|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2006 : 18:53:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
I also want to thank GeeMack for that summary. I've had a hell of a hard time following this, since I tarted reading the first set of threads when they were already on something like page gazillion! That was a very nice explanation on what's going on with this. Much appreciated!
Geemack's explanation, actually Dr. Neal Hurlburt's explanation for the light and dark pixels of the processed image is accurate. However, it does nothing to explain the consistency of the patterns that can be seen in the image. It does not address that dust we see blowing in the wind as it drifts from the bottom right to the upper left side of the image. It does not explain how the CME manifests itself in the image. It doesn't explain the peeling we see along the right side. None of these things were addressed in Neil's response, and these are the things that are *never* adddressed in *any* analysis I have seen to date.
Explaining light and dark areas of the image is not much of a mystery quite frankly. The moment one makes one themselves, they start to understand they're simply subtracting one image from the other. It's pretty clear then that the light and dark areas relate to intensity changes in that pixel between the two images. That issue has *never* been the core of the mystery related to these RD images. Neal's explanation for that aspect of light and dark areas of a RD image was technically accurate, but his response to Geemack never addressed the core issues, like the consistent patterns in the image, the dust blowing from right to left, the peeling on the right. It didn't even address the technical aspects of the image like the timeline of the movie or the shots that were used.
If and when Dr. Hurlburt would like to debate *these* issues publicly or privately via email, I'd be happy to have the discussion with him. In fact, now that I know who created the image at Lockheed, I will email him about the image and see what he has to say. So far at least we're both in agreement about what creates light and dark pixels in the images, but nothing else has much been discussed or explained. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/13/2006 19:22:33 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 19:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Talk about childish responses Dave. Come on. I thought you wanted to have a serious scientific discussion?
You left science behind only two posts after we made our deal, Michael.quote:
That's right Dave, that's what I said. I didn't blame gas model theory for lacking any sort of predictions about satellite images, I blame it for not have *explanations* for direct observations *from* these satellite images. These are two totally different issues.
No, every sound explanation creates testable predictions, Michael. You're just showing off your ignorance of science once again.quote:
I'm not asking gas model theorists to "predict" anything, I'm asking them to *explain* satellite images. These are completely different issues.
No, Michael, they are not. Theories are explanations, and we know the explanations are correct because they make successful predictions. Demanding that an image be explained is the same as demanding to see how the theory predicts that such images should exist.quote:
You know Dave, when we "started over", I was sort of hoping there might be a way to do this "professionally" for a change.
I was hoping so, as well, but you completely jumped the scientific tracks when you started demanding that the standard solar model explain things that it doesn't even begin to address, just like asking a pre-med student to perform cutting-egde neurosurgery.quote:
When you start off you posts however with:quote:
Bwahahahahahahaahah!
It's pretty damn clear you aren't interested in having a reasonable and scientific discussion on a topic.
I was, until you demonstrated that you're not interested in having a reasonable and scientific discussion, which was days ago, Michael. It appears you're pretty slow to catch on.quote:
You are evidently only interested in scoring ego points as far as I can tell.
How does pointing out your hypocrisy score me any ego points? This thread is all about you and your ego, Michael.quote:
That isn't science. That isn't scientifically meaningful dialog.
Neither is "nobody in the last year has been able to explain the first image on my website using gas model theory" (not a direct quote).quote:
It's just your inner child acting out.
No, it's my outer adult having a laugh at your expense, because it is so damn ludicrous to think one can have a scientific discussion with someone like you who doesn't understand basic scientific principles like "theory" and "explanation" and "prediction."quote:
Give me one good reason to even continue a discussion with someone who begins their posts like this Dave?
I can't. I just realized that I've given you another easy way out, though. I notice that one small personal affront is all it takes for you to ignore all the scientific questions, and so you have. I mean, I knew you'd never be able to coherently address the "direct observations of Earth" point I was making, anyway, so who the hell cares whether you continue to speak to me or not? You've got no exclusive evidence that there's a "wind" on the "surface" of the Sun, otherwise you would have presented it back in the first thread. You'd never be able to demonstrate that Lockheed's description of the "gold" video is incorrect, either. So tell me, Michael, why should I give a hoot whether you keep "discussing" this stuff with me?quote:
From my perspective, it's like being back in high school trying to have an intelligent conversation with the class bully.
