Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 332

Thread: Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?

  1. #211
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    761
    It takes a mighty cavalier attitude towards physics to just "guess" that a surface, trapped under a 5700K plasma, is only 2000K. Physics simply does not allow such a fantastic thing to happen, no matter how you slice & dice the plasma or the surface.
    Welding.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    These wavelengths of photons in the x-ray spectrum can and are observed by Yohkoh’s SXT broadband imaging equipment. The filter used in this specific composite image in question is the Al/Mg filter which has a visual range of 2.4-32A. This means that any photons in these peak wavelengths and heat ranges will be observed in this composite image in yellow:
    .
    http://www.solarviews.com/browse/sun/moss8.jpg

    The SXT filter used in this composite image “sees” that all photons in the 2.4-32A range are concentrated inside the coronal loops, just as the Trace and SOHO satellites observe photons from 171A, 195A and 284A are concentrated within the coronal loops. However, the surface is quite a bit darker to Yohkoh’s SXT instrument as well as to Trace and SOHO at 171A, 195A and 284A. If that surface was peaking in the 29A wavelength range as you suggest, Yohkoh’s SXT broadband equipment would see that background glowing brightly. It would not be dark in Yohkoh’s images in the same areas that it is dark to Trace. The first OOM calculation we seem to agree on, combined with the Yohkoh/Trace composite image I provided you, demonstrate that the dark surface is not hotter than the coronal loops, but is quite a bit cooler than the coronal loops.
    (bold mine)

    I've never sugested that the entire surface glows at 1 million °K! In the first place there is no surface at all, AFAIK the density of those arcs is very, very low (IIRC the density at the photosphere's surface is already less than that of our athmosphere at sea level and the density in those arcs is much less than that).
    Second: as I've repeatedly said, a matterial at such low density is emitting a discrete spectrum, not a blackbody one.
    Any solid, liquid and dense (thick) gas at a temperature above absolute zero will produce a thermal spectrum.
    (from here)
    If I've properly understood (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the chromosphere and the arcs are NOT thick gases, therefore they're emitting more a discrete spectrum than a continuous one.

    Third: the filters used by Yohkoh and SXT are NOT enough to determine if the specrum you're seeing is a blackbody spectrum or not. In order to be sure about it you need to make "slices" having the same bandwith (let say 10 A) in the whole domain from 2 A to 300 A, measure the energy output in each slice and plot it on a graph. Only then you could say what kind of spectrum is it (discrete, continuous, a superposition of both, a spectrum that fits or not Planck's law, etc).
    But that composite image is a superposition of a monochromatic image (taken at 171 A by Yohkoh) and a relatively broadboand image (2-32 A taken by STX). IMO the composite image (as it is) could be used only to draw some conclusions related to the spatial corelation between the events depicted in each image; you cannot say which one is shinning more or less since each image has been acquired using different camera setups (which usually means different spectral sensitivy, different gain, etc) . The fact that one region is yellow and the other is not doesn't necessarly imply that the yellow region is brighter; these are false color images.
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    If a million degree surface was emitting photons, the background in that image would be glowing white, rather than being darker than the materials inside coronal loops.
    As I've said there is no surface in those images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I would however like to eventually take a shot at the movement and force calculation ranges.
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00932.000.html
    http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/meeting/n...palswamy_2.pdf
    The fact that Yohkoh and other instruments observe that the higher energy photons are concentrated in the coronal loops, suggest that the coronal loops begin as intense, hot filaments near the transition layer
    (bold mine)
    Not quite; from your first link:
    page 930 The 10 Gradual Hard X-ray bursts (GHB) analyzed in this study were characterized by a systematic hardening of the >30KeV photons energy spectrum with time. The X-ray spectrum typically began to harden near gradual event onset and continued to harden (or at least did not soften) through the peak of the event...
    page 932 GHB are generally preceded by CME (coronal mass ejection)...while a preceeding mass ejection may be a necessary condition for occurence of a detectably GHB, it is not a sufficient condition.
    page 932Characteristic heights ot the soft X-rays loops are ~3x10^4km
    page 933 the CME lift-off time was close (<10 minutes) to the onset of the gradual burst...
    page 933 The traditional interpretion of GHB in term of second stage acceleration is based on the good timing association of type II bursts with previously reported GHBs...on the smooth time variation of the hard X-ray profile suggesting a gradual (Fermi?) acceleration process.
    This paper is more about hard X-rays produced by electrons, not soft rays produced by Fe ions; but what I'd want to point out is that the main emission mechanism is due to charge accelerations (both gradual accelerations and collisions) and not thermal emissions (the only thermal emissions that i've seen reffered in the paper is in the radio wavelenghts)
    Therefore IMO at the beginning the CME is relatively cool and is 'heating' while accelerated. A Fe ion accelerated at a certain speed will have a energy that makes it 'hot', it will become more and more ionised and it will start to emit discrete lines which are characteristic to its ionisation state.

