|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:18:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I've seen no argument showing that this "surface" plasma must move on the same time scale as observed in the photosphere.
If it is a lighter and hotter plasma, that is sitting on top of the boiling photosphere, where structures come and go every 8 minutes, you have quite a tough time explaining such rigid relationships between structures over more than an hour long time frame. Let's talk physics here a moment. How likely is it that ligher, hotter plasma, sitting on a boiling lower plasma that recreates is structures every 8 minutes will somehow create structures galore that last over 8 days in the case of the SOHO RD image?
quote:
It could also be "moving" on spatial scales of tens to hundreds of km and this movement would not be shown, let alone resolved.
We don't have any trouble seeing the movement of the plasma during movies of raw images. In other words, we can watch the arcs change shape, direction, ect in raw images. I've posted many of them in these threads. That plasma in the arc is certainly "mobile" compared to the structures from the bases of these arcs. What is focusing all that energy to a fixed point anyway? Why do these structures stay so fixed in relationship to the movement of the plasma arcs?
I'm going to break these down into bite sized issues if you don't mind, just so we keep things focused.
What I'm looking for from you (or anyone) is a full, detailed explaination of the Lockheed RD image. By detailed, I mean detailed as it relates to specifics things seen in *this* specific image. For instance, there certainly is "structure" in the image. It is more "rigid" in timelines than "structures" we see in the photosphere. Why? Why causes the flare itself? What's that dust that is kicked up in the flare? Why is that "dust" (for lack of an agreed term) drifting toward the upper left with a specific velocity? What is that "pealing" (again, for lack of an agreed term) that we see going on in along the right side? Why is the lighting changing, yet the structures remain fixed? This is the kind of attentativeness to detail that will be required for me to be able to rationally explain to you how I came to the conclusion I came to.
Now if you do actually have a gas model (or other model) explanation for these images that is "better" that what I've offered, I'll be happy to listen and consider it carefully. Honestly, I will do that. If however we get lost in another 4 pages of pure denial of the details of these images, there is really no rational way for me to explain my motives.
|
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm talking about being *attentive to minute detail*. That is how real analysis of real images is done. It is not done with a handwave and denial routine.
Then do it. You haven't yet. How were those images created? What was the method? What was the purpose? Why does LMSAL say "[W]here the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed." What do they mean by that? If they're wrong, specifically how are they wrong?quote:
I'll be happy to get more interested in answering GeeMack's questions when he get serious about dealing with the satellite images.
I've been completely serious, since the beginning. There are no structures in running difference images, seriously.quote:
From my perspective, you sound just like a creationist. I'm the one with isotope analysis to support my belief in a Birkeland model.
Your isotope analysis does not prove the Sun has a solid surface. We've been over that dozens of times already and even you've agreed that's true. You also aren't presenting Birkeland's model. You haven't show that you even have the slightest idea what Birkeland's model of the Sun was.quote:
I'm the one with lab images that look very similar to actual satellite images. I'm the one with visual confirmation of *FIXED AND RIGID* structures in a variety of solar satellite images.
Prove it.quote:
I'm the one subscribing to a solar model put forth by an astronomer that was already 60 years ahead of his time by predicting Birkland currents before we could demonstrate their existence.
Prove Birkeland postulated a solid surfaced Sun.quote:
From my perspective, you're the one who is acting like a creationist here since you're literally handwaving away every issue of consequence that I have presented in this debate.
Every single issue you've presented has been based purely on your faith that your interpretation of some images must be correct, even after dozens of clear explanations have been provided to show you're wrong.quote:
Not a single one of you has offered a viable alternative to explain the minute detail of these images. Unless and until you can, I have to believe you're just living on "faith" in gas model theory, since you can't seem to apply that theory to even explain one single satellite image.
You're lying again. Every one of us has provided clear explanations. The fact that you'd rather wallow in your cognitive dissonance than to understand those explanations in no way invalidates them or makes them disappear.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:33:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
"Why are they there?" They aren't.
This is a classic example of denial GeeMack. There is structure in the image. You can "rationally" suggest that these structures are not *CAUSED* by what I think they are caused by and instead are caused by *factor x*, but you can't simply ignore them altogether and expect me to take you seriously. That is simply pure denial on your part. "Structures? What structures?". When you get into any of the detials of *this specific* RD image, then I'll take you seriously. Right now you come across as a spoiled little kid who needs an ego fix at anyone's expense, and I'm just the prefered victim of choice.
quote:
It just looks like something solid to those who don't understand what running difference images are or how they're assembled.
Anyone and everyone can "assemble" them with Photoshop or any other tools we might use. The details of "assembly" aren't the be-all-end-all of image analysis.
quote:
You asked, "Why are they stationary?" They aren't.
