|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2006 : 09:19:40 [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.
quote:
Originally posted by McQ...
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.
Not a problem, McQ. This thread has been active for somewhere around 2,000 postings, and by now we've all come to expect such behavior from Michael. It's a rather consistent habit for him to get all pissy and insult people when he is shown to be in error or is asked questions about his "model" that he can't answer.
And the reason it didn't immediately settle the matter (and hasn't settled the matter for dozens upon dozens of similar posts) is because Michael has gotten himself buried so deeply in his delusion that he can't see the simple truth when it gets dropped at his feet. For him to acknowledge that running difference images aren't showing the surface he thinks they show would require him to completely abandon his entire silly claim. Steadfastly clinging to his mistaken version of reality appears to derive from an effect called cognitive dissonance. He seems to have to discard the truth because of its conflict with his belief and the discomfort that it would create if he gave reality its full due consideration. Stick around awhile. You'll likely see many more examples. 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 09:45:28 [Permalink]
|
| If and when you ever actually address the cause of the patterns in the image, and the movements of the image, *then* you can talk about cognitive dissonance. As it is, you've never touched these issues, so the delusions are all yours. After all these months of waiting, it's painfully apparent that you will *never* get around to dealing with the rigid geometric patterns in the image or the movements seen in the image or the things that are critical about the image. Instead you'll continue to spew nonsense and continue the personal attacks as usual. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 11:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Nevermind. My bad. Evidently you're moody about something else altogether.
How is stating facts being "moody?"quote:
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?
That's been explained to you over and over and over again. You don't seem to have any more of a grasp on what the standard solar models do than you did last fall.quote:
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 simply cannot accept that the standard solar model is limited to only certain phenomena. You also seem to be unable to accept that hypotheses with which to expand the standard solar model are being investigated as we speak. Despite STEREO's stated mission, you assume that we should already have the answers for which STEREO is seeking data.quote:
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.
Get it right, Michael: that's Lockheed's claim, not mine.quote:
This is basic physics 101...
No, that's your false "hotter equals brighter" nonsense.quote:
...and it requires *some* concept of scattering. Evidently that factor was never accounted for which is why you've never provided their math.
And now we see that despite having no evidence at all about what Lockheed's math is, you think that they don't account for any scattering. I wish I could read people's minds like you can, Michael. It must be fascinating.quote:
On the other hand I showed you my math.
Yet you never provided any experimental evidence that demonstrates that your math is correct.quote:
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...
Thank you for the admission that your theory is as full of holes as you claim the standard solar model to be, since by your own standards of "science," your theory must explain all direct observations - including the observed radius of the Sun - or be ready for the trash heap. If you don't hold your own theory to the same standard as you hold the mainstream theory, then you're imposing a double-standard.quote:
...I certainly haven't forgetten about it, but gas model theory is a long way from demonstrating it was ever accurate on this score.
The standard solar model is fairly precise on all of the issues it addresses.quote:
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.
No, Michael, the jury has returned its verdict and neutrino oscillation is a well-established fact, you just refuse to look at 84% of the evidence, and instead focus entirely upon the solar neutrinos in order to claim that the standard solar model is wrong, while everyone else has moved on after realizing that what was incorrect was really the standard particle model. This is your standard M.O., as you're busy doing it with the running difference images, as well.quote:
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.
Are you claiming that solar scientists are supermen, then?quote:
My beliefs however are based on direct observation, not on any religious beliefs.
You've never directly observed a "surface" on the Sun, Michael. A running difference image is not a direct observation.quote:
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.
That's already been done, Michael. Several times, by several different people. You prejudicially rejected those explanations with a complaint about "thin plasma" holding shapes over time, which is a claim that nobody ever made. In other words, the explanation was offered, you created a strawman out of it, and now you're trying to claim that no explanation was ever offered. Unfort |
- 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 - 08/14/2006 : 11:20:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I did let you know what he said about the patterns. He said that what you believe to be a solid surface isn't.
That is *not* a scientificc explanation for the patterns in the image Geemack, that's an "opinion" that is devoid an an answer related to the actual question I asked you about.
quote:
He explained everything we need to know about running difference images,
Not in that quote he didn't. He explained (accurately) why light pixels are light, and dark pixel are dark. That's it. He didn't explain the consistency of the patterns or the movements seen in the image. You need to know those things too if you wish to understand all there is to understand about RD images.
quote:
most particularly the "Lockheed gold" image/video, the first image on your web site, the one you keep insisting nobody has explained.
And that remains the case to this day.
quote:
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.
What causes the rigid patterns in the images and the movements we see in the image Geemack? You never even asked him about these things and these are what show the "surface", not the light and dark pixels.
quote:
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.
No, you explained nothing but perhaps the light and dark pixels. Never have you once explained anything even remotely related to the cause of the patterns in the image or the movements seen in the image.
quote:
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.
So? That isn't the same thing as explaining the rigid patterns in RD images. The Lasco images show no signs of consistent rigid patterns in any way. In fact the "movements" of particles in these images is quite obvious, contrasted with the lack of movement in the gold RD image.
quote:
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.
No, I did not. I explained that the sun is rotating left to right in these images and the solar wind is blowing from the bottom right to the upper left side of the images, thus lighting up the plasma on the right side of the surface structures (generally). In SOHO RD images, the sun rotates left to right. As the surface moves, the light areas of the surface move to the right and a shadow typically appears to the left. It's no great mystery why light and dark areas appear but the light pixels are not necessarily mountains and the dark areas are not necessarily valleys. It's not the simple.
quote:
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.
Oh boloney. I explained all this stuff a ton of different times to several different individuals. Anyone can go back and read what's been posted so far.
quote:
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 don't even remember you even asking such a question. Were we even talking at that point, or had you already insulted me a thousand times by then?
The surface structures are quite "flat" or "shallow" compared to anything you're likely to be able to pick out on a limb image with a one megapixel CCD image and very limited zoom capability. How many mountains are going to rise 500km from the surface to give us enough differentiation in height to actually see a pixel difference on in a TRACE image? The answer is obviously "none". I guess that means that no mountain rises that high off the surface. Hardly surprising considering they never get that big here on earth either, nor on Mars or anywhere else we've ever been.
quote:
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.
Oh for crying out loud, I think even Dave and maybe even *you personally* specified the size of the image during our conversations.
quote:
I was able to locate some of this information myself and posted the specifics in an earlier thread.
So what's the problem?
quote:
I asked where one might see the original images from which the "gold" video was created. You refused to answer.
Huh? You can find all the original TRACE data here:
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 12:22:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If and when you ever actually address the cause of the patterns in the image, and the movements of the image, *then* you can talk about cognitive dissonance. As it is, you've never touched these issues, so the delusions are all yours. After all these months of waiting, it's painfully apparent that you will *never* get around to dealing with the rigid geometric patterns in the image or the movements seen in the image or the things that are critical about the image. Instead you'll continue to spew nonsense and continue the personal attacks as usual.
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again. LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt addressed it the same way. Dr. Kucera from NASA agreed. A large handful of folks over at the BAUT forum understood that. Dave W. accepted that explanation as did H. Humbert, JohnOAS, Dr. Mabuse, Cuneiformist, several others here, and most recently McQ.
In fact it doesn't appear that a single other person involved in these conversations believes a running difference image shows any structure or something solid. Even one of your closest allies, Dr. Manuel, doesn't believe, or at least hasn't ever been willing to plainly state that he believes the Sun has a solid surface. Obviously your interpretation of the images isn't even compelling enough to convince him. From what we can see you're alone in your belief. When you get Dr. Hurlburt, or any single professional astrophysicist for that matter, to agree with you that there are solid features shown in any of your example running difference graphs, you bring us some quotes, will ya?
Also, your continued claim that I haven't, or that anyone hasn't addressed the images is false. Everyone can see from the postings above that it has been addressed. Of course it hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction. To address it to your satisfaction one would have to agree with your incorrect interpretation, and that's not going to happen. But your claim that I haven't addressed it and that nobody else has addressed it is a lie, another one of your bad habits.
And my considering the possible reasons why you aren't able to understand the simplest of concepts is not a personal attack. It is just what it is, a consideration of the reasons why you don't get it. Don't be so sensitive. If we can ever figure out why it is that you are so incompetent or so resistant to understanding the clear explanations, those which are understood by every expert in the field and everyone else involved in these discussions, perhaps we can make some headway in helping you resolve all the other mistakes you're making in your heretofore totally unsuccessful attempt to gain any legitimate support for your nutty conjecture.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 12:32:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
Thank you for the admission that your theory is as full of holes as you claim the standard solar model to be, since by your own standards of "science," your theory must explain all direct observations - including the observed radius of the Sun - or be ready for the trash heap. If you don't hold your own theory to the same standard as you hold the mainstream theory, then you're imposing a double-standard.
Thanks for bringing that up, Dave. It's something I've thought about lots lately as Michael's best answer to a number of questions re iron are to post news articles from CNN, etc. My guess is that in many cases, his answer is "I don't know, but I'm working on it."
Now, that's fine for a theory. However, given that, for instance, his initial rejection to the Big Bang was the no one can yet adequately explain all sorts of aspects about inflation, then it's worthless.
But even in basic matters-- things like explaining the radius of the sun, or how much iron makes up the sun-- he has no answers! But that seems OK for him. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 12:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If and when you ever actually address the cause of the patterns in the image, and the movements of the image, *then* you can talk about cognitive dissonance. As it is, you've never touched these issues, so the delusions are all yours. After all these months of waiting, it's painfully apparent that you will *never* get around to dealing with the rigid geometric patterns in the image or the movements seen in the image or the things that are critical about the image. Instead you'll continue to spew nonsense and continue the personal attacks as usual.
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again. LMSAL's Dr. Hurlburt addressed it the same way. Dr. Kucera from NASA agreed. A large handful of folks over at the BAUT forum understood that. Dave W. accepted that explanation as did H. Humbert, JohnOAS, Dr. Mabuse, Cuneiformist, several others here, and most recently McQ.
In fact it doesn't appear that a single other person involved in these conversations believes a running difference image shows any structure or something solid. Even one of your closest allies, Dr. Manuel, doesn't believe, or at least hasn't ever been willing to plainly state that he believes the Sun has a solid surface. Obviously your interpretation of the images isn't even compelling enough to convince him. From what we can see you're alone in your belief. When you get Dr. Hurlburt, or any single professional astrophysicist for that matter, to agree with you that there are solid features shown in any of your example running difference graphs, you bring us some quotes, will ya?
Also, your continued claim that I haven't, or that anyone hasn't addressed the images is false. Everyone can see from the postings above that it has been addressed. Of course it hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction. To address it to your satisfaction one would have to agree with your incorrect interpretation, and that's not going to happen. But your claim that I haven't addressed it and that nobody else has addressed it is a lie, another one of your bad habits.
And my considering the possible reasons why you aren't able to understand the simplest of concepts is not a personal attack. It is just what it is, a consideration of the reasons why you don't get it. Don't be so sensitive. If we can ever figure out why it is that you are so incompetent or so resistant to understanding the clear explanations, those which are understood by every expert in the field and everyone else involved in these discussions, perhaps we can make some headway in helping you resolve all the other mistakes you're making in your heretofore totally unsuccessful attempt to gain any legitimate support for your nutty conjecture.
I went back to re-read your explanation. Yep, it's still clear to me. Perhaps the confusion is that the RD images are images (graphic representations) in the first place, rather than numerical values on a page. I imagine of course, that they need to be a graphic representation, because it makes it easier to understand, in most cases.
I guess you could take the differences in each pixel from the two compared images and assign them some other value, like a letter of the alphabet, or a number, or the name of a fruit, and you'd still have a RD sheet. It just wouldn't be a graphic representation. I don't know, I'm just musing aloud. I am baffled as to how it's being misinterpreted though, since it was clearly stated that the new image pixels aren't making a new "picture" of an object. If I'm understanding it as I think I am, then they are essentially representing value differences in the compared images. Damn, I hope I didn't just muck everything up! LOL! |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 13:10:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ...
I went back to re-read your explanation. Yep, it's still clear to me. Perhaps the confusion is that the RD images are images (graphic representations) in the first place, rather than numerical values on a page. I imagine of course, that they need to be a graphic representation, because it makes it easier to understand, in most cases.
I guess you could take the differences in each pixel from the two compared images and assign them some other value, like a letter of the alphabet, or a number, or the name of a fruit, and you'd still have a RD sheet. It just wouldn't be a graphic representation. I don't know, I'm just musing aloud. I am baffled as to how it's being misinterpreted though, since it was clearly stated that the new image pixels aren't making a new "picture" of an object. If I'm understanding it as I think I am, then they are essentially representing value differences in the compared images. Damn, I hope I didn't just muck everything up! LOL!
Nothing mucked up there. You are exactly correct in your understanding, sir.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 13:24:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How is stating facts being "moody?"
It's the *way* you state your "facts" that can be moody.
quote:
That's been explained to you over and over and over again. You don't seem to have any more of a grasp on what the standard solar models do than you did last fall.
My opinions about gas model theory certainly haven't changed one iota over the past year Dave. I have learned a few things about the standard solar model during our conversations, but one thing I know for sure, it is completely impotent as it relates to explaning direct solar satellite observations. I know this now from listening to people's explanations from everything from heat signatures of TRACE images to the lack of an explanation for consistent geometric patterns in RD images. I know it can't explain explain the heat source of the corona. I know that dispite your "opinions" on the subject, it inaccuately predicted the type and volume of neutrinos that come from the sun. *If* it can actually be demonstrated that neutrinos do oscillate, then I'll rescind my last comment, but the rest will still stand.
FYI, I'll probably have to pick at your post today since my call volume is high today.
quote:
You simply cannot accept that the standard solar model is limited to only certain phenomena.
No, I just refuse to give it a free pass when it comes to satellite imagery, and in fact *any* direct observation. It should offer legitimate scientific explanations for all direct observations.
quote:
You also seem to be unable to accept that hypotheses with which to expand the standard solar model are being investigated as we speak.
And likewise Sumeet, Hilton, Oliver and I spend out time trying to better understand our solar model too. So? Gas model theory has the added advantage of raw numbers, and yet who's got an explanation for the rigid patterns in RD image and the movements patterns of that same image using gas model theory? Who's got a ligitimate explanation for the heat source of the coronal loops? You talk later about "holes" in models but the holes in the gas model are *huge* and it has the benefit of popularity Dave.
quote:
Despite STEREO's stated mission, you assume that we should already have the answers for which STEREO is seeking data.
I have lots of answers based on a Birkeland model. In fact, I already have "predictions" out there so we can test my theories. So where are the predictions based on gas model theory that relate to the STEREO data?
quote:
Get it right, Michael: that's Lockheed's claim, not mine.
Alright Dave. Tell me then exactly what position you intend to take on this topic, and explain why you are taking that position. I haven't seen any progress on this front, and you've given me no legitimate reason to accept Lockheed's position, while I've literally *shown you* my math in black and white. I've shown you overlay images between TRACE and Yohkoh that show a direct correlation between light and coronal loops. The areas of both images are darker in areas with no loops and lighter in areas with loops, irrespective of the high energy wavelenght. Likewise I've shown you Trace/Rhessi images that show a direct correlation between neutron capture signatures and coronal loops, as well as positron electron anihilation signature near the bases of the coronal loops.
What more evidence do you need?
quote:
No, that's your false "hotter equals brighter" nonsense.
No, it's my "scattering happens" mantra as John explained it. You can't ignore the scattering effects of light through plasma, particularly with shutter speeds measured is *seconds* (plural). LMSAL set the temperature limits Dave, and they claim it has to be relatively "hot" (in comparison to the upper chromosphere) to even be seen in these images. In fact you posted the article to a STEREO explanation that showed it's temperature sensitivity range, and it too lists many of the same numbers. Hardly a surprise.
When we then try to look at a higher energy filter, you ignore the implications of the temperature minimums for the filter in question, and you've offered no legitimate way to eliminate scattering as the cause of the few photons seen in the darker areas of the surface.
quote:
quote:
...and it requires *some* concept of scattering. Evidently that factor was never accounted for which is why you've never provided their math.
And now we see that despite having no evidence at all about what Lockheed's math is, you think that they don't account for any scattering. I wish I could read people's minds like you can, Michael. It must be fascinating.
I see no other logical reason for you not to post the math Dave. I've asked them for it too, and I've never seen it from them either. I can only then assume they don't wish to show it and neither do you. Why not?
If you can't provide any math to support their analysis, and they refuse to provide it, then I see no evidence to suggest their interpretation of heat signatures has any merit whatsoever. Since no math was ever provided, and you claim math math is king, there is no legitimate reason for you to drag your feet on this subject.
quote:
Yet you never provided any experimental evidence that demonstrates that your math is correct.
Huh? I showed you *observational* evidence that demonstratess my math is correct. I overlayed the 195A image on top of the 171A image and low and behold the loops were more brightly lit in both images, and therefore it was more brightly lit in the combined image. You can do that with any sideshot of a coronal loops against the background of the solar atmosphere. You can experiment all you like with sideshots of coronal loops. The loops will always be more bright lit than the solar atmosphere in both images, and also in the combined image as wel |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 14:09:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again.
Since you've already posted the software subroutine that is used to create the image, you of course can quickly and easily point me to the exact line of code that creates these highly consistent patterns in the image, particularly if the processing method itself is responsible for this pattern.
As a programmer who's already looked at your code, I can tell you for sure now that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I can demonstrate that very easily by asking you to locate the specific line(s) of code that are responsible for these consistent patterns. I know for a fact there isn't one (aren't any). You can stall and hemm and a haw all you like now, but you just put your foot in your mouth in a big way and I can demonstrate it quite conclusively.
The only possible explanation for the consistent patterns in that image come from solar processes themselves. Those consistent patterns have nothing at all to do with the processing technique.
You can directly observe this fact in Lasco running difference iamges posted online at the SOHO archieves. You won't find any consistent angular patterns in these images either, but since the background is a vacuum, it's quite easiy to watch the movement of the particle flow, and the movements of the patterns are fast and furious.
There you go Geemack. Now all the world can see that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, unless of course you can find that line of code that produces consistent patterns in RD images in that subroutine you posted earlier. Good luck.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 14:26:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 14:30:21 [Permalink]
|
Real quick:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's unscientific IMO for you to claim they have *nothing* to do with the standard solar model. They have the power to verify or falsifiy the standard solar model so your statement is absolutely false.
No, Michael, since the standard solar model makes no predictions whatsoever about how the corona should look, no satellite images of the corona can possibly verify or falsify the standard solar models. And yes, I know quite well that you think that the satellite images are from someplace other than the corona, but you've got no evidence of that, and STEREO won't help since it won't image the photosphere at all, and so you won't be able to count your five pixels. |
- 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 - 08/14/2006 : 14:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
I went back to re-read your explanation. Yep, it's still clear to me. Perhaps the confusion is that the RD images are images (graphic representations) in the first place, rather than numerical values on a page. I imagine of course, that they need to be a graphic representation, because it makes it easier to understand, in most cases.
Yes, but even in the case of a graph, the item being studied (data) is the typically the cause of the changes in the graph, not the "subroutines" that are used to represent the data. GeeMack simply has the cart before the horse as it were.
quote:
I guess you could take the differences in each pixel from the two compared images and assign them some other value, like a letter of the alphabet, or a number, or the name of a fruit, and you'd still have a RD sheet. It just wouldn't be a graphic representation. I don't know, I'm just musing aloud. I am baffled as to how it's being misinterpreted though, since it was clearly stated that the new image pixels aren't making a new "picture" of an object. If I'm understanding it as I think I am, then they are essentially representing value differences in the compared images. Damn, I hope I didn't just muck everything up! LOL!
Actually, you didn't muck anything up at all, you are absolutely right. The problem is that Geemack actually thinks that the patterns in the image are related to the subroutines used to process the data, when in fact the patterns in these images directly relates to solar processes. It's a simple misunderstanding actually, but not one that a so called "expert" should be making.
The consistent patterns in the image can only be due to consistent patterns in the data. That's the issue in a nutshell, and no one has explained those consistant patterns nor the movements we see in the image using gas model theory. Geemack obviously does not understand the problem yet, but as he looks for that line of code, I assure you, the nature of his mistake will eventually become clear to him. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 15:41:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 15:37:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, since the standard solar model makes no predictions whatsoever about how the corona should look, no satellite images of the corona can possibly verify or falsify the standard solar models.
Maybe not, but satellite images of the surface sitting under the photosphere could.
quote:
And yes, I know quite well that you think that the satellite images are from someplace other than the corona, but you've got no evidence of that, and STEREO won't help since it won't image the photosphere at all, and so you won't be able to count your five pixels.
But Dave, you already posted this link earlier:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/meetings/workshop1/JWuelser/Wuelser_stereo.pdf
This paper shows that Secchi carries a He II ion sensitive filter. Therefore if we are correct, and the sun is mass separated by the element, this filter should show us exactly where the photosphere ends and the chromosphere begins, and it should also show us exactly where the chromosphere meets up with the corona. Not only should I be able to tell where the photosphere begins in these filters, I should be able to see where the chromosphere ends as well.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 15:39:13 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 16:36:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Therefore if we are correct, and the sun is mass separated by the element, this filter should show us exactly where the photosphere ends and the chromosphere begins, and it should also show us exactly where the chromosphere meets up with the corona. Not only should I be able to tell where the photosphere begins in these filters, I should be able to see where the chromosphere ends as well.
Why, again, is sun mass seperated by element, but not, say, earth mass? Or lunar mass? Or jovian mass? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 16:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Why, again, is sun mass seperated by element, but not, say, earth mass? Or lunar mass? Or jovian mass?
Well, in this case we're talking plasma, at least from the corona to the surface. Plasmas tend to mass separate in gravitational fields. They are even more easily separated by elecromagnetic fields in instruments here on earth. And in fact we use centrifuges here to separate plasmas right down the the isotope. It just so happens that is the exact environment at the surface of the sun. It has strong magnetic fields and strong gravitational fields. It's therefore the optimum mass separator of plasmas.
Once we get into the crust however, things are not so clean, or so simple. I suspect however that under surface there is more plasma, and I would expect it to be affected in much the same way for exactly the same reasons. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/14/2006 16:47:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
