before I can "see" things from your point of view.
Ok. Let there be light. :)
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/trace10.jpg
All the light we see in 171A, 195A and 284A, and x-rays is directly related to the current flowing through the arcs that come from the surface. That is "my" point of view. In fact that is also Trace's, SOHO's, Rhessi's, Yohkoh's, and Geos's point of view as well. The arcs/loops are areas of flowing electrical current that heats up the plasma and emits light, much like the filament of the light bulb. Yohkoh also sees a very similar view.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/millenniummini.jpg
All light in the upper energy/temperature bands is directly related to light and heat that are concentrated in the electrical arcs. The base of these arcs, the points that emit anihiliation wavelengths, are the points on the surface where the arcs touch the surface. This is the layer where "solar moss" activity takes place.
quote:
Nonsense, I'm simply insisting that the evidence presented to support an assertion not be the assumption that the same assertion is true.
Then I present your agreement that the light is concentrated in the coronal loops as evidence to support my case.
quote:
I'm not asking for a math formula. I'm asking you to say, "we know that these parts of the movie represent reflected 171A light because _________"
Because they are not part of an obvious electrical arc, nor in direct proximity to an electrical arc, or an electral flow of current.
quote:
You've implied plenty of times (both here and on your website) that the majority of the surface is some sort of calcium ferrite.
Yes, but I have stated directly many of times that this is only part of what composes a surface, a surface that is at least as complex as the surface of the earth.
quote:
It's that simple. "Because ______ is reflective of 171A light (here's the reference: ______), we can assume for the sake of this discussion that the entire surface is reflective of 171A light."
I'm sorry Dave, but I just don't have these sorts of answers for you, and this is not my personal field of expertise. Now you can see that as some sort of condemnation of the Birkeland solar model, but it is simply reflective of a limitation within a single individual.
I'm simply going to skip the questions that relate to this same set of issues. I simply don't have such answers for you "yet". Maybe *I* personally never will. That doesn't mean there isn't a number of accurate answers that will be shows by someone else at a later date.
quote:
No, I'm still waiting for the evidence which supports your assertion that the photosphere is transparent to 171A light and blocks soft X-rays.
I showed you evidence in this image:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
Here is another image that overlays all three of Trace's iron filters and shows that the loops all originate in the same general visinity at the surface:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/multispectrum.jpg
Here is another image that shows the relative "fuzziness" of the various wavelenghts:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif
You'll notice that there is much more "structure" to be seen in the 171, 195 and 284 images compared to the 1600A filter.
quote:
So because your position is that the "footprints" are actually on the surface, you are positing arcs which start out at millions (or billions) of Kelvins, drop to less than 6,000 K at the photosphere, and then heat up again as they rise into the corona.
No, I didn't suggest anything like that at all. I suggested that the arc is many millions of degrees, whereas the footprints can be upwards of a billion degrees. Nowhere inside the arc is it 6000K. The surface of the photosphere is the only thing that is 6000K.
quote:
What would cause a single electric arc to have such a temperature profile?
I don't believe it has such a profile in the first place. The reason we don't see the base of the arc in Yohkoh images is because the soft x-rays are absorbed by the photosophere. The arcs are still emitting in these wavelengths underneath the surface of the photosphere. The whole arc is very hot. An x-ray view is more obsured by the photosophere than Traces 171A view, but both wavelengths are capable of passing through the photosphere during large scale eletrical events near the surface:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
You'll note on page 1113, that the 171A view is somewhat more clear than the 195A view, but both these wavelenghts show much more detail than the SXT view of the same event. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/18/2006 18:47:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 19:05:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it "totally inappropriate"? Isn't the shell in that video more dense than the air bubble inside of it? Is there a large temperature difference between the two layers? How is this different in your opinion, and why would you assume such a model cannot possibly apply?[/br]
Because the water bubble isn't held together by gravity. It's held together by the surface tension (which incidentally involves electromagnetic forces).
Well, since I'm not attached to any particular model inside the sun, and the water bubble analogy seems most attractive to you, I suppose I'll try to work within your framework, and skip all the other possible options.
Since the sun has quite a large magnetic field, and I'm suggesting the surface is mostly iron, one would think it too might have 'surface tension'. So far I don't see much difference between a plasma center with a solid shell and the water/air bubble analogy.
quote:
It's globe of liquid that contains a gas bubble also held together by the surface tension of the surrounding water. The smaller water-droplets inside the gas bubble that bounces around inside because the water-surface is elastic.
I'd expect a "crust" would be "elastic" in the sense that the crust of the earth is elastic and gives a little here and a little there.
quote:
Any gravitation applied to that hollow glob of water would make it collapse. As would a drop or two of liquid soap...
But that is only because it has already found it's equilibrium point. Then again, a solid crust might not "give" nearly so easily as water. Again, I don't see why that model wouldn't still hold up to scrutiny and still follow the same rules as the water/air bubble model.
quote:
I'll give you one thing though. Provisionally:
I'm just being open to any and all posibilities. I can really only "see" to the crust, not what is beneath of it.
quote:
The gas inside the water has a slightly higher pressure than the water. That's what's holding the bubble up.
If you can show what kind of gas or plasma could have enough pressure to hold the solid surface up like a balloon against gravity as you're suggesting, with numbers of pressure included, I migh (only might) consider some merit to the water bubble as an analogy of the solid surface of sun.
:) Well, that is progress IMO. I'll see what I can do for you in my spare time. I suppose it would have to be based on a pressurized fissionable core of mass separated plasmas. That sounds as plausible as any interior model IMO. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/18/2006 19:10:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 20:16:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What does his website have to do with your model?
Pretty much everything Dave, since the coronal loops are the light source. You can't really "interpret" solar images without understanding the light source, and the cause of the light source. If Lockheed can't distinguish between "hot" areas and "cool" ones, then they have a "very" serious problem.
And even if they do have a very serious problem, it says nothing about your model one way or the other. Nothing at all.quote:
Yet somehow you figure that the photosphere emits light as a black body continuum? I'm confused now. When is it "ok" to use black body priniciples on "thin" plasmas, and exactly when do such ideas no longer apply.
Indeed, when?!? How many more clues do you need, Michael, before you'll figure it out? Since you're still chanting "special pleading, special pleading," I suspect you'll need a lot more clues. If you can drop that anti-scientific attitude and apply yourself to the question, I bet you'll figure it out.quote:
This whole argument about black body radiation goes "way" beyond this single image. If Lockheed cannot tell the difference between hot areas of the solar atmosphere and cool ones, we can't really depend on anything they might try to "interpret" from satellite images.
Great, so the idea that anything in the TRACE images is at a million Kelvin flies right out the window if Lockheed can't be trusted.quote:
quote:
You also can't miss the fact that an million-Kelvin plasma is not a black body and expect to analyze the power output of the Sun correctly.
Wrong! If these plasmas are hot enough to be "seen" by Yohkoh and Trace and SOHO, then they are million degree areas of plasma.
Yes, and it is still inappropriate to use that million-Kelvin figure in a blackbody calculation of the whole Sun, as you did, because we know those million-degree plasmas aren't anywhere close to the definition of a black body. How many more times does this need to be said before you'll admit it?quote:
If there is no light from the surrounding plasma, then these plasmas are not million degree plasmas. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, TRACE would see blackness if the plasmas were 100 million degrees (or a billion). The energies wouldn't be right for TRACE to see anything, they'd all be too high.quote:
If plasma emits light that is consistent with million degree temps, and other plasma does not, then you can't run around insisting that the dark areas are hotter than the bright ones.
Nobody here is doing so. The fact that Lockheed may have screwed up doesn't say anything about your model, but your insistence that a blackbody calculation is appropriate says volumes about your ability to understand these types of physics.quote:
quote:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a blackbody calculation is appropriate.
I'm sort of blown away here. First of all you agreed with me that Lockheed "blew it" on the labeling, dispite the fact that no one, not even the moderators of the Bautforum recognized or admitted to this error during 10 pages of debate. Now in my book that makes you credible on a scientific level. On the other hand, you are ignoring that the whole point of my excersize was to tie back the whole notion of heat concentration to basic principles of black body radiation, something astronomers rely upon to determine sizes of distant objects based on their output, etc.
Because you are refusing to understand the difference between the photosphere and the corona, choosing instead to hand-wave it away with your "special pleading" mantra, then yes, you will think that I'm ignoring something. But the only person ignoring something is you, Michael. What - besides temperature (hint, hint!) - is different between the photosphere and the corona?quote:
Now we see obvious glowing plasma in areas where light and heat are concentrated, according to Yohkoh's SXT continuum. That instrument has a much more "broader" range of view.
Only by a few Angstroms, but more importantly, the bandpasses of Yohkoh and TRACE do not overlap.quote:
When it looks down upon these solar moss events, something blocks the x-ray emissions down where TRACE observes the base of the arc.
