|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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.
That is patently false.
The software, in essence, lays Image 2 over the top of Image 1 and begins a direct comparison of pairs of pixels which lay in the same locations on the grid. If the pixel on top, the one on Image 2, is brighter than the pixel in the same location in Image 1, the software puts a proportionately bright pixel in that location in Image 3, the new top layer, the running difference image. If the pixel in Image 2 is dimmer than the matching location in Image 1, the software puts a proportionately dimmer pixel in that location on the new image, Image 3, the running difference output. It continues that process until every pair of pixels has been compared and the output displays that comparison.
That means a brighter pixel will show up on the output result if the pixel got brighter between Image 1 and Image 2. That can happen if that particular spot actually got brighter between the times of both images, or if the brighter parts of the image were shifting location between one image and the next. In the case of the "Lockheed Gold" video, every image, or at least the brighter parts of each, shift a bit to the right from one to the next to the next. The result in the output, the running difference image, is a lot of bright pixels towards the right, the direction of movement of the Sun (or the CME, or the satellite, or the plasma, or...). The pixels in the same grid locations between Image 1 and Image 2 were typically becoming darker to the left of of those most visible points between each image and the next, creating a lot of areas of dark pixels to the left of the primary areas of bright pixels.
It all creates an illusion of light and shadow, but is not in actuality any such thing. That's it. That's how it's done. There is no light source in a running difference image.quote:
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!
No faux pas from what I can see. You keep demonstrating a total lack of ability to understand the simplest concepts. I'd say the term "dense" is being quite generous, giving you a serious benefit of the doubt. 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:20:09 [Permalink]
|
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/shockwave.htm?
This page also describes a shockwave event that was immediately followed by a running difference image of the surface. The features we see in the RD image are the same features that interfere with the shock waves.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/tsunami.htm?
This page speaks to "structure" than can be seen under the photosphere using a doppler imaging technique using Nickel ions. There are several ways to show these "structures" under the photosophere, and to show that they are relatively "rigid" compared to the plasma atmosphere. As we can see in the tsunami video, there is a structure to left of the center of the wave that remains consistent throughout that video.
These are the kinds of images we need to be discussing since they are real life observations, not mathematical "guestimates". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/27/2006 23:49:15 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:31:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Where did the photons and their intensities come from GeeMack?
In the running difference images the brighter pixels are placed in their particular locations by the software which does the comparisons between images, and the photons come from the back of our computer monitors. quote:
These are the kinds of images we need to be discussing since they are real life observations, not mathematical "guestimates".
Okay, can we can accept that you're abandoning the "Lockheed Gold" video?
Oh, and there are several other nagging little issues that you've avoided, abandoned, evaded, or ignored. You're still shitting on Dave W. and Dr. Mabuse. You're still neglecting many questions that I've asked. You still haven't shown that you are actually presenting Birkeland's model. You still haven't even defined your allegedly solid surface. How about you stop the silly game of indulging little Mikey's fantasy and get yourself caught up with some of the legitimate, scientific, critical concerns that have been posed already?
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns at least 16 times: If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. If your surface can't be defined as solid, if you can't define it as solid, it's not solid.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/27/2006 23:36:53 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:40:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The result in the output, the running difference image, is a lot of bright pixels towards the right, the direction of movement of the Sun (or the CME, or the satellite, or the plasma, or...).
Ya, like only the "brightest" pixels are rotating with the sun, never the darker pixels? Sort of a pixel favoritism isn't it?
You have all sorts of strange notions about the photons and where they come from, but make no mistake about it, they all come from the sun, and from surface conditions on the sun. The RD images are sort of a "poor mans doppler" in that the rotation itself can help us isolate the surface features.
Of course none of this explains why these structures exist, what they are caused by, or why they take these specific shapes. The central structures experience all sorts of up and down movements in the intensities during the movie. While the structures remain fixed, the lighting did not. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:43:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay, can we can accept that you're abandoning the "Lockheed Gold" video?
Hell no! Only in your dreams. You've not dealt with squat in this image. You have only bright spots rotating right so shadows are on the left. This amounts to special pleading of the worst kind since we are to believe only bright pixels rotate. :) You haven't even gotten past the light source yet GeeMack, let alone the structure of this RD image by Lockheed. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 23:55:58 [Permalink]
|
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
Ok Dave, since you have such a problem believing we can see light from thousand mile long arcs through the thin plasma of the photosophere, perhaps you could explain to me what problem you have with using doppler imaging techniques to look under and through the photosophere? In this video, we can see a rigid, angular structure on the left side of the center of the wave. That "structure" is clearly under the wave rather than above it, and it is not affected by the wave. If you want some evidence that this transitiona layer sits under the photosophere, not over the photosophere, this video is "evidence" that there is "rigid structure" under the photosphere. We also know that the coronal loops originate *under* the photosphere as well, and that these coronal loops involve the flow of electricity. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 00:11:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You're still shitting on Dave W. and Dr. Mabuse.
No, I take both of them quite seriously actually. Both however have asked questions that I can't answer easily, or fully at this moment in time. Dave's plasma penetration question is one that requires a lot more specific information about light penetration of various wavelengths through specific plasmas. The density issue is one that is particularly affected by Birkeland currents both inside and outside of the solar system. The best I could possible do is "guess" mathematically. I must say however that I'm leaning toward Dr. Mabuse's fondness for a relatively less dense center, but either way, the mathematical models are complicated by way too many factors for me to adequately come up with a realistic figure at this time.
I'd much rather focus on the real observations I've made, and the real reasons why I chose a solid surface Birkeland model over the gas model.
quote:
You're still neglecting many questions that I've asked.
And I'll continue to neglect most of them until you get real with the images. "Structures? What structures?" won't cut it. If that's the best you've got, and the most effort you'll make to educate yourself, you're not worth wasting my time on.
quote:
You still haven't shown that you are actually presenting Birkeland's model.
Because you remain in denial of all his terella experiments perhaps?
quote:
You still haven't even defined your allegedly solid surface.
I'm going to try to do that now with satellite images, but you're going to have to let go of the denial trips and the special pleading about pixel movements.
quote:
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns at least 16 times:
Want to try for double or nothin? Keep claiming "Structures? What Structures?" and I'll guarantee that number will triple or quaduple over time. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 00:29:18 [Permalink]
|
One more question for you Dave about the tsunami video:
Where are the Nickel ions coming from that allow us to image the surface wave? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 02:01:50 [Permalink]
|
I've had it with this dancing, reading any more is a waste of my time.
Someone please PM me if something unexpected happens. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 02:59:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
That is exactly my point. There are no cubes in any of the images! There are some flat features which move (a square and some lines in my example). The flat features could be features on a surface illuminated from somewhere else, or be emitting their own light, there is absolutely no way to tell which in this instance.
There are no "structures", there is just the result of a subtraction of one image from another. There may not be any reflections, and this is the stituation I believe most of us are suggesting is most analogous to that resulting in the Lockheed gold video.
The human brain is very good at telling us about 3D information deduced from analysing 2 dimensional data. It is also good at identifying familiar shapes amongst complex scenes. These skills have proven to be extremely useful when it comes to surviving in our world. Unfortunately, they also result in people seeing the virgin mary in slices of toast, ghosts in fog, oases in the desert and solid surfaces in mathematical abstractions. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 11:17:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is no way for me to explain my motivation for choosing a solid surface model if the best GeeMack has to offer is "pay no attention to the structures in the image". That isn't going to cut it. 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.
Being "attentive to minute detail" would include knowledge of the materials involved to ensure that they behave as predicted. You have no such knowledge, so your demands that others be so detailed are, in fact, ironic.quote:
I'll be happy to get more interested in answering GeeMack's questions when he get serious about dealing with the satellite images.
He's been absolutely serious, and has offered detailed and relevant criticisms of your interpretation of the images.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.
No, you are ignoring criticisms of the isotope analysis, just like creationists ignore criticisms of their "analyses" of radio-isotope dating techniques.quote:
I'm the one with lab images that look very similar to actual satellite images.
Similarity does not imply equality, but in this case, since the model is a conductor in a gas, there's no reason for a metal sphere and a huge ball of plasma to look different from each other.quote:
I'm the one with visual confirmation of *FIXED AND RIGID* structures in a variety of solar satellite images.
Except that you cannot tell us the depth from which those images come.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.
Simply false, since Birkeland's model had no silicon or neon layers in it.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.
No, the fact is that you are the one handwaving away the criticisms of the issues you bring up (or, you ignore them outright, like you have with the criticisms of the isotope analysis).quote:
Not a single one of you has offered a viable alternative to explain the minute detail of these images.
You haven't offered a viable description of the minute detail of those images, either, since when asked to clarify or otherwise refine your description, you fail to do so. You never once answered my question about the direction of the "plasma wind" you posit.quote:
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.
The standard solar model explains the gross characteristics of the Sun, not the pixel-by-pixel changes in a few images. Your demands are unreasonably resitrctive, and come from a double-standard applied by you since you're willing to ignore the fact that your model predicts none of the same features as the standard model.
From other posts:quote:
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?
And how is it that the air at cloud-top level can be very turbulent, but the air a thousand feet above that is smooth, right here on Earth?quote:
I've shown Dave that even the photosphere is three dimensional.
No, you didn't. I knew the layer was three-dimensional, I simply didn't know it varied on the order of hundreds of kilometers.quote:
In fact all the layers are three dimensional, including this one.
But still, you refuse to define your terms. Outside of a sunspot, at what depths does the "umbra layer" reside? How about the "penumbral filament layer?" Where does the "photosphere" begin and end? How deep is the calcium plasma layer?
The below two quotes are classic goalpost-moving:quote:
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...
(Bolding mine.)quote:
quote:
[H. wrote:]
2) What are the structures we see in this image?
Hot plasma.
That remains fixed in rigid formations over days?
Did you see that? You couldn't focus on "this one image" (the Lockheed "gold" video) which lasts only 1.5 hours, so there's no evidence that anything in tha |
- 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 - 02/28/2006 : 12:12:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
That is exactly my point. There are no cubes in any of the images!
You are correct. There are angular "structures" in these images.
quote:
There are some flat features which move (a square and some lines in my example).
But in this case we don't know that it *must* be flat, in fact the photosophere isn't flat and there isn't really any reason to believe these images are flat. This is why I want to talk about the *actual* images rather than made up ones.
quote:
The flat features could be features on a surface illuminated from somewhere else, or be emitting their own light, there is absolutely no way to tell which in this instance.
But there is a way to tell in the actual solar images. We can identify light sources.
quote:
There are no "structures",
Actually, there are angular "structures". In other words the running difference image shows us that the these angular "structures" are relatively consistent from one image to the next, and have right angles. That in itself is useful information.
quote:
there is just the result of a subtraction of one image from another.
Only the cube/tube is a result of the subtraction process, not the angular (right angle) structures we see in the image. Those right angles would still be important when analysing the image. Any changes to these right angles would tell us something about the nature of these structures, and any lack of change would also tell us something about it. The fact that all the images have angular structure to them would still be an important detail.
quote:
There may not be any reflections, and this is the stituation I believe most of us are suggesting is most analogous to that resulting in the Lockheed gold video.
But you must still account for these angular structures even if you don't believe they are reflections from a surface. Either way, you still have to explain the structure in some way, and in a way that is consistent with the fact that their is little change in this image over relatively long periods of time compared to the structure of the photosphere. The lack of movement is still and important issue, regardless of how you go about explaining its existence in the image.
quote:
The human brain is very good at telling us about 3D information deduced from analysing 2 dimensional data. It is also good at identifying familiar shapes amongst complex scenes. These skills have proven to be extremely useful when it comes to surviving in our world.
Yes, and also in exploring our world as well. We can use Doppler images to look beneath cloud cover and pickout surface features below using that kind of technology. That skill of recognizing shapes and structure is quite well developed in humans.
quote:
Unfortunately, they also result in people seeing the virgin mary in slices of toast, ghosts in fog, oases in the desert and solid surfaces in mathematical abstractions.
But I'm not suggesting anything "out there" as it relates to these images of a solar body. We see "structure" in the surface of the planets we've visisted. We see "structure" in sunspots too for that matter. That ability to notice structure and pay attention to it's movements is what this debate is really about.
The key here is the rigidness of these structures compared to the consistency of the plasma layers. That tsunami video is a great example of the liquid-like behavior of the photosphere as constrasted with the "rigid-like" behavior of the structure on the left side of the video that is under the wave. Again, there may be many ways to explain these things, but these details are important, and they tell us a lot about the "structure" of area that emits this kind of light.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:59:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Being "attentive to minute detail" would include knowledge of the materials involved to ensure that they behave as predicted. You have no such knowledge, so your demands that others be so detailed are, in fact, ironic.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm talking about paying attention to the details of solar satellite images in general. You are talking about paying attention to *every detail of every aspect* of an entire solar model. I have in fact identified the materials in several of the various layers, and I've offered explanations for the layers we see in the chromosphere/umbra/penumbra region so my knowledge is more "detailed" than you have been.
quote:
He's been absolutely serious, and has offered detailed and relevant criticisms of your interpretation of the images.
False. "Structures? What structures?" is not a detailed analysis of the image, nor is that any other than a handwave rebuttal to my "interpretation".
quote:
No, you are ignoring criticisms of the isotope analysis, just like creationists ignore criticisms of their "analyses" of radio-isotope dating techniques.
What criticism of the analysis were you refering to Dave? The only criticisms I've heard are more like a creationist might do. "We don't trust isotope analsys even though it's be verified by more than one nuclear chemist in more than one way". That's not a criticism Dave, that's a handwave.
quote:
Similarity does not imply equality,
But it may show evidence of equality.
quote:
but in this case, since the model is a conductor in a gas, there's no reason for a metal sphere and a huge ball of plasma to look different from each other.
Is should be easy to tell the difference. One would be a lot more opaque than the other. One would tend to hold "structure" better than another. One could deliver current to a point, and keep it located around that point more efficiently than another. One might be expected to reflect light from relatively "rigid" shapes, whereas the gas concept wouldn't be a likely to do such things. The difference here are quite easy to test for and look for in these images.
quote:
Except that you cannot tell us the depth from which those images come.
Yes, I did. I stated several times that they are located around .995R where heliesmology shows a significant change in sound speed. There is also a layer of calcium and silicon plamsa between that point and the penumbra.
quote:
Simply false, since Birkeland's model had no silicon or neon layers in it.
So what? He experimented with gases around the terella, and they he was keenly aware that he didn't know all the gasses involved.
quote:
No, the fact is that you are the one handwaving away the criticisms of the issues you bring up (or, you ignore them outright, like you have with the criticisms of the isotope analysis).
What "Criticims" of the isotope analysis are you refering to Dave? It is not like Dr. Manuel is the only one to see patterns of mass separation in these elements.
quote:
You haven't offered a viable description of the minute detail of those images, either, since when asked to clarify or otherwise refine your description, you fail to do so. You never once answered my question about the direction of the "plasma wind" you posit.
I've probably missed more than a few particular questions over the past month or so Dave. What question about the direction of the plasma wind are you refering to?
quote:
The standard solar model explains the gross characteristics of the Sun, not the pixel-by-pixel changes in a few images.
In other words it's a theoretical construct that isn't well supported observationally in any detailed way.
quote:
Your demands are unreasonably resitrctive, and come from a double-standard applied by you since you're willing to ignore the fact that your model predicts none of the same features as the standard model.
That is simply not so. Birkeland's model predicts a lot of the same things, and some different things as well. Birkeland's model predicts a great deal of electrical activity at the surface and explain how and why these arcs form. The double standard is the fact you "assume" the gas model to be accureate without regard to the details of the actual observations.
quote:
And how is it that the air at cloud-top level can be very turbulent, but the air a thousand feet above that is smooth, right here on Earth?
But all the clouds show significant signs of movement over time and they don't rotate uniformly from pole to equator. The jet streams tend to occur at the highest elevations of the atmosophere.
Since this is such a long post, and I keep getting interupted, I'll come back to the rest of your questions later. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