    Also in the page 932 figure there are presented as radiation source "trapped electrons that emitts gyro-synchrotron radiation". When I've pointed to you that possibility you've said that you've already studied the synchrotron radiation issue and you've reached the conclusion that it doesn't apply to the sun; hope you've changed your mind about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    The coronal loops are the primary light source in Yohkoh SXT images. The highest concentration of these superheated photons in Yohkoh images originate within the coronal loops, and less intensely from outside of the loops.
    As pointed in the paper above, there arealso photons emitted in the form of hard X-rays (by electrons) that are not appearing in Yohkoh images altough are more 'heated' than those emitted by Fe ions. What about them? They're not important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    The brightest concentration of high energy, high heat photons are located within the coronal loops.
    Nitpick: the photons are not "concentrated in", but are "originating from". The ions that are producing photons are concentrated in those arcs, not the photons themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    Yohkoh is and must be the final arbitrator between different theoretical mathematical models of heat concentration issues related to the solar atmosphere.
    There is not such a thing as a 'final arbitrator'; hopefully the next generation sattelites will take our understanding further and deeper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    Total Energy Output of a Black Body the Diameter of the Sun at 1 Million K.

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees...ctures/energy/

    So if the transition region is 1,000,000 K
    I = (5.67x10^-8) (1,000,000)^4 = 5.67 x 10^16 Watts/ m^2
    For simplicity, we’ll just assume the photosphere is close to the transitional layer. To calculate the number of square meters on the sun:
    Surface area of a sphere = 4πr2
    4π (6.96x108)2 = 6.087 x 10^18 square meters
    Output in watts: = (6.087x10^18) (5.67x10^16) =

    3.45 X 10^35 Watts or Joules/Sec
    Now let us compare this number to Wikipedia’s OOM calculation of the solar output:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_...nitude_(energy)
    3.827 × 10^26 J — energy output of the Sun in one second

    That is a difference of about nine orders of magnitude. Coincidently when we plug in the actual surface temperature of the photosphere into these same calculations, we come up with the correct number.
    First,as I've said, there is no such a surface having 1million ° around the sun; there are some arcs which contains highly ionised Fe ions.
    Secondly, you've applied the Stefann-Boltzman law (by the way, you could use Planck's law in the future, is more general ) to calculate the blackbody radiation given off by those arcs; but they aren't emitting blackbody radiation therefore your result is not aplicable in the given situation.
    Third: you're sugesting that the whole energy measured by us from the sun is coming actually from the coronal loops?
    Here is an alternative: the coronal loops are emitting high energy photons. The photosphere is emitting low energy photons, but in much more quantity. Therefore the energy emission of the photosphere (the adition of all low energy photons) is much more than the energy emission of the chromosphere (the adition of comparatively few high energy photons).
    And about the 'coincidence' of getting the right result... :lol Did you consider it to be not a coincidence but the truth?



    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    These images, particularly the broad spectrum x-ray images from STX suggest that Lockheed grossly misrepresents the heat concentration patterns in these images. All of the images from the SXT broadband instrument show that the heat and the emissions of these high energy photons are concentrated inside of the coronal loops, and fewer emissions are found in the surrounding atmosphere around the loops.
    The high energy photons are emitted by high temperature Fe ions. Temperature and heat are not the same thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    So why does this matter? Well, for one thing it demonstrates that the temperature of the transition region must be at or near or even below the temperature of the photosphere. It suggests the transitional region is below, not above the photosphere, which just so happens to jive with recent heliosiesmology findings of a transitional layer at 4800km beneath the visible photosphere.
    I don't get it: we're talking about chromosphere's images, tens of thousands kilometers above photosphere and you're concluding that they're showing what's happening below the photosphere?
    Last edited by Baloo; 2005-Oct-10 at 12:26 PM. Reason: spelling

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
    It takes a mighty cavalier attitude towards physics to just "guess" that a surface, trapped under a 5700K plasma, is only 2000K. Physics simply does not allow such a fantastic thing to happen, no matter how you slice & dice the plasma or the surface.
    Quote Originally Posted by upriver
    Welding.
    But not for long.

    The metal surfaces being welded start out cold, the welding process puts heat into the system, and - for a time - the surface of the weld is hotter than the underlying metal.

    But, hold the weld long enough and the substrate will reach the same temperature.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,105
    Quote Originally Posted by upriver
    Welding.

    What if you were welding the same thing for 5bn years?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo
    And about the 'coincidence' of getting the right result... :lol Did you consider it to be not a coincidence but the truth?
    Of course it's not merely a "coincidence" Baloo, in fact it's my whole point. The dark part of the background of the original 171A image, as well as the dark region in all Yohkoh images, is around the temperature of the photosphere. It is around 6000K.

    The transition layer is actually underneath of that photosphere at a depth of 4800km and it is much cooler than the coronal loops.

    I don't get it: we're talking about chromosphere's images, tens of thousands kilometers above photosphere and you're concluding that they're showing what's happening below the photosphere?
    What makes you think the transitional region that Trace and SOHO image is "above" the photosophere? What evidence suggests this?

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop
    What if you were welding the same thing for 5bn years?
    All it's doing is moving the material around the surface.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    There is simply no way that the dark areas of the 171A original image are the same temperature or greater than the bright areas. It is scientifically impossible for this to be the case.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    What makes you think the transitional region that Trace and SOHO image is "above" the photosophere? What evidence suggests this?
    How about the fact that the photosphere is optical thick and Trace and Soho can't see below it? Look here and here: TRACE doesn't see below the photosphere.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    All I see are coronal loop sticking through the photosphere. I would say the last image in particular demonstrates that the transition layer, the layer where the loops originate must be below the visible photosphere. The blue areas simply show areas where the loops pickup heat and glow more brightly in the outer corona.

    In the moss image I posted, we can see a cooler region below and a warmer region of the corona where Yohkoh sees activity within the coronal loops. That cooler blue area below Yohkoh's field of view are the plasma layers of the photosphere and chromosphere.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo
    How about the fact that the photosphere is optical thick and Trace and Soho can't see below it? Look here and here: TRACE doesn't see below the photosphere.
    What exactly do you mean by the photosphere is "optically thick"? What makes you think that 171A and 195A filters cannot penetrate the space between the photosphere and the transition layer at 4800km seen in heliosiesmology? In fact what makes you think that the coronal loops are not originating in this region beneath the photosphere?

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Warning: This is a 30 megabyte, 10 hour Quicktime video of a 171A view of the activity in the transitional region. Notice that the coronal loops as well as the solar moss at the "surface" of the transition layer are the hottest, brightest areas in the image.

    http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Galler...50908_20X5.mov

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,227
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510230

    Neon Lights Up a Controversy: the Solar Ne/O Abundance

    This paper should be of interest many of us following this thread.

    The standard solar model was so reliable that it could predict the existence of the massive neutrino. Helioseismology measurements were so precise that they could determine the depth of the convection zone. This agreement between theory and observation was the envy of all astrophysics -- until recently when sophisticated three-dimensional hydrodynamic calculations of the solar atmosphere reduced the metal content by a factor of almost two.
    Cheers,

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    14,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    There is simply no way that the dark areas of the 171A original image are the same temperature or greater than the bright areas. It is scientifically impossible for this to be the case.
    Is it scientifically impossible for my barely-above-room-temperature LED lamp to illuminate my newspaper better than my human-temperature hand does?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,202
    Back to fundamentals? Anyone? Or should I start a new thread?

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001
    Is it scientifically impossible for my barely-above-room-temperature LED lamp to illuminate my newspaper better than my human-temperature hand does?
    How does your question apply to this issue in the first place?

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Faultline
    Back to fundamentals? Anyone? Or should I start a new thread?
    Which fundamentals? I just showed two fundamental mathmatical proofs of concept.

    1) Anything peaking in in 29A is going to be seen by Yohkoh's SXT, and it only shows the emissions are concentrated inside the coronal loops.

    2) Black Body physics prevents that dark area from being the same temperature as the materials that released the million degree photons.

    What in the world do we need a new thread for? I specfically focused my OOM calculations on things related specifically to this topic so we would not get off topic.

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510230

    Neon Lights Up a Controversy: the Solar Ne/O Abundance

    This paper should be of interest many of us following this thread.



    Cheers,
    That it an interesting and timely paper. Thanks.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,202
    I don't want to get off topic, either, but I thought we were talking about the composition of the sun and how much iron is in it. The other threads were locked, and I got confused about whether we were going to discuss solar composition here.

    If this spectral analysis is important to your alternative solar model, shouldn't you make sure you get the basics correct first? I'm not talking about spectroscopy here.

    Besides, I think you could argue all day about these details while having no solid foundation to stand on.

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Faultline
    I don't want to get off topic, either, but I thought we were talking about the composition of the sun and how much iron is in it. The other threads were locked, and I got confused about whether we were going to discuss solar composition here.

    If this spectral analysis is important to your alternative solar model, shouldn't you make sure you get the basics correct first? I'm not talking about spectroscopy here.

    Besides, I think you could argue all day about these details while having no solid foundation to stand on.
    I just provided you two very solid foundations to stand on however. This particular topic is related to an image "interpretation" by Lockheed Martin that defies logic. It speaks to a much deeper and more serious problem related to their satellite image intepretation. Lockheed's explanation shows a complete disreguard for basic black body principles. The SXT instrument on Yohkoh is capable of seeing photons in the peak ranges that Lockheed is suggesting we should see them. We see in these images that the high heat, high energy photons are concentrated in the coronal loops, not the surrounding atmosphere. This suggests the coronal loops are both the light source and the heat source of these images.

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    I just provided you two very solid foundations to stand on however. This particular topic is related to an image "interpretation" by Lockheed Martin that defies logic. It speaks to a much deeper and more serious problem related to their satellite image intepretation. Lockheed's explanation shows a complete disreguard for basic black body principles.
    First, as was repeatedly explained, "black body principles" don't apply to those images, so your argument doesn't apply.

    Second, I thought you were going to do something to support your model. Namely, I thought you were following the suggestion here:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=202

    I'd like to put this suggestion to Michael:

    Please pick an area within your 'Sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' idea. Present a quantitative case that supports your idea, in this area.

    The case could be an OOM (order of magnitude) calculation; it could be some (relevant) equations or math; it could simply be a 'numbers consistency' case.

    Should the area you choose be a Manuel, Birkeland, or Bruce one, please point to the specific quantitative aspects that support your idea.

    In the meantime, please don't post anything else, on your idea, in this thread.
    We're still waiting for some calculation that supports the model. If you have difficulty thinking of a subject area, I have several suggestions. I would be happy to see a clear answer to just one of them.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    First, as was repeatedly explained, "black body principles" don't apply to those images, so your argument doesn't apply.
    Black body principles certainly DO apply to the sun Van. You can't have your cake here and eat it too. If you believe the dark background is "hotter" than the bright areas, the you have gigantic OOM problem on your hand it relates to energy output calculations related to the sun, since they are all based on a 6000K black body output.

    Second, I thought you were going to do something to support your model. Namely, I thought you were following the suggestion here:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=202



    We're still waiting for some calculation that supports the model. If you have difficulty thinking of a subject area, I have several suggestions. I would be happy to see a clear answer to just one of them.
    I just provided you with not just one, but two calculations that support my statements. If the blue background were truely 1 Million degrees or more, we'd all be crispy critters. If the dark areas were peaking at 29A, the SXT instrument would pick it up. It does not. That background surface is therefore much cooler, not hotter than the coronal loops.

    You guys asked for math. I gave you math. I gave you mathematical explanation as to the Yohkoh SXT filters and how they relate to the wavelengths in question. I showed you SXT images galore that show the light and heat concentrated in the coronal loops. I gave you two mathematical reasons why I'm right, and many visual aids as well. Now unless you intend to counter with math and images, I'm afraid I don't believe that that dark surface is hotter than the brightest areas of that original image.

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    http://eu.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=6497
    "Sunspots form when intense magnetic fields break through the visible surface," says Alexander Kosovichev of Stanford. "We could see the magnetic field shooting upwards like a fountain, faster than we expected."

    Even late on the previous day there was little hint of anything afoot, either at the surface or in the interior. By midnight (Universal Time) a region of strong magnetic field had risen from a depth of 18 000 kilometres and was already half way to the surface, travelling at 4500 km/hr. Sound speeds were increasing above the perturbed zone. By 8:00 a.m. an intense, rope-like magnetic field was in possession of a column of gas 20 000 kilometres wide and reaching almost to the visible surface. In the uppermost layer beneath the surface, the magnetic rope divided itself into strands that made the individual sunspots of the group.

    Under a large, well-established sunspot, in June 1998, the sound waves revealed a persistent column of hot, magnetised gas rising from deep in the interior. At a depth of 4000 kilometres it spread fingers towards neighbouring parts of the surface where it sustained some smaller sunspots. The magnetic column was not connected to another nearby spot where the magnetic field went in the opposite direction. Immediately below the large spot was a cushion of cooler, less intensely magnetised gas.

    A closer look at the gas flows, during the development of that June 1998 sunspot, led to the further findings now reported. The inflows and downflows in the immediate vicinity of the sunspot reach downwards for only a few thousand kilometres from the surface, which means less than one per cent of the distance to the Sun's centre. The discovery therefore depended on MDI's unique ability to explore just below the surface.
    This is more evidence that the arcs and electromagnetic fields originate under the surface of the relatively cool photosphere.

  23. #233
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    What exactly do you mean by the photosphere is "optically thick"? What makes you think that 171A and 195A filters cannot penetrate the space between the photosphere and the transition layer at 4800km seen in heliosiesmology? In fact what makes you think that the coronal loops are not originating in this region beneath the photosphere?
    For a moment (after reading Michael's post in the re-opened thread) I've really tought that, finally, we could have a discussion. I was wrong.
    We're still running in circles, nothing changed: Michael still choose to see only what he wants. I don't know if it's his usual way to have a discussion or simply he ignore the things that he could not understand, explain, are inconvenient to him or does not fit his views. And frankly I don't care anymore, this is not a enjoyable intelectual challenge that motivate one to search and improve his knowledge but has became a contest of throwing the same arguments from one side to another:
    "see, that blackbody spectrum proves me right!"
    "but this is not a blackbody spectrum!"
    "but see, the blackbody spectrum proves me right!"

    Nereid , I apreciate your perseverence in keeping this thread alive and actually trying to get something useful out of it. Good luck further on, you'll need it.

    Michael, I suggest you to take some classes at the local university. At least take a hint of what really means "learning". What you've provided is far to be "fundamental mathematic concepts".
    This dialogue is selfexplanatory:
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001
    Is it scientifically impossible for my barely-above-room-temperature LED lamp to illuminate my newspaper better than my human-temperature hand does?
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    How does your question apply to this issue in the first place?
    When you'll understand how this question apply to this issue then you'll have the basics needed to discuss it further.
    Actually all you need to do is to read carefully the hundreds of posts and links already provided to you on this forum that explains you hundreds of times the same basic things and concepts.

    Until (and if) you'll change your approach on the subject I have nothing more to add. I found no interest in searching and putting here explanations, links and theories for someone who doesn't bother to look at them as long as they're inconvenient for him.

    Baloo over and out.
    Last edited by Baloo; 2005-Oct-10 at 10:35 PM. Reason: correcting a phrase that didn't make sense

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    Black body principles certainly DO apply to the sun Van. You can't have your cake here and eat it too. If you believe the dark background is "hotter" than the bright areas, the you have gigantic OOM problem on your hand it relates to energy output calculations related to the sun, since they are all based on a 6000K black body output.
    You are arguing two different things here.

    Black body radiation does not apply to these images. They are narrow band images, not wide-band. These are two different beasts.

    If you take a thin (density of say 10,000 atoms/cc) plasma with oxygen in it and heat it to, say, 10,000K, it will glow. However, it will not give off a black body spectrum, since it is too thin. It will emit line emission. A narrow band image at 5010 Angstroms will show it booming out radiation (the famous [OIII] forbidden line), while a narrow band image at 5030 will show it to be very dark. All the emission is confined to narrow lines at specific wavelengths.

    Mind you, the gas is all at the same temperature, yet it will be quite dark at most wavelengths.

    Now if I put in a blob of cooler, denser gas, it will emit BB radiation. In fact, at 6000K it might give off a solar-like spectrum. So at both 5010 and 5030 Angstroms it will give off a bit of light. At 5030 it will be brighter than the hotter, thinner gas, but at 5010 it will be far dimmer.

    Do you see this? The blob is cooler than the thin gas, but will emit at 5030 while the thin gas will not.

    This is why your entire thesis here is incorrect. As you have been told many, many times, you are assuming the Sun is emitting thermally like a dense gas. This is way oversimplifying what's really happening. The Sun is of course emitting thermally, but there are many non-thermal processes as well. The magnetic fields are a huge part of that. It is these non-thermal processes that are driving the images you are trying to interpret.

    As I told you very clearly back at the old BABB, you cannot just look at an image and interpret it as you wish. You need to understand the underlying physics, and it is clear from everything you have been posting here for weeks that you do not understand those physics.

    People here have been incredibly patient with you, but my own patience is running out. In this post alone I have given you enough information to figure out a lot of what's going on, and there are dozens of earlier posts by other people imploring you to look into the basic physics of those images. From your post I quoted above it appears to me you are ignoring this advice, since you still talk about BB radiation when it is not pertinent to the images. I strongly urge you to get a book on plasma physics (like Osterbrock's "Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae") or at least read up on line versus continuous emission before posting here again. You are in very real danger of violating Rule 13 about posting arguments such as these.

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926

    Absolutely Increadible

    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo
    For a moment (after reading Michael's post in the re-opened thread) I've really tought that, finally, we could have a discussion. I was wrong.
    We're still running in circles, nothing changed: Michael still choose to see only what he wants. I don't know if it's his usual way to have a discussion or simply he ignore the things that he could not understand, explain, are inconvenient to him or does not fit his views. And frankly I don't care anymore, this is not a enjoyable intelectual challenge that motivate one to search and improve his knowledge but has became a contest of throwing the same arguments from one side to another:
    "see, that blackbody spectrum proves me right!"
    "but this is not a blackbody spectrum!"
    "but see, the blackbody spectrum proves me right!"
    ??????

    You specifically asked me to mathematically support my statements. I did so, two different ways. You suggested to me that the background of a million degree surface peaked at 29A, and if I'd done my homework I would know this. I already knew this.

    I showed you how Lockheed's statement does not jive with satellite imagery. I pointed out two significant mathematical problems including the most obvious and glaring OOM energy problem you have when you try to suggest whole thing radiates at over a million degrees! This is YOUR method Baloo, over a wide x-ray spectrum, and an iron ion spectrum as well. This is the mathematical support of concept you asked me for. Now that I have provided the mathematical support just as you asked for, you toss a few misplaced put downs directed at my level of education, and bail out of the conversation? Somehow I expected more from you Baloo.

    The only reason I can think of for you to act this way is if you finally realize that there is no way that you can justify the position that the dark background is "hotter" than the glowing areas of the original image.

    Those glowing areas represent temperatures ranging from 1 to 5 million degrees. Most of that heat is passed into the silicon umbra of the photosphere and ultimately this energy radiates as heat from the surface of the photosophere. The dark areas however are much cooler. If they were hotter as Lockheed suggests, we'd be way out in left field when it comes to energy output calculations regarding the sun.

    Now I stuck to the methods you suggested we use to calculate output, the same methods that you insist apply to the physics of the sun. If these methods apply, then show me *how* they apply. How do you have million degree region surrounded by even hotter million degree regions and still end up with a black body output that is based on 6000K temperature? Nothing adds up here. It is not that I lack anything as it relates to an education Baloo, it is because I *am* educated that I am able to provide you with a mathematical dispoof of Lockheed's statement.

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
    You are arguing two different things here.

    Black body radiation does not apply to these images. They are narrow band images, not wide-band. These are two different beasts.
    First of all, we do have an wide enough band in the SXT filter to "test" the peak wavelength prediction. It turn's out that it does apply *to the coronal loops themselves*. Even Lockheed insists these glowing regions represent million degree regions. They then go on to insist the background is hotter still. That would push us way outside the overall energy calculations of the sun that are based on a 6000K black body surface. The math here does not work out.

    If you take a thin (density of say 10,000 atoms/cc) plasma with oxygen in it and heat it to, say, 10,000K, it will glow. However, it will not give off a black body spectrum, since it is too thin. It will emit line emission. A narrow band image at 5010 Angstroms will show it booming out radiation (the famous [OIII] forbidden line), while a narrow band image at 5030 will show it to be very dark. All the emission is confined to narrow lines at specific wavelengths.
    But there is nothing here to suggest that iron will "glow" at 171A at less than 1 million degrees.

    Mind you, the gas is all at the same temperature, yet it will be quite dark at most wavelengths.

    Now if I put in a blob of cooler, denser gas, it will emit BB radiation. In fact, at 6000K it might give off a solar-like spectrum. So at both 5010 and 5030 Angstroms it will give off a bit of light. At 5030 it will be brighter than the hotter, thinner gas, but at 5010 it will be far dimmer.

    Do you see this? The blob is cooler than the thin gas, but will emit at 5030 while the thin gas will not.

    This is why your entire thesis here is incorrect. As you have been told many, many times, you are assuming the Sun is emitting thermally like a dense gas. This is way oversimplifying what's really happening. The Sun is of course emitting thermally, but there are many non-thermal processes as well. The magnetic fields are a huge part of that. It is these non-thermal processes that are driving the images you are trying to interpret.

    As I told you very clearly back at the old BABB, you cannot just look at an image and interpret it as you wish. You need to understand the underlying physics, and it is clear from everything you have been posting here for weeks that you do not understand those physics.

    People here have been incredibly patient with you, but my own patience is running out. In this post alone I have given you enough information to figure out a lot of what's going on, and there are dozens of earlier posts by other people imploring you to look into the basic physics of those images. From your post I quoted above it appears to me you are ignoring this advice, since you still talk about BB radiation when it is not pertinent to the images. I strongly urge you to get a book on plasma physics (like Osterbrock's "Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae") or at least read up on line versus continuous emission before posting here again. You are in very real danger of violating Rule 13 about posting arguments such as these.
    I am trying to cooperate with the rules 100%. I was asked to produce mathematical support for my position. I did that. I did that two different ways in fact. I showed that a peaked 29A source is visible in these overlay images, specifically in the coronal loops, suggesting these loops are reaching millions of degrees. There is however no mathematical or logical support for the idea that the surface that does not emit these ions is actually hotter than the part of the surface that emits the ion photons. I am not talking rocket science here, this is simple physics and these are simple mathematical formulas. The temperature of that dark surface is limited by it's lack of emissions in either Trace or Yohkoh images. The relatively wide spectrum allows us to test the peak wavelength theory, and it does seem to work out, *in the coronal loops*. I am not trying to be difficult Phil, I'm actually doing my best to switch gears here and give you what you asked me for. If you can show me what is wrong with the mathematical support I provided you, perhaps I would understand the nature of your frustration. As it is, I feel like I have gone out of my way to do things "by the book", and I'm still being penalized for it, even without a mathematical rebuttal of any sort.

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17972

    Hey Vermonter...

    Since we have been talking about solar formation theory, you might want to read this article about a relatively small (compared to sun standards) infrared emitting object found in a dust cloud that seems to be about 25 times as big as Jupiter.

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
    ??????
    The only reason I can think of for you to act this way is if you finally realize that there is no way that you can justify the position that the dark background is "hotter" than the glowing areas of the original image.
    No, it is because you apparently aren't listening to anyone, including the BA. Before you respond to posts, you should study them until you understand what is being said. That may (and often does) require research. In this case, the issue is that the corona is hot BUT VERY THIN compared to the photosphere. The method you used to calculate output does not apply.