That's been my perspective since thread one, where you began saying "explain this image to my satisfaction or else the standard solar model is false," when the image had nothing at all to do with the standard solar model. You've been attempting this sort of scientific extorsion for over a year, Michael, and it's gotten you nowhere. |
- 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 - 08/13/2006 : 19:33:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
A graphic representation that shows consistent patterns in plasma over hour plus long timelines?
Still beating that dead horse, Michael? Sheesh. No image, original or running difference, shows any "consistent patterns in plasma" over any timeline.quote:
That is totally false. Each of the original images has a "light source", specifically the coronal loops. When you subtract some photons form other photons, you end up with the number of leftover photons. The light source and all the photons of both of the original images as well as the processed image is directly related to the amount of the light coming from the coronal loops.
The original intensity values are lost, Michael. A neutral gray pixel only means "both pixels were equally bright," but says nothing about the absolute brightness. A bright pixel simply means that one original was much brighter than the other, but it says nothing about the absolute brightness of either pixel.quote:
quote:
no shadows, no mountains, valleys, or surfaces.
Except for all the mountains, shadows, valleys and surfaces we see in the image of course.
Prove that those things are what you say they are.quote:
Anyone can create RD images in something like Photoshop. There's not great "software processing" mystery to it.
Prove it: use the raw originals to re-create the "gold" video. I bet you can't do it, since you don't know what they're doing. It's not a simple running difference.quote:
The only "lie" here is your suggesting that anyone has provided detailed explanations for the observations seen in this image, from the consistancy of the patterns in the image, to the cause of the CME as revealed in this image, the dust that is blow up during the CME, the peeling on the right, etc.
No, Michael, people have told you many times that what you see in the image is a delusion. People have gone even further, and explained in great detail what really is to be seen there, but you're so delusional that you now assert that nobody has done so.quote:
What a bunch of nonsense. LMSAL wouldn't even tell me who created the image, even after repeated requests by numberous individuals. They provided ZIP in the way of details, and your quote certainly from Dr. Hurlburt wasn't a "detailed" analysis by any stretch of the imagination. All you posted was a simple explanation of why light areas are light and dark areas are dark. It did not address the consistency of patterns in the image. It did not address the CME itself, the dust from the CME, the peeling on the right, or any of the more relevant and important details surrounding this image. About all you posted from Neil's answer was a simplistic (but accurate) explanation about what causes light and dark areas. You never once attempted to post anything to explain the consistency of the pattern in the image, or any of the details related to this image. While Neil's short explanation of light and dark areas is accurate, its a far cry from a *complete* explanation for the image, and it's certainly not an in depth analysis of the image by any stretch of the imagination.
Wow, Michael! There Geemack was, talking about "the issue" of how running difference images are created, and you take him to task for not addressing several completely different "issues." |
- 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 - 08/13/2006 : 20:24:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Talk about childish responses Dave. Come on. I thought you wanted to have a serious scientific discussion?
You left science behind only two posts after we made our deal, Michael.
For crying out loud Dave, I took a few days of R&R and I let you know about it as well. I don't always have time to respond to your posts as quickly as you'd like.
Our "deal" included a level of civiily that you are not living up to. If you want me to continue this discussion, why are you spewing comments like: Bwahahahahahahaha? How about holding up *your* end of the deal?
quote:
No, every sound explanation creates testable predictions, Michael. You're just showing off your ignorance of science once again.
But you missed my point Dave. I'm not bothered about the fact that gas model theory didn't predict the RD images. How could it?
I'm irked about the lack of an *explanatation* about these images that is detailed in it's analysis. The analysis of "optical delusion" isn't going to cut it.
quote:
quote:
I'm not asking gas model theorists to "predict" anything, I'm asking them to *explain* satellite images. These are completely different issues.
No, Michael, they are not. Theories are explanations, and we know the explanations are correct because they make successful predictions. Demanding that an image be explained is the same as demanding to see how the theory predicts that such images should exist.
Until we have the observational images in hand, I'm not requiring that gas model theoriests explain anything. Since we do have a lot of satellite images in hand now, over the last 20 years or so, *now* I'm expecting some answers. They are few and far in between as far as I can see.
If the theory is viable, it should have some kind of detailed explaination for some of these satellite images. If we go by Lockheed however, the coronal loops are somehow heated by an invisible heat source that avoids detection on any higher energy wavelength. We would have to believe the whole corona is millions of degrees simply because some few photons scatter through that plasma from the coronal loops. I don't see a lot of compelling answers here in gas model theory Dave.
Whether you see these two this as separate or the same is irrelevant. All I want are real scientific explatations that don't defy the laws of physics!
quote:
I was hoping so, as well, but you completely jumped the scientific tracks when you started demanding that the standard solar model explain things that it doesn't even begin to address, just like asking a pre-med student to perform cutting-egde neurosurgery.
Neurosurgery isn't related to the sun. Satellite images are direct observations of the sun. If gas model theory can't even answer some rudimentary questions related to satellite observations, then of what use is such a theory in the first place? Honestly?
When Lockheed starts trying to tell me that coronal loops are somehow cooler than darker plasma, and they won't even tell me who created a particular image on their website, I start to get a little suspicious about their analysis and their motives.
Likewise when you come unglued when I take a wee bit of time off, I also get a little suspiscious of your motives.
quote:
I was, until you demonstrated that you're not interested in having a reasonable and scientific discussion, which was days ago, Michael. It appears you're pretty slow to catch on.
No, Dave, it would appear I have a life besides yacking with you in cyberspace. It's our busiest time of the year at work right now, and I've been going non stop for weeks. I'm not obligated to respond to you in a timeline *you* think is reasonable before you blow a fuse. Come on Dave, get real.
quote:
How does pointing out your hypocrisy score me any ego points? This thread is all about you and your ego, Michael.
Even your need to throw in the term "hypocrisy" is a crutch Dave. You'll get rude at the drop of a hat and then blame me for even misrepresenting you in an honest way. You return my efforts at understanding you with terms like "liar" or "hyprocrite" the first time I phrase a single sentence in a way you dislike. This isn't a scientific discussion Dave, it's a bully session where you attempt to score point by intimidation. Get over yourself Dave. I have a life beyond our discussions. At times I've enjoyed our discussions, but you aren't an easy guy to live with frankly. You're down right surly at time, and even mean. What's that all about?
Lots of people in these threads have been able to carry on conversations with me, without agreeing with me, and without all the personal hostilities. Why can't we?
quote:
Neither is "nobody in the last year has been able to explain the first image on my website using gas model theory" (not a direct quote).
Yes it is Dave. Nobody has explained that first RD image on my website and been attentive to detail. Not you, not Neal, not anyone. Noone's explained the persistent patterns in the image, the particles blowing around. The changes on the "surface" when the particles land, the peeling on the right side. Nobody touched any of the important "details" of this image. Not *ever*.
The only explanation I've heard here to date is an accurate explanation of what causes the light and the dark pixels. That's it. No other details have been addressed other than some lame statements about "optical illusions".
quote:
quote:
It's just your inner child acting out.
No, it's my outer adult having a laugh at your expense, because it is so damn ludicrous to |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/13/2006 20:28:23 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 20:29:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What a bunch of lies. LMSAL wouldn't even tell me who created the image. They provided ZIP in the way of details, and your quote certainly wasn't a "detailed" analysis by any stretch of the imagination. All you posted was a simple explanation of why light areas are light and dark areas are dark. It did not address the consistency of patterns in the image. It did not address the CME itself, the dust from the CME, the peeling on the right, or any of the more relevant and important details surrounding this image. About all you posted from Neil's answer was a simplistic (but accurate) explanation about what causes light and dark areas. You never once attempted to post anything to explain the consistency of the pattern in the image, or any of the details related to this image. While Neil's short explanation of light and dark areas is accurate, its a far cry from a *complete* explanation for the image, and it's certainly not an in depth analysis of the image by any stretch of the imagination.
It's a running difference image, Michael, so anything you see in it which you believe to be solid is not. It's a graphical representation of changes from one image to another, not a picture. This is true regardless of duration, shots used, who processed it, or with what software. This is true regardless of what caused the CME, regardless of your mistaken notion that there is peeling or dust or features. And it is true regardless of your mental illness, or stupidity, or whatever it is that prevents you from understanding running difference images.
The explanation was given, thorough and complete, time and time again, to the satisfaction of everyone except you, Michael. The explanation I provided above is the only thing anyone needs to know about running difference images in order for them to realize how totally wrong you are about your interpretation. It's a simple fact that running difference images do not show what you think they show. Unfortunately you just plain won't get it.
But just in case there are still any questions, does anyone other than Michael not understand running difference images, yet? Does everyone else realize they aren't actual pictures of anything, that they are just graphs or charts exhibiting changes, and that they don't show anything solid or real? Anyone? Good. As simple as it is, I was pretty sure everyone else would understand, just as sure as I was that Michael wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 20:41:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Still beating that dead horse, Michael?
No, I'm just asking the same questions that nobody here or at Lockheed has ever answered. I'm still asking that question, because you keep *avoiding* it like the plague, and you avoid supporting your belief that coronal loops are not the primary light source for the few photons we see coming from darker areas of the corona, even though you know damn well these shutters are open for several seconds and scattering of light in plasma is a absolute certainty. Never once have you supplied the math to support Lockheed and your claim that corona is hotter than the coronal loops. Never. How long has it been now Dave? How long will you keep avoiding these key issues and pretend to be intellectially honest in this conversation?
quote:
The original intensity values are lost, Michael. A neutral gray pixel only means "both pixels were equally bright," but says nothing about the absolute brightness. A bright pixel simply means that one original was much brighter than the other, but it says nothing about the absolute brightness of either pixel.
Correct, it only shows us the *change* (like I said earlier) in pixel intensity. The shades on those persistent structures goes up *and* down throughout the image. The light and dark areas aren't the mystery Dave. The persistent structures are the part you guys refuse to address, and the part Lockheed refuses to address, just like you refuse to provide the math that was used to determine the temperature of the corona, vs. the coronal loops. I can pick out the key issues Dave, but I can't make you go there if you won't go there.
If and when you decide you want to "go there" and stop going off on tangents, I'll be happy to go there with you. Bring Neal if you like. I respect his work a great deal and I absolutely agree with his description about the intensity of each pixel in the processed image. So far so good, but we have a long way to go. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 21:01:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It's a running difference image, Michael,so anything you see in it which you believe to be solid is not. It's a graphical representation of changes from one image to another, not a picture.
But the "patterns" are a completely different issue GeeMack. Nobody is disputing Neal's accurate description of light and darkness in the image. To paraphrase "It's the patterns stupid."
quote:
This is true regardless of duration, shots used, who processed it, or with what software. This is true regardless of what caused the CME, regardless of your mistaken notion that there is peeling or dust or features. And it is true regardless of your mental illness, or stupidity, or whatever it is that prevents you from understanding running difference images.
(Explitives removed). You can't explain squat about a RD image except what you parotted from Dr. Hurlburt. I agreed with him, and in fact I respect his work a great deal. I may find some things to disagree with him about, but so far, everything he's actually attempted to explain in the image is 100 percent accurate. So far, so good. The moment you want to address the patterns, by all means let me know what he says.
quote:
The explanation was given, thorough and complete, time and time again, to the satisfaction of everyone except you, Michael.
Maybe so. Then again they weren't the ones with a list of very specific questions about the image that were never addressed. I'm the one who's questions have been ignored for months on end, so I imagine that my dissatissfaction with the answers given thus far is much greater than anyone else involved in the conversation thus far. Cune for instance hasn't any idea how long I've been asking for answers to these same simple questions, or how long you've been avoiding them like the plague.
quote:
The explanation I provided above is the only thing anyone needs to know about running difference images in order for them to realize how totally wrong you are about your interpretation.
Only if they're a complete idiot and have no desire to learn anything about satellite imagery. There are *a lot* of answerered questions, and in fact you seem to remain ignorant of all the details of an image you profess to comprehend. I guess if they want to be as clueless about satellite imagergy as you seem to be, they'll be quite pleased with your (one) answer. Anyone with even the least bit of curiousity isn't going to ignore the fact you never addressed the consistent patterns and the movements in the image. I suppose in your case ignorance is bliss, but I doubt most intelligent people are going to buy your song and dance routine for very long. I'll just keep asking you these questions about consistent patterns and movements seen in the image, and they'll watch you keep ignoring the questions and sooner or later they'll "get it".
quote:
It's a simple fact that running difference images do not show what you think they show. Unfortunately you just plain won't get it.
Oh, but I do get it. That's why I'm not going to buy your BS. If and when you'd like to ask Dr. Hurlburt some tough questions about the image and give us your parotted answers I'd be happy to hear them. If there is one individual on the planet that agree with you, that should be able to explain the details of the patterns and the types of movements we see in the image, this man is definitely your best bet. I've seen a lot of his work and I very much respect his work. I too have already emailed him, now that I know who created the image. I sent him just a couple of questions related to the duration of the image. We'll wait and see if he responds.
quote:
But just in case there are still any questions, does anyone other than Michael not understand running difference images, yet?
I know for sure that you sure are clueless. If you weren't clueless, you would be more than able to explain the consistent geometric relationships in this image as well as the movements we see in the image. All you understand accuretely about them so far is how light pixels are light and dark pixels are dark.
quote:
Does everyone else realize they aren't actual pictures of anything, that they are just graphs or charts exhibiting changes, and that they don't show anything solid or real? Anyone? Good.
Does anyone have answers as to the patterns in the image or movements we see in the image?
quote:
As simple as it is, I was pretty sure everyone else would understand, just as sure as I was that Michael wouldn't.
I'm just not buying your BS Geemack. From day one you been prattling on about how everyone on earth but me know RD images, when obviously only a few handful of people know what one is, or how it relates to solar satellite imagery. Fewer still have every seen hourse worth of RD video. Fewer still can explain the patterns and the movements in the image. I can explain all of it, and you can't explain anything but the colors. That is *painfully* obvious at this point, and it's painfully likely you'll keep glossing over these issues and you'll continue to spew pointless nonsense. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 08:44:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2006 : 23:26:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Talk about childish responses Dave. Come on. I thought you wanted to have a serious scientific discussion?
You left science behind only two posts after we made our deal, Michael.
For crying out loud Dave, I took a few days of R&R and I let you know about it as well. I don't always have time to respond to your posts as quickly as you'd like.
What the heck are you talking about, Michael? I said nothing about your "few days of R&R," announced or not.quote:
Our "deal" included a level of civiily that you are not living up to.
No, our deal was about sticking to science. You stopped doing so as soon as you repeated your demand that a particular theory be able to explain that which it has never been intended to explain. Otherwise, your theory falls flat on its face for being unable to explain the radius of the Sun or its neutrino flux (etc.). My point is that you refuse to apply the same standards to your own theory that you demand of the consensus theory, and by doing so, you leave science behind in favor of religious bias.quote:
If you want me to continue this discussion, why are you spewing comments like: Bwahahahahahahaha? How about holding up *your* end of the deal?
My end of the deal was to stick to the science so long as you did, so since you quit sticking to science, you let me off the hook.quote:
But you missed my point Dave. I'm not bothered about the fact that gas model theory didn't predict the RD images. How could it?
I'm irked about the lack of an *explanatation* about these images that is detailed in it's analysis. The analysis of "optical delusion" isn't going to cut it.
And you keep repeating this as if a prediction is not a part of an explanation. Your denial of the scientific meanings of these terms aptly demonstrates your inability to "stick to the science," Michael.quote:
Until we have the observational images in hand, I'm not requiring that gas model theoriests explain anything. Since we do have a lot of satellite images in hand now, over the last 20 years or so, *now* I'm expecting some answers. They are few and far in between as far as I can see.
So what? It took over 40 years for plate tectonics to be accepted as a solid theory by mainstream geologists. You are faulting solar science for its youth, and nothing more.quote:
If the theory is viable, it should have some kind of detailed explaination for some of these satellite images.
The theory doesn't even begin to predict (explain) the surface images. Scientists are creating theories to explain them as we type. You are faulting the theory for failing to be as detailed as you want it to be, and not for any scientific reason.quote:
If we go by Lockheed however, the coronal loops are somehow heated by an invisible heat source that avoids detection on any higher energy wavelength.
That's false, too.quote:
We would have to believe the whole corona is millions of degrees simply because some few photons scatter through that plasma from the coronal loops.
RHESSI studies show that the temperature of the most-tenuous coronal material averages two million degrees, Michael.quote:
I don't see a lot of compelling answers here in gas model theory Dave.
Your expectation that you should see such answers in a theory that only addresses the gross characteristics of the Sun is unreasonable and unscientific.quote:
Whether you see these two this as separate or the same is irrelevant.
Yes, as I suspected, as far as you're concerned the scientific meanings of the words are irrelevant. Only your definitions and desires are important to you. This is all about your ego, Michael, and has nothing to do with the actual science.quote:
All I want are real scientific explatations that don't defy the laws of physics!
Nothing about the standard solar model defies the laws of physics. That it doesn't answer the questions that you want it to answer is not a problem with the theory, it's a problem with your ego.quote:
quote:
I was hoping so, as well, but you completely jumped the scientific tracks when you started demanding that the standard solar model explain things that it doesn't even begin to address, just like asking a pre-med student to perform cutting-egde neurosurgery.
Neurosurgery isn't related to the sun.
Way to miss the very appropriate analogy, Michael. I'm impressed at your obtuseness.quote:
Satellite images are direct observations of the sun.
So what?quote:
|
- 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 - 08/13/2006 : 23:37:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fuck you asshole.
Michael, you're an incredible hypocrite. You got all upset at me a couple of months ago for using the "F-word," and I didn't even write "F... you." I used the word just to express exasperation, and not as a direct insult, as you have just done. You were even so pretentiously prissy as to call it "the F-word" in your reponse to me, yet here you are going full-blast with all four letters (and then all seven letters describing a particular human sphincter) at Geemack.
You either owe Geemack an apology, or you owe me one. Take your pick.
(And I'll again predict that you'll use this post of mine as an excuse to continue to refuse to advance any discussion of any actual science.) |
- 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 - 08/13/2006 : 23:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fuck you asshole.
Michael, you're an incredible hypocrite. You got all upset at me a couple of months ago for using the "F-word," and I didn't even write "F... you." I used the word just to express exasperation, and not as a direct insult, as you have just done. You were even so pretentiously prissy as to call it "the F-word" in your reponse to me, yet here you are going full-blast with all four letters (and then all seven letters describing a particular human sphincter) at Geemack.
You either owe Geemack an apology, or you owe me one. Take your pick.
(And I'll again predict that you'll use this post of mine as an excuse to continue to refuse to advance any discussion of any actual science.)
Fine then I appologize to you since I'm certainly not going to appologize to him. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 00:31:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What the heck are you talking about, Michael? I said nothing about your "few days of R&R," announced or not.
Nevermind. My bad. Evidently you're moody about something else altogether.
quote:
No, our deal was about sticking to science. You stopped doing so as soon as you repeated your demand that a particular theory be able to explain that which it has never been intended to explain.
The what good is it Dave?
Think about what you're saying. If gas model theory is worth the paper it's nifty math formulas are printed on, it sure as heck aught to have some *explanations* for satellite images that aren't childish and sophmoric. You can't claim the coronal loops are cooler than the corona, when they stick out like a sore thumb in every high energy satellite images against a relatively dark background.
This is basic physics 101, and it requires *some* concept of scattering. Evidently that factor was never accounted for which is why you've never provided their math. On the other hand I showed you my math.
quote:
Otherwise, your theory falls flat on its face for being unable to explain the radius of the Sun or its neutrino flux (etc.).
In all honesty Dave, I think I will eventually need to come up with a long term explanation for that issue, I certainly haven't forgetten about it, but gas model theory is a long way from demonstrating it was ever accurate on this score. They only predicted one kind of neutrino would be present. Carpet sweeping in now in progress. If they demonstrate that neutrinos really do change flavor then I will attempt an explanation based on that understanding. If however that isn't what's really happening, I'll try it a different way. At the moment the jury is still out on the oscillation theory, so I'm not sure which is the best way to begin at the moment.
quote:
My point is that you refuse to apply the same standards to your own theory that you demand of the consensus theory, and by doing so, you leave science behind in favor of religious bias.
You are right Dave, but I *am* willing to apply the same standards to my own model, but I'm also realisitic. Nobody could ever hope to be able to adequately explain every single possible issue related to relatively unexplored solar theory, and I'm not superman, and I can't do it all by myself.
My beliefs however are based on direct observation, not on any religious beliefs. If you can lay out the science behind the pattern and the movements we see in the image, and relate that back the the CME itself, I'll be happy to listen to your explantion. If not, I can't ignore what I see, only because there is some general "consensus". This is science, not a popularity contest and the majority isn't always accurate.
quote:
And you keep repeating this as if a prediction is not a part of an explanation. Your denial of the scientific meanings of these terms aptly demonstrates your inability to "stick to the science," Michael.
Dave, prediction is something you do before hand. For instance I "predict" that the next time Lockheed posts a closeup RD image, that there are "patterns" in the image, and if it's a movie form those patterns will stay "relatively" in the same geometric relationships to one another over extended periods of time, and there will be surface peeling involved in any CME like events.
Those are actual "predictions".
An explanation is something one does *before* one learns to predict anything. They are two separate acts. First I had to "explain" the image, and *then* I could make "predictions". The fact you get caught up in wordplay, while leaving the core issues unaddressed says volumes IMO.
quote:
So what? It took over 40 years for plate tectonics to be accepted as a solid theory by mainstream geologists.
And it took me some 15 years of staring at satellite images to begin to explain satellite images too Dave. I understand all about effort and sweat equity, believe me. On the other hand Lockheed can't run around claiming bright coronal loops are cooler than the darker background and expect me to take them seriously. That isn't logical, or scientific, or accurate. In fact it's demonstratebly false based on the KNOWN factors of scattering and the shutter speed that is measured in seconds.
quote:
You are faulting solar science for its youth, and nothing more.
No, I'm faulting *some* solar scientists for not paying attention to some very important satellite image details.
quote:
The theory doesn't even begin to predict (explain) the surface images.
Why not? What good is it then?
quote:
Scientists are creating theories to explain them as we type.
They sure are being awefully quiet about it Dave.
quote:
You are faulting the theory for failing to be as detailed as you want it to be, and not for any scientific reason.
That isn't true. I've already explained to you my reasons and they relate to the consistence of the geometry we see in these images over extended periods of time. The relate to the patterns in the images and the movement in the images. So long as you do not address these issues, you cannot fault me for not being "specific".
quote:
That's false, too.
The what is the heat source Dave?
quote:
RHESSI studies show that the temperature of the most-tenuous coronal material averages two million degrees, Michael.
Maybe the most-tenous coronal loop material perha |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 05:29:47 [Permalink]
|
| I feel like I'm getting the Gish Gallop here, so let me be more direct: Michael what percent of the sun is iron? Can you estimate? Can you back up your estimate with sound scentific reasoning and math? Since stars make up some not insignificant percentage of the observable mass of the universe, can you extrapolate and tell us what the percentage of iron in the universe is? |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 07:25:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
[quote][i]
But just in case there are still any questions, does anyone other than Michael not understand running difference images, yet? Does everyone else realize they aren't actual pictures of anything, that they are just graphs or charts exhibiting changes, and that they don't show anything solid or real? Anyone? Good. As simple as it is, I was pretty sure everyone else would understand, just as sure as I was that Michael wouldn't.
I'm still with you GeeMack! Perfectly clear. I can't figure out why it didn't immediately settle the matter. It seems someone does owe you an apology too. That was one outburst that shouldn't be tolerated in this forum, in my opinion. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 08:41:49 [Permalink]
|
I think I'd like to appologize to McQ, Cuneiformist, and everyone else who doesn't know the history of these rather lengthy discussion. My last comments to Geemack probably seem rather over the top. You'd really have to know the history between us to understand my attitude towards Geemack. I'm just really frustrated and tired of the personal attacks at this point. I'm sorry however for "losing it" and for taking the low road. That isn't normally my style. Sorry.
I've since removed the most offensive comments.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 08:44:44 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 08:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Fuck you asshole. You can't explain squat about a RD image except what you parotted from Dr. Hurlburt. I agreed with him, and in fact I respect his work a great deal. I may find some things to disagree with him about, but so far, everything he's actually attempted to explain in the image is 100 percent accurate. So far, so good. The moment you want to address the patterns, by all means let me know what he says. [bolding mine]
I did let you know what he said about the patterns. He said that what you believe to be a solid surface isn't. Dr. Hurlburt's explanation is indeed 100 percent accurate. He explained everything we need to know about running difference images, most particularly the "Lockheed gold" image/video, the first image on your web site, the one you keep insisting nobody has explained. He said there is no solid surface shown in that image. He said the appearance of a solid looking surface is actually just a simple optical illusion which results from the processing.
Oh, and my comments aren't simply parroting anyone. Long before I communicated with Dr. Hurlburt and the folks at LMSAL, before I talked with Dr. Therese Kucera and others at NASA, I provided a thorough and complete explanation of running difference images. I posted examples of images and of how the creation process works. I even posted an IDL script which has been actually used to generate running difference videos using data obtained from the LASCO instrument on the SOHO satellite.
Long ago I asked you, Michael, to explain why the "light source" in all the running difference images seems to come from one particular direction, the right. You refused to answer. I asked why some running difference images show what looks like three dimensional characteristics, those "mountains" and "valleys", within parts of CMEs far outside the disk of the sun. You ignored the question. I asked you why those supposed three dimensional features show up on the surface facing us, yet apparently vanish when the rotation moves them to the limb of the Sun, the one place where we might (and in fact actually do) see surface texture. No reply from you to that one.
I asked you what size of area was represented by your "gold" image and where it was located on the Sun. You refused to answer. I was able to locate some of this information myself and posted the specifics in an earlier thread. I asked where one might see the original images from which the "gold" video was created. You refused to answer. Eventually Dave was able to locate what appears to be the original data. It was posted in an earlier thread and discussed at length, yet you still seem to want someone to point you to those original images.
I asked you what it is about the processing of a running difference image that might allow us to see thousands of kilometers through an otherwise opaque layer of material. I asked you to demonstrate that such a thing is even possible. I asked if you know of any other such use of running difference images, any examples to show they can let us view surfaces through opaque cover. You refused to offer any response.
Among other pertinent questions, I asked you to explain what sorts of intensities of light might be required to create such an image if it were in fact a picture of something solid and structural. I asked from which angle that light would originate. I asked how tall might the "mountains" be and how deep are the "valleys". I suggested a comprehensive method you might use to demonstrate that it is even plausible that those images show something solid. You refused to answer any of those questions or to follow up with the work necessary to support your claim.
I'd ask you all those above questions again, but I'm reasonably certain from your history here that you'll continue to refuse to properly and scientifically support your claim. A real scientist would want to support his claim, especially if it's been made easy, especially if the methods have been handed to him, especially if it offers a chance to so completely revolutionize such a huge area of scientific study. You're not a scientist. You've had too many great opportunities here to easily backup your claim, but you won't, and probably because you can't.
quote:
Oh, but I do get it. That's why I'm not going to buy your BS. If and when you'd like to ask Dr. Hurlburt some tough questions about the image and give us your parotted answers I'd be happy to hear them. If there is one individual on the planet that agree with you, that should be able to explain the details of the patterns and the types of movements we see in the image, this man is definitely your best bet. I've seen a lot of his work and I very much respect his work. I too have already emailed him, now that I know who created the image. I sent him just a couple of questions related to the duration of the image. We'll wait and see if he responds.
The first question to ask is whether running difference images do indeed show a surface, or anything solid at all for that matter. If they don't show a surface, then asking any additional questions about those "features" is an exercise in complete idiocy on your part. And they don't. Let's review...
I asked Dr. Hurlburt, "In this video (T171_000828.avi) [your "Lockheed gold" video], and other 'running difference' images and videos, where there seems to be areas of light and shadow and often the appearance of some sort of surface, is it true that this effect is actually an optical illusion resulting from the process of creating a 'running difference' image?"
Dr. Hurlburt replied, "The answer is yes."
It's an optical illusion, Michael. There is no surface visible in those images. Yes, everyone else does get it. No, you don't. There are, of course, several possibilities as to why you don't get it. Lousy reading comprehension, stupidity, denial, it's hard to say for sure, but at this point the greatest body of evidence suggests you're mentally ill. Swearing at me won't get you the kind of help you need with that. Seeing a competent professional counselor might.
But in the meantime, instead of actually addressing the relevant questions asked of you, you just go ahead and curse and whine and bitch all you want. As Dave pointed out, you only continue to provide your own best evidence to refute your claim, and you make yourself look more and more foolish in the process. And after all, many of us here are having a pretty good laugh at your expense. 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
