Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
That is *NOT* an image artifact Zig. That gives us an idea of where the photosphere ends and the chromopshere begins along the limbs.
Click to expand...

Not if it's not correctly scaled. So, how do you know the filter that was applied to the publicity image was scaled correctly? Do you have any reason to believe that the filter was even based on the 4500 Angstrom image?

I didn't "assume" anything Zig, I checked it out for myself. I found that I could not get it to match either solar model, so it is only logical that the GIFS are not scaled properly and I cannot use them to determine the outcome of this debate as they current exist.
Click to expand...

And yet, you never said anything about that possibility until you were told about it.

But what would you have done if it HAD matched your solar model? Would you have concluded that it supported your solar model, even though it could still have been the result of improper scaling?
 
Ziggurat said:
Michael Mozina said:
It is not. I can create the same "sharp border" by subtracting the 4500A diameter "disk" from the HeII image.
Click to expand...
Thus creating an image artifact.
That's what I *ASSUMED* they did in the press release image.
Click to expand...
Just like you assumed that all the images covered identical solid angles. And that's the problem: you keep assuming things when you don't know if they're true. In this case, they are not.
Click to expand...
There's more.

MM apparently is unaware of *how* the images are (were) created (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts).

As the descriptions of how the images are (were) created involves a great deal of math far beyond that which MM has demonstrated a command of so far, even if he were aware, he wouldn't understand it (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts; check out the ones on the Casimir effect, or magnetic reconnection, for example).

Even if MM did understand how the images are (were) created, the fact that he chose PR images to stake his "theory" (and reputation) on strongly suggests that the details of how the images are (were) created are irrelevant to the so-called test he posted (read his posts - in this thread - again, paying particular attention to his responses to the many others, by others, who clearly stated some of the many shortcomings - shall we say - in his method).

And that, in turn, leads us to the well-founded conclusion that there is, fundamentally, no difference between MM's idea and religious dogma (as he has presented that idea, in this thread).
 
Michael,
You keep saying if only you had the FITS file.
Can you tell me why?
What is the difference between FITS, TIFF, JPG and GIF?

What parameters make the FITS file the key ?:confused:
 
dasmiller said:
Do you still believe that the 'B' line in the SDO composite image is not an artifact? If so, why?
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.

I see nothing in the GIFs or the public release image that looks to be an "artifact" in any way. The only thing that could be an "artifact" is the distance issue. In other words, they could have subtracted out a larger diameter disk than the photosphere itself, but why would they do that?

Now that I have more GIFs to work with, and I understand a bit about why nothing jives to any solar model, maybe I can move forward based on attempting to scale the other wavelengths. Frankly that is a job for Mr. Spock IMO. :)
 
Skwinty said:
Michael,
You keep saying if only you had the FITS file.
Can you tell me why?
What is the difference between FITS, TIFF, JPG and GIF?

What parameters make the FITS file the key ?:confused:
Click to expand...

The FITS file typically contains a lot of data other than just the raw image. It provides necessary information to properly align the image. Without such information, the best I can do is "guess" at what that GIF represents and I'd have to "align" everything by hand. The margin of error goes off the scale if you simply try to do things without the FITS files. The FITS files are a lot like an XML file. They include data, not just the image itself.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
There's more.

MM apparently is unaware of *how* the images are (were) created (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts).
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying that point DRD. I "assumed" that they scaled things properly in the public release image. That's the only "assumption" that can burn me at this point. There are no other potential "artifacts" in the image. That whole claim was baloney. The opaque outline in the iron ion wavelengths all fit to each other by the way along that same opaque line in the raw GIF's. FYI, I "predicted" that a long time ago.

The only thing I can really do is go by Kosovichev's data, go by those MDI images from SDO, and go by what I've learned over the last five years. I have every reason to believe that there is nothing wrong with the public release images, and that they correctly reflect the physics of the sun in terms of the relationships between images. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please produce it.
 
Last edited:
Michael, As a minimum I would suggest buying, reading and understanding "The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing" by Richard Berry and James Burnell.

This would give you a better understanding of the subject.
You also get some software called AIP4WIN.
Got loads of complicated functions for the @HUGE@ FITS files.
Lots of processing power required:rolleyes:
 
Skwinty said:
Michael, As a minimum I would suggest buying, reading and understanding "The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing" by Richard Berry and James Burnell.

This would give you a better understanding of the subject.
You also get some software called AIP4WIN.
Got loads of complicated functions for the @HUGE@ FITS files.
Lots of processing power required:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Processing power shouldn't be a problem due to my line of work. Thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I see nothing in the GIFs or the public release image that looks to be an "artifact" in any way. The only thing that could be an "artifact" is the distance issue. In other words, they could have subtracted out a larger diameter disk than the photosphere itself, but why would they do that?
Click to expand...

They did it to normalize the brightness when merging images of different features, to make a pretty press release image. As to why they didn't exactly match the size of the disk of the sun when applying that filter, you'll have to ask them, but I'd assume they didn't care too much about such a detail because they didn't intend for anyone to attempt scientific analysis of a PR image.
 
phunk said:
They did it to normalize the brightness when merging images of different features, to make a pretty press release image. As to why they didn't exactly match the size of the disk of the sun when applying that filter, you'll have to ask them, but I'd assume they didn't care too much about such a detail because they didn't intend for anyone to attempt scientific analysis of a PR image.
Click to expand...

Well, I am technically only trying to use that image to verify Kosovichev's data. The fact it fits so perfectly, right down to the best margin of errors I could extract from each method sure bolsters my confidence in those numbers. I need to see the RD images and FITS files to really tell anything else about the images in question. The best I could hope to do is utilize that image to verify that 4800-6000km figure that Kosovichev's data suggested. At that 4800km point, the mass flows all go from vertical to horizontal, indicating the point at which the mass flows are related to "current flow' through the shell rather than related to the ion mass flow of the "tornado" under the sunspot. It just cannot be a "coincidence" that these numbers work out to within 24KM at the low end, and 40-60Km at the high end. Somehow those numbers must be related. It think I even know how they are physically related, specifically by the dark opaque surface we see all along the limb of the public release composite image at point A.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

But, for the 4th time - why do you think that? I and others have pointed out aspects of the image that suggest a photoshop artifact (unnatural smoothness of the B line, the fact that B is not concentric with A, the fact that the green color doesn't vary with depth) - are there aspects of the image that you think are not consistent with a photoshop artifact?

What aspects of the picture I posted in 3058 would make you say "oh, that's an artifact" or "oh, that's real?"
 
Skwinty said:
Michael,
Look at these pictures for the perfect example of PR vs Science pictures.
You will notice the PR sun pix have many rings around them due to compositing.



http://thebigfoto.com/best-of-soho-i
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I was really only trying to compare that image to the numbers I got from the Heliosiesmology data. The fact that they come out so closely just doesn't seem like a "coincidence' from my perspective. I understand that tying to use a PR image to extract scientific data is not a "good practice", and it's certainly not my first choice. About all I can do is "wait and see", but now at least I have more confidence in the numbers I pulled from Kosovichev's data. I still need to see the RD images to really know for sure if I'm right or I'm wrong. That is my next logical step, but I'll have to wait for quite some time to have that kind of access to the data files.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

You have invented a procedure for what they did out of thin air. You don't know that this is what happened. Hell, you didn't even know scaling was even an issue until it was pointed out to you. You've got no idea whether that circular filter is the right size. And you won't even bother to ask NASA about it like GeeMack did.
 
And, of course, MM lied to me when I asked if he'd properly researched the images to rule out any alternate hypothesis before proclaiming them as support for his theory...you know, the basic step of insuring your data is good before you present it that every real scientist shoudl follow.

Really, how hard is an email to NASA asking about the photo? How about waiting until you can get the actual data instead of the PR data? And, of course, Zig's commetns about scaling and such that should be obvious.
 
dasmiller said:
But, for the 4th time - why do you think that? I and others have pointed out aspects of the image that suggest a photoshop artifact (unnatural smoothness of the B line,
Click to expand...

I got exactly that same "smoothness" just by subtracting the diameter of the photosphere from the HeII image. That's not an "artifact", that's simply a function of the mathematical process of subtracting the photosphere from the chromosphere.

the fact that B is not concentric with A,
Click to expand...

I can't see well enough along the right side to determine that. I can play with the contrast of the images however and see it's there. I just can't measure it all that accurately.

the fact that the green color doesn't vary with depth)
Click to expand...

In a "transparent", highly ionized atmosphere, it wouldn't.

are there aspects of the image that you think are not consistent with a photoshop artifact?
Click to expand...

I played with photoshop all night long last night and I assure that that nothing in that image could possibly be an "artifact" other than the exception I noted about the diameter of the disk they removed from the chromosphere image. That's the only "artifact" they could have introduced into that image.

The color I came up with in any iron line images was entirely dependent upon the color I selected. I mostly played with all the iron line images to make sure they all aligned themselves along that same darkening region. They do.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That is my next logical step, but I'll have to wait for quite some time to have that kind of access to the data files.
Click to expand...


I predict that the FITS files , header data and array values will not confirm or corroborate your notions no matter how long you wait for them.

Just my honest opinion.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom