|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2006 : 17:37:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The bright areas in the 171A pictures does not signify temperature.
It signifies that more photons originating in those areas had the right wavelengths to pass the filter, than the surrounding, less bright area.
The bright areas does not necessarily have to have a higher temperature the the surrounding area.
But Dr. Mabuse, Lockheed and NASA insist that only plasma in the 160,000 degree range can even emit these photons in the first place. Furthermore they (not me) assign a temperature range to each filter than includes temperatures that can climb to up to 20 million Kelvin. That means that as we look down toward the surface of the 6000K photosophere, we need not see an entirely "lit" background. In fact it is unlikely that we will see a completely "lit" backround or that all regions will be heated equally. In fact we do not see a fully uniform background. Most of it is "relatively" dark compared to the coronal loops. Even when we add Yohkoh's overlay, most of the surface is relatively dark compared to the coronal loops themselves. What evidence do you have that the dark regions are hotter, or for that matter anywhere near the temperature of the coronal loops that can be anywhere from 160,000K all the way up to 20 million K?
quote:
Consider this hypothetical scenario:
The coronal loops and the corona itself has the same temperature. If the density of the matter in the loops are higher than the rest of the corona, then the loops will shine more brightly in the 171A pic, because more photons will come from the loop than the surrounding corona.
I agree that density *and* temperature can affect the total output, but both options play a role IMO, not simply one. The loops themselves peg the meter so to speak, while the darker regions barely kick out or reflect any such photons. In fact it could be that all the photons come from the loops and simply reflect from atoms in the atmosphere which is why we see any photons at all in the dark regions. In short, I have no evidence to suggest that the dark regions are anywhere near a million degrees, and according to NASA, much of the brightly lit material is likely to be *at least* a million degrees.
quote:
Also consider this:
The 171A and the 195A filters have different characteristics because they are made for their respective part of the spectrum. They are not 100% transparent in their window. Because of that, making a A+B addition when merging the photos into one does not paint and accurate picture of the output because the respective pics have themselves been normalised in order to make sense of them in the first place. Thus do not accurately represent the actual (power output) or the number of photons hitting each pixel, especially compared to eachother.
That is illogical however when you look at the light concentration patterns. In both images, regardless of the normaliztion process used, the loops in both images outshine the dark regions of both images rather significantly. Even if you can't be sure you have "all" the photons in this manner, you can still tell the "pattern of relative distrubition" of photons. The pattern is quite clear. Both images show more light coming from *inside* the loops rather than from *outside* the loops. Since this is true of both images, we *might* believe them to be more energetic than the dark regions, but there is no evidence to suggest in either image or both combined, that the loops are *less* energetic than the darker regions of the combined image.
It really comes down to this: Sure density and temperature can play a role in the emission output, but we certainly have every logical reason to belive that the plasma that does clearly emit high concentrations of photons is hot as well as dense. We have no reason to believe however that the darker regions of this image come anywhere near the temperutures of the plasma inside the loop.
Even when we combine the views of TRACE and Yohkoh and look a more "complete" picture of the high energy emissions, the pattern of the light output being a direct result of the coronal loops is still quite visible. If the plasma that Yohkoh observes in yellow is brightly lit compared to the plasma in the dark regions of TRACE, then we again have every reason to believe that the plasma in the loops far exceeds the plasma in the darker regions of *both* images. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 18:20:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, I'd much rather go deeper, back to that discussion of your magnetic field/plasma interaction hypothesis. After all, if you can flesh that out some more, then the "light source and heat signatures of the corona" should be predicted by the electron "wave" flow (or whatever it is, I'm still confused) which cause the "source" and "signature." That really does seem like it'd be the most productive avenue of discussion.
You might checkout how charged particles behave in the magnetic fields that surround a current flow. They will tend to form a spiral around the current flow in the direction of the current flow. Perhaps then you'll understand my interpretion of that helix affect I'm trying to describe that Gordon drew. That green line in his image is the current flow. The yellow line in his spiral image is the path the outside plasma forms as it flows along the arc.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/MagField.html
They even layed out the math for us. :)
quote:
The force on a charged particle in a magnetic field
An electric field E exerts a force on a charge q. A magnetic field B will also exert a force on a charge q, but only if the charge is moving (and not moving in a direction parallel to the field). The direction of the force exerted by a magnetic field on a moving charge is perpendicular to the field, and perpendicular to the velocity (i.e., perpendicular to the direction the charge is moving).
The equation that gives the force on a charge moving at a velocity v in a magnetic field B is:
This is a vector equation : F is a vector, v is a vector, and B is a vector. The only thing that is not a vector is q.
Note that when v and B are parallel (or at 180#65533;) to each other, the force is zero. The maximum force, F = qvB, occurs when v and B are perpendicular to each other.
The direction of the force, which is perpendicular to both v and B, can be found using your right hand, applying something known as the right-hand rule. One way to do the right-hand rule is to do this: point all four fingers on your right hand in the direction of v. Then curl your fingers so the tips point in the direction of B. If you hold out your thumb as if you're hitch-hiking, your thumb will point in the direction of the force.
At least, your thumb points in the direction of the force as long as the charge is positive. A negative charge introduces a negative sign, which flips the direction of the force. So, for a negative charge your right hand lies to you, and the force on the negative charge will be opposite to the direction indicated by your right hand.
In a uniform field, a charge initially moving parallel to the field would experience no force, so it would keep traveling in straight-line motion, parallel to the field. Consider, however, a charged particle that is initially moving perpendicular to the field. This particle would experience a force perpendicular to its velocity. A force perpendicular to the velocity can only change the direction of the particle, and it can't affect the speed. In this case, the force will send the particle into uniform circular motion. The particle will travel in a circular path, with the plane of the circle being perpendicular to the direction of the field.
In this case, the force applied by the magnetic field ( F = qvB ) is the only force acting on the charged particle. Using Newton's second law gives:
The particle is undergoing uniform circular motion, so the acceleration is the centripetal acceleration:
a = v2 / r
so, q v B = m v2 / r
A factor of v cancels out on both sides, leaving
q B = m v / r The radius of the circular path is then: r = m v / (q B)
A particle that is initially moving at some angle between parallel and perpendicular to the field would follow a motion which is a combination of circular motion and straight-line motion...it would follow a spiral path. The axis of the spiral would be parallel to the field.
quote:
Acutally, you should be providing evidence that your method is accurate. Asking others for disconfirming evidence is a shift of the burden of proof.
My case is essentially predicted upon the whole concept of the TRACE satellite program, and every paper that's ever been written about that program. A lot of papers, by all the key insiders, put upper and lower ranges on these filters as it relates to plasma temperatures. By assigning one of these filters as "hotter" than another, even their method works based on the theory that some photons of one filter are generally "hotter" than the photons from another. There is no way around this assumption even in their method.
I'm making a lot *fewer* assumptions than they are. I'm not "assuming" I can guarantee which photons came for FeIX vs. FEXX vs. Calcium ions. I make no assumptions about reflection rates of plasma in the atmosphere. This is a simple a method as it gets. It would be the same concept as looking at a lightening strike on all the high energy spetrums we find, noticing that the arc always emits the most light regardless of high energy wavelength selected, and determining that: "Yep, that arc sure is hot". :)
That is a close to pure physics with fewest possible assumptions as we can get IMO. The rest of these "methods" require we know all sorts of stuff we just don't know.
quote:
I know you'd appreciate such answers, but my previous assessment that any answers I might give will be inconsequential stands. I believe that we actually could make some headway if you continue to describe your model, Michael, and that talking about other models is simply a distraction.
I've now layed out the math for the spirals for you. I think it's now logically up to yo to at least give me a reasonable alternative to work with if you will not consider my point of view.
Otherwise I will continue to "feel" like you are simply throwing out roadblocks and not discussing the idea in a fully scientific manner with both give *and* take. I've tried to bend over backwards and accept my responsibility in any confusion here, and I've spent considerable time and effort documenting my position on this subject specficially. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point Dave, expecially if you don't really have any alternatives and you provide me with no math at all. Again, I've given you a mathematical model of this arc, right down to the spiraling plasma. What now will you offer me, if this is still not acceptable to you?
quote:
So, let's just get straight back to the underlying physics of your model, Michael. The images should take care of themselves by the time that I (or others) agree that what you describe is plausible.
I agree. I handed you the underlying physi |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 18:58:32 [Permalink]
|
| Holy christ. This is Part 7 of a thread, now, I might add, on the verge of being locked due to length. With 7 parts each with 15 pages, that's 105 pages! And with 10 posts per page, we're talking about a thousand posts on this topic. I wish I had the time to catch up and jump in, but with a thousand posts, I think I'm going to have to just sit back and watch the blur! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 21:09:00 [Permalink]
|
| I hate to break it to you, Cune, but it's 15 posts per page (except the OP doesn't count, so the first page has 16 posts), and a few of the individual threads have run long. My estimate would be on the order of 1,500 posts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 22:27:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I hate to break it to you, Cune, but it's 15 posts per page (except the OP doesn't count, so the first page has 16 posts), and a few of the individual threads have run long. My estimate would be on the order of 1,500 posts.
So I'll weep an extra ten minutes. After 1,500 posts, if the point hasn't been resolved (less filling? tastes great?) shouldn't it be dropped in favor of, say, more beer consumption? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 23:09:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So I'll weep an extra ten minutes. After 1,500 posts, if the point hasn't been resolved (less filling? tastes great?) shouldn't it be dropped in favor of, say, more beer consumption?
Taste's great! :) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 08:17:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So I'll weep an extra ten minutes. After 1,500 posts, if the point hasn't been resolved (less filling? tastes great?) shouldn't it be dropped in favor of, say, more beer consumption?
Indeed you are right.
I used to have no hope what-so-ever that these disagreements will ever be resolved. But there is a glimmer of hope now. We have managed to convince Mozina that the corona cannot be modelled as a black body. From where I'm standing, that's a major leap forward.
Another 1500 posts and we may convince him that the sun's density actually can be measured using the sun's mass and volume.
Then we have a few other physics principles and laws to wade through before we are in a position to have a really meaningful discussion about the solid surface itself. I don't expect that will happen anytime this year. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 10:20:25 [Permalink]
|
| Meanwhile, this crew seems to exclude the corona from laws of physics. They have no explanation for something as simple as a coronal loop. They can't explain the heat source of the corona but somehow they are sure electricity ins't involved, and dark areas in 171A and 195A Trace images are hotter than the brightest regions of the same image. In short, we haven't gotten very far. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
