Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously.

Coming from you, that statement is utterly absurd. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?"

You are hands down the *LEAST* qualified individual to discuss these specific images of anyone I've ever met in cyberspace. You've made at least 3 false statements about this technique including claiming there are no light sources, there is no flying stuff in the image, and the RD technique itself generates persistent features. You of all people have no right to criticize anyone.

Images gathered from the corona showing 171Å emissions have nothing to do with the photosphere, or anything below it. Michael's mythical solid surface is 3500 to 4000 kilometers below the photosphere. Those images from the TRACE program are taken from the transition region, ~2000 kilometers above the photosphere and outward.

That is a belief of yours that you cannot physically demonstrate and you ignored several key images that demonstrate your claim is false.

The really outrageous part of all this is that you personally think you explained every pixel of every frame of this image. You did not mention a single detail observed in these images by location, by frame, or by event. You never mentioned one single cause/effect relationship observed in the image. You never mentioned anything specific at all in fact.

You have absolutely zero credibility as it relates to these images, in fact you have negative credibility because you have made at least three false statements related to this technique and you refuse to address anything specific about the image.

 

[D'rok]

They are experiencing subtle lighting shifts between shots the individual shots, and they are moving left to right in the image between shots.


First of all, the surface moves between the two original images, as do all the various light sources. The windward side of every mountain range is typically "lit up" due to the plasma flow past the surface structures whereas the leeward side of these structures is typically less electrically active. That makes these structures particularly visible.

If "the surface moves between the two original images", then doesn't that mean that the entire RD image is an error? How can any meaningful graphical representation of change be generated between two images of different geographical origin? If the telescope didn't account for surface movement (the Sun's rotation, I assume?), then there was a screw-up and your image is worthless. If the telescope did account for the Sun's rotation, then the image shows phenomena that exhibit change in a single geographic location thus eliminating persistent features like mountains. Correct?

If an Earth satellite took a series of pictures of Mt Everest (correctly taking into account the rotation of the Earth) and then an RD image was generated from those images, would Mt Everest be visible in the RD image? (Others, please jump in and answer this if you like).

Birkeland noted that the arcs of his discharges tended to congregate at the "bumps" of the surface of his terella That's true with the sun too since volcanic activity typically generates most of the activity in an active region like the one in the southern hemisphere that is facing us right now in SOHO images. All sunspot activity is located in and around these volcanic active regions just as they have formed over that active region in recent days. Not every active regions forms a sunspot, but sunspots only form above/around active regions.

So they're not just mountains, but volcanoes? Or am I misunderstanding your use of the term "volcanic."

 

[GeeMack]

How could we be seeing outlines of mountains in these images unless the mountains themselves were changing in between shots? Doesn't the process of generating RD images eliminate static features? What's the "running difference" between a mountain and itself that would cause it to show up?

You are correct about running difference images eliminating any static features. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL, where they designed, implemented, and analyze the data acquired from the TRACE program was asked...

In this video (T171_000828.avi), 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?

To which he replied...

The answer is yes. A dark "shadow" in the difference movie is a region that became darker while a bright region is one that became brighter. Places where nothing changes are grey.

So Michael's tantrums insisting that the differing opinions are incorrect and his is correct are wrong, as stated simply and clearly by a person who is obviously a knowledgeable authority on the matter. There you have it, D'rok. You can weigh your own opinion between one guy's wildass unsubstantiated guess and the statement of another person with doctorate degree credentials who works hands-on with the actual equipment and images being discussed. Any questions?

ETA:

If an Earth satellite took a series of pictures of Mt Everest and then an RD image was generated from those images, would Mt Everest be visible in the RD image? (Others, please jump in and answer this if you like).

No.

 

[Zeuzzz]

*Michael's mythical solid surface
*that wacky solid iron surface.
*crackpots like Michael.
*PC/EU nutters
*Michael's insane solid surface Sun fantasy

Way to go! theres some more derogartory terms here if you want to add to your (seemingly) already extensive list of ad hominems: http://home.online.no/~rkaste/jokes/insults.htm

There really is no need for these words, that paragraph would be so much better without them.

 

[GeeMack]

There really is no need for these words, that paragraph would be so much better without them.

But no less truthful or accurate.

 

[D'rok]

You are correct about running difference images eliminating any static features. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL, where they designed, implemented, and analyze the data acquired from the TRACE program was asked...




To which he replied...




So Michael's tantrums insisting that the differing opinions are incorrect and his is correct are wrong, as stated simply and clearly by a person who is obviously a knowledgeable authority on the matter. There you have it, D'rok. You can weigh your own opinion between one guy's wildass unsubstantiated guess and the statement of another person with doctorate degree credentials who works hands-on with the actual equipment and images being discussed. Any questions?

ETA:



No.

Thanks. I'm happy to have learned some basic concepts from this thread.

 

[GeeMack]

Coming from you, [... more crying ...]

Oh whine, whine, whine. Interesting that you should take every opportunity you have to actually demonstrate your fruitcake fantasy and waste it crying.

We're still waiting for you to explain the running difference image, in detail, with specifics, objectively, in a way that allows other people to reach the same conclusion you've reached. You can start with the pixel at Row 1, Column 1. How about that first pixel, Michael? Why is it the shade that it is? And after you explain that one, you can move on to Row 1, Column 2, then onward. Jesus, over three years and you have yet to explain one single pixel.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes.

Very elaborative

And you know this.... how?

 

[GeeMack]

Very elaborative

And you know this.... how?

It's been explained, right here in this thread, back up several pages. You must have missed it. Maybe start over. You'll find it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If "the surface moves between the two original images", then doesn't that mean that the entire RD image is an error?

No. Let me try to explain it this way, starting with a LASCO RD image. If you go to the SOHO archives and watch some LASCO-C3 RD images for awhile, you will find that the background stars show up in these images and they create "persistent patterns" in the background of the image. They are not moving very fast relative to the plasma so they are visible throughout the movie with the bright side to the right, and the shadow of where it came from to the left. If there are "persistent features" in the image (like the stars and their relationship to each other), that pattern will show up in the RD images, just as it shows up in the original images. If we looked at just a set of background stars in an RD image, they would all appear to be fixed and not moving in relationship to each other. They are of course moving, but relative to each other based on our vantage point here in this solar system, they appear to be fixed and a definite pattern will be seen in such images.

The easy way to look at this (and the correct way too) is that any lighting that is "persistent", and any shading that is "persistent" will show up in the image, just as moving items (like the flying plasma) also show up in the image. The persistence of the background lighting determines the persistence of the various features. If the light sources are not moving much in relationship to one another, that lack of movement (relative to each other) is also visible in the RD image set. There's nothing magical about it, nor can it be caused by the RD imaging technique. The only thing that can create persistence in an RD image is persistence in the light source(s).

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's been explained, right here in this thread, back up several pages. You must have missed it. Maybe start over. You'll find it.

No you won't. You'll find a brief overview of what a RD process is (subtracting one image from another) and at least three of GM's technical errors about the process in his explanation. You'll also find not a single specific observation, frame or quadrant of any frame has been "explained' and no "cause/effect"" relationships were ever offered. GM has said several things about the technique that are simply untrue like his claim that there is no flying plasma in the image, and that persistence is a function of the RD technique rather than the lighting from the sun. He's also said there are NO lighting sources when in fact the sun is the light source of all the images, the original images as well as the RD images. In short, he's blown everything he tried to "explain", and the only thing he even attempted to explain was the RD technique itself, not anything specific in the images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks. I'm happy to have learned some basic concepts from this thread.

GM stated three things here about RD images that are scientifically false. He said:

A) There are no light sources in the RD image.

That is categorically untrue as anyone can see. The sun has emitted every single photon striking every last pixel of every single image, all the original images, and all the RD images as well. The sun is the light source of these images.

B) There is no flying stuff.

That is also categorically absurd. There are all sorts of "flying plasma" blobs visible in the RD images and in the original 171A images as well. There is nothing about the technique that would hide any sort of movement of plasma, and that movement of plasma is very visible as it moves from the lower right, toward the upper left side of the image.

C) The patterns are a result of the RD technique.

That is also categorically false. The patterns are a direct result of the patterns in the original images and the patterns in the light sources. Their persistence or lack thereof are also directly related to solar processes and have nothing whatsoever to do with the technique. The technique cannot and does not create "persistence' in any way.

How can you verify this? Start with a LASCO-C3 RD image from the SOHO archive library.

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/
(you may need to copy and paste this link to your browser)

You'll find them organized in the various folders by year and month marked with _d3 designation (like 010102_d3.mpg). If you choose a month in 2000 or 2001, you'll see more action than if you choose one from a recent date. I'll have you start with a LASCO-C3 image so that you can look at the background stars and see how their patterns of light play out in the RD images. The persistence of the patterns in the RD images are directly related to the persistence of the light sources in the original images. In no way are they related to the RD technique itself.

The "flying stuff" from the sun can also be observed in LASCO-C3 images, particularly during the 2000-2001 season where CME's were occurring on a regular basis.

You'll also notice that the "light sources" are in fact the material in the original images. The only thing that is really all that visually different in the RD images are the shadows you find in the wake of the plasma movement and the wake of the relative movement of the background stars. A single LASCO-C3 image can debunk all three of GM's false statements. How much time could he really have put into understanding a RD image, and how much does he actually understand correctly about an RD image if he missed all three of these points?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are correct about running difference images eliminating any static features.

That is absolutely and positively a false statement as the background stars in the LASCO-C3 RD images will demonstrate. The "static features" are also moving, albeit slowly perhaps, but they are moving. There is nothing in the image that is actually 100% "static" in the final analysis. GM's hero at LMSAL would never have said something so foolish.

 

[GeeMack]

That is absolutely and positively a false statement as the background stars in the LASCO-C3 RD images will demonstrate. The "static features" are also moving, albeit slowly perhaps, but they are moving. There is nothing in the image that is actually 100% "static" in the final analysis. GM's hero at LMSAL would never have said something so foolish.

And what did they tell you about it, Michael?

Oh, by the way...

All of my ideas are:

A) lab tested
B) work in a lab here on Earth
C) involve only known and demonstrated forces of nature
D) rely on no metaphysical fudge factors of any sort.

If you can take a moment out from your whining and bitching, where's that lab tested experiment that shows you can see a solid surface thousands of kilometers below the opaque photosphere by making difference graphs from images that were acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere? Nothing metaphysical, Michael. No guesses. No fudge factors. You show us the experiment, repeatable, mathematically sound, physically consistent, and objective, so that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached.

After all, you said it yourself. All of your ideas are, well...

 

[Michael Mozina]

GM: A few thousand of those kilometers are opaque to light at any wavelength.

Baloney. Prove it. Lets see you demonstrate in a lab that a super thin, composed of mostly hydrogen and helium plasma is going to block these specific wavelengths of light by a specific (and shallow) depth. You'll never provide such a physical experiment because no such experiment exists or could exist to demonstrate your claim. Atoms are not "black bodies". They absorb and emit light at very specific wavelengths that are directly related to their valence shell configurations. Not every atom can even absorb or emit every wavelength of light. You simply *ASSUME* that the photosphere is "opaque" to *ALL* (not even some) wavelengths. That's absolutely unsupported by observation and in fact it is refuted by the observations. I posted two images earlier that demonstrate that this specific claim is false which you completely ignored.

 

[D'rok]

That is absolutely and positively a false statement as the background stars in the LASCO-C3 RD images will demonstrate. The "static features" are also moving, albeit slowly perhaps, but they are moving.

If the "static features" are moving, then they aren't static and their movement will be captured by the RD process.

There is nothing in the image that is actually 100% "static" in the final analysis.

Isn't that what everyone has been saying?

Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly. I looked at some of those LASCO-C3 animations, and I saw what looked like a background of stars that was moving. Some patterns were consistent and moved as a pattern. Other movements were random and intermittent and consisted of single events.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if an imaging device is focused on something relatively close in the foreground (the Sun) for an extended period, the immensely far-off background (the stars) would appear to move in relation to the foreground object. I can see the background stars "move" with my own eyes by watching the sky at night due to the rotation of the Earth. The SOHO satellite is in orbit around the Earth, yes? When the LASCO thingy is focused on the Sun, the stars in the background will "move" as the satellite revolves, yes? So then, this movement relative to where the LASCO instrument is focused will show up as graphically represented change when RD images are generated, yes?

What you seem to want to suggest is that your "mountains" on the sun are analogous to stars in the background of these animations - i.e. the mountains are persistent, solid features that "move" in the same way as stars in the background and are therefore captured by RD imaging in the same way.

Have I got this correct?

 

[edd]

GM: A few thousand of those kilometers are opaque to light at any wavelength.

Baloney. Prove it. Lets see you demonstrate in a lab that a super thin, composed of mostly hydrogen and helium plasma is going to block these specific wavelengths of light by a specific (and shallow) depth. You'll never provide such a physical experiment because no such experiment exists or could exist to demonstrate your claim. Atoms are not "black bodies". They absorb and emit light at very specific wavelengths that are directly related to their valence shell configurations. Not every atom can even absorb or emit every wavelength of light. You simply *ASSUME* that the photosphere is "opaque" to *ALL* (not even some) wavelengths. That's absolutely unsupported by observation and in fact it is refuted by the observations. I posted two images earlier that demonstrate that this specific claim is false which you completely ignored.

[qimg]http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_1600_WL_000606_1500.gif[/qimg]

So you're saying that the Sun is not absorbing and emitting light largely like that of a black body? And that it's emission spectrum is dominated by very specific wavelengths?

And if not, can you clarify further your position?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If the "static features" are moving, then they aren't static and their movement will be captured by the RD process.

Yes. The time between images ensures that everything "moves" at least slightly.

Isn't that what everyone has been saying?

No, not really.

Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly. I looked at some of those LASCO-C3 animations, and I saw what looked like a background of stars that was moving. Some patterns were consistent and moved as a pattern. Other movements were random and intermittent and consisted of single events.

The stars all retained a similar pattern throughout the event just as they form a pattern in the night sky and in the original images. Transient particles fly through various images of course, and the plasma flying off the sun is also moving away from the sun in waves in these images, particularly the ones from 2000-2001. Note you can observe all the stars in the same patterns in the background because the stars move from from to frame. Nothing is 'static' in space.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if an imaging device is focused on something relatively close in the foreground (the Sun) for an extended period, the immensely far-off background (the stars) would appear to move in relation to the foreground object. I can see the background stars "move" with my own eyes by watching the sky at night due to the rotation of the Earth.

Likewise you'll see them move in RD images. Some basic concepts still apply.

The SOHO satellite is in orbit around the Earth, yes?

It's located pretty much directly in front of the Earth balanced between the gravity of the Earth and the sun.

When the LASCO thingy is focused on the Sun, the stars in the background will "move" as the satellite revolves, yes?

The sun is obviously the thing that is moving, as is the SOHO satellite, Earth and everything else in space. The stars "appear" to move because of the movement of the sun and the Earth between the various images. Relative to SOHO, the stars moved from one frame to the next. The RD image will therefore show a bright spot where it moved to, and a dark spot where it moved from.

So then, this movement relative to where the LASCO instrument is focused will show up as graphically represented change when RD images are generated, yes?

Yes. You've got it.

What you seem to want to suggest is that your "mountains" on the sun are analogous to stars in the background of these animations - i.e. the mountains are persistent, solid features that "move" in the same way as stars in the background and are therefore captured by RD imaging in the same way.

Have I got this correct?

Yes, you have it correct in every respect. In this image, the tops of the mountains are highly electrically active because plasma is blowing by stationary magnetic fields on the surface that have been aligned by the currents that flow from the surface. The movement of plasma past the surface features creates an induction process on the windward side of these mountains that show up as bright points in the image. Their relatively "stable" shape over time is what shows up as rigid outlines in the image.

As you can already tell now, there is no possibility that the RD technique *causes* the "persistence" of the various features in the RD image. Only a persistence in the original light source could create persistent patterns in the RD image. You can also see that "subtracting" images from one other that are separated by a period of time will naturally show some amount of movement from one frame to the next, thereby ensuring that nothing is actually completely "subtracted out" from one images to the next. The only way that you'd get a full subtracted image or blank image would be to subtract the same image from itself. Since the two images are separated by time, nothing will be perfectly stationary and all things will move from left to right in that image, meaning shadows should generally be on the left side of most active (bright) regions.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Optical Depth

Lets see you demonstrate in a lab that a super thin, composed of mostly hydrogen and helium plasma is going to block these specific wavelengths of light by a specific (and shallow) depth.

Where do you propose that one might build a 1000 km long plasma tube to contain the experiment? How do you propose to conduct the experiment, if and when it is built?

You constantly revert to an insistence on controlled laboratory experiments. But you yourself will reject even the most controlled of laboratory experiments, when they contradict your pre-conceptions, as you do with magnetic reconnection. So why should anyone be impressed by your insistence that other people adhere to criteria that you will not adhere to yourself?

And you fail to notice that some things cannot be demonstrated to your satisfaction in any conceivable controlled laboratory experiment. This is one example. Even a "thick" plasma, let alone a "thin" plasma, can be transparent or translucent under laboratory conditions, while being opaque in nature because nature exists on spatial scales that cannot be duplicated in any laboratory. The photosphere of the sun is on the order of 1000 km deep. So the concept at work here is what astronomers call column density. Even where the photosphere is "thin", with a hydrogen atom number density about 9x10¹² atoms/cm³, a column of that plasma 1000 km long will hold 9x10²⁰ atoms. A real photospheric column will hold rather more than that, since that is based on a minimum density, probably closer to 10²⁴ or 10²⁵ neutral hydrogen atoms. Is that "thin"?

I told you once before that "thin" is irrelevant. You don't believe me of course, but that's no surprise. But I'll say it again anyway. "Thin" is irrelevant, whether you like it or not. We call it "physics", and the key concept here is optical depth. The optical depth of anything depends not only on "thin" or "thick" (both of which you have yet to quantitatively define), but on the absorption coefficient of the material at the wavelength(s) of interest. A strong absorption coefficient means strong absorption, even in a "thin" material, while a weak absorption coefficient can mean weak absorption, even for a "thick" material. After all, ordinary glass has about 1,000,000 times the mass density of the solar photosphere, and is "thick" by colloquial standards, but totally transparent to eyeball wavelengths of light, while totally opaque at other wavelengths.

You must pay attention to the relevant physics, just as you demand of others to do the same, or you just wind up in a thread dominated by a sea of insults and minor conversations on unimportant points, as you are now.

 

[D'rok]

Yes. The time between images ensures that everything "moves" at least slightly.



No, not really.



The stars all retained a similar pattern throughout the event just as they form a pattern in the night sky and in the original images. Transient particles fly through various images of course, and the plasma flying off the sun is also moving away from the sun in waves in these images, particularly the ones from 2000-2001. Note you can observe all the stars in the same patterns in the background because the stars move from from to frame. Nothing is 'static' in space.



Likewise you'll see them move in RD images. Some basic concepts still apply.



It's located pretty much directly in front of the Earth balanced between the gravity of the Earth and the sun.



The sun is obviously the thing that is moving, as is the SOHO satellite, Earth and everything else in space. The stars "appear" to move because of the movement of the sun and the Earth between the various images. Relative to SOHO, the stars moved from one frame to the next. The RD image will therefore show a bright spot where it moved to, and a dark spot where it moved from.



Yes. You've got it.



Yes, you have it correct in every respect. In this image, the tops of the mountains are highly electrically active because plasma is blowing by stationary magnetic fields on the surface that have been aligned by the currents that flow from the surface. The movement of plasma past the surface features creates an induction process on the windward side of these mountains that show up as bright points in the image. Their relatively "stable" shape over time is what shows up as rigid outlines in the image.

As you can already tell now, there is no possibility that the RD technique *causes* the "persistence" of the various features in the RD image. Only a persistence in the original light source could create persistent patterns in the RD image. You can also see that "subtracting" images from one other that are separated by a period of time will naturally show some amount of movement from one frame to the next, thereby ensuring that nothing is actually completely "subtracted out" from one images to the next. The only way that you'd get a full subtracted image or blank image would be to subtract the same image from itself. Since the two images are separated by time, nothing will be perfectly stationary and all things will move from left to right in that image, meaning shadows should generally be on the left side of most active (bright) regions.

I think there is a glaring flaw in the analogy. In order for the movement of the stars in the background of the LASCO animations to be analogous to movement of features on a hypothetical surface of the sun in your image, the scale would have to be comparable.

The distance between the foreground (sun) and background (stars) is measured in light years; the distance between the foreground (corona) and background (iron "surface") is measured in kms. Isn't it precisely this massive scale (starfield background light years away from foreground) that gives the appearance of movement that is captured by the RD process? Aren't the features in your image part of the foreground, not the background? Doesn't this mean that they can't be "static" in the way that background stars are static?