|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2006 : 17:49:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And how do you expect to show that, for example, the "empty" area in the upper-right corner, which is dominated by dim 195A light, is not a 20 MK plasma which is simply not undergoing cooling?
Ok, so explain to me how the atmosphere remains cool from the photosphere to the corona, where "suddenly" it heats up to 20 MK and then jets out to cool off, but somehow it doesn't lose heat the way it should if it was a gravity oriented model?
I could understand how you could suggest that a 20MK plasma could "squirt out" of the heated middle of the sun, but then we should be able to see that hot plasma rising to the surface even before it reaches the surface of the photosphere, and we should certainly see it coming out of the photosophere. I literally see that happening in fact, even if you do not.
However, I have yet to hear you explain how the atmospheric plasma is cool, and then suddenly it gets superheated at this specific height above the photosphere. What could possibly heat this material at this point in the atmosophere up to 20 MK degrees *without electron flow*? I don't get that part of your logic at all I'm afraid. Note that these coronal loops have "momentum", a starting point, and and ending location that all stays "relatively" fixed, often times for more than an hour. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/16/2006 17:53:01 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 21:09:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I just can't relate to this "sigh" of yours that dismisses the life's work of Dr. Charles Bruce in a single word.
I didn't, I dismissed your claims that Dr. Bruce's life's work supports your model. The fact that you're back to playing the "it's not my model" game again just tells me that you're uninterested in criticism of your interpretation of things. You've got this attitude which says, boldly, that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, therefore any criticism of your interpretation is a criticism of Dr. Bruce (or Manuel, or Birkeland). That's not at all the case, but you can't see around your ego to notice it.quote:
Your arguement about him thinking "all" of it was electrical discharges is not a valid criticm of the point I made, specifically that he already documented the electrical discharge nature of these phenomenon.
You're not being consistent. At times you say that Dr. Bruce showed that the visible phenomena of the Sun are consistent with electrical discharge, and now you're claiming that he "documented" that they are electrical discharges. The phenomena are also consistent with invisible angels dancing around the Sun, painting and repainting space itself every single second, but that doesn't mean that there are angels doing any such thing. What I read of Dr. Bruce shows consistency, not identity.quote:
quote:
If you want your argument to be compelling, then yes, it is up to you.
Fine. Be specific about exactly *which* other "compelling" alternative you are concerned about. If this however is going to be a "rule out everything" game, this is going to be a waste of time.
No, it's a make your argument compelling exercise. In other words, give me evidence that I can use to verify or falsify your model, right now, without having to first assume that your model is correct.quote:
According to Dr. Bruce, these events are consistent with electrical discharges. If his life work isn't compelling enough for you, math and all, what exactly would you find compelling from me?
Again, "are consistent with electrical discharges" doesn't mean "are electrical discharges."quote:
quote:
Yes, and excellent conductors don't heat up.
Sure they do, unless you figure plasma is a "superconductor" of some sort.
The articles you've cited claim that the plasmas around the Sun are "nearly perfect conductors." Why don't you pick an Ohms-per-meter value, and calculate the necessary voltage and current to heat a 240,000-km conductor of that resistance to a million Kelvin? Then take those values, and calculate the power in, and power out (include both heat and light).quote:
I am most certainly not "unaware" of this Dave, I'm counting on it. It's going to "flow though" mostly iron plasma arc, but nothing short of a superconductor is going to have "zero" resistance.
I never claimed zero resistance, but if the resistance is minimal, it'll only heat up to a certain point. That's why lighbulbs don't catch lampshades on fire most of the time - constant power input doesn't create runaway temperatures.quote:
quote:
And your model is inconsistent with reality.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Are you suggesting that we cannot make an arc jump a gap through plasma in lab?
No, I want to see your evidence that an electrical arc can heat up a plasma to over a million Kelvin.quote:
I'm going to stop here since I'm swamped right now, and wait to see how you respond to these issues.
Yeah, right before you got to the good stuff, like demonstrating a net current through the Sun's plasma. Or what the breakdown voltage of the Sun's plasma is when it acts as an insulator.
Next post:quote:
I'm unclear exactly what you're asking of me since you already answered the question yourself. These emissions are not "seen" because they are in the wrong wavelength to be seen by either filter (a *lower* energy state I might add).
Not at all, Michael. Fe XVI is iron 16. But both iron 11 and iron 20 (twenty) show up in TRACE's images, while 16 doesn't. And it most assuredly takes more energy to strip 20 electrons off of iron than it does to strip 16 electrons off. We can go count the kiloJoules per mole for each if you'd like.
quote:
I'll bet you a six pack of beer however that these emissions come from the same arcs in the atmosphere, the same arcs that Yohkoh observes in x-ray's as well.
Alright, demonstrate that the light captured away from any obvious arc (like in the upper right-hand corner of the pair of images we've selected) comes from an arc (perhaps by showing how the plasma there is reflective of 171A or 195A light?).quote:
These arcs emit light on a *very* wide spectrum.
Yeah, I know, they're really hot but not uniformly so. How does your model explain that, anyway?quote:
There isn't just one iron ion emitting light, but rather *every* Fe ion according to SERTS.
|
- 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 - 03/17/2006 : 12:06:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't, I dismissed your claims that Dr. Bruce's life's work supports your model.
Why? The previous "quibble" you gave earlier about whether ALL the light comes from *only* arcs or some light reflects off things is a "trival" issue IMO. It's a bit akin to suggesting that Manuel's evidence of mass separation doesn't support *my* model because it says nothing about solids. These "facts" that these gentlemen "observed" are data. They are important data. They certainly *do* support *elements* of my model. We aren't really talking now about my *whole* model, just the nature of the coronal loops. It really matters very little for the purposes of *this particular* debate, whether *all* the light comes from the arcs, or *some* reflects of "surfaces".
quote:
The fact that you're back to playing the "it's not my model" game again just tells me that you're uninterested in criticism of your interpretation of things.
It would be egotistical of me to attempt to take credit for a model that was lab tested over 100 years ago. Birkeland's solar model was based on a solid metallic sphere and current flow.
quote:
You've got this attitude which says, boldly, that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, therefore any criticism of your interpretation is a criticism of Dr. Bruce (or Manuel, or Birkeland).
I'm asking you *specifically* why you believe these are *not* electrical discharges *in light* of all the work that has been done by Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce. You didn't give me a direct answer IMO. You handed me a minor "quibble" and ignored the most important issues we're discussing as it relates to the character of the coronal loops.
quote:
That's not at all the case, but you can't see around your ego to notice it.
I've done my best to keep my ego out of the way where possible and to focus on the scientific data. This isn't about ego, or I *would* be trying to take credit for the whole thing. Instead I've gone out of my way to show you the scientific history behind a Birkeland solar model and to frame this arguement in terms of *solar models*, not personalities.
quote:
You're not being consistent. At times you say that Dr. Bruce showed that the visible phenomena of the Sun are consistent with electrical discharge, and now you're claiming that he "documented" that they are electrical discharges. The phenomena are also consistent with invisible angels dancing around the Sun, painting and repainting space itself every single second, but that doesn't mean that there are angels doing any such thing.
You know Dave, that was really beneath you frankly. I've come to know and respect you abilities, and that frankly wasn't up to your calibur IMO. I'm not proposing anything "supernatural". I'm the only one of the two of us in fact to explain these events *at all*, and nothing about my explanation is unusual, in fact we find these same electrical discharge phenomenon right here on earth.
quote:
What I read of Dr. Bruce shows consistency, not identity.
I think you're splitting hairs, since you've never explained what you personally think heats these arcs, why they don't sag, and how plasma goes from 20 thousand Kelvin to over a million degrees Kelvin *without even the benefit of the flow of electricity*!
quote:
No, it's a make your argument compelling exercise. In other words, give me evidence that I can use to verify or falsify your model, right now, without having to first assume that your model is correct.
I handed you the life's work of Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel, each of whom reached their own conclusions about *aspects* that support my model long before I personally got into this debate. You can verify and/or falsify Manuel's work. You didn't provide isotope data that directly refutes his (other other nuclear chemists) work. I didn't hear you explain why Bruce was wrong about these being electrical discharges through plasma. I didn't hear you explain why Birkeland got it wrong. What I'm hearing from you now is that you want more and more and more and more evidence even before you'll agree to the "individual" issues, like the makeup of coronal loops. Somehow we have to have rational and reasonable way to *compare* ideas Dave. Otherwise it's really just a turkey shoot, where you provide no model, and you shoot holes in other peoples ideas. That's not a serious discussion, that's a rigged process, one that works in your favor called: "Make me believe you".
