|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2006 : 17:24:09 [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.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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
What we are looking at is a concatenation of difference images at a very specific wavelength range. TRACE haven't, to my knowledge revealed exactly how they are calculated. I've requested the extra information you seem to have access to previously (top of page 12, this thread), but to no avail.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I think I'm repeating myself from a previous post here, but why should the "surface" plasma change with the same spatial and temporal frequencies as the photoshphere?
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 can see a number of changes in just the small region I cropped out of the image. Also, you have yet to prove that a plasma of any sort cannot remain "static" within time frame over which these images were taken to within the spatial resolution of this imaging system. (Note, "because some other, different plasma region moves more than this" is not proof)
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I don't see "shading" or shadows. I see a region emitting less iron ions than those nearby. You have posited that it is a solid surface displaying shadows. You have not explained the light source adequately, nor described what surface would display the reflective properties it would need to have for this to be the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No, we don't. They only seem to come "from" the surface to you. As this is a running difference image, I have no problem believeing that something (not necessarily "dust") originating from the surface is emitted and disippated/cooled OR that there is a sequential emmission of ions running across the surface. The difference imagery alone cannot differentiate between the two.
By the way, why is your "dust" blown in a different direction than the "wind" you've described previously as causing the shadow directionality? Could it be that the "shadows" are an artifact of the differentiation process and tend to favour one "side" because the whole image moves in a particular direction over time?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
You're argument makes sense if you assume it to be true in the first place. The "structures" do not all look rigid to me, even if I force myself to imagine the imagery actually represents a surface illuminated by some myserious fluctuating source. You have to look at all of the imagery, not just the parts that suit your explaination. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 17:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
GeeMack, are we on for that bet I proposed? Your comments are utterly pointless, pure insult, and they are just plain boring at this point. I thought my proposal for us simply not participating on the same boards was a fair and reasonable proposition. How about we agree to that right now so I don't have to deal with your nonsense for any longer than I have to?
Before anyone agrees to that. I'd like to at least suggest the caveat that the loser be allowed to participate on the same boards long enough to make a concise, honest admission of defeat. 
Also, I'm not sure that the two of you frequent the same "boards" outside of SFN. If so, how do you plan to "divvy up the turf" ? It's going to be extremely hard (impossible?) to police any way you look at it. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 02/22/2006 17:47:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:02:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Where is this "localized" arc you're talking about?
Right here:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/traceflare1700
You'll notice how this compares to a "quite" time about 30 minutes earlier:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/traceflare1631
quote:
Why can't we see it in these images? If it's the illumination source as you purport, it should be quite visible. If it's "out of shot" then it's going to have to be some sort of laser beam of iron ions with a beam profile nearly exactly the same shape as your "mountain" in order to achieve the lighting effect of parts 1 and 2 of the collage above. Can you explain this?
Sure I can explain this. The RD images tend to remove all the arcs (or most of them) since we are subtracting one image from another. What tends to be left are the lighting changes from the surface itself. You won't typically see the arcs in running difference images, though as you can see, you will see these arcs in the raw imges.
quote:
Why would I expect it to grow uniformly? You claimed that it was an arc producing iron ions which are reflected from the surface. These arcs (unless you are going to redefine the term) are distributed point sources. "Local conditions near the surface" have nothing to do with when and where the "light" changes. Explain how local conditions near the surface affect the light source itself, which is so far away it can't be seen.
You need to understand the scales of things in this image. That "localized flare took place over a very large surface area in terms of distance, but in terms of total screen shot, it's a very 'small' area. That is in essense a "localized" event, that occurs in arc we see in the first image. Most of the light we see in these images comes from "relatively" small areas of the surface in much smaller events than the arc we see in that area during the solar flare. That flare is the massive exception in an otherwise relatively "small scale" operation. Most of the arcs are much smaller than the main event, and typically light up small surface areas at a time. Only the truely massive ones reach into the corona to be seen by Yohkoh. These may have a more broad impact, in fact they do have a more broad inpact, particularly in the raw SOHO images. The largest flares will typically light up the surface almost as effectively as the running difference imaging technique. I should probably post some examples of this on my website for you. I think I'll do that later tonight, or later this week.
quote:
I won't notice structures lit from the right hand side because I don't see structures at all. I see a the result of a plasma surface with varying levels of iron ion emission in a runnning difference image. You are the only one "seeing" actual solid structures.
But these various areas of this "plasma surface" you've described are structured exactly the same (or nearly so) after many hours (in fact days), whereas "structures" in the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so. Your plasma surface certainly doesn't move around like the surface of the photosphere.
quote:
Now you've introduced the "wind" effect. Explain how you know there is a wind moving from right to left in these images, what this "wind" is, and how it affects the iron ions coming from the arc light source which we can't see.
Shortly after that arc on the right occurs, particles from the surface can be seen drifting upward and away from the arc. The plasma above this surface carries these particles from right to left, bottom to top. You can actually see this effect all over the surface to varying degrees, but the massive flare kicked up a whole "cloud" into the atmosphere.
quote:
By "intense electrical activity" to you mean smaller arcs?
Yes, I mean smaller, more active arcs near the surface itself. Again, most of the light is coming from relatively small arcs near the surface, particularly on the "windward" side of these structures. I would deduce from these images that charged plasma moving over these surfaces makes these regions more electrically active.
quote:
It would make life easier if you could use consistent terminolgy.
I hear you.
quote:
If these arcs are nearer the surface, why don't we see them directly?
You can see them directly in the raw images. You won't see them as well (though sometimes you can see an outline) in RD images. That is due to the subtraction process itself.
quote:
Can you provide a model for an arc that directs its light (or iron ions) only in a direction which happens to co-incide directly with 3D structures below it?
I don't think that is necessary in this case. It's more a matter of realizing that most of the light we see comes from relatively small arcs near the surface. Only the largest, most active arcs will light up huge areas of the surface. That does happen however, and that is most noticeable in raw SOHO images IMO.
quote:
No I didn't. If they are shadows, why aren't there shadows in the bright arc region of collage sections 1 and 2 corresponding to those that are visible in 3 and 4?
Becuase during 3 and 4, there is a *major* flare eruption that drowns out the "local" lighting. Even still, the light from this flare is relatively limited in size, at least in these specific images. As I said, SOHO has a more interesting view of the massive eruptions as it relates to lighting up huge surface areas.
There would have to be a directly overhead source in frames 1 and 2 which somehow disappears at exactly the same time as a new source, with the same effective intensity appears somewhere out of frame to the right, producing shadows as in 3 and 4.
quote:
Only if you assum |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:04:02 [Permalink]
|
It's fucking amazing the amount of scientific measurements Michael can hand wave away as being based on unfounded assumptions, yet still clings to that "8 minute time frame" for plasmas as gospel. Dr. Mabuse linked an article that said several plasma formations can last up to 24 hours, so any solid feature should last considerably longer than that to even raise an eyebrow. Michael's perceived solids do not, of course, but he throws out the ad hoc excuse of "erosion" to account for this.
Michael is badly deluded. His methods are exactly the same as creationists in that he assumes his conclusion. He rejects expert opinions as fallacious "appeals to authority," which they aren't since it isn't a logical fallacy to rely upon the judgements of people who really are experts in their fields. He sees solid structures, damn it. And nothing can convince them they aren't there, because his mind is locked onto that fact.
So like the creationists, all he can do is data mine for things which support his conclusions and reject everything else. Any fact with challenges the standard solar model he views as supporting his conclusions, which is a standard creationist mistake he refuses to recognize and continues to commit. He even goes so far as to accuse scientists of dogmatism and of clinging to a "faith," exactly the same way creationists falsely portray evolutionary biologists.
Michael is simply not capable of recognizing his own errors. Like creationists, he'll run you around in the semblance of a discussion but he doesn't actually process any new information. Months later he'll bring up the same discredited "evidence" which was rejected earlier. You only have the appearance of making progress in this discussion, but Michael is still stuck in the same spot as he was when he arrived. He's right, everyone else is wrong, he's convinced of it and no facts can ever change his mind on that.
There is nothing to be done with such a person. Their misguided conviction is akin to a mental illness. You can't treat Michael like a normal, rational human being, because he isn't. There is something wrong with his thinking process. Something that's broken. The only thing one can really do is refuse to waste any more time on him, because he plans on going to his grave with "Crank" written on his tombstone.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:05:34 [Permalink]
|
To continue this discussion please go here.
This thread is locked due to its leangth…
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