But they are. I can see them quite clearly in that relatively long video. When I put the SOHO RD images together, I saw the same "structures" over a period of days, not hours. They are certainly a lot more "stationary" than the structures of the photosphere.
quote:
Since they aren't structures, they aren't stationary. Again, it just looks like that to people (or in this case the one person) who can't understand how the images are created.
Not only do I understand how the images are created, I have created them myself, and created variations of such images using slightly different techniques as well. It's not the mechanical details of producing the images that I'm talking about GeeMack, I'm talking about the *results* and what they represent.
quote:
Now why on Earth do you continue to ignore your responsibility to support your claim?
I don't ingore it. In fact I'm now going to *insist* we focus on what *I* wish to focus on for awhile, since it was in fact satellite images that convinced me in the first place. I did a few threads on heliosiesmology. I think it's time we did a few threads on satellite images. We haven't even gotten to the interesting image IMO, which is the SOHO image that shows structures over *DAYS*, not hours.
quote:
Your "analysis" of that video is simply that it looks like something three dimensional to you, therefore you believe it must be so.
Every other layer has three dimensional aspects to it. That is true of the photosphere and the chromosophere. I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be true of this "layer" as well. You are special pleading IMO, since all the layers have "depth".
quote:
That's a pure leap of faith, a completely unevidenced, unsupported claim.
That is not true. I've shown Dave that even the photosphere is three dimensional. In fact all the layers are three dimensional, including this one.
quote:
Why don't you stop being so lazy and actually explain the images yourself?
I already have. Have you even read my website?
[quote]Wrong again. You need to prove they represent something solid.[/qoute]
And I can and I will do that, as soon as you get off the denial trip. The moment you recognize the "structure" in that image, you can't help but notice it stays in pretty much the relationship to other structures in the image, much unlike the movement we see in the structures of the photosphere. These "rigid" *NON*movements are a dead give away. The electrical activity coming off the surface is another dead give-away as well. Birkelands solar model showed exactly that same sort of behavior. That too is a dead give away, but not if you don't pay attention to the details!
I'm going to pass on the rest of your ego posturing and primping. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/27/2006 21:39:31 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:45:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I've been completely serious, since the beginning. There are no structures in running difference images, seriously.
GeeMack, get real! There are "structures" in nearly *every* image, regardless of the processing technique. You might try to suggest that these "structures" are clearly not solid because......
You cannot rationally sit there and claim the structures don't exist. That is pure denial. If you won't *see* that much, I can't help explain any of my opinions to you, not now, not ever.
Do you wish to understand my reasoning, yes or no? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:46:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What I'm looking for from you (or anyone) is a full, detailed explaination of the Lockheed RD image. By detailed, I mean detailed as it relates to specifics things seen in *this* specific image.
You've gotten several complete, detailed explanations.quote:
For instance, there certainly is "structure" in the image.
No, there isn't. And beyond your simple claim that you believe it, you certainly haven't provided any legitimate, scientific support for it.quote:
It is more "rigid" in timelines than "structures" we see in the photosphere. Why? Why causes the flare itself?
It's a coronal ejection, an hour and a half of which is shown in the video. Even if the activity represents movements at speeds of thousands of kilometers per hour, there would be very little apparent movement over such vast areas of the solar surface during that time span.quote:
What's that dust that is kicked up in the flare? Why is that "dust" (for lack of an agreed term) drifting toward the upper left with a specific velocity? What is that "pealing" (again, for lack of an agreed term) that we see going on in along the right side? Why is the lighting changing, yet the structures remain fixed? This is the kind of attentativeness to detail that will be required for me to be able to rationally explain to you how I came to the conclusion I came to.
Since all that activity is going on in the corona, and is activity commonly seen during coronal mass ejections, and since you seem to think everyone else including LMSAL is wrong about that, how about you explain how everyone is wrong, and quantitatively and scientifically how it is you've come up with your interpretation. Then you answer all those questions you just asked.quote:
Now if you do actually have a gas model (or other model) explanation for these images that is "better" that what I've offered, I'll be happy to listen and consider it carefully. Honestly, I will do that. If however we get lost in another 4 pages of pure denial of the details of these images, there is really no rational way for me to explain my motives.
The better explanations is this: There are no structures in those running difference images. Nobody is denying that you see what you believe to be structure in those images. Everyone else understands that those images aren't showing structure. And you haven't demonstrated yet that they indeed are. Your simple belief that they are structural entities, based only on the fact that they look like it to you, isn't evidence of anything except a radical misunderstanding on your part.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:08:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You've gotten several complete, detailed explanations.
No. Let's talk "details" for a moment, and in fact let's create a list of "details" that remain to be explained by non Birkeland model of the sun:
1) What is the light source of this image?
2) What are the structures we see in this image?
3) What causes these structures to exist?
4) What causes the CME?
5) Where is the CME conscentrated, and what is it's power source?
6) What is the "dust" (for lack of term) that drifts from right to left, bottom to top?
7) What is the "peeling" effect we see along the right side?
8) Why are these structures not moving and changing in similar timelines to the timelines of the structures of the photosphere?
9) What causes the lighting changes from of these structures?
These are just the first 9 that jump out at me. When you can answer these nine questions in detail, then you can claimed you've dealt with this image, and not one moment sooner. Once we are done with this one, we'll tackle a SOHO RD image next where we can watch these sames sorts of "structures" remain rigid for days and deflect shock waves as well. Like I said, this is just one of MANY very important image, but these first 9 questions must be dealt with *openly* and directly, not with a handwave.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No. Let's talk "details" for a moment, and in fact let's create a list of "details" that remain to be explained by non Birkeland model of the sun:
1) What is the light source of this image?
Hot plasma.
quote:
2) What are the structures we see in this image?
Hot plasma.
quote:
3) What causes these structures to exist?
Magnetic fields.
quote:
4) What causes the CME?
I don't know what that acronym stands for.
quote:
5) Where is the CME conscentrated, and what is it's power source?
Still don't know what that acronym stands for, but I'll say, uh, fusion.
quote:
6) What is the "dust" (for lack of term) that drifts from right to left, bottom to top?
Hot plasma.
quote:
7) What is the "peeling" effect we see along the right side?
Hot plasma.
quote:
8) Why are these structures not moving and changing in similar timelines to the timelines of the structures of the photosphere?
Different temperature, pressure, and density.
quote:
9) What causes the lighting changes from of these structures?
Temperature fluctuations.
quote:
These are just the first 9 that jump out at me. When you can answer these nine questions in detail, then you can claimed you've dealt with this image, and not one moment sooner. Once we are done with this one, we'll tackle a SOHO RD image next where we can watch these sames sorts of "structures" remain rigid for days and deflect shock waves as well. Like I said, this is just one of MANY very important image, but these first 9 questions must be dealt with *openly* and directly, not with a handwave.
Nope, sorry, Michael. You find it impossible to give details about your model, then you can't ask for any in return. If you can throw out a term like "erosion" to explain the dissappearance of these "solid structures," then you must accept equally vague processes from the opposing model. These are things we just don't know enough about yet, remember? I mean, I can give you details, but I would just be making up figures to plug into your equations. No, I think these answers are plenty detailed for the time being. They are at least as good as anything you've managed to assert without proof.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2006 22:25:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:23:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Indeed. I go away for a few days, and there's six new pages of thread to be read, none of which have anything from you in terms of actual support for your model (but quite a bit of griping and demanding that others explain something or other for you).
Well Dave, I think you're right in one sense. To this point in time, I've let the conversation go where everyone else wanted to to take it. Now it's time we focus on what evidence actually supports my model, and we need to focus on the satellite images and the details of these images. I gave GeeMack a list of the first 9 things I went about trying to assertain about this image when I tried to "interpret" these images. If you'd like to give me a scientifically "better" answer to these first set of questions, we'll move on the the SOHO images where we can see these same features rotate over a period of days, and deflect shock waves. Then I think I can actually provide evidence that you might actually find interesting.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:33:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
1) What is the light source of this image?
LMSAL says, "[W]here the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed." There is no "light source". The lighter pixels were made lighter by the processing software.quote:
2) What are the structures we see in this image?
The things you mistakenly believe to be structures are the result of the processing used to create the images.quote:
3) What causes these structures to exist?
The structures don't exist. They appear to exist as a mere result of the process used to create running difference images.quote:
4) What causes the CME?
You tell us.quote:
5) Where is the CME conscentrated, and what is it's power source?
You tell us.quote:
6) What is the "dust" (for lack of term) that drifts from right to left, bottom to top?
LMSAL says, "This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud."quote:
7) What is the "peeling" effect we see along the right side?
Another anomaly resulting from the creation of running difference images. Where there are lighter pixels in the finished image the pixels in the raw images were getting brighter from one to the next in sequence.quote:
8) Why are these structures not moving and changing in similar timelines to the timelines of the structures of the photosphere?
The images are of the chromosphere, not the photosphere, so the question is irrelevant. However, the things that you mistakenly believe to be structures do not appear to be moving because in fact the brighter areas of the raw images are successively further to the right in each image in sequence. That makes a series where the lighter areas of the final images generally lay to the right, and the areas of darker pixels lay to the left. This creates the illusion of a stationary, shaded, three dimensional object.quote:
9) What causes the lighting changes from of these structures?
The software that creates the running difference images places lighter pixels where there was a change from dimmer to brighter between one image and the next.
Now, once more, I've done a lot of your work for you. This is your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it. You're abandoning your responsibility. It's time you scientifically and quantitatively prove those images show what you believe they show.If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". Your turn, Michael. Or are you truly as lazy and unwilling to do your job as you appear to be?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
1) What is the light source of this image?
Hot plasma.
Care to be a bit more specific here, or is this going to be a handwave excersize?
quote:
2) What are the structures we see in this image?
Hot plasma.
That remains fixed in rigid formations over days?
quote:
3) What causes these structures to exist?
Magnetic fields.
What creates and drives these magnetic fields to concentrate energy in these specfic emission patterns?
quote:
4) What causes the CME?
I don't know what that acronym stands for.
Coronal mass ejection.
quote:
Still don't know what that acronym stands for, but I'll say, uh, fusion.
Where in any of these satellite images do you see any signs of "fusion" occuring?
quote:
6) What is the "dust" (for lack of term) that drifts from right to left, bottom to top?
Hot plasma.
Hot plasma that is "less rigid" than all the other "structures" in the image?
quote:
7) What is the "peeling" effect we see along the right side?
Hot plasma.
And how does that account specifically for that effect?
quote:
8) Why are these structures not moving and changing in similar timelines to the timelines of the structures of the photosphere?
Different temperature, pressure, and density.
Um, how does that relate to the structures we see in the different temperatures, pressures and densities of the photosphere? The structures of the photosophere would have come and gone more than 10 times over during this image. Care to explain that? The physics here doesn't seem to be on your side.
quote:
9) What causes the lighting changes from of these structures?
Temperature fluctuations.
Temperature fluxuations in what? A "surface" that fluxuatues temperature? Are you suggesting this is an actually 'surface', and if so, what is it made of, and why do we see it, and not the photosphere?
quote:
Nope, sorry, Michael. You find it impossible to give details about your model, then you can't ask for any in return.
That is BS. I've given pages and pages worth of answers from all sorts of areas of science. It's time now we actually focus on the things I can explain pretty well, and that led me to choose a solid surface model in the first place. I'm tired of all the foot dragging and handwaving. Your one word answers aren't going to cut it if we are actually to do any serious analysis of solar satellite images.
These images are afterall the things I *can* give you answers to since they are the images that led me to the Birkeland model in the first place.
[quote]If you can throw out a term like "erosion" to explain the dissappearance of these "solid structures," then you must accept equally vague processes from the opposing model.
My answer isn't that "vague", and it's completely in alignment with what is actually transpiring in the original images. We see massive amounts of electrical activity in these regions, and we see light that is consistent with the flow of electricity from the surface and into arcs. This isn't vague as you were being vague. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
There is no "light source". The lighter pixels were made lighter by the processing software.
You know, I assumed Michael was asking what the software was measuring, but it's clear that you are correct. He still doesn't understand that the images he is viewing is only a computer model of a change over time. The "light source" of the images, then, is the software itself. It's the same "light source" as the one seen in JohnOAS's "cube."
I failed to see how far Michael really has to go to understand what he is he's looking at. I just never imagined he was that dense. Oy vey.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:53:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You know, I assumed Michael was asking what the software was measuring, but it's clear that you are correct. He still doesn't understand that the images he is viewing is only a computer model of a change over time. The "light source" of the images, then, is the software itself. It's the same "light source" as the one seen in JohnOAS's "cube."
Excuse me? The light source in the subtracted image cannot be the software itself. These images contain photons of specific *intensities* in a particularly wavelength *range* that are simply subtracted from one another. The remaining photons, at whatever intensities in the subtracted image, still had exactly the same light source as the original images. The software is a "technique" that is used to subtract photon intensities, but the remaining photons in the subtracted image still had exactly the same light source as the original images. These remaining photons have an origin that has nothing to do with the software.
quote:
I failed to see how far Michael really has to go to understand what he is he's looking at. I just never imagined he was that dense. Oy vey.
These kinds of anoying little comments, when stuck to the end of such a goofy faupax on your part, seem more than a little ironic all things considered. Oy vey indeed! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 22:57:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
1) What is the light source of this image?
LMSAL says, "[W]here the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed." There is no "light source".
You didn't even get past the first question. Why would it turn bright? Where did the photons come from?
quote:
The lighter pixels were made lighter by the processing software.
How so? So you're saying that nothing about the solar condition itself is seen in these images? It's all "software trickery"?
Where did the photons and their intensities come from GeeMack?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:10:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
The simple fact is that a running difference image is produces features which are not analogues of features seen in a standard, raw image. A refusal to "deal with" the cube is not unscientific, or some from of denial, if one understands how the image was generated in the first place.
Even in your example John, the existence of the "cubes" is what creates the "structures" we get when we subtract one from the other. It's the "surface conditions" (in a physical sense) that determine the reflection patterns, and the images we get when we subtract one from another. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
