Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Ziggurat]

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.

Confirmation bias, Michael. As I mentioned already, what would you have done if the different wavelength images gave successively larger diameters for shorter wavelengths? Since that matches what you expected, would you have taken it as proof that you were right? That would have been a mistake, since that wouldn't mean the scales matched. You only accept that they are different scales because it doesn't match what you expect. But that's not how science works. You need to closely examine the data and question assumptions even when it matches your expectations. But you don't do that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

All GeeMack did is tell me that they don't have an "explanation". If they did have a real "explanation", they would not have told him (assuming he actually did any of this by the way) that the limb dimming was an "artifact" of the image. It's certainly not an "artifact' in any way. If he had come back and told us that they subtracted out more than the diameter of the photosphere from that image, I'd be a lot more uncomfortable at this point. If GM was willing to put up his public opinion on the outcome of the RD test I suggested, I would also be a lot more uncomfortable right about now. Since his "explanation" isn't even logical, and he isn't willing to bet even his public opinion on the outcome of that 6 step RD test I suggested, I don't really know what more to say.

The limb dimming feature is present in *EVERY* iron ion wavelength. They all align themselves to a single location on the horizon in the GIFS. Without much more to go on, all I can do now is see how things play out, but the fact NASA's explanation was "wrong" and GM wont' "bet' his public opinion on an RD test says volumes to me at this point.

 

[phunk]

If he had come back and told us that they subtracted out more than the diameter of the photosphere from that image, I'd be a lot more uncomfortable at this point.

That's exactly what he said they did, pay attention!

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

 

[dasmiller]

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.

Did you actually look at the image I referred you back to from 3058? Because I can assure you that the disk in that picture is an artifact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Well, you're certainly entitled to them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's exactly what he said they did, pay attention!

A "gradient filter" applied to the images would not do anything of the sort. The only way you could mess up that image would be to literally subtract out a larger diameter from the heliosphere than the diameter of the photosphere. That's a whole different thing than claiming a "gradient filter" was applied to the image.

 

[phunk]

Read that last line again, the one I bolded.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

(emphasis added)

I have a slightly different perspective.

MM has, in many posts both in this thread and others, made it crystal clear that what he calls "science" (and similar terms) is, in plain English, essentially religious dogma.

A core component of this dogma is, in shorthand, "the Sun has a solid iron surface".

Therefore, to "properly research[] the images to rule out any alternate hypothesis" means, in plain English, something like to "check whether these alternatives reflect the Truth that the Sun has a solid iron surface" (no doubt they didn't, so the research was quite brief).

So MM may not have lied to you; you simply misunderstood what he was saying.

Well, that's my slightly different perspective.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Read that last line again, the one I bolded.

Well, I've already stated that it's *POSSIBLE* that they took out more than the photosphere from the chromosphere. I can't seem to verify that however in the GIF's since nobody seems to believe we can compare anything in the images to one another. There isn't any way to correlate the 1700A, 1600A, and 4500A, so where does that leave us?

 

[D'rok]

Well, I've already stated that it's *POSSIBLE* that they took out more than the photosphere from the chromosphere. I can't seem to verify that however in the GIF's since nobody seems to believe we can compare anything in the images to one another. There isn't any way to correlate the 1700A, 1600A, and 4500A, so where does that leave us?

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/contact.php

 

[phunk]

Well, I've already stated that it's *POSSIBLE* that they took out more than the photosphere from the chromosphere. I can't seem to verify that however in the GIF's since nobody seems to believe we can compare anything in the images to one another. There isn't any way to correlate the 1700A, 1600A, and 4500A, so where does that leave us?

It's not just possible, they said it themselves.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not just possible, they said it themselves.

As I stated this morning the GIF's would tend to corroborate that statement IMO *IF* we assume the images are all aligned with each other. What then do we do with the fact that the 1700A, 4500A and 1600A all produce different sized disks?

 

[phunk]

You should start by asking them exactly which images and filters went into creating the composite.

 

[Ziggurat]

All GeeMack did is tell me that they don't have an "explanation".

No, Michael. He told you that they filtered more than the photosphere.

(assuming he actually did any of this by the way)

If that's in doubt, Michael, why don't you ask NASA yourself?

It's certainly not an "artifact' in any way.

Yes, Michael, it is.

If he had come back and told us that they subtracted out more than the diameter of the photosphere from that image, I'd be a lot more uncomfortable at this point.

That's exactly what he said they told him they did. He says that they told him the outer smooth boundary is the boundary of their photoshop filter, not the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. He told you that they filtered more than the photosphere.

If that is true then those GIF's you mentioned would have to *BE ALIGNED CORRECTLY* and you still have a giant problem explaining the different diameters of the 1700A,1600A, and 4500A images. If they are not aligned properly then they can't align themselves to exactly the right point to verify the SSM. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the GIF's are properly aligned, then NASA's explanation is "correct". If they are aligned, then NASA has a bigger problem explaining why the 4500A, 1600A and 1700A all produce different sized disks. So can we compare those GIF's or not? If we assume they are aligned, then I have no reason to believe NASA's claim about the filter size is wrong. If we assume they are not correct, I have no reason to believe the photosphere would align to the horizon of the iron ion images. Which way do you want to go Zig?

 

[phunk]

If that is true then those GIF's you mentioned would have to *BE ALIGNED CORRECTLY* and you still have a giant problem explaining the different diameters of the 1700A,1600A, and 4500A images. If they are not aligned properly then they can't align themselves to exactly the right point to verify the SSM. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the GIF's are properly aligned, then NASA's explanation is "correct". If they are aligned, then NASA has a bigger problem explaining why the 4500A, 1600A and 1700A all produce different sized disks. So can we compare those GIF's or not? If we assume they are aligned, then I have no reason to believe NASA's claim about the filter size is wrong. If we assume they are not correct, I have no reason to believe the photosphere would align to the horizon of the iron ion images. Which way do you want to go Zig?

False dichotomy. You seem to be saying that they are either aligned and scaled right and you can use them as-is, or they aren't and neither you nor NASA can use them. You're ignoring the option that they are not aligned and scaled properly but NASA knows how to adjust them and you don't because you haven't asked.

 

[GeeMack]

All GeeMack did is tell me that they don't have an "explanation".

You are a liar.

 

[GeeMack]

A "gradient filter" applied to the images would not do anything of the sort. The only way you could mess up that image would be to literally subtract out a larger diameter from the heliosphere than the diameter of the photosphere. That's a whole different thing than claiming a "gradient filter" was applied to the image.

Nobody subtracted out anything from that image. Your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any type has been challenged and you are not only unable to demonstrate that you are qualified, you continue to add to the heaps of evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Ziggurat]

you still have a giant problem explaining the different diameters of the 1700A,1600A, and 4500A images.

No I don't. The raw images are not aligned. Why is that a problem for me?

If they are not aligned properly then they can't align themselves to exactly the right point to verify the SSM.

I'm not trying to verify the standard solar model with these images. I'm just demonstrating that your claims are unsupported.

So can we compare those GIF's or not?

We can't compare sizes between them.

If we assume they are aligned, then I have no reason to believe NASA's claim about the filter size is wrong. If we assume they are not correct, I have no reason to believe the photosphere would align to the horizon of the iron ion images. Which way do you want to go Zig?

You don't get it, do you, Michael? I'm not claiming that the GIF's demonstrate that the photosphere aligns with the horizon of the iron images. I'm claiming that YOUR claim that they do not is unsupported. There's a logical distinction here, Michael. Can you understand what it is?

 

[GeeMack]

If that is true then those GIF's you mentioned would have to *BE ALIGNED CORRECTLY* and you still have a giant problem explaining the different diameters of the 1700A,1600A, and 4500A images. If they are not aligned properly then they can't align themselves to exactly the right point to verify the SSM. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the GIF's are properly aligned, then NASA's explanation is "correct". If they are aligned, then NASA has a bigger problem explaining why the 4500A, 1600A and 1700A all produce different sized disks. So can we compare those GIF's or not? If we assume they are aligned, then I have no reason to believe NASA's claim about the filter size is wrong. If we assume they are not correct, I have no reason to believe the photosphere would align to the horizon of the iron ion images. Which way do you want to go Zig?

Well there's your problem right there. Your argument comes from trying to do science like a fourth grader. A stupid fourth grader.