No, that's an assertion you need to support with evidence. An alternative hypothesis which works equally well for that image is that soft X-rays aren't emited by the lower portions of the loops, it's only the loop tops which are hot enough to do so.quote:
As the arcs rise though the x-ray "absorbing" layer, the arcs/loops begin to glow in a way that is very consistant with black body principles and million degree plasmas.
"Very consistent with black body principles?" WTF? All that's available in the Yohkoh images is a small portion of the spectrum. There is no way to determine from the images if those plasmas are emitting at all frequencies, as a black body would. We know, actually, that they aren't.quote:
That Trace/Yohkoh overlay image shows a lot of very important details about the energy output spectrum of the sun. It demonstrates that the heat is concentrated |
- 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 - 02/18/2006 : 21:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sigh. I'm asking you for an algorithm I can use to determine which pixels are direct emissions, and which represent reflections, and which are both.
The algorithms would all relate to proximity to the coronal loops/arcs.
But what are these algorithms?quote:
quote:
I don't see any reflections at all in that video, and need to know how you determine these things before I can "see" things from your point of view.
Ok. Let there be light. :)
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/trace10.jpg
All the light we see in 171A, 195A and 284A, and x-rays is directly related to the current flowing through the arcs that come from the surface. That is "my" point of view. ... The arcs/loops are areas of flowing electrical current that heats up the plasma and emits light, much like the filament of the light bulb. Yohkoh also sees a very similar view.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/millenniummini.jpg
All light in the upper energy/temperature bands is directly related to light and heat that are concentrated in the electrical arcs. The base of these arcs, the points that emit anihiliation wavelengths, are the points on the surface where the arcs touch the surface. This is the layer where "solar moss" activity takes place.
None of that told me anything about how you determine which pixels are lit up through direct emissions, which through reflection, and which through some of both. And this:quote:
In fact that is also Trace's, SOHO's, Rhessi's, Yohkoh's, and Geos's point of view as well.
Is a flat-out falsehood, since those satellites cannot interpret any of the images they take, they only report the relative strengths of photons entering their lenses. They cannot have the "point of view" that such emissions are due to current flow, since they don't measure current flow.quote:
quote:
Nonsense, I'm simply insisting that the evidence presented to support an assertion not be the assumption that the same assertion is true.
Then I present your agreement that the light is concentrated in the coronal loops as evidence to support my case.
Your case for a solid shell within the Sun? Why the hell would that support your case?quote:
quote:
I'm not asking for a math formula. I'm asking you to say, "we know that these parts of the movie represent reflected 171A light because _________"
Because they are not part of an obvious electrical arc, nor in direct proximity to an electrical arc, or an electral flow of current.
It's not a circular argument (at least), but it is a non-sequitor, so it's still unacceptable. What I hear is "we know these parts of the movie are reflections off a surface because they're not part of what I deem to be the only light sources." But, you haven't demonstrated that the arcs are the sole light source, so your assertion is a non-starter.quote:
quote:
You've implied plenty of times (both here and on your website) that the majority of the surface is some sort of calcium ferrite.
Yes, but I have stated directly many of times that this is only part of what composes a surface, a surface that is at least as complex as the surface of the earth.quote:
It's that simple. "Because ______ is reflective of 171A light (here's the reference: ______), we can assume for the sake of this discussion that the entire surface is reflective of 171A light."
I'm sorry Dave, but I just don't have these sorts of answers for you, and this is not my personal field of expertise. Now you can see that as some sort of condemnation of the Birkeland solar model, but it is simply reflective of a limitation within a single individual.
Okay, I made it as easy for you as I could. I asked you to pick whatever material you wanted to, and show that it can reflect 171A light. You argued, again, about the non-homogeneousness of the surface (which was irrelevant to my question), and then begged off saying that you're not an expert. Fine, I will expect you to stop claiming that the Lockheed "gold" video has any reflected light in it at all, then, since that is a solidly unsupported assertion.
This isn't a condemnation of Birkeland's model, either, since for all I can tell, Birkeland's model doesn't require a solid shell. Your model does.quote:
I'm simply going to skip the questions that relate to this same set of issues. I simply don't have such answers for you "yet". Maybe *I* personally never will. That doesn't mean there isn't a number of accurate answers that will be shows by someone else at a later date.
As a proper skeptic, I am always willing to change my mind based upon the presentation of new evidence. However, until such a time, I will still complain whenever you claim that the Lockheed "gold" video (or any other image of the Sun) contains reflected light. I will also be happy to quote your own words back to you.quote:
quote:
No, I'm still waiting for the evidence which supports your assertion that the p |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