If you have a serious scientific concern here about another possible explanation that doesn't involved electrical discharges, then by all means put it on the table and let's discuss it openly. If however you really don't have an alternative, just "concerns", I'm afraid I don't don't know how to help you, particularly if all of Bruce's work isn't "enough" for you. I've also cited the UofM, and I can attempt to dig up more documentation of the electrical nature of these events, but why? What's the big concern, the option I've not considered?
quote:
Again, "are consistent with electrical discharges" doesn't mean "are electrical discharges."
We're back to the walks like a duck, talks like a duck scenario. We have *observational evidence* (not from Michael) that these events are electrical discharges in plasma. Your job at this point is to A) disprove Dr. Bruce's analysis that these are electrical discharges, or B) accept that they are *most likely* electrical discharges, or C) find some other way to show that they are likely *not* electrical discharges. You can't fence sit, say I *doubt* you, and ignore the primary issue here. If these observations are all consistent with electrical discharges then why won't you accept that these are mostly likely electrical discharges? What other option are you proposing as an alternative?
quote:
The articles you've cited claim that the plasmas around the Sun are "nearly perfect conductors."
Even if they are "nearly perfect", *any* |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/17/2006 12:31:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 12:29:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
You're not being consistent. At times you say that Dr. Bruce showed that the visible phenomena of the Sun are consistent with electrical discharge, and now you're claiming that he "documented" that they are electrical discharges. The phenomena are also consistent with invisible angels dancing around the Sun, painting and repainting space itself every single second, but that doesn't mean that there are angels doing any such thing.
You know Dave, that was really beneath you frankly. I've come to know and respect you abilities, and that frankly wasn't up to your calibur IMO. I'm not proposing anything "supernatural".
I didn't say you were, I was offering an example of how our observations may be consistent with any number of explanations, in an attempt to get you to understand that "consistent with" is not synonymous with "is." Apparently, you'd prefer to feign indignation than to try to understand my point. I'll keep that in mind from now on, and treat you appropriately.quote:
A percieved weakness in a Birkeland model is not support for gas model theory.
I never said it was, and your attempts to get me to "explain" things is nothing but a transparent attempt at getting me to ignore the fact that you refuse to provide (for example) the physical calculations showing that electrical currents could be responsible for the heat in the corona.
After all, Michael, if the answer winds up being that to do so would require more energy than the Sun emits, then your model cannot be correct. Just like if the plasmas which you've specified aren't transparent to EUV light, then TRACE cannot be imaging anything below the photosphere.
You're not interested in answering those sorts of challenges to your theory, or even if you are, you claim that you don't know enough to answer them. All the while, you claim that your model will be recognized, given enough time. Such an attitude is not consistent with the scientific process, so you might as well be offering a supernatural explanation. |
- 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 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 13:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't say you were, I was offering an example of how our observations may be consistent with any number of explanations, in an attempt to get you to understand that "consistent with" is not synonymous with "is."
But you did not offer me a viable alternative that the data is also consistent with.
quote:
Apparently, you'd prefer to feign indignation than to try to understand my point. I'll keep that in mind from now on, and treat you appropriately.
I'm not feigning anything. I know you enough now to say without any hesitation that you are capable of putting together a much stronger arguement, one based on a valid "scientific alternative". You have not provided one however. It is therefore hard to take you seriously when you compare electricity to the supernatural in terms of "possiblilities".
quote:
I never said it was, and your attempts to get me to "explain" things is nothing but a transparent attempt at getting me to ignore the fact that you refuse to provide (for example) the physical calculations showing that electrical currents could be responsible for the heat in the corona.
You've never offered any other alternative to choose from Dave, nor any reason to doubt the work of Dr. Bruce. Until you can at least give me a logical reason to doubt his work I fail to see the point of doing a lot of busy work on this point. If there were a serious concern and a serious alternative I needed to consider and choose between, I'd understand your concern. As it is, this seems like more of a distraction than a necessity at this point. Birkeland already described voltages and current flow in his work.
quote:
After all, Michael, if the answer winds up being that to do so would require more energy than the Sun emits, then your model cannot be correct. Just like if the plasmas which you've specified aren't transparent to EUV light, then TRACE cannot be imaging anything below the photosphere.
But those are just "ifs" Dave. Since you can't even explain how these emissions might occur any other way, and you can't even tell me what the penumral filaments are made of, or their density, I fail to see why I must "prove" anything to you on these subjects. If you had a mechanism that was competative to electrical discharges to consider, then I'd be more inclined to think this was a valid question. As it is, it "feels" like you're just throwing out hoops for me to jump through.
quote:
You're not interested in answering those sorts of challenges to your theory, or even if you are, you claim that you don't know enough to answer them. All the while, you claim that your model will be recognized, given enough time. Such an attitude is not consistent with the scientific process, so you might as well be offering a supernatural explanation.
That is simply absurd. I have no problem explaining where the light we see in these satellite images comes from. I can see exactly where the heat is concentrated based on satellite images from a half dozen different satellites! I'm using something called "electricity" to explain what I see. You however don't seem to "know" what causes these loops, but for some illogical reason you've already ruled out the flow of electricity and electrical discharges as the cause. I fail to see why in the world you would rule out electrical discharges if you don't know what the cause is. That isn't even logical from my perspective. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 13:44:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hey, Michael: I used to have one of these. It never heated up much at all, even after being left on for hours.
Which proves what exactly? Is the light from the arcs caused by the flow of electricity? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 14:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But you did not offer me a viable alternative that the data is also consistent with.
We're discussing your model and its flaws.quote:
I'm not feigning anything. I know you enough now to say without any hesitation that you are capable of putting together a much stronger arguement, one based on a valid "scientific alternative".
My argument is that you are mistaken in offering "consistent with" as support for your model when there are an infinite number of alternative "models" with which the data is also consistent. I picked an absurd model in order to demonstrate that fact. You blew off the objection.quote:
...nor any reason to doubt the work of Dr. Bruce.
I'm not asking you to doubt Dr. Bruce! There it is again: your mistaken insistence that criticisms of your interpretation of the data are actually criticisms of Dr. Bruce's work. They are not. How hard is that to understand?quote:
Until you can at least give me a logical reason to doubt his work I fail to see the point of doing a lot of busy work on this point. If there were a serious concern and a serious alternative I needed to consider and choose between, I'd understand your concern. As it is, this seems like more of a distraction than a necessity at this point.
You don't share my concern, so you don't see any need to actually do the work required by your model?quote:
Birkeland already described voltages and current flow in his work.
Quote the sections of his work wherein he described "voltages and current flow" in "arcs" on the Sun itself.quote:
But those are just "ifs" Dave.
Yes, why are you afraid to test to see if you are correct?quote:
Since you can't even explain how these emissions might occur any other way...
Any explanation I might make is irrelevant to whether or not your explanation is correct.quote:
...and you can't even tell me what the penumral filaments are made of...
You've already admitted that your suggestion is a "wild guess."quote:
...or their density...
That pegs the irony meter, coming from you.quote:
...I fail to see why I must "prove" anything to you on these subjects.
It's your model, Michael, so it's up to you to support it.quote:
If you had a mechanism that was competative to electrical discharges to consider, then I'd be more inclined to think this was a valid question. As it is, it "feels" like you're just throwing out hoops for me to jump through.
Hoops that any serious scientist would be happy to jump through in order to demonstrate that his theory is correct. Your model must be consistent among all the things that it predicts, Michael. If you're going to claim that the electrical arcs you hypothesize exist are the cause of coronal heating (even partially), then you must be able to show that they are capable of such a feat. Your say-so doesn't make the phenomenon you claim plausible.quote:
That is simply absurd. I have no problem explaining where the light we see in these satellite images comes from.
"Explain" means to demonstrate the mechanism, so why don't you show us the physical calculations which transform the energy in an electrical arc into light within the Sun's corona?quote:
I can see exactly where the heat is concentrated based on satellite images from a half dozen different satellites!
Who cares? A solid scientific theory should be able to convince a blind man, just by describing the math to him.quote:
I'm using something called "electricity" to explain what I see.
More condescension, huh?quote:
You however don't seem to "know" what causes these loops, but for some illogical reason you've already ruled out the flow of electricity and electrical discharges as the cause.
No, I'm waiting for you to show the calculations which would make "electricity and electrical discharges" a plausible cause.quote:
I fail to see why in the world you would rule out electrical discharges if you don't know what the cause is.
I haven't ruled them out, I'm waiting for you to rule them in.quote:
That isn't even logical from my perspective.
That's because you've constructed a strawman of my position, rather than addressing what I've actually said.
Next post:quote:
Which proves what exactly?
That electrical arcs through a plasma don't necessarily generate a lot of heat.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2006 : 15:05:28 [Permalink]
|
This thread has reached its end.
You may continue to read in Surface of the Sun, Part 7.
Or post in that thread directly through this link. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
