Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
sol invictus said:
Out of curiosity Michael, what is it you think that video shows?

If I had no idea where it came from or what it was (which I don't actually) and you asked me if it could be an image of a solid surface, I'd say obviously not. For example, look at the two features near the lower left, and compare (say) the first frame with the last frame. They're very different - so whatever those are, they're obviously not mountains (or any other feature of a solid surface).
Click to expand...


You are 100% correct. There is nothing in any of Michael's running difference images that actually show something solid. The original data used to create the graphs (they're not pictures of anything) was acquired from the Sun's corona. It's impossible that they could show something solid that supposedly exists below the photosphere.
 
GeeMack said:
In terms of solar physics, how is it that you can take data from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere
Click to expand...


......BZZT........

Fail. Brantc already showed you that 171A images penetrate the photosphere. I've shown you white light images and Hinode images of the coronal loops coming up and through the photosphere and their effect on the photosphere as they pass through.

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif


The loops traverse the whole atmosphere, and start way *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

mossyohkoh.jpg


Please demonstrate your claim.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yep. I've posted the first one for you. Guess you missed it eh?
Click to expand...


Cross posted with you. So now all you have to do is explain how data acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere can be processed into something that shows a surface thousands of kilometers below and supposedly exists under a completely opaque layer of plasma.
 
GeeMack said:
You are 100% correct. There is nothing in any of Michael's running difference images that actually show something solid. The original data used to create the graphs (they're not pictures of anything) was acquired from the Sun's corona. It's impossible that they could show something solid that supposedly exists below the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Are you still claiming I committed "fraud" in the images in question? You do realize I'm serious about stuffing these images and your claims down your throat in court right?
 
GeeMack said:
Cross posted with you. So now all you have to do is explain how data acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere can be processed into something that shows a surface thousands of kilometers below and supposedly exists under a completely opaque layer of plasma.
Click to expand...

Your "completely opaque" full of boloney claim was blown out of the water by a third party and you never responded. Care to do that for us?
 
Michael Mozina said:
......BZZT........

Fail. Brantc already showed you that 171A images penetrate the photosphere. I've shown you white light images and Hinode images of the coronal loops coming up and through the photosphere and their effect on the photosphere as they pass through.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

The loops traverse the whole atmosphere, and start way *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg[/qimg]

Please demonstrate your claim.
Click to expand...


I'm not making a claim about those images. You're the one who mistakenly believes you see bunnies there. You demonstrate your claim. You need to provide the method you use to objectively and quantitatively determine that what you claim to see is indeed what you're seeing. And you need to explain that method in such a way that other people can apply it and come to the same conclusion you've reached. All you've ever offered is your simple assertion that it is what it is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Are you still claiming I committed "fraud" in the images in question? You do realize I'm serious about stuffing these images and your claims down your throat in court right?
Click to expand...


Have at it, Michael. That's how real science is done. Stephen Hawking would be proud of you.

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think it shows I can create RD images using IDL, Solarsoft, Festival and the SSWDB tools, the same tools that the "pros" use.
Click to expand...

Umm.... ok......

Let me ask this - suppose I took a series of photographs of the Himalayas from a vantage point high overhead, on a day with some scattered cloud cover, then made a RD movie out of them. Do you think that would be a good way to see the topography of the mountains?

I'll answer the question for you - absolutely not! What you'd see is the moving clouds only, and none of the fixed features. The RD images reveal changes in the original images (which in my example occur when clouds move), not fixed features of them. Making RD images is exactly the wrong thing to do to look for solid features.

The right thing to do is to add many images together; that's a powerful technique that's sometimes used in astronomy to reveal faint but persistent features that would otherwise be lost in noise. Why don't you try that, Michael?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Your "completely opaque" full of boloney claim was blown out of the water by a third party and you never responded. Care to do that for us?
Click to expand...


The photosphere is, by definition, the place where the Sun's surface becomes opaque to any light at any wavelength. You can't see anything under the photosphere. In order to "see" what's going on inside the Sun below that opaqueness you need to move to other methods. Helioseismology is how it's done these days.
 
sol invictus said:
Umm.... ok......

Let me ask this - suppose I took a series of photographs of the Himalayas from a vantage point high overhead, on a day with some scattered cloud cover, then made a RD movie out of them. Do you think that would be a good way to see the topography of the mountains?

I'll answer the question for you - absolutely not! What you'd see is the moving clouds only, and none of the fixed features. The RD images reveal changes in the original images (which in my example occur when clouds move), not fixed features of them. Making RD images is exactly the wrong thing to do to look for solid features.

The right thing to do is to add many images together; that's a powerful technique that's sometimes used in astronomy to reveal faint but persistent features that would otherwise be lost in noise. Why don't you try that, Michael?
Click to expand...


A better question might be, why don't the good folks at LMSAL or NASA try that?
 
GeeMack said:
Have at it, Michael. That's how real science is done. Stephen Hawking would be proud of you.

Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.
Click to expand...

In other words you aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think it shows I can create RD images using IDL, Solarsoft, Festival and the SSWDB tools, the same tools that the "pros" use.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina, No one really doubted that. It sounds like a fairly easy process.
The real issue is your delusion that graphs generated from images of light emitted in the corona
  • Shows real physical structures when it is obvious that it is merely the adjoining areas of heating and cooling plasma that gives the illusion of "mountain ranges".
  • Is really of a surface that is 1000's of km below the photosphere.
The original doubt was about the images that you have asserted were RD images, which you still have not answered fully.
Reality Check said:
First asked 6 April 2010


Originally Posted by GeeMack [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
  1. Which images did you use as your input for the PM-A.gif image?
  2. What mathematical process did you apply to obtain your result?
  3. In that image, the pixel in column 1371, row 758 has a value of about 20% black. Why is it that color?
    Where in that image do you believe you're seeing solid physical features? Why does no professional physicist on Earth agree that's what you're seeing?
  4. And perhaps most importantly, what is it about the creation process that makes you think you see physical features below the photosphere when the data gathered to create the original images was taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere?
(a link to this question is now in the other MM Iron Sun thread)
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
In other words you aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Unless I'm not picking up on something, that isn't a particularly relevant response to this...

GeeMack said:
Now, how about you explain the method you've used to take data obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, and somehow process that into something that supposedly shows a solid surface below the photosphere.
Click to expand...
 
GeeMack said:
Unless I'm not picking up on something, that isn't a particularly relevant response to this...
Click to expand...

You haven't shown us your personally created RD solar images GM nor have you explained exactly how you created it yet. Before we move on, let's see *YOUR* work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
By the way...
Where is *YOUR* video, and how did you "make" it?
Click to expand...


I already told you how I made it. I learned how a long time ago in part from Dr. Neal Hurlburt, you know, the guy responsible for image acquisition, processing, and analysis over there at LMSAL, the place where they operate the TRACE solar research program, the place where you got your "gold" running difference graph?

Here's an example that probably took me about 10 minutes to make....

​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom