Electric universe theories here.

[GeeMack]

The problem here D'rok is that GM claimed several things that are not true. We *CAN* see "flying stuff" in the RD image. GM also incorrectly stated that the persistence in the image is related to the RD technique rather than solar events. That is categorically false. The persistent patterns relate directly to real things, like those real stars in the background. There's nothing about the RD technique that creates persistent patterns. Only persistence in the original images could or would create persistence in the RD images.

So you keep saying. But you haven't shown it. Now how about that lab tested experiment, right here on Earth, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically consistent and physically sound, objective such that other people can reach the same conclusions as you, that shows how you can see something 4000+ kilometers below the photosphere by looking at a computer graph showing differences in data acquired thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?

Are you too scared to address that one, Michael? Or maybe you don't have the balls to simply admit there is no such experiment? Can't you display the integrity to just acknowledge that you have nothing to go on there except your unsubstantiated opinion? What's the hold up? You said all your ideas are supported by such lab tested, experimental evidence? Maybe all but this one?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try to read MM - there is no 'disconect'.

Evidently that may be true for you since you correctly noted that the flying stuff came from the CME event. When I asked GM specifically to comment on the "flying stuff" the only answer I got was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"? Evidently there is mental disconnect in GM's mind that prevents him from seeing anything useful in the image. Worse yet he thinks he "explained" something by his denial routine.

I agree with you up to "bright things in RD images are also bright in the original images" (bright stuff in the original images that stays bright and in the same position ends up as grey stuff in the RD animation)

The sun is rotating in the LMSAL RD image so get over the idea that anything "zero's out".

The LASCO-C3 RD aminaions do have features in them that are connected to stars, flying plasma, planets and cosmic rays in the original images.

Then it becomes possible now to talk about the directional components and speed components we might derive from such image. Without an understanding that bright things correlate to real objects, it's not possible to do that.

I have no real objection to you calling these features "stars", "flying plasma", "planets" and "cosmic rays" so long as you make it clear that that the only reason that you call them that is because you have identified a connection to those objects in the original images.

Ok.

Where we depart company is when your web site makes the mistake of naming features in the TRACE 171A RD animation without identifying them in the original images,

Woah. I can make that connection and we will talk about that connection, but first you all *MUST* recognize that *THERE IS A CONNECTION* between real objects in the original images and identifiable real objects in the RD image before we can even have that conversation. We have to agree for instance that "persistence" in the RD image can only occur if there is "persistence" in the original images. You'll have to explain to GM evidently. Let me know when you two reach a consensus on that point.

 

[Reality Check]

The sun is rotating in the LMSAL RD image so get over the idea that anything "zero's out".

I am not sure what relevance this has. But OK I am over the idea. There are no grey pixels in any of the LMSAL animations.

Woah. I can make that connection and we will talk about that connection, but first you all *MUST* recognize that *THERE IS A CONNECTION* between real objects in the original images and identifiable real objects in the RD image before we can even have that conversation. We have to agree for instance that "persistence" in the RD image can only occur if there is "persistence" in the original images. You'll have to explain to GM evidently. Let me know when you two reach a consensus on that point.

Then make the connection. If you can show that there are mountain ranges in the original TRACE images and that they are changing in such a way that the show up in the RD animation then everyone will be greatly interested.

What do you mean by "persistence"?

ETA:
We can agree that if there is something changing intensity but not position in the original images then it will appear in the RD animation at the location as a persistent feature.
There are even examples of this in the TRACE 171A RD animation. The flares in the original images are basically fixed in position. They heat plasma. The areas of heating plasma show up in the RD animation as bright area aligned along the loops of the flares.
*THERE IS A CONNECTION*!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it wouldn't. You can't magically transform heat into other forms of energy, because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy.

There is nothing "magical" about creating "heat" from particle collisions nor is there anything magical about these particles picking up heat as they move through the atmosphere and moving it towards the heliosphere along with the particles.

And heat will flow from the hot visible layer of the sun to anything underneath it.

Downward moving heat will be absorbed by the flow of charged particles through the photosphere, just like the water in the river picks up the heat from a hot stone in the river and carries it downstream.

Unless you can get rid of this heat, it's going to warm up until it reaches at least 6000 K. You cannot get rid of heat by simply dumping energy in some low-entropy form, as you propose. It doesn't work.

Of course it works as long as the particle flow is directed away from the surface.

There's no violation of anything happening here. The moving charged particles are able to pick up heat and move it away from the surface.

 

[GeeMack]

A genius like you should realize that those are real stars in the background of Lasco-C3 images, not "x"'s in some data graph.

There are no real stars in running difference images. They actually are "x"'s in a data graph. The people who gathered that data and assembled those graphs would disagree with you. Running difference images are just graphical representations of changes in the brightness value of pixels between subsequent source images. That's all. Simple as that. Easy concept. Pie charts. Bar graphs. Gas gauges. Thermometers.

What you're seeing that looks like stars is a representation of the difference between one original frame and the next. If stars showed in one original frame and were in a different location in the next, there will be a change in the brightness level of the pixels in the running difference output where the differences occurred in the sources. And no solid surface bunny features in those corona clouds either, Michael, except in the minds of crackpots.

Now if you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, have at it. You know, something with substance, not more crying like a little kid, then lay it on us. And please, for once, could you just shut the hell up about being picked on, and just respond with something meaningful and productive?

 

[GeeMack]

Evidently that may be true for you since you correctly noted that the flying stuff came from the CME event. When I asked GM specifically to comment on the "flying stuff" the only answer I got was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"?

Liar.

 

[Reality Check]

A genius like you should realize that those are real stars in the background of Lasco-C3 images, not "x"'s in some data graph.

A genius like you would realize that

1. The question is not about Lasco-C3 images.
2. the question is about the process of creating RD animations not specific images.

But since you cannot recognize humour here is the question seriously:

Micheal Mozina: As an example of the importance of identifying a feature in the original images before naming an RD animation feature after it, you may want to answer this question.

First asked 10 July 2009
Below is a sketch of a 1 by 5 pixel RD animation where '_' is a blank pixel and '*' is a filled pixel.

• What feature is in the RD animation?
• Is that feature in the original images?

Frame 1: *____
Frame 2: _*___
Frame 3: __*__
Frame 4: ___*_
Frame 5: ____*

 

[Michael Mozina]

What do you mean by "persistence"?

I'm describing the longevity of the "structures" in the image. In other words there are "patterns" in the image that are persistent and retain the same shape throughout the CME event and movie. There are features in the image that are not as persistent like the flying plasma from the CME or the peeling we observe in the image. The "lifetime' of the "structure' is what I'm describing as "persistence". As it relates to Kosovichev's video, that item I circled is "persistent" throughout the video timeline and has a "rigidness' that is unlike the liquid-like wave on the photosphere. As it relates to the RD image, there are "structures" that have a "persistence" that is quite different than the plasma floating around in the atmosphere.

As it relates to the original 171A images we have "flow patterns" that are "persistent' and located in the same place image after image after image.

 

[GeeMack]

[*More wimpering about having his butt handed to him on a plate by GeeMack again snipped.*] Let me know when you two reach a consensus on that point.

I think Reality Check and I have reached a consensus. It appears we are in pretty much total agreement that you don't understand the first thing about the construction and meaning of running difference images.

I guess my persuasive powers just trumped your truth again, Michael. How about you throw one of your little tantrums to acknowledge that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There are no real stars in running difference images.

You're absolutely full of it. Even the overall outline of the star (it's round in the RD image) is directly related to the shape of the star (round in the original image too). Even the shadow caused by the movement of the star retains the same shape of the stars. There are no "x"'s in a *SOLAR* RD image and persistence in the image has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with the RD technique. You blew both points. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think Reality Check and I have reached a consensus. It appears we are in pretty much total agreement that you don't understand the first thing about the construction and meaning of running difference images.

You don't understand anything at all about RD images so coming from you that means absolutely nothing. RC and I seem to be at least "communicating" to some degree now so you're evidently the only sorry sap left that can't see stars or flying stuff in a RD image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Liar.

Besides the mechanical pixel subtraction explanation, what *USEFUL* and *SPECIFIC* observation have you offered an "explanation" for? What *SPECIFIC* cause/effect relationship did you explain? Explanation? What explanation? You didn't cite a single cause/effect relationship, not a single specific frame or any specific observation in the image. Your "explanation" was:

A)wrong (persistence is solar related and we see real "things" in RD images)
B) non existent in terms of detail
C) about as childish as it gets. Flying plasma? What flying plasma?

Even RC is at least *ATTEMPTING* to communicate whereas you're still acting like a first class jerk and misrepresenting the images and what you've "explained". You've done NOTHING in terms of offering a serious explanation for these images. My 12 year old daughter asked me more intelligent questions and made more intelligent observations related to that image than you did.

 

[GeeMack]

You're absolutely full of it. Even the overall outline of the star (it's round in the RD image) is directly related to the shape of the star (round in the original image too). Even the shadow caused by the movement of the star retains the same shape of the stars. There are no "x"'s in a *SOLAR* RD image and persistence in the image has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with the RD technique. You blew both points. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Credibility? What credibility?

So you keep saying. Do you honestly think saying so makes it true? How about you explain how it is that a pair of images created using 171Å emissions gathered thousands of kilometers above the photosphere can possibly be manipulated to show features of any sort, liquid, gaseous plasma, solid, or even crusty, that exist or supposedly exist a few thousand kilometers below the photosphere?

I think you're too scared to honestly, legitimately, and rationally explain that, because if you try to, you'll fail. And if you fail at explaining that, your entire delusion will start to crumble before your eyes. And when that happens you'll be faced with acknowledging that the last several years of your life have been wasted based on your stupid misunderstanding of a simple optical illusion.

So prove me right again, will ya, Michael? Don't address the issue. Don't answer the question. Just bitch some more, okay?

 

[Reality Check]

One thing you should have learned from me that you would never learn from GM's "explanation' is that the dark shadows provide us with a directional component *of real objects* and the distance from the light source to it's shadow gives us insight into it's "speed". You can't understand these parts of the RD technique unless and until you realize you're looking at "real stuff" in all of these images.

D'rok, things that you will not learn from MM.

• His "shadows" on the TRACE 171A RD animation point in most directions meaning that just about every "shadow" has its own personal light source.
• There are no multiple "shadows" which means that each light source is a beam on the "mountain" that MM believes is casting the shadow.
• MM may think that the shadows are a result of the Sun's rotation (the "speed" suggests this) but then the different directions disproves this.
• The "shadows" are obviously aligned along the lines of the flares in the original images. They are paired with bright areas that just happen to be on the other side of the flares in the original images.
  This gives the optical illusion of mountain ranges. Thus MM's idea that there are shadows and light sources to cast them.

He is right that the RD animation show "real stuff". It is fairly hard for the original images to be of unreal stuff.
His problem is that he thinks that all "real stuff" in RD laminations is the same real stuff in the original images.
His logic is:

1. I assume an iron crust 4800 kilometers below the photosphere.
2. I assume that this iron crust has mountains.
3. I see mountain ranges in the TRACE 171A animation.
4. Thus these mountain ranges must be the ones on my crust.
   I will ignore the fact that the 171A pass band predominately sees material that is heated to 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K which is not my iron crust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you keep saying. Do you honestly think saying so makes it true?

No, it's true because it's true. I'm just pointing it out.

How about you explain how it is that a pair of images created using 171Å emissions gathered thousands of kilometers above the photosphere

How about you start by demonstrating your claim that it occured *ABOVE* the photosphere.

I think you're too scared to honestly, legitimately, and rationally explain that,

I have already explained that, but you never bothered to download the DVD or lift a finger to educate yourself in any way. Education? What education?

because if you try to, you'll fail.

"Fail" in what way? Fail to "explain it', or to get you to agree to it?

And if you fail at explaining that, your entire delusion will start to crumble before your eyes.

You haven't posted once to this forum to me without including the term "delusion" or "crackpot" or some other personally derogatory statement. You aren't a scientist, you're a peddler of sleaze. You aren't interested in facts or images or details in the images. Details? What details? You don't care one iota about finding "truth" or even examining any of the details of the images. You're simply interested in winning some pathetic ego battle at my personal expense. You're scared, sad, and you're incapable of a real honest scientific discussion.

And when that happens you'll be faced with acknowledging that the last several years of your life have been wasted based on your stupid misunderstanding of a simple optical illusion.

So what? Even if everything you just said is true, so what? What difference does it make to you how I spend my time? I've learned all kinds of new things about the sun as a result of my conversations for the last few years. That alone has made it worthwhile from my perspective. It would absolutely have no adverse impact on my income to simply "give up" and do something else.

So prove me right again, will ya, Michael?

You've never been proven right to start with. About the only thing that's been "proven" so far is that you personally can't even pick out even something as simple as a star or flying stuff in a running difference image. You can't identify any cause/effect relationships in the image or explain any specific details of that specific RD image. All you've "proven" is that you're incapable of having a serious scientific discussion and you personally are a complete waste of my time.

 

[GeeMack]

No, it's true because it's true.

​

[*All irrelevant whining and complaining snipped.*]

And again not a syllable of substance.

So when are you going to describe that lab tested experiment, done right here on Earth, quantitative, mathematically consistent, physically plausible, no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion you've reached, that shows the method you use to generate pictures of solid stuff a few thousand kilometers under a layer of opaque plasma by starting with images gathered a few thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma? You know, that experiment that substantiates your fruitcake fantasy according to the standards you claim you apply to all your ideas?

Cat got your tongue, Michael?

 

[Zeuzzz]

It would require violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which is not a "slight shift".

There is debate whether the second law of thermodynamics hold in all plasma conditions. We are talking about a completely different state of matter than the second law was formulated within, afterall. There are quite a few, but this is what a quick google search popped up, all implying that the second law of thermodynamics does not always necissarily come first over the vast number of complex plasma characteristics.

http://www.booknews.co.uk/Books/Book3836.html

A paradox has been posed that challenges the second law of thermodynamics in a plasma blackbody environment [D. P. Sheehan, Phys. Plasmas 2, 1893 (1995)]. Laboratory experiments testing critical aspects of the paradox have supported theoretical predictions and have failed to resolve the paradox in favor of the second law. In this article, the paradox is sharpened and expanded in scope by identifying the crux of the paradox and the general requirements for second law violation. It is found that for an electrically conducting probe immersed in a blackbody plasma and connected to ground through a load, the general requirement for second law violation is Vf [not-equal] 0, where Vf is the plasma floating potential.

http://www.booknews.co.uk/Books/Book3836.html

Over the last 20 years, the absolute status of the Second Law has come under increased scrutiny. Since the early 1980s, about 50 papers representing over 20 challenges have appeared in the scientific literature. This monograph looks at the modern challenges to the Second Law. The challenges have spanned three orders of magnitude in temperature, twelve orders of magnitude in size and are manifest in condensed matter, plasma, gravitational, chemical and biological physics; and cross classical and quantum mechanical boundaries. The book includes chapters on: Entropy and the Second Law; Challenges (1870–1980); Theoretical modern quantum challenges; Low-temperature experiments and proposals; Modern classical challenges; Gravitational challenges; Chemical non-equilibrium steady state; Plasma paradoxes; MEMS/NEMS devices; and Special topics.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sheehan.pdf (page 3)

Quantum mechanical model of a plasma system: a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics Physica A, Volume 304, Issue 3-4, p. 461-479.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Also relevant to plasmas seeming ability to repudiate the 2nd law in some situations: Challenges to the second law of thermodynamics Or at springer: http://www.springer.com/physics/book/978-1-4020-3015-4

 

[Ziggurat]

There is debate whether the second law of thermodynamics hold in all plasma conditions.

What you've got are some cute problems in which changes are subtle and hard to track down. There is, however, little reason to conclude that any of the scenarios involves an actual violation of the 2nd law. Rather, they remind me of the "missing momentum" problems of electrodynamics. For example, if you have a sphere with uniform electric polarization along the x axis and uniform magnetic polarization along the y axis, you'll get a net linear momentum stored in the (static) electromagnetic fields. But the system as a whole must have zero total momentum, because it's static. So where's the missing momentum? The answer is subtle, and I'm not going to reveal it to you, but just because the answer isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.

We are talking about a completely different state of matter than the second law was formulated within, afterall.

Poppycock. One need not make any reference to the state of matter (or even deal with matter at all - photons work just fine) in order to formulate the 2nd law.

 

[bhrobards]

It is astonishing that those of you who believe in black holes, dark matter, inflation etc., have never seen empirical evidence of those mathematical constructions, yet utterly reject detailed images as completely without merit when they are readily available on various government/industry websites. You are the modern day equivalent to the church officials who wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope. You're worse, you've seen the image and say it isn't there. From your venom, I'd say if you could, you'd burn Mozina like Bruno. At the very least these images demand more investigation. At the most they shred the standard model. How could it be so wrong? Is G a charge variable. Gee zeus! look out for your grants.