|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:03:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I've explained running difference images in detail.
No, you didn't explain *THE* as in Lockheed's running difference image *at all*. You threw out a handwave of a something you think passes for a valid arguement but you never once applied any of it to anything tangible in the image in question. Get off it! Who do you think you're fooling?
|
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:22:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Pure denial on your part. They certainly *do* show structures. You'd have to be blind as a bat to not see them. The key here is they don't move, certainly nothing along the timelines of the structures of the plasma photosphere. Denial on your part isn't impressive. Even a child can see the "structure" in that image.
Everyone here understands running difference images except you, Michael. Everyone at Lockheed understands them. Everyone at NASA understands. Everyone at the BAUT forum understands. Oddly enough you seem to believe you're the only one on Earth who does understand. Interestingly enough, you're the only one who doesn't. I'm absolutely certain I could explain running difference images to any class of fifth graders. I'm certain they would easily realize there isn't anything solid in your picture. Oh, unless maybe a couple of those eleven year old kids were stupider than you.quote:
No, you didn't explain *THE* as in Lockheed's running difference image *at all*. You threw out a handwave of a something you think passes for a valid arguement but you never once applied any of it to anything tangible in the image in question. Get off it! Who do you think you're fooling?
I'm not trying to fool anyone. Remember, dishonesty is your game. Everyone except you understood my explanation, and everyone else realizes that you're the only one who doesn't get it. I explained clearly and concisely how you misunderstand running difference images and why none of your interpretations of such images can be considered support for your silly fantasy. I could say it a thousand different ways, and other people can, and have explained it clearly as well, but so far you insist on keeping your fingers stuffed in your ears and refusing to understand.
Now, how about instead of you standing there being such a whining bitch, you actually get back to the task at hand, that being to try to prove the Sun has a solid surface. If it does, the surface has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Get off your lazy ass and address some of these most basic concerns...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. These questions a little too tough for you maybe? 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:27:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Everyone here understands running difference images except you, Michael. Everyone at Lockheed understands them. Everyone at NASA understands. Everyone at the BAUT forum understands.
Then surely someone as wise and wonderful as you could explain *exactly* how these *specific* images are explained used gas model theory?
quote:
Oddly enough you seem to believe you're the only one on Earth who does understand.
I'm the only one on earth I've personally heard explain these images in any detail using any solar model. If you'd like to be even a little attentive to detail and show us what a brainiac you are, just go right ahead and explain all the details of that one single image and we'll go from there. Tell me about the light source ,the structures, the light and dark areas, the dust drifting from right to left, etc. Spare me no expense in detail as you've spared me no expense in insult over the last few months oh wise one.....
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 22:29:03 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:47:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Then surely someone as wise and wonderful as you could explain *exactly* how these *specific* images are explained used gas model theory?
Nobody here is required to defend the gas model theory, not relative to your "evidence" or relative to anything else. I know you'll have a hard time understanding this because you've demonstrated your stupidity repeatedly, but here goes: You're the one who's making the claim here. It's your responsibility to prove it. Get it? The gas model, or standard solar model, is not the issue of this discussion. If you've abandoned your silly fantasy about a solid surfaced Sun and want to talk about other solar physics, go ahead and open a new thread.quote:
I'm the only one on earth I've personally heard explain these images in any detail using any solar model. If you'd like to be even a little attentive to detail and show us what a brainiac you are, just go right ahead and explain all the details of that one single image and we'll go from there. Tell me about the light source ,the structures, the light and dark areas, the dust drifting from right to left, etc. Spare me no expense in detail as you've spared me no expense in insult over the last few months oh wise one.....
I've explained them all. You're just too stupid to understand. Running difference images are not pictures of solid structural things, no matter what it looks like to you. What you see as light and shadow are not light and shadow, so no explanation of light source is required, or even appropriate. There isn't any dust. There isn't any structure. There, done, fully explained. And again, I can't help it if you're just so stupid you can't understand that.
Now why don't we move on to something productive, like maybe you get your lazy ass in gear and start answering the relevant, important questions about your solid surface. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Now indulge yourself, knock yourself out with some of these...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. You just don't have what it takes to answer the hard ones, eh?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Nobody here is required to defend the gas model theory, not relative to your "evidence" or relative to anything else.
I'm asking you to explain these images since you seem to think anyone and virtually everyone can do so. You aren't required to defend the gas model if you would prefer to explain it another way. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate your claim that everyone understands this running difference image but me. That was your claim. Do you have the ability to back up your claim, or did your ego bite off more than it can chew oh great solar sage?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 23:42:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm asking you to explain these images since you seem to think anyone and virtually everyone can do so. You aren't required to defend the gas model if you would prefer to explain it another way. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate your claim that everyone understands this running difference image but me. That was your claim. Do you have the ability to back up your claim, or did your ego bite off more than it can chew oh great solar sage?
Okay bonehead, one more time, I've explained all running difference images. I've explained how they don't show what you think they show. Running difference images are no more a picture of something solid than a pie chart is a picture of a real pie, no matter what it looks like to you.
Look at the first, upper left image in this composite and explain how it is that the Sun is not even a sphere. There's the proof that it is actually a nearly flat wafer. No? That's not what it means? Well get this through your thick skull, dumbfuck, that image no more shows the Sun is a solid flat wafer than your "evidence" images show structure. Even if not everyone understands the process or intent, I think everyone except you understands they don't show anything solid.
So there, I've explained running difference images in every way possible, and so anyone more intellectually capable than a moron can understand. I think we can safely assume if you need any more explanation than that, you're a moron. (I do predict that you'll continue to ask for explanations and/or continue to stupidly believe there are solid things in those images. But displaying any actual intelligence certainly isn't one of your strong points.)
And you've been asked many times to explain the specific process used to create those running difference images, the algorithm, the software, and the intent of the production. But you can't. You don't even know those critical details, or maybe you're just too stupid to be able to explain them to the rest of us. It looks like you're the one making assumptions about the meaning of those images without knowing any of the important details about them. So why don't you knock off your dishonest ploy of expecting other people to prove your silly fantasy wrong, and you get off your sorry lazy ass and work on proving it right.
Now, there are some important issues still hanging. If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Why don't you...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. How about you come up with some good answers to those concerns. Oh, that's right, you've got nothing. You opened your big mouth and made a ridiculous claim that you simply can't prove.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 01:01:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm asking you to explain these images since you seem to think anyone and virtually everyone can do so. You aren't required to defend the gas model if you would prefer to explain it another way. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate your claim that everyone understands this running difference image but me. That was your claim. Do you have the ability to back up your claim, or did your ego bite off more than it can chew oh great solar sage?
Okay bonehead, one more time, I've explained all running difference images. I've explained how they don't show what you think they show. Running difference images are no more a picture of something solid than a pie chart is a picture of a real pie, no matter what it looks like to you.
Look at the first, upper left image in this composite
We are not discussing that image. We are discussing this image:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
Can you explain that image and the details of this image, yes or no? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 01:30:22 [Permalink]
|
Mozina said:
quote:
You're splitting hairs and making rationalizations to excuse piss poor behavior IMO. The whole of GeeMacks arguement has been nothing more than an ad homimen mud slinging barf fest.
Argumentum ad hominem, once again, is when you declare that a person is wrong because of the name you are calling them.
Like so: You are wrong because you are a fucking idiot.
Not like: You are wrong you fucking idiot.
First one is ad hominem, second one is just childish namecalling (something everyone engages in at some point or another).
You are wrong about the sun you idiotic crackpot. Namecalling, not ad hominem arguments.
You are just a stupid crackpot so what the hell could you possibly know about the sun? Ad hominem argument.
Are you clear on the difference yet?
Seriously, it is better if you know the definition and proper usage of terms before you start popping off with them. It degrades your credibility (not as if you have much to start with).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 10:45:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mozina said:
quote:
You're splitting hairs and making rationalizations to excuse piss poor behavior IMO. The whole of GeeMacks arguement has been nothing more than an ad homimen mud slinging barf fest.
Argumentum ad hominem, once again, is when you declare that a person is wrong because of the name you are calling them.
Like so: You are wrong because you are a fucking idiot.
Not like: You are wrong you fucking idiot.
First one is ad hominem, second one is just childish namecalling (something everyone engages in at some point or another).
quote:
GeeMack:The simple, complete explanation is that you're just too stupid to understand what running difference images actually are.
quote:
GeeMack:You're too stupid to understand that Lockheed didn't mislabel those images,....
Yes, but as you can see Dr. Hairsplitter, GeeMack isn't simply namecalling (like a child might do), but rather he's claiming that I can't understand *because* I'm too "(insert ad homenimem de'jour)" to "get it", which falls into the ad homeninem category. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 10:51:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 10:49:33 [Permalink]
|
| Oh great and wise solar guru GeeMack, where is your detailed explaination of the *specific* image in question? You said anyone and everyone understands these images but me, but you've never explained even *a single* relevant issue related to the image in question. Did your supersized ego bite off more than it can chew perhaps? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 10:50:48 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 11:01:42 [Permalink]
|
Mozina said:
quote:
Yes, but as you can see Dr. Hairsplitter, GeeMack isn't simply namecalling (like a child might do), but rather he's claiming that I can't understand *because* I'm too "(insert ad homenimem de'jour)" to "get it", which falls into the ad homeninem category.
There is one other thing that also applies.
If the statement is accurate (if you really are to stupid to understand) then it doesn't qualify as argumentum ad hominem.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 13:01:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mozina said:
quote:
Yes, but as you can see Dr. Hairsplitter, GeeMack isn't simply namecalling (like a child might do), but rather he's claiming that I can't understand *because* I'm too "(insert ad homenimem de'jour)" to "get it", which falls into the ad homeninem category.
There is one other thing that also applies.
If the statement is accurate (if you really are to stupid to understand) then it doesn't qualify as argumentum ad hominem.
And of course if it's not accurate, it's just a bush league ad hominem instead of a scientific explantion. I predict that GeeMack will *never* actually explain any of the details in the actual image in question. Instead I predict he will continue to feed his frail ego by using the crutch of ad hominem in absense of a scientific explanation. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
We are not discussing that image. We are discussing this image:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
Can you explain that image and the details of this image, yes or no?
I sure can. Although it has been explained clearly and simply, many times, you obviously have a mental problem which prohibits you from understanding. So here's yet another complete explanation. If you don't get it this time I think we can accept that you're just intellectually incapable and simply don't have the ability to grasp these simple concepts.
Figure 1
About August 25, 2000, an area of solar activity came into view on the limb of the Sun. This area was designated Active Region 9143 (AR9143). Figure 1 is an image of this region acquired by the TRACE (Transition Region and Coronal Explorer) satellite. The image was created using a 171 angstrom (171Å) filter, which shows only material at around 1 million degrees Kelvin. Anything in this image that appears dark is either hotter or cooler than 1,000,000°K. Again, only material within a narrow range of temperature appears lit up in this image.
Approximately 73 hours later, on August 28, 2000, AR9143 had rotated longitudinally about 40° eastward. The TRACE satellite acquired several more images of AR9143 on August 28. Again the 171Å filter was used to create images showing only material ~1,000,000°K. One of these images is shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2
A series of images was gathered over a period of about an hour and a half, every one of them looking very much like the one shown above in Figure 2. Each pair of successive images was used as the source and processed into a series of running difference images using a program much like this IDL script...
PRO GIFS2DIFS, inputdir, outputdir, PNG=png
CD, inputdir
IF KEYWORD_SET (PNG) THEN $
gif_list=FINDFILE('*.png') $
ELSE $
gif_list=FINDFILE('*.gif')
IF N_ELEMENTS(gif_list) GT 3 THEN BEGIN
WINDOW, /FREE, XSIZE=1024, YSIZE=1024, RETAIN=2, /PIXMAP
WINNUM=!D.WINDOW
LOADCT, 0
camera = STRMID ( gif_list[0], 14, STRPOS ( gif_list[0], "." ) - 14 )
dcamera = camera
STRPUT, dcamera, "D", 0
FOR i=0, N_ELEMENTS(gif_list)-1 DO BEGIN
PRINT, 'Creating diff image for ' + gif_list[i]
IF KEYWORD_SET(PNG) THEN BEGIN
READ_PNG, gif_list[i], curr
IF ( !version.release EQ '5.3' ) THEN curr = ROTATE ( curr, 7 )
ENDIF ELSE $
READ_GIF, gif_list[i], curr
IF i NE 0 THEN BEGIN
diffname = gif_list[i]
STRPUT, diffname, dcamera, STRPOS(diffname, camera)
diffname = STRMID (diffname, 0, STRPOS (diffname, '.'))
dateyear = STRMID (diffname, 0, 4)
datemonth = STRMID (diffname, 4, 2)
dateday = STRMID (diffname, 6, 2)
datehour = STRMID (diffname, 9, 2)
datemin = STRMID (diffname, 11, 2)
timestamp = dateyear + "/" + datemonth + "/" + dateday + " " + datehour + ":" + datemin
curr = CONGRID (curr, 1024, 1024, /INTERP)
IF camera EQ 'EIT' THEN $
diffimg=BYTSCL(FIX(curr)-prev, -15, 15) $
ELSE IF camera EQ 'C2' THEN $
diffimg=BYTSCL(FIX(curr)-prev, -20, 20) $
ELSE $
diffimg=BYTSCL(FIX(curr)-prev, -20, 20)
TV, diffimg
RTMVIXY, timestamp
diffimg = TVRD()
SPAWN, 'if [ ! -d ' + outputdir + ' ]; then mkdir -p ' + outputdir + ' ; fi', /SH
IF KEYWORD_SET (PNG) THEN $
WRITE_PNG, outputdir+'/'+diffname+'.png', CONGRID(diffimg,512, 512, /INTERP) $
ELSE $
WRITE_GIF, outputdir+'/'+diffname+'.gif', CONGRID(diffimg,512, 512, /INTERP)
ENDIF
prev=CONGRID (curr, 1024, 1024, /INTERP)
ENDFOR
WDELETE, WINNUM
ENDIF ELSE PRINT, "Not enough files found."
ENDOf course IDL is a program usually run on a Unix computer and often used for graphical statistical analysis. The above script is actually one used to process SOHO and LASCO images. But since several different programs might be used to create similar running difference images, Matlab et al, I can't be sure if this was used to process the video that you're too stupid to properly analyze for yourself. It certainly is very much like it.
Once the sequence of running difference images is created, they are assembled and processed into, in this case, an .avi format video. All the particular individual running difference images used to make the "Lockheed Gold" video are very similar to the one shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3
What it actually means (and this is the part you continue to miss, Michael, and the reason everyone is pretty sure you're just too stupid to understand) is this: These images only show ~1,000,000°K light in the coronal region of the Sun, thousands of kilometers above your alleged solid surface at 0.995Rsun. The outermost visible portion of the photosphere, ~4,000 km above your "solid" surface, is approximately 6,000°K. These images are far above even that. In these images where you see bright areas, the coronal activity has become closer to 1,000,000°K since the time of each previous image, and where it appears dark or black, it has moved away from that optimum 171Å wavelength which shows material at about 1,000,000°K. The light and dark areas in your "evidence" video are not light and shadow no matter what you think and no matter how much you keep crying about it.
For more information on running difference images in general and the specific images and processing used to make your "evidence", you might consider this. Some extremely detailed analyses have already been done by Dave W. on the images. Thorough, excellent descriptions of running difference images have been provided by JohnOAS and myself. Do some reading for god's sake. It's your project. It's your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it, a task at which you are currently failing in the most miserable way. And if you still don't grasp the concept of running difference images, go take a remedial reading course at your local high school.
So there you go. Once again other people have done your work for you. And once again that adds to the evidence that you're just too lazy and/or too stupid to do it for yourself. Now you can continue to wallow in your pathetic state of cognitive dissonance, or you can do what anyone with an ounce of scientific integrity would do. March your sorry lazy ass over to your web site and tak |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/23/2006 14:32:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:44:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
So here's yet another complete explanation.
Gee, let's see how you did....
quote:
Figure 1
About August 25, 2000, an area of solar activity came into view on the limb of the Sun. This area was designated Active Region 9143 (AR9143). Figure 1 is an image of this region acquired by the TRACE (Transition Region and Coronal Explorer) satellite. The image was created using a 171 angstrom (171Å) filter, which shows only material at around 1 million degrees Kelvin. Anything in this image that appears dark is either hotter or cooler than 1,000,000°K. Again, only material within a narrow range of temperature appears lit up in this image.
Well, you just proved my point about Lockheed Martin blowing the heat signatures, but then Dave has already agreed with me on that point. Too bad Lockheed Martin can't see that. It's pretty damn obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the dark regions aren't hotter than the bright ones. Then again, you seem to not realize that the 171A filter can see Calcium plasma in the 4Million Kelving range and FeXX ion photons all the way into the 20 million degree range. There is certainly no guarantee that the lit areas are limited to 1Million K.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
So far we're in general agreement about the temperature ranges associated with light and dark areas of this image, but then Lockheed Martin is wrong.
quote:
These images only show ~1,000,000°K light in the coronal region of the Sun, thousands of kilometers above your alleged solid surface at 0.995Rsun.
Um, ok, I'll bite. How do you know this light comes *only* from the coronal region of the sun?
quote:
The outermost visible portion of the photosphere, ~4,000 km above your "solid" surface, is approximately 6,000°K. These images are far above even that.
Um, how so? You can certainly convince me that the lit areas are hotter than 6000K, but how will you demonstrate that the dark areas of the original images are greater than 6000K?
quote:
In these images where you see bright areas, the coronal activity has become closer to 1,000,000°K since the time of each previous image, and where it appears dark or black, it has moved away from that optimum 171Å wavelength which shows material at about 1.000,000°K.
Can't really say I have any beef with that basic statement, but again, you blew Lockheed's explanation out of the water, and only the lit parts *of the ORIGINAL image* can be in the million degree range. That has nothing to do however the running difference "surface", particularly in areas that are dark in the original image.
quote:
The light and dark areas in your "evidence" video are not light and shadow no matter what you think and no matter how much you keep crying about it.
What are they? Why are these dark regions typically found on the left side of all these structures?
quote:
For more information on running difference images in general and the specific images and processing used to make your "evidence", you might consider this. Some extremely detailed analyses have already been done by Dave W. on the images.
I agree that Dave did some interesting initial analysis, but he didn't offer much in the way of explaining the structures of the running difference image, or the light source, and you haven't either for that matter. I'll "agree" with you that the lit up areas are millions of degrees, but that is not so of the dark regions, so Lockheed got it wrong. You however have not related any of the original images back to the running difference image in any way. The running difference image is completely lit. In other words the whole surface is lit, whereas the original images are not. Why is that? Why are all the "structures" on this "surface" rigid in relationship to one another?
quote:
Thorough, excellent descriptions of running difference images have been provided by JohnOAS and myself.
Ya, John's starting to discuss the image now as well. We'll see how he does and Dave does and you do as we start to get into some of the details of these images. We seem to have at least covered the temperature issues related to lit areas of the *original* images, but we've yet to agree on the temperature of the dark regions.
quote:
So there you go. Once again other people have done your work for you.
Pfft. You hardly started to analyse this image GeeMack. You haven't gotten into hardly any of the interesting details of this image yet. Before you start patting yourself on the back, you'll need to get a lot more detailed in your analysis, particularly the relatively rigid behavior of this surface, the temperature of the surface (dark regions), the light source in the RD image, the particles drifting to the left, etc. You certainly haven't offered a "complete" explanation, not by a long shot. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/23/2006 15:06:35 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 15:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Anything in this image that appears dark is either hotter or cooler than 1,000,000°K. Again, only material within a narrow range of temperature appears lit up in this image.
Actually, the more I think about this statement, the more I realize how *wrong* it is. First of all, the bottom end is more sensitive than you give it credit for:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Project/Instrument/inspass.htm
Furthermore the top end temperature range of this filter is actually measured in the 10's of millions of degrees:
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
So far I'd say that this part of your analysis it pitifully flawed and pitifully over simplified. You've missed the sensitivity range of this filter by a mile. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