    It is not that I lack anything as it relates to an education Baloo, it is because I *am* educated that I am able to provide you with a mathematical dispoof of Lockheed's statement.
    Many forum members have suggested that you study these subjects more carefully. When I suggested this before, you took it as a personal insult. Unfortunately, that's the wrong attitude. The fact is, you are making fundamental errors in your statements and you aren't correcting them.

    Michael, you should go back and do some serious studying. After you have done that, if you still think there is something to your model, then you can answer, with math, some of the questions we have been asking. A key one would be how a solid iron surface would be possible under observed conditions. Right now, we're just going in circles.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    No, it is because you apparently aren't listening to anyone, including the BA. Before you respond to posts, you should study them until you understand what is being said. That may (and often does) require research. In this case, the issue is that the corona is hot BUT VERY THIN compared to the photosphere. The method you used to calculate output does not apply.
    I do listen Van, but that does not mean that I am obligated to agree with you only because you think you are right. Whether the corona is thin or not thin makes no difference as it relates to the concentration of photons in SXT images. The photons are emitted from within the coronal loops, making these loops much hotter than anything else in these images. In the composite image, you can actually see this change of temperature within the atmospheric layering and how it affects the emission patterns of the coronal loops themselves. Yohkoh is only barely able to see the base of the loops, but it has no problem picking out these loops once the enter the lighter, thinner corona.

    You have also failed to provide any significant evidence that the loops originate in the corona.

    Many forum members have suggested that you study these subjects more carefully. When I suggested this before, you took it as a personal insult. Unfortunately, that's the wrong attitude. The fact is, you are making fundamental errors in your statements and you aren't correcting them.
    What fundamental error? The fact you and a few other "think" I am wrong does not demonstrate this as fact. You keep aledging things like this without cause. I have shown you that the light and heat is concentrated in the coronal loops. You keep insisting otherwise. You've yet to demonstrate otherwise in any meaningful scientific way. You never explained how a surface that is relatively dark and not emitting photons is somehow hotter than a surface that IS emitting high energy photons.

    Michael, you should go back and do some serious studying. After you have done that, if you still think there is something to your model, then you can answer, with math, some of the questions we have been asking. A key one would be how a solid iron surface would be possible under observed conditions. Right now, we're just going in circles.
    If you believe there is a better answer Van, where is it? I see a lot of handwaving going on around here, and nothing substantive from a mathematical or scientific level. You have temperatures in solar moss that reach millions of degrees according to Lockheed's own statements. These coronal loops are the hottest, most energy emitting areas in SXT images. The darker areas of these SXT images are just not as hot as the brighter areas of the image. It is just that simple. You are once again trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to ignore a major problem you have here with OOM calculations by picking on the messenger.

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    BA is right, Mozina is wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is inapplicable because the radiation is non-thermal. It does not help matter any that physicists commonly use the word "temperature" in several different ways, with several different meanings. Experienced readers recognize this, and inexperienced readers do not. Unfortunate.

    In this case of emission from the loops, & etc. the word temperature does not have its common meaning. It refers to the temperature equivalent kinetic energy of the particles in the loop. This all comes out from reading a book on plasma physics, at least one with a focus on solar plasma. The radiation we see has little to do, even with that. The radiation we see is line emission, which comes from electrons falling back into orbit around a nucleus. The deeper the orbit, the more energetic the photons, but the emission does not have a Planck Law Spectrum. Rather, it is concentrated in a narrow band of wavelengths. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to that radiation is a pretty severe mistake, which leads to severe misinterpretations.

    The given million Kelvin temperature is estimated from the intensity of the line emission. When the electrons fall back to the nuclei and emit, they should stay there. They don't. They get knocked off again, fall back and emit again, and so on in a continuing process. The line intensity implies the rapidity of the process, which in turn implies a temperature necessary to keep it going.

    Au Revoir

Similar Threads

  1. Lockheed Martin buys first commercial quantum computer
    By Andrew D in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-11, 07:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Dec-01, 08:00 PM
  3. Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?
    By Michael Mozina in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-06, 03:21 PM
  4. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Spaceships Design
    By Tuckerfan in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-May-06, 10:20 PM
  5. Discussion: Lockheed Martin and Northrop ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-30, 05:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: