|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2006 : 13:28:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The movement of plasma is relatively chaotic. We can see evidence of the chaotic movement of the photosphere in the video I provided. According to Wiki, these structures change every 8 minutes or so. That is the behavior we expect from thin plasma with a lot of heat.
No, that is the behaviour we expect from a relatively thick and relatively cool plasma at the top of convective cells. We have no reason to believe that the lower corona should behave similarly, since it's much hotter, much less dense and no evidence has been presented of it undergoing convection.quote:
What we have in the RD images however represents even MORE heat, and is according to LMSAL sitting *on top* of the structures of the photosphere that come and go every 8 minutes.
No, it's not "on top" of the photosphere, it's thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. Just like surface-level winds and updrafts on Earth don't significantly affect the appearance of the aurorae, there's little reason to think the behaviour of the photosphere will affect the lower corona.quote:
Now for whatever reason, the movement we see in this spectrum is *nothing* like the movements we see in photosphere plasma. Why?
Because the two regions aren't mechanically linked, as has already been noted many times, Michael. |
- 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 - 03/09/2006 : 15:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
If you'll recall, Michael, running difference images are not showing structure of any sort. What you mistakenly believe to be structure in those images is simply an optical illusion.
Bologna! There is no optical illusion that lines up all the structures in exactly the same locations, frame after frame after frame. Nevermind the fact that the lighting on the structures go up and down during the image, even if these structures were uniformly lit, the uniformity of the illumination remains to be explained. In other words, why are the light areas *always* light and the same dark areas always dark? The relationships between these light and dark areas isn't changing by your definition, so what keeps these things all in exactly the same relationships to one another while floating on top of a boiling plasma of a photosophere where the structures come and go in 8 minute intervals?
quote:
Remember, you're the only one who questions the rigidity.
I question the rigidity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the visual patterns in the image itself. The patterns of the photosphere change rapidly. The patterns of this layer do not. There is a distinct difference between the longevity of the patterns in the RD images of the surface, vs. the longevity patterns of the structures of the surface of the photosphere. That is because one surface is made of solids, and one surface is made of plasma.
quote:
The rest of us understand and therefore have no need to address it.
Yes, you all seem way to willing to sweep all that structure under the carpet and pretend it's not there, frame after frame after frame after frame. Sorry, but I'm a little more curious about why things are the way they are to simply ignore the million dollar details of these images the way you do.
quote:
It's your claim. It's not up to anyone else to prove it.
I can prove it's solid in two ways. First it's rigid like a solid, and two, it emits electrical arcs, and focuses electricicty like a solid.
quote:
You address it if you think it needs addressing.
I already have. I've given a detailed breakdown of why the structures are there, why the lighting shifts while the structures remain fixed, why the peeling occurs on the right, why the dust blows off to the left, ect.
quote:
But while we're at it, what remains unaddressed (among dozens of other questions you've refused to answer) is this: Nearly every "feature" seen in every single running difference image seems to be highlighted on the right and shaded on the left, no matter where it is on the Sun. If those images show light and shadow as you suggest, you've completely neglected your responsibility to provide a detailed, scientific, quantitative explanation for that heretofore unknown cause of such an extremely incredible lighting phenomenon. Explain that, in detail, scientifically, and quantitatively. And provide relevant references and calculations.
What are you talking about? I already agreed with you that *if we assume uniform movement* then we can also assume that lit areas would tend to have dark regions to the left that were based on the timing between images. Then again, I'm basing this statement on the presumtion that rigid "structures" rotate in a rigid and uniform manner, whereas you've never explained how plasma could be expected to do such things when the plasma of the photosphere recreates it's scructure every 8 minutes! You're the one that "presumed" uniform movement and offered no way to explain this uniform movement.
quote:
M:So here's the 64K dollar question for you GeeMack, and please try to get a straight answer: Why does this particular filter *only* show imagery from the coronal region?
G:First, the general temperature range viewed through the 171Å filters is tens of thousands, up to perhaps millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere.
So? How would a relatively cool plasma layer above the surface of a Birkeland model affect the electrical activity from the surface? What is the heat source of the coronal loops GeeMack?
quote:
But even if it was showing temperatures from -1,000°K to 100,000,000°K, it doesn't negate the fact that you completely misunderstand running difference images.
You have yet to demonstrate that A) the temperature dictates location, or that B) I have mae any errors in my analysis of RD images.
quote:
And perhaps even more importantly, your question is simply another in your ever increasingly desperate attempt to distract from the real issue, that being your unsupportable notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.
It is not an unsupportable notion, in fact I'm supporting it right now based on the rigid behavior of the structures in these images. There are also Doppler images that show similarly rigid features from a relatively shallow layer. There are many ways to support the Birkeland model based on satellite images. This is just one such image. We haven't even gotten to the really interesting images IMO.
quote:
......myself,.....and several others have indeed explained what you imagine you're seeing in running difference images is not structure, but is in fact a simple optical illusion.
I don't care how many of you throw a handwave of an excuse "optical illusion" my way, I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it because I observe these patterns are uniform from one frame to the next. I observe that there is no differential rotation happening in these images the way we see in images of the convecting photosphere. Such a handwave won't cut it, and nothing is explained with the statement "optical illusion". There is no explanation in that term to explain the fixed relationships in these patterns. There is no explaination in that term to explain how these ridges remain in fixed relationships to one another, fr |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 15:25:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Maybe because the movements of the plasmas in a CME are thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?
How do you know that? How would that help your case in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 15:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, that is the behaviour we expect from a relatively thick and relatively cool plasma at the top of convective cells.
It's 5800K! It's not "cool" by anything other that coronal loop standards. It's plasma that resembles boiling liquid. The whole surface is three dimensional and moving.
No supposedly these images (according to you guys) comes from a region above this boiling, convecting set of cells, and is related to lighter plasma in the 20K+ range.
quote:
We have no reason to believe that the lower corona should behave similarly, since it's much hotter, much less dense and no evidence has been presented of it undergoing convection.
If it is both hotter and *less* dense then it is even less likely to hold rigid structures. If the lighter plasma below is moving and convecting underneath, now does this light and airy stuff stay in rigid patterns?
The analogy here that comes to mind is the earths surface, water and air above the surface. We can easily understand how the surface might stay fixed while the water might boil and the wind might blow great distances and reflect this movement of heat. It's a lot more difficult to accept that water will boil and convect yet the air above it remains "unchanged".
quote:
No, it's not "on top" of the photosphere, it's thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. Just like surface-level winds and updrafts on Earth don't significantly affect the appearance of the aurorae, there's little reason to think the behaviour of the photosphere will affect the lower corona.
You're right back to trying to compare electromagnetic effects to these images, without explaining how that's possible when the coronal loops move, and how these currents flow, where they come from, etc. We would expect to see movement in the air above a boiling liquid. The photosphere is boiling (convecting heat) into the light plasma above. That light plamsa above is hotter and lighter and less likely to remain "rigid" than anything that is denser and more cool. That really makes no sense.
quote:
Because the two regions aren't mechanically linked, as has already been noted many times, Michael.
They *are* mechanically linked. This is like saying the earths oceans aren't mechanically linked to the air above, or the surface below. It's all interconnected and it's all mechanically linked together. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/09/2006 15:40:59 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 16:56:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
It's your claim. It's not up to anyone else to prove it.
I can prove it's solid in two ways. First it's rigid like a solid, and two, it emits electrical arcs, and focuses electricicty like a solid.
HAHAHA Great 'proof' - it looks rigid and you think you see 'arcs'.
Well that just about buttons that discussion up.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 18:55:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Bologna! There is no optical illusion that lines up all the structures in exactly the same locations, frame after frame after frame. Nevermind the fact that the lighting on the structures go up and down during the image, even if these structures were uniformly lit, the uniformity of the illumination remains to be explained. In other words, why are the light areas *always* light and the same dark areas always dark? The relationships between these light and dark areas isn't changing by your definition, so what keeps these things all in exactly the same relationships to one another while floating on top of a boiling plasma of a photosophere where the structures come and go in 8 minute intervals?
The optical illusion only creates the appearance of structure. The "illumination" is the place where the software, not the Sun, placed lighter colored pixels. They are always light in certain places because where those pixels were in the raw images, each was brighter than in the previous one, across the series. The software could measure that and placed lighter pixels in those spots.
Where the software measured a pixel being darker than in the previous image, it placed a darker pixel in the output. Some areas of that video were brighter from image to image throughout the entire sequence of the raw originals, and some areas were darker than each previous image, throughout the entire sequence of raw originals. Result, the appearance of static areas of lighter and darker pixels.
Oh, and you have yet to provide any quantitative analysis of that video yourself. So far 100% of your "analysis" has been your incessant claim that by god it looks solid. And quantitative doesn't mean how many months you've sat in front of your computer staring at the video. Quantitative doesn't mean "relatively" or "peeling" or "dust" or "somewhat" or "up and down".
Quantitative means this: The video shows an area of about A kilometers by B kilometers at what amounts to longitude C and latitude D. Considering the angle of view, we would be looking through E kilometers of plasma with a visual density blocking F percent of the reflected light. The source of light has the intensity of G lumens, or varying from that intensity by plus or minus H lumens, and comes from an angle of I degrees, or varying from that angle by somewhere between J and K degrees. That combination of intensity and angle would indicate the height of mountain L is M kilometers in frame N and grows to as much as O in frame P. The ambient light is Q lumens and considering the ambient and intensity of direct light, and calculating in the angle of direct light, that would make valley R somewhere between S and T kilometers deep in frame U and as much as V kilometers deeper in frame W. That would be quantitative.quote:
I question the rigidity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the visual patterns in the image itself. The patterns of the photosphere change rapidly. The patterns of this layer do not. There is a distinct difference between the longevity of the patterns in the RD images of the surface, vs. the longevity patterns of the structures of the surface of the photosphere. That is because one surface is made of solids, and one surface is made of plasma.
See my reply above. It looks solid. So what? It isn't.quote:
Yes, you all seem way to willing to sweep all that structure under the carpet and pretend it's not there, frame after frame after frame after frame. Sorry, but I'm a little more curious about why things are the way they are to simply ignore the million dollar details of these images the way you do.
There is no structure. You're lying again. Nobody is ignoring the images or pretending something isn't there. You, Michael, are pretending something is there.
Everyone else here, at the BAUT forum, at NASA, at LMSAL, everyone understands running difference images except you. Everyone else realizes they are simply a graphical representation of change between each in a series of raw images.quote:
I can prove it's solid in two ways. First it's rigid like a solid, and two, it emits electrical arcs, and focuses electricicty like a solid.
Making a claim isn't proving it, and so far all you've done is make the claim. You say you can prove it, but you haven't. All you've done is declare your belief, by your own admission, your faith in your interpretation, an interpretation which has been shown many times and in many ways to be incorrect.quote:
I already have. I've given a detailed breakdown of why the structures are there, why the lighting shifts while the structures remain fixed, why the peeling occurs on the right, why the dust blows off to the left, ect.
But you've totally misunderstood what running difference images are, how they're created, for what purpose, and what they actually show. You continue to misunderstand that there are no structures of any sort in running difference images, so no matter how you might explain "fixed" or "peeling" within the context of your incorrect interpretation, you will be wrong.quote:
What are you talking about? I already agreed with you that *if we assume uniform movement* then we can also assume that lit areas would tend to have dark regions to the left that were based on the timing between images. Then again, I'm basing this statement on the presumtion that rigid "structures" rotate in a rigid and uniform manner, whereas you've never explained how plasma could be expected to do such things when the plasma of the photosphere recreates it's scructure every 8 minutes! You're the one that "presumed" uniform movement and offered no way to explain this uniform movement.
No. You're lying again. I've never presumed uniform movement. I understand running difference images, you don't. I'm presuming that running difference images do not show structure of any sort, in any way, because it's been explained by astrophysicists, software designers, and people with decades of practical experience in the science behind optical illusions.
Nobody but you believes, and nobody intelligent would believe there's structure in running difference graphs based on nothing more than your say-so.quote:
So? How would a relatively cool plasma layer above the surface of a Birkeland model affect the electrical activity from the surface? What is the heat source of the coronal loops GeeMack?
You keep babbling about how y |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:19:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't just "think" I see electrical arcs. I know this because of the University of Maryland and the work of Dr. Charles Bruce
.
The University of Maryland paper does not talk about arcs, unless you consider arcs to be charged particles of plasma moving along magnetic field lines.
2 points on Dr. Charles Bruce, his theories are not generally accepted in the astrophysics field (kind of like dr. Manuel) AND Dr. Charles Bruce believed the sun was a large gas sphere powered by fusion. He may be dead but he too thinks you are wrong.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:46:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's 5800K! It's not "cool" by anything other that coronal loop standards. It's plasma that resembles boiling liquid.
Actually, despite all my earlier attempts to get you to figure it out on your own, the 5,800 K parts of the photosphere are not entirely plasma. It's cool enough for non-ionized atoms and even some very simple molecules to form.quote:
The whole surface is three dimensional and moving.
On that we agree.quote:
No supposedly these images (according to you guys) comes from a region above this boiling, convecting set of cells, and is related to lighter plasma in the 20K+ range.
Indeed.quote:
If it is both hotter and *less* dense then it is even less likely to hold rigid structures.
The plasma is not holding "rigid structures." Instead, magnetic fields through the plasmas are cooling it, and as the ions pass through this cooling zone, they collect electrons and thus emit EUV light (because they're that hot). The idea that anyone here is claiming that any of the coronal ions are holding any sort of shape is a strawman. Just like laser light passing through a cloud of smoke, ions passing through the magnetic fields give the illusion of solidity.quote:
If the lighter plasma below is moving and convecting underneath, now does this light and airy stuff stay in rigid patterns?
It doesn't.quote:
The analogy here that comes to mind is the earths surface, water and air above the surface. We can easily understand how the surface might stay fixed while the water might boil and the wind might blow great distances and reflect this movement of heat. It's a lot more difficult to accept that water will boil and convect yet the air above it remains "unchanged".
Well, the problem is that you're not considering the distances involved. The heated air eventually drops to the same temperature as the rest of the atmosphere at a particular altitude, and the rising column stops of its own accord. Especially since the less-dense the air, the less mechanical linkage there is between molecules.quote:
You're right back to trying to compare electromagnetic effects to these images, without explaining how that's possible when the coronal loops move, and how these currents flow, where they come from, etc.
The Lockheed "gold" video is a mere 90 minutes long. The UofM paper talks about loops which don't change shape for 75 minutes. Given that electron flow doesn't affect the TRACE images (except for the minute continuum input at 20 MK), I don't know why you bring up current flow. And what does the source of the loops have to do with the stuff seen in that video?quote:
We would expect to see movement in the air above a boiling liquid.
We don't expect to see movement of air in the stratosphere due to a pot of boiling water.quote:
The photosphere is boiling (convecting heat) into the light plasma above.
No, the convection ends at the photosphere, and heat is radiated away - or did you forget your blackbody calculations?quote:
That light plamsa above is hotter and lighter and less likely to remain "rigid" than anything that is denser and more cool. That really makes no sense.
It won't make any sense so long as you think I'm talking about plasma ions forming the shapes seen in the video (and images), you're absolutely right. But despite discussing this for umpty-ump posts, you can't seen to get that wrong impression out of your head.quote:
They *are* mechanically linked. This is like saying the earths oceans aren't mechanically linked to the air above, or the surface below. It's all interconnected and it's all mechanically linked together.
If you say so, but the idea that you'll be able to see patterns in clouds based on the height of waves in the ocean below will make you appear to be a crackpot. Heck, wave height is only dependent upon the topology of the sea floor when the water is very shallow compared to the wave height (at a beach, for instance). In deep water, the height of waves doesn't reflect the seafloor topology at all. Yet that's what you're claiming about the Sun: that despite thousands of kilometers of non-rigid, non-convecting chromosphere between them, the lower corona should look like the top of the photosphere (or worse). It's that sort of argument which demonstrates the old adage of "common sense often isn't." |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:50:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Bologna! There is no optical illusion that lines up all the structures in exactly the same locations, frame after frame after frame.
Right, that was done by a human being, as is shown by examining the raw images and seeing that everything is shifting from left-to-right, ending up a good 10-15 pixels from where it began. |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 20:59:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
As it relates to mass separation, and therefore density aspects, STEREO seems like a natural place to start. STEREO will enable us to analyse and determine the relationship between various layer. The mass separation aspect should be easy enough to verify in 3D.
Okay, what instrument on board STEREO will be able to distinguish that different layers are different elements (and/or isotopes of the same element)?quote:
quote:
Yet you apparently know enough that those undefined "movements" can change our measurements of mass by a large enough factor to make your model feasible. You're a ball of self-contradiction.
Actually I *don't* "know" this as you keep suggesting.
Then why is it that you fought so strongly to have us accept that unknowns may affect our measurement of the Sun's mass? And where is that description of how acceleration affects our measurement of mass, anyway?quote:
In fact I've been quite forthcomming about the fact that the core of the sun may be less dense than the crust as with the air bubble with a water shell analogy.
And in such a case, what would you propose for the power source of the Sun?quote:
There isn't any way for me to "see" inside the sun with the same precision I can see the atmosphere of the sun.
I don't accept that you can see the atmosphere of the Sun with any precision whatsoever. Your conclusion that there is, for example, a silicon plasma layer is based on taking data from three disparate sources and merging them without a logical connection between them.quote:
There are no lit parts in these images that don't involve a filament. What you see at the top of the photosphere are the tops of these filaments. Period. Only in the sunspots can you see the sides of these neon filaments. The sunspot is literally a hole in the neon plasma layer caused by the rising and falling silicon plasma in that region.
Yes, it's a somewhat interesting idea, but where is the evidence that shows this hypothesis to be correct? Where is the evidence that shows conclusively that the photosphere is a neon plasma?quote:
The penumbral filament layer is the neon layer. The filaments are made of neon. We see the filaments in sunspot activity because there is literally a hole in the filament layer in this region. It's really quite a simple concept to follow.
Yes, it is once you explain it. It is your use of the term "penumbral filament layer" as a synonym for "photosphere" which was difficult to follow, and it took all this damn time for you to finally let us know what you meant.quote:
quote:
This has already been explained to you, more than once: the umbra is dark because it puts out less light than the rest of the photosphere.
Why does it put out less light *under* the filaments? Why do all the filaments stop at a very specific depth, and why is it so much darker after just under the filaments? That part has *not* been explained.
It's dark because it is cooler and thus emitting less light. How hard is that to understand? There is a downdraft of photospheric material there, and it's a downdraft because it's being magnetically cooled.quote:
That doesn't explain the dark areas just under the filaments. Why do the filaments all end at exactly the same depth?
I don't think you've got evidence that they "end" at exactly the same depth, unless your definition of "exact" is "to within some dozen kilometers."quote:
quote:
Quote Birkeland using the term "umbra layer," and I'll agree that you didn't invent it yourself.
I don't even know of the terms "umbra and penumbra" were even being used back then. :) He certainly discusses other types of gases that "could" be present, including a couple that didn't even have names yet.
That's not the point, which is that you, Michael Mozina, invented the term "umbra layer" for use in your model, to mean a silicon plasma layer between certain depths, and thus aren't using the term "umbra" in the same way as any solar scientist in the world, despite your protestations that you are.quote:
Well, I need a way to define the silicon plasma that we see rising up through the neon layer in sunspot images. Your model doesn't even recognize this layer exists. I have explained the thickness now several times. The neon is approximately 500-700KM, whereas the silicon plasma is approximately 2800KM-3000KM and the calcium plasma layer is approximately 1000KM thick.
Why not just have said, "the silicon plasma layer wells up in the middle of a sunspot, and is seen as what everyone calls the 'umbra' of a sunspot?" That wouldn't have caused any confusion at all, but instead you chose to use the established name of a local phenomenon to describe a sun-covering layer.quote:
quote:
The Problem - the above method of measuring the bulk content of a solar-system body based upon its atmosphere does not work for the planet Earth. For example, above-ground atomic-bomb blasts in the 1940s and 1950s significantly altered the ratio of carbon isotopes within the Earth's atmosphere, without sign |
- 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 - 03/09/2006 : 21:37:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The University of Maryland paper does not talk about arcs,
It talks about the flow of *electrons* in a very direct way. It talks about emissions from two sources. One is heat. Guess what the other one is.
quote:
unless you consider arcs to be charged particles of plasma moving along magnetic field lines.
Actually that would be a definition of an arc.
quote:
2 points on Dr. Charles Bruce, his theories are not generally accepted in the astrophysics field (kind of like dr. Manuel)
So let me get this straight. First you attempt to discredit him by making this a popularity contest rather than focusing on his work.
quote:
AND Dr. Charles Bruce believed the sun was a large gas sphere powered by fusion. He may be dead but he too thinks you are wrong.
Then you attempt to use his beliefs and the places where they vary with mine to detract from my use of his findings of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere? That's more than a little schizophrenic if you ask me. You can't start by destroying the credibility of your own witness and then using his credibility to somehow attempt to undermine my point. You can do one, or the other, but not both, otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I was simply refering to the aspect of his work that originally showed a direct correlation between electrical discarges and solar atmospheric phenomenon. The whole concept of looking for x-rays originated with the electrical discharge theory. It turns out that lightning releases x-rays and gamma rays, and that's exactly what we see coming from these arcs. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 22:26:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The optical illusion only creates the appearance of structure.
Get real. There is a "pattern" in these images (since you have a problem with the term "structure") that is easily discernable to anyone. Whatever the cause, there is a cause for these patterns.
The "cause" according to you (and John) is *uniform movement* of light and dark "patterns" from the sun. The *uniformity* aspect however has *never* been addressed. If the photosphere plasma showed any sort of uniformity in movement, you might have a case. Since it acts more like a "gooey" liquid, boiling and convecting and changing in 8 minute intervals, you've got nothing. You've got no way to explain this uniformity of movement when the photosphere certainly doesn't behave that way.
quote:
The "illumination" is the place where the software, not the Sun, placed lighter colored pixels.
False. The illumination is what is left when we subtract one image from another. The light itself came from the sun.
quote:
They are always light in certain places because where those pixels were in the raw images, each was brighter than in the previous one, across the series.
Correct. Then again, the lighting on the structures changes over time. It is not uniformly lit in each and every frame. Even LMSAL talks about the area getting "brighter" and you quoted that part in fact from their website. We can all see it do that. We can all see the intensity changes with time, particularly in the patterns in the middle.
quote:
The software could measure that and placed lighter pixels in those spots.
Yes, and we have darker areas too. The point here is that the uniformity in movement hasn't been explained. You have no such movement going on within the structures of the photosphere and it is presumably cooler and more dense than this layer. If there is no uniform momement, then there is no guarantee of shadows on the left.
quote:
Oh, and you have yet to provide any quantitative analysis of that video yourself. So far 100% of your "analysis" has been your incessant claim that by god it looks solid. And quantitative doesn't mean how many months you've sat in front of your computer staring at the video. Quantitative doesn't mean "relatively" or "peeling" or "dust" or "somewhat" or "up and down".
Of course "analysis" includes *observing* every single detail. Before you can even do anything "quantitative", you first have to understand what the heck you're looking at. You can't do that unless you pay attention to what's going on in the image itself.
quote:
Quantitative means this: The video shows an area of about A kilometers by B kilometers at what amounts to longitude C and latitude D. Considering the angle of view, we would be looking through E kilometers of plasma with a visual density blocking F percent of the reflected light.
Show me where anyone at Lockheed did that kind of quantitative analysis with this image. In fact try to get your friends and LMSAL to even tell you who created the image and how to get in touch with them. I'd love to ask them a few details about this particular image, but Lockheed won't even cop to who created it! It's a bit tough to do some of these kinds of quantitative analysis on this specific set of images if you don't know any of the details about how it was processed or created. I'd love to do what you suggest with this image, but I can't do that if everyone at Lockheed hides these details about this particular image intentionally.
quote:
See my reply above. It looks solid. So what?
If we observe that it looks and behaves as a solid, then we have evidence that it could be solid. That's what.
quote:
It isn't.
Prove it. Give me some explanation as to how we get uniform movement out of this layer, and address a couple of the details of this image in earnest. Stop throwing a handwave of an arguement "optical illusion" at me and get real with the details of the image.
quote:
There is no structure. You're lying again. Nobody is ignoring the images or pretending something isn't there. You, Michael, are pretending something is there.
No one yet has addressed why we would expect to see *uniform movement* from a layer that is *less* dense and *more* energetic than the photosphere that creates and destroys it's "structure" every 8 minutes. The euphamism here for "structure" is "uniform movement". You've yet to address this uniformity of movement.
quote:
Everyone else here, at the BAUT forum, at NASA,
Comparing the Bautforum to NASA is like comparing the twilight zone to NASA. There isn't a serious comparison to be made. Even Dave was smart enough to figure out that the coronal loops are the heat source, and Lockheed got their labeling system messed up. Not a single individual at the Bautforum even got that far.
quote:
at LMSAL, everyone understands running difference images except you.
What a bunch of BS. You act like "everyone" at NASA is a rocket scientist. :) Even the guys pushing paper know RD images eh GeeMack? Do you really think this kind of BS gives you any credibility at all? It makes you look damn foolish, especially since you've never addressed a single detail of this image, not the uniformity in movement, not the lighting changes, not the dust particles or peeling, nothing.
quote:
Everyone else realizes they are simply a graphical representation of change between each in a series of raw images.
Even I woul |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/09/2006 22:59:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 22:28:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, that was done by a human being, as is shown by examining the raw images and seeing that everything is shifting from left-to-right, ending up a good 10-15 pixels from where it began.
The issue here Dave in a nutshell is explaining why *everything* is shifting the same number of pixels over such lengthy timelines. The structures in the cooler, denser photosphere don't *all* move the same number of pixels left to right. Some move up. Some move down. Some don't move at all. That is the nature of plasma.
The RD images on the other hand, all move the same number of pixels to the right. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/09/2006 22:29:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 23:07:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Maybe because the movements of the plasmas in a CME are thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?
How do you know that? How would that help your case in the first place?
Are you and your LMSAL "experts" ever going to answer this? How do you know these emissions originate in the lower corona? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
