Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
And as a bit of a graphics expert myself,
Click to expand...

Right. I'm just supposed to take your word on that eh?

I'm calling fraud. I think you've twiddled with a couple filters in PhotoShop to get something you think looks like running difference images.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Photosphop is incapable of producing a "real" running difference image, yes or no?

I say you don't know what you're doing and you've faked it.
Click to expand...

Ya, and I'm going to make you demonstrate that in court one day or pay dearly for your lies.
 
GeeMack said:
Getting pretty close to done making those videos, Michael? :p
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not your monkey on command. I'll produce a bunch of them for you when I'm ready. I may even do a few in Photoshop as well so I can stuff that BS down your throat too. Photoshop offers FITS file extensions, it's fully capable of adding intensity to an image and/or subtracting one image from another. You're full of it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Liar. Where's the paper? Nothing I ever presented anywhere on any forum supports your claim.
Click to expand...


What you mean is nothing you ever presented anywhere on any forum supports your claim.

And obviously you've got lots of spare time on your hands. Certainly you've got those videos ready by now. :D

Anyone want to bet a $5 bill that Michael will employ every possible evasion and stall tactic he can to avoid ever actually demonstrating that he is qualified to understand running difference imagery?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Nope. I'm not your monkey on command. I'll produce a bunch of them for you when I'm ready. I may even do a few in Photoshop as well so I can stuff that BS down your throat too. Photoshop offers FITS file extensions, it's fully capable of adding intensity to an image and/or subtracting one image from another. You're full of it.
Click to expand...


Just quoting this tantrum for the record. :)
 
GeeMack said:
And obviously you've got lots of spare time on your hands. Certainly you've got those videos ready by now. :D
Click to expand...

FYI, I am the only one of the two of us to actually post a "real" running difference solar image. You may not like the four I've given you, but at least I've been man enough to post them for all the world to see and for idiots like you to bitch about. Where's your video for us to inspect, and how do I know that you personally created them? What software package(s) did you use?
 
Reality Check said:
He never addresses the simple physics that the TRACE instrument in the 171A pass band can only see light from plasma at > 160,000 K.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to understand the 171 pass band light reflects just like white light. You can see reflections from the structures using the 171A light.

You dont seem to understand that the 171 light comes from the flares and the loop footprints.

The surrounding surface is solid iron.

Again. Think of a cathode in a plasma process. The whole cathode is not molten. Only spots where there is a discharge happening.
If you use this model this will get you part of the way to what my model says.

The graph I posted shows that 171 light from loops and footprints goes right through the photosphere. This means TRACE can see under the photosphere.

That does not mean that the surface is MKK(multi kilo Kelvin) hot. Only that the light at 171A(72eV) goes right through the photosphere, especially if its high intensity like loop foot prints.
The photosphere is THIN.

More tonite.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I am the only one of the two of us to actually post a "real" running difference solar image. You may not like the four I've given you, but at least I've been man enough to post them for all the world to see and for idiots like you to bitch about. Where's your video for us to inspect, and how do I know that you personally created them? What software package(s) did you use?
Click to expand...


I already told you, twice, how you'll know that my running difference videos are the same thing as posted by LMSAL and NASA. For one thing, Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL was kind enough to discuss the issue with me personally, so I know what they do there. And for another, if you actually know what you're talking about (and there's no evidence of any kind yet that you do), you'll know by my explanation of my process, which I've already given dozens of times over a half a decade, and you'll know by looking at them.

Honestly, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? If I need to take my vocabulary down to say, a third grade kid's level for you to understand I will, but you're going to have to help me out.

Oh, and you do have those videos processing, don't you? :p

Another tantrum coming, perhaps?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, sure I could map it if I wanted to map a highly volcanic surface that's constantly changing over time. It's not all the productive in my experience.

I have in fact compared RD image surface features in SOHO images over a full rotation cycle (27.3 days) but even then there are obvious and sometimes significant changes over that timeline, particularly during active phases where the volcanic activity is constant and occurs all along the surface.

If you look closely at the gold RD LMSAL image, you'll actually see surface erosion along the bottom right hand side just after the main event due to the electrical processes that create the coronal loops. It literally "peals" particles from the surface and ionizes them in the loop. That electrical erosion process shows up in the RD images too, as you can see from the video. There are changes to the surface that occur for a variety of reasons, so any surface "maps" would need to be constantly updated.
Click to expand...

How does a surface so volcanically active that it completely recreates itself on the scale of weeks to months ever have time to solidify?

And how can you see a solid surface in RD images, when the whole point of RD is to filter out the unchanging parts?
 
GeeMack said:
You don't seem to understand. There are no structures for anything to reflect from.
Click to expand...

171surfaceshotsmall.JPG


Ya, except for all the structures in the image.
 
phunk said:
How does a surface so volcanically active that it completely recreates itself on the scale of weeks to months ever have time to solidify?
Click to expand...

It may not. Some parts probably never do. Some parts do however and those parts are a lot more 'persistent' timeline wise than any sort of plasma. The structures of the photosphere tend to come and go in roughly eight minutes or so. They don't show longevity over days and weeks like that. Even closeup images of sunspots show significant change around the edges of the penumbra of the sunspot during the image, regardless of the time frame we're talking about. Plasma simply isn't "rigid' and doesn't have properties necessary to explain these images.

And how can you see a solid surface in RD images, when the whole point of RD is to filter out the unchanging parts?
Click to expand...

Due to the motion of the sun between the two images that are used to create the RD image, and the fact the first image is modified in intensity before the second one is subtracted, it doesn't actually 'filter out' the unchanging parts as you might think.

The process "sort of" filters out some of the coronal loop activity itself, but the RD process reveals the overall outline of emission patterns. "Longevity" then depends on whether those emission patterns remain stable and consistent in their basic outline or they don't, not to mention the structures they reflect off of. Only if the light emissions remain consistent will the images remain consistent. If you were to do a RD image from a close-up GBAND image of the photosphere, you'd see all sorts of movements due to the movements of the structures in the original images. As long as the overall light/dark patterns are visually moving in the original images, you'll see that same movement play out in the RD images too. The iron ion wavelengths however show very consistent emission patterns from one frame to the next. That's why the RD images show persistent structures over time.

The overall surface terrain dictates the basic emission pattern. The rigidness of the light source demonstrate that something under the photosphere is much more rigid than the mobile plasma of the photosphere.
 
phunk said:
If that's RD, those are exactly the opposite of structures. They're changes.
Click to expand...

It's not actually that simple as I explained in my previous response. Keep in mind that the sun rotates between the two images and the two images are usually 10-30 minutes apart. The sun rotates left to right in that video, but the video was 'cropped" to keep the image centered. That rotation between images creates those "shadows" on the left side of various items in the image and "bright areas" to the right.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/171surfaceshotsmall.JPG[/qimg]

Ya, except for all the structures in the image.
Click to expand...


And of course so far you've refused to demonstrate that you understand the construction and meaning of running difference images. Your claim is in contradiction to the position of the people and organization who designed and built the satellite, launched it, acquired the data from it, processed that data, analyzed the results, and explained to me personally how it works. So your comment here is wholly unsupported.

But I do imagine you're pretty close to ready to post those videos and clear up this whole mess you're making. :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
It may not. Some parts probably never do. Some parts do however and those parts are a lot more 'persistent' timeline wise than any sort of plasma. The structures of the photosphere tend to come and go in roughly eight minutes or so. They don't show longevity over days and weeks like that. Even closeup images of sunspots show significant change around the edges of the penumbra of the sunspot during the image, regardless of the time frame we're talking about. Plasma simply isn't "rigid' and doesn't have properties necessary to explain these images.



Due to the motion of the sun between the two images that are used to create the RD image, and the fact the first image is modified in intensity before the second one is subtracted, it doesn't actually 'filter out' the unchanging parts as you might think.

The process "sort of" filters out some of the coronal loop activity itself, but the RD process reveals the overall outline of emission patterns. "Longevity" then depends on whether those emission patterns remain stable and consistent in their basic outline or they don't, not to mention the structures they reflect off of. Only if the light emissions remain consistent will the images remain consistent. If you were to do a RD image from a close-up GBAND image of the photosphere, you'd see all sorts of movements due to the movements of the structures in the original images. As long as the overall light/dark patterns are visually moving in the original images, you'll see that same movement play out in the RD images too. The iron ion wavelengths however show very consistent emission patterns from one frame to the next. That's why the RD images show persistent structures over time.

The overall surface terrain dictates the basic emission pattern. The rigidness of the light source demonstrate that something under the photosphere is much more rigid than the mobile plasma of the photosphere.
Click to expand...


You do not know what you're talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom