|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2006 : 09:25:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The cause of the persistent patterns we see, those of us who get it, is this: When comparing the brightness of pixels in a particular area in a series of original input images, there were similar amounts of change from each image to the next, resulting in a series of similarly bright pixels in that particular location in the output images.
No you pinhead, that is the process that creates the *lighter and darker pixels*, not the *consistent patterns* in the image. Get a clue!
The only thing that can create consistent patterns in the image is consistent *patterns* in the data output. You're totally full of it Geemack, and now everyone can see it. You never explained any of the movements we see, like the dust/plasma we see blowing around. You never explained the consistency of the patterns from what is supposed to be light plasma. Structutres in the light plasma photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, but none of these structures changes in over an hour and a half, and none of them moved in relationship to one another in all that time. When you say things like:
quote:
Running difference images don't show any solid physical features, structure, or surfaces. If you believe they do, then it's your responsibility to demonstrate that it is so.
You can't then expect me to hand you clear evidence to support my case, and then simply ignore it. It's the consistency of the patterns in that image that demonstrate my points, and it's the movements we see in the image that also help to demonstrate my case. If however you keep dancing around, and pretending to know what you're talking about *without* explaining these important details, then I suppose ignorance can be bliss.
What you described is yet *again* another fine explanation for the cause of the light and dark pixels Geemack. You did not *not* however explain the rigid patterns or the movements we see in the image, and these are the things that demonstrate the sun has a rigid surface. As long as you keep playing the role of "expert", you really should refrain from saying stupid things like:
quote:
And voila, that's what causes what you perceive as movements in the images! (I can show you how to make a pencil drawing of a bunny rabbit appear to move along the edge of a stack of note cards by flipping through them with your thumb, too, if you'd like. )
The only reasons you'd see that image of the rabbit move as you flip the cards is because the outline of the rabbit remains "consistent" in the various images, it's simply located in a different location. The rigidness of the outline allows you to recognize it as a rabbit in each "frame". If the outline of the rabbit changed to to a turtle in the suceeding frames, you wouldn't recognize it as a rabbit anymore.
For goodness sake, for a guy that claims to be an "expert" on RD images, you sure have a tough time with even the basics. The key here is the *patterns* are *consistent* over hours, not minutes as we might expect from photosphere structures, or any structures made of light whispy plasma. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 09:50:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
So your model incorporates this new unexplained effect?
It incorporates the concept of Z-pinches in plasma, yes.
quote:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060308_sandia_z.html
quote:
From the article:
A very strong magnetic field compresses the plasma into the thickness of a pencil lead. This causes the plasma to release energy in the form of X-rays, but the X-rays are usually only several million degrees.
So in your current model the heating is from magnetic fields and not electrical arcs as you thought earlier? The magnetic field emits xrays (I assume by bremsstrahlung) and is not from lightning as you earlier postulated?
You seemed to have missed the part about the electrical flow and the metal wires that were used to create this pinch. Astronomers today seem to have a weird idea that you can remove/ignore the current flow in the plasma and only talk about the magnetic fields. You can't do that, as Alfven explained to the astrophysical community in his *total * work on MHD.
quote:
Have you contacted Sandia Labs and told them that you already have a solar model that explains coronal heating using the unknown energy source they discuss.
No.
quote:
I am sure they would be very interested to see the research that lead you to this conclusion.
Here's part of it:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
quote:
I missed when you changed your model to emphasize magnetic fields instead of electrical arcs.
I think Alfv'en was right. Astronomers today only seem to understand *a small part* of what he actually explained in MHD theory. Instead of realizing there is a direct relationship between current flow in plasma and magnetic fields in plasma, they try to separate the two as though they are completely separate issues. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 09:52:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 09:58:42 [Permalink]
|
From the article:
quote:
The Z machine is the largest X-ray generator in the world. It's designed to test materials under extreme temperatures and pressures. It works by releasing 20 million amps of electricity into a vertical array of very fine tungsten wires. The wires dissolve into a cloud of charged particles, a superheated gas called plasma.
Emphasis mine.
The point here is that the current flow that vaporizes the metal wires is part of the process that creates the z-pinch. You can't remove the current flow from the equation, anymore than you can remove the magnetic fields that form in the plasma. It's a combo deal, not one or the other. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 10:05:10 [Permalink]
|
| The primary difference in solar images is that the "metal" that's being vaporized is coming from the surface. The current flow is what creates the z-pinch and the magnetic fields. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 10:08:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
After you've watched the SOHO archives for the past few days Dave, take a look at this image now and notice that the "thread" is coming up *though* the hole in the plasma.
No way! Only if you want that little while line to be "coming up" through the "hole" would you see that. That the black spot looks like a hole is clearly an optical illusion. This is certain when you look at the while "thread" that stretches over it. While the spot has the illusion of depth, the "thread" doesn't. Not one bit. It's no moe coming out of that "hole" than it is out of my, well, you get the picture. If this is typical of an image you use to bolster the solid surface claim, then your willingness to delude yourself into believing grand fantasies is greater than I thought! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 10:18:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
This time I let my neighbor's son look over the replies to see if he could understand.
Ya, and I'm sure your 11 year old victim has never sat down and watched 20 gigabytes of RD images either. Any gulible individual can be handed a snowjob and not know enough about the details of what's going on so as to be "fooled" by it. So what? The logic you use at times to justify your position at times is utterly pathetic.
If and when you ever actually get around to explaining the patterns in the image and the movements seen in the image, then you might have a clue where I'm coming from. As long as you keep parotting the one thing you actually *do* understand about RD images (light and dark pixels) and refuse to deal with the patterns or the movements, this conversation is going nowhere.
You obviously are no "expert" on RD images, so why don't you ask Neal to explain those patterns for you and those movements we see and post his comments here? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 10:33:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
After you've watched the SOHO archives for the past few days Dave, take a look at this image now and notice that the "thread" is coming up *though* the hole in the plasma.
No way! Only if you want that little while line to be "coming up" through the "hole" would you see that. That the black spot looks like a hole is clearly an optical illusion. This is certain when you look at the while "thread" that stretches over it. While the spot has the illusion of depth, the "thread" doesn't. Not one bit. It's no moe coming out of that "hole" than it is out of my, well, you get the picture. If this is typical of an image you use to bolster the solid surface claim, then your willingness to delude yourself into believing grand fantasies is greater than I thought!
Well, let's start here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
When you say the "hole" is an optical illusion, what exactly do you mean by that? Before you answer this, you might want to look at the images from the Swedish telescope.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 10:45:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
If this is typical of an image you use to bolster the solid surface claim, then your willingness to delude yourself into believing grand fantasies is greater than I thought!
There's nothing "solid" in this image in any way. I'm not trying to use this image to "bolter" anything related to a solid surface. I'm not sure how you got that idea from this image, or what I posted, but there is absolutely nothing "solid" in this image. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 11:11:25 [Permalink]
|
I guess Dr. Hurlburt is either on vacation, doesn't like me, or just doesn't want to get involved. This is the email I send him on Sunday, and so far there's been no response.
quote:
Hello Dr. Hurlburt,
It has come to my attention that you were the person at LMSAL that put together this specific running difference image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
I was wondering if you could please tell me exactly which original images were used to create this image (movie). I would also like to know if you used a specific IDL software routine to process this image, and if so, which one?
I have a ton of other questions I'd like to ask you about this image if you're open to it, but first and foremost I would like to know some of the specifics related to timelines and which actually raw images were used.
Sincerely,
Michael Mozina
President
Emerging Technologies
Mt. Shasta, CA
(800) 729-4445
What I'd *really* like to ask Dr. Hurlburt is the following:
A) Could you please explain the rigid patterns in this image, specifically what creates them, and why they stay in the same geometric relationships to one another over the length of the image?
B) Could you explain the movements we see in this image, specifically the "dust-like" particles we see after the CME occurs and the "peeling" effect we see along the right side of the image?
C) Could you explain how the CME manifests itself in this image, and does this image help us to isolate the "cause" of the CME?
Well Geemack, since you seem to get actual responses from Neal, and since he evidently doesn't seem interested in returning my emails, perhaps you could ask him the first questions I posed to him in my email, and see if you can get some answers. If he responds to you, perhaps you could post his answers here, and then forward along the three follow up questions I just posted. I'd love to hear his answers to these questions. In fact I'd be happy if he would even answer the questions in my first email. Unfortunately the folks at Lockheed Martin, particularly Carolus Shryver have been anything *but* forthcomming with information about this image. In fact Carolus told me personally that they (LMSAL) didn't create the image. That is very strange behavior frankly. Whatever beef I have with NASA, at least NASA has never lied to me. Everyone I've ever emailed at NASA (and Stanford) with specific questions has always returned my emails and has always answered my questions very professionally. Only LMSAL has directly lied to me and been less than forthcomming with information. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/17/2006 11:33:35 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 11:46:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There's nothing "solid" in this image in any way. I'm not trying to use this image to "bolter" anything related to a solid surface. I'm not sure how you got that idea from this image, or what I posted, but there is absolutely nothing "solid" in this image.
Ha! That's rich. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 11:51:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
After you've watched the SOHO archives for the past few days Dave, take a look at this image now and notice that the "thread" is coming up *though* the hole in the plasma.
No way! Only if you want that little while line to be "coming up" through the "hole" would you see that. That the black spot looks like a hole is clearly an optical illusion. This is certain when you look at the while "thread" that stretches over it. While the spot has the illusion of depth, the "thread" doesn't. Not one bit. It's no moe coming out of that "hole" than it is out of my, well, you get the picture. If this is typical of an image you use to bolster the solid surface claim, then your willingness to delude yourself into believing grand fantasies is greater than I thought!
Well, let's start here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
When you say the "hole" is an optical illusion, what exactly do you mean by that? Before you answer this, you might want to look at the images from the Swedish telescope.
Oooh, another one! And this time from another solar skeptic!
Well, I'm tired of dissecting images. There are huge problems with your ideas, Michael that have nothing to do with trying to discern whether or not some such image or other shows a solid surface.
I've tried to get answers about the sun's composition and density, and from all I've gathered, for your model to be right our entire understanding of gravity-- indeed, much of the universe-- has to be wrong. This, of course, is fine, except that time and again, your best argument is "no one can explain my picture so I'm right" and that's pretty weak. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 12:40:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, let's start here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
What on Earth does a photograph of a fire tornado which was created by a video special effects company have to do with providing evidence of a solid surface on the Sun?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 13:00:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oooh, another one! And this time from another solar skeptic!
Did you really expect me to post links to opposing ideas? :)
quote:
Well, I'm tired of dissecting images. There are huge problems with your ideas, Michael that have nothing to do with trying to discern whether or not some such image or other shows a solid surface.
We are evidently on very different wavelengths as it relates to the last few images. The tornado like structure you see is plasma that is in the process of being "pinched". These are the "filaments" that form "coronal loops" IMO. There is nothing "solid" about them, rather they are tornado-like "structures" that are in a state of constant motion due to the current that continues to flow through them, and the kinetic energy within them. If the plasma is heavy enough (like metal) and there is enough current flow (like Sandia), these loops spiral so tightly, and the kinetic energy becomes so great that fusion occurs inside the loop. This can be hydrogen fusion or CNO fusion, depending on the materials inside the z-pinched plasma.
The only thing I was trying to demonstrate with the earlier image is that these tight spirals are often seen at the base of penumbral filaments, and even between the different areas of the neon photosphere. You can see similar filaments form accross a sunspot for instance.
There wasn't anything solid in the image you first cited, I was simply trying to show that these filaments rise from underneath and come up through the "holes" we often see forming in various plasma layers.
quote:
I've tried to get answers about the sun's composition and density, and from all I've gathered, for your model to be right our entire understanding of gravity-- indeed, much of the universe-- has to be wrong. This, of course, is fine, except that time and again, your best argument is "no one can explain my picture so I'm right" and that's pretty weak.
Again, this is probably an age factor. I've seen "dark matter" and "dark energy" now used to explain the "majority" of matter in more recent astronomical theory, whereas when I was a kid, these things would have sounded very far fetched. The changes that are taking place in astronomy right now are substancial, and more recently they've frankly been rather "ad hoc". What *exactly* is "dark energy" for instance?
When you've seen the kinds of changes I've seen over the last 20 years, you start to realize that change is inevitable, and it's not that "scary" I suppose. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 13:12:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, let's start here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf
What on Earth does a photograph of a fire tornado which was created by a video special effects company have to do with providing evidence of a solid surface on the Sun?
It was meant to show Cune the kinetic energy "structures" that form in plasma. These structure are what I believe a coronal loop looks like if you looked at them up close. Tornados are a common feature in plasma. Such filaments will also form across a sunspot as well. This is the way that plasma moves and flows. It's dynamic, and kinetic in nature. Tighly wound spirals form in the plasma. With enough current flow, they can wind so tightly that they ultimately z-pinch neutrons, and create fusion reactions and release excess energy as demonstrated by Sandia. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
