Electric universe theories here.

[GeeMack]

Hi GeeMac. Could you give some links to the posts where running difference images were explained to Micheal.

That way I do not need to go over old material
On the other hand it is so interesting showing just how much a crackpot Micheal Mozina is.
On another hand it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel! He provides shch easy material to work with.

Oh, man. You asked for it. This has been going on for years, since 2002 at least. Here's a compendium, a virtual cornucopia of Michael's "Surface of the Sun" antics. Of particular interest are the discussions about running difference images in the material on the Skeptic Friends Network (bottom of the list of links below). That is just one of several places where the concept of running difference images was explained in great depth. You'll also see where Michael completely folded as he demanded that everyone else explain the images, which I did in detail, yet he was wholly incapable of explaining them himself. It's tedious, but humorous, too, in a pathetic sort of way.

On this page at SFN, (and the pages that follow, and at several other places in that ridiculously long conversation) I offered Michael the opportunity to help us understand the meaning of the image, how we could determine the height of the mountains and depth of the valleys. His world class evasion technique shone through in style. Yes, he weaseled. He didn't have the stuff. Shortly after, he abandoned his participation there, slinked away utterly defeated.

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum...

8 pages, 30 posts per page...

Michael Mozina's 'Sun has a solid surface' idea​

13 pages, 30 posts per page...

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid​

14 pages, 30 posts per page...

Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen ​

12 pages, 30 posts per page...

Does Lockheed Martin Understand Black Body Radiation?​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 4 pages, 30 posts per page...

ManInTheMirror's claims concerning a BAUT conspiracy​

Sockpuppet: ManInTheMirror - 36 pages, 30 posts per page...

Current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology.​

Einstein@Home forum at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee...

How the sun shines​

Over 3,000 postings over at the Skeptic Friends Network...

Surface of the Sun​

 

[Reality Check]

Wow - thank you GeeMack!

For any interested lurkers:
You may have thought that Michael Mozina was being unfairly labeled as a crackpot (or even a crank) in this forum. Have a peek at these links.
IMHO calling him a crackpot is a compliment !

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is not old when you display your ignorance with just about every post

You and Geemack seem to have a need to be personally insulting in every single post? Why is that? The only one displaying their ignorance around here is you, starting with the fact you ignored *EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT DETAIL* in the image. More importantly you have *NOT ADDRESSED MY KEY POINT*. You cannot know for a fact that what you observe is located in the corona. All you know for sure is that it comes for plasma that is OOM's hotter than the photosphere, just as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere heat plasma in the atmosphere to very high temps. That's all you know based on the "design" of the equipment. You cannot just *ASSUME* that every photon you observe comes from the corona.

Look at the AVI.

I've spent hours if not days and weeks looking at that image making sure I could explain the various details of that image.

Do the "mountain ranges" in the corona drift through it?

That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

They do not. NASA is not dumb enough to ignore the rotation of the Sun when they take images of corona.

Nobody accused NASA of being dumb and I'm quite aware that this image is centered and chopped.

Can you give a citation to the paper that states that the TRACE detector detects reflected light rather than emitted light? What about a textbook?

How would TRACE differentiate one type of photon (reflected vs direct emission) from another?

And...
Your ignorance is showing yet again Micheal Mozina .

Wow, you got in the ignorance thing twice and yet you *STILL* haven't tackled a single detail of the image. When you can't respond, you just ridicule, is that it?

Your "and any mountains on it" comment is so ignorant that it is not even wrong. You know that the 173Å pass band only includes radiation from plasma at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K, i.e. the temperatures of the transition zone and corona plasma.

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

Only a crackpot would ignore the actual science used in constructing the running difference images and see "mountain ranges".

Oh, and you got in the crackpot adhom too. Gee, I would never have predicted this sort of behavior.

Only an ignorant crackpot

Wow, ignorance and crackpot in the same sentence! You really must be incapable of explaining *ANY* of details in that image or you would just do so. Instead it seems as though all you've got are insults. Yawn. If and when you or anyone else bothers to explain the image, down to the subtle details in *that* image, you'll continue to bore me and you will certainly never convince me that you have a clue what you're talking about. In fact it is very clear from these conversations that you do not understand these images well enough to explain the details in the image which is exactly why you've resorted to pure insults, and you hope like hell nobody notices you didn't once address a single detail in the image. I noticed.

The more time that goes by while none of you step up to the plate and start explaining the details of the image, the more it becomes quite clear to me that you simply can't do it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow - thank you GeeMack!

For any interested lurkers:
You may have thought that Michael Mozina was being unfairly labeled as a crackpot (or even a crank) in this forum. Have a peek at these links.
IMHO calling him a crackpot is a compliment !

Ya, like you actually had the time to go through and read and absorb any of those links.......

You folks are pathetic. You're ignorant and you remain that way intentionally by *NOT* reading the actual materials suggested, or responding to it intentionally and then simply parroting your current belief set. How very sad. I didn't think *anyone* could rival GeeMac for pure ignorance and arrogance and childish insults, but you're definitely right up there. You two are peas in a pod.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

NASA did not assume anything and can demonstrate that the TRACE detector is detecting activity in the corona.

The surface of the Sun is at a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K(photosphere).
An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

If you disagree with this statement then point out the physical reason why a detector that cannot detect light from the photosphere will detect light from the photosphere.

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

A couple of simple question for Michael Mozina just requiring a yes or no answer (not that we are going to get yes or no!):
Does the photosphere (surface of the Sun) have a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K?

Is the accepted temperature of the photosphere (6000 K) between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K?



And in case you are ignoring what the TRACE instrument actually does (or have forgotten how to read or follow links), here is the information from the TRACE (LMSAL) web site.
Here is the TRACE mission web site. This includes a page on the TRACE instrument. The TRACE instrument detects light in various pass bands. Here is the TRACE instrument pass bands web page:

Here is the actual pass band.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, like you actually had the time to go through and read and absorb any of those links.......

You folks are pathetic. You're ignorant and you remain that way intentionally by *NOT* reading the actual materials suggested, or responding to it intentionally and then simply parroting your current belief set. How very sad. I didn't think *anyone* could rival GeeMac for pure ignorance and arrogance and childish insults, but you're definitely right up there. You two are peas in a pod.

Since GeeMack demonstrates clear sceintific reasoning I take "peas in a pod" as a compliment.

Thanks Michael

 

[GeeMack]

You and Geemack seem to have a need to be personally insulting in every single post? Why is that? The only one displaying their ignorance around here is you, starting with the fact you ignored *EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT DETAIL* in the image. More importantly you have *NOT ADDRESSED MY KEY POINT*. You cannot know for a fact that what you observe is located in the corona. All you know for sure is that it comes for plasma that is OOM's hotter than the photosphere, just as discharges in the Earth's atmosphere heat plasma in the atmosphere to very high temps. That's all you know based on the "design" of the equipment. You cannot just *ASSUME* that every photon you observe comes from the corona.

Methods for determining the source location of the images were discussed in depth in some of your earlier conversations on other forums. Reality Check just described another way. That you aren't able to understand isn't anyone else's fault.

I've spent hours if not days and weeks looking at that image making sure I could explain the various details of that image.

And you're still wrong. And you still aren't able to explain the images in a way that normal, same people can understand.

That is *NOT* an image of the *ONLY* the corona. You keep *ASSUMING* something you have not and cannot demonstrate.

It's been demonstrated.

Wow, you got in the ignorance thing twice and yet you *STILL* haven't tackled a single detail of the image. When you can't respond, you just ridicule, is that it?

Every single pixel of the image has been explained. You can't get any more detailed than that.

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

It would be helpful for you to pick some details of the image and explain them. And please do so in a way that can be understood by other people. After all this time you have yet to convince anyone that you're correct. So you must be missing something crucial in your method explanation.

Oh, and you got in the crackpot adhom too. Gee, I would never have predicted this sort of behavior.

It's not an ad hominem. He's not saying you're wrong because you're a crackpot. That would be an ad hominem. He's saying you're a crackpot because you're so very wrong and so insistent that you're right. Because you've invented your own brand of totally distorted science and you make up your own definitions for terms, by the very definition of the word, you're a crackpot.

Wow, ignorance and crackpot in the same sentence! You really must be incapable of explaining *ANY* of details in that image or you would just do so. Instead it seems as though all you've got are insults. Yawn. If and when you or anyone else bothers to explain the image, down to the subtle details in *that* image, you'll continue to bore me and you will certainly never convince me that you have a clue what you're talking about. In fact it is very clear from these conversations that you do not understand these images well enough to explain the details in the image which is exactly why you've resorted to pure insults, and you hope like hell nobody notices you didn't once address a single detail in the image. I noticed.

And every time you claim that the details of your pretty pictures haven't been thoroughly explained you're lying. Your very own history of discussions on various forums supports this.

The more time that goes by while none of you step up to the plate and start explaining the details of the image, the more it becomes quite clear to me that you simply can't do it.

Seems everyone but you has explained the images, or is happy with the explanations offered by others. Care to take a stab at it yourself, Michael?

 

[Michael Mozina]

NASA did not assume anything and can demonstrate that the TRACE detector is detecting activity in the corona.

You can't *ASSUME* ASSUME, *AAAAAAASSSSSUUUUMMMMEEEE* that! The Earth's atmosphere is relatively cool, but discharges in the Earth's atmosphere emit gamma and x-rays. You can't assume you only observe *A* specific part of the solar atmosphere, particularly in Birkeland's solar model where discharge "arcs" go from point to point across the surface, but rise far into the atmosphere. You can't just *ASSUME* all parts of the coronal loops are in the corona. The footprints could begin far below the photosphere as that NASA animation demonstrates.

The surface of the Sun is at a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K(photosphere).

Just because parts of the photosphere are relatively cool, you can't know for a fact that *all* parts are cool. You can't claim that just because the temperature of the atmosphere of Earth is relatively low that those gamma and x-rays could not have come from plasma near the Earth's crust.

An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

I agree. I'm not suggesting this is the case. Only *ELECTRIFIED* (current carrying) plasma will emit these wavelengths in the solar atmosphere. The surface might reflect a few photons that might be "averaged" (not necessarily differenced) into images, but even I assume most of the photons come from discharge loops in the atmosphere not the surface itself. Parts of the surface are "ripped from" the surface, as that peeling in the image demonstrates, but only when it's electrically ionized will it emit those particular photons. There are also large *and* small discharge loops and many more "small" ones near the surface than larger ones that reach into the corona. These small loops follow the terrain and also can be observed in averaged and even difference images.

If you disagree with this statement then point out the physical reason why a detector that cannot detect light from the photosphere will detect light from the photosphere.

The only way that it will detect light from the photosphere is if it has an electrified "z-pinch" filament running through that particular part of the photosphere. The loops however originate far *below* the photosphere and can be seen below the photosphere. The photosphere is a very thin layer of light plasma and it does not emit nor absorb a lot these particular wavelengths, whereas it tends to absorb more x-rays as the trace/yohkoh composite image demonstrates.

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

And in an "intellectually honest" manner, what is the most likely "cause" of plasma being heated to those temperatures? In other words, what known force of nature heats plasma to extreme temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere?

The rest of this post seems like a repeat so I'll stop here and let you think about my response.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Seems everyone but you has explained the images, or is happy with the explanations offered by others. Care to take a stab at it yourself, Michael?

Name a single detail that is observable in the image that you or anyone here actually "explained"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Methods for determining the source location of the images were discussed in depth in some of your earlier conversations on other forums. Reality Check just described another way. That you aren't able to understand isn't anyone else's fault.

Just because you personally *ASSUME* loops are invisible until they reach the photosphere does not mean that they are in fact not visible under the photosphere. NASA has a nice animation for you of how they come from underneath the photosphere and erupt into the corona.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

The base of these loops originate *FAR BELOW* the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Every single pixel of the image has been explained. You can't get any more detailed than that.

You are completely deluded. You haven't touched a single specific detail of the image nor has anyone else in this forum, let alone touched that image from Kosovichev and that "persistent feature" I circled for you. You're evidently incapable of engaging in honest dialog.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on the Rings of Saturn

As is usually the case for discussions like this there are too many simultaneous topics. Really, each topic should have its own thread just to avoid confusion. But that won't happen.

But I did note a page or 2 back that there was a brief and unsettled discussion on the claim that the rings of Saturn are primarily plasma as opposed to simple ice & rock (mostly ice). We know now as a matter of fact that the rings of Saturn are not plasma and are not dominated by plasma. The only phenomenon associated with the rings that can be vaguely associated with plasma are the "spokes" discovered by the Voyager spacecraft.

And since we are very image oriented in this thread, I will present here a series of images which falsify the rather fanciful notion that the rings of Saturn are a "self luminous" plasma.

First, I draw your attention to Cassini images PIA08362 and PIA08361. These two spectacular images show the shadow of Saturn across the rings. If the rings were plasma, and shined with their own light, rather than simply reflected light, then they should not be invisible in the images. But they are.

Another set of revealing images: PIA08992, PIA08267, PIA08248 and PIA08247. These images all show a specular reflection of the sun off the rings. Plasma rings will not show specular reflection, but ice rings will and do.

See image PIA08735. This image shows a composite, as well as the 3 individual images of the rings at the wavelengths 1.3, 2.4 & 5.1 microns. The rings are brightest at 2.4 microns, where one expects the maximum reflection of sunlight from the icy rings. The rings are visible, but not bright, at 1.3 microns, where reflection of sunlight will be weaker. The rings are invisible at 5.1 microns, where water ice is a strong absorber of sunlight, and should reflect essentially none at all. This multiband image is consistent with icy rings and is not consistent with plasma rings of any kind.

See images PIA03561 and PIA03562. These images show the temperature of the rings as a function of sun angle for both the sunlit & unlit faces of the rings. They show the obvious effect of increased & decreased insolation. No plasma ring system could ever look like this, but an icy ring system must look like this. And see PIA07008, a thermal image of the planet and rings at 17.65 microns. Here the rings rotate clockwise around the planet and you can see that they warm up (brighten) as the ring particles move out of the planet shadow and into sunlight. Plasma will not do that but ice will.

See PIA08356. Here you can download a movie of the rings, as seen from Cassini, as the spacecraft passes the ring plane and moves from the sunlit to the unlit face of the rings. A self luminous plasma will look the same as seen from either side. But not so particles, which will make the sunlit side of the rings look distinctly (and predictably) different from the unlit side, the difference between back-scattered and forward-scattered light. The movie clearly shows the strong difference expected from icy rings.

The rings of Saturn that we see are not a plasma. They cannot be a plasma, that's obvious. But Saturn does have a plasma ring, not unlike the belts of charged particles that encircle Earth. That plasma ring is visible in image PIA10094. The real plasma ring lies about 5 times farther from Saturn than do the visible, icy rings. Of course it does not shine with a visible light (one would not expect any realistic plasma ring to shine anyway because of the high temperature required for it to do so). This image is a map of the ring, constructed using data from the magnetospheric imaging instruments on Cassini.

 

[Reality Check]

An instrument that cannot detect radiation from plasma (or a chunk of iron) with a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K will not see the photosphere. The surface of the Sun will be invisible to such an instrument.

I agree. I'm not suggesting this is the case.
...snip...

Then why does your web site claim that images from an instrument (TRACE) whose 171A pass band cannot see the surface of the Sun are showing "mountain ranges" on the photosphere (the surface of the Sun)?

 

[Reality Check]

Just because you personally *ASSUME* loops are invisible until they reach the photosphere does not mean that they are in fact not visible under the photosphere. NASA has a nice animation for you of how they come from underneath the photosphere and erupt into the corona.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010074/index.html

The base of these loops originate *FAR BELOW* the photosphere.

Nice animation of the magnetic fields that standard solar physics derives as originating under the photosphere (how many decades has thid been known?).
Of course it is an animation and states nothing about the visibility of the magnetic fields under the photosphere.

These magnetic fields cause sunspots and flares. They cause coronal loops. So what?

 

[Reality Check]

The 171A pass band of the TRACE detector detects radiation from plasma with a temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.

And in an "intellectually honest" manner, what is the most likely "cause" of plasma being heated to those temperatures? In other words, what known force of nature heats plasma to extreme temperatures in the Earth's atmosphere?

This does not matter for the TRACE discussion since astronomers have measured the coronal temperature and use the 171A pass band to detect activity only in the corona (the surface of the sun is invisible) but...
As as been stated to you many times (in this an other fora):
Coronal heating problem and proposed solutions.

 

[GeeMack]

You are still not listening or at least your are not comprehending what I am saying. I've been clear that the light source is the coronal loops, not the crust. Light reflection *patterns* can be observed from the crust, but nobody is claiming that the surface itself emits these photons! Wake up. Listen to my explanation so that at least you *UNDERSTAND* it before you start ridiculing it. It would be helpful to see you pick some of the various details of that image and explain them.

This part merits some additional commentary because Michael is completely ignorant of what a running difference image is, and it could be confusing for other readers when they see him constantly describing it so very wrongly. The "light source" in the running difference image truly is the florescent light behind the LCDs on your flat screen monitor (or the glowing phosphorous if you still have a CRT). Regardless of the appearance, there is no light and shadow in a running difference image.

A running difference image isn't a picture of anything in the conventional sense. It doesn't show any structure, surface, texture, valleys, mountains, or any such thing. It is a graph, a visual depiction of a data set, or more precisely a visual depiction of the difference between two adjacent data sets.

As a fairly simple description, imagine this. A satellite takes a photo of an area of the Earth, a cloud covered area with clouds so dense that it's impossible to see the surface below. A few minutes later the satellite takes another photo of the exact same place, still completely covered with dense clouds, but the clouds have moved some between the first photo and the second. So you have two slightly different photos of the exact same place, but with a little difference in the cloud pattern.

Now run those two images through a small computer program that compares them pixel by pixel. If a pixel in Photo A is lighter than the corresponding pixel in Photo B, the program prints a pixel representing the amount of change to the lighter side in the corresponding location of the output, the running difference image. If the pixel in Photo A is darker than the same one in Photo B, the program prints a pixel showing the amount of change darker into the matching location in the running difference output. The pixels that create the output only show the change between the pixels in the two photos being compared.

Interestingly (or not really so much), the output image may have areas which seem to fade up from dark to light or areas which fade down from light to dark. These areas may look like hills and valleys, look like places that are lit up, and look like places covered by shadows, but that's not what they are at all. When you get done processing those two satellite photos of the cloud covered Earth, the resulting running difference image does not show the surface of the Earth through the clouds. Just as those running difference images Michael is so fond of waving around here do not show the surface of the Sun. They can't. No method of solar imagery can possibly look deep enough into the Sun to see Michael's alleged surface at or near .995R.

Oh, and the colors are arbitrary, too. Rather than using shades of gray (which might be a source for Michael's confusion, but I'd venture a guess it goes much deeper than that), the program could be written to use varying tones of red pixels to show where and how much Photo B got brighter, and varying tones of green pixels to show where and how much Photo B got dimmer. The result would be an image with brightly colored patterns, but it would still simply be a graphical representation of the differences between one photo and another.

Review: Running difference images aren't pictures. They are charts or graphs of data showing the differences between source images from a running sequence. That's why they call them "running difference" images. Duh! Simple as that. Michael's interpretation of this stuff is just plain flat out wrong.

There. I've addressed the issue of the running difference images, every single tiny detail, every last pixel, thoroughly and completely, again. So from now on, when Michael starts his bawling about how nobody ever explains these images, we can all look back at this posting and know he's lying, again.

Now we may proceed with the ridiculing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice animation of the magnetic fields that standard solar physics derives as originating under the photosphere (how many decades has thid been known?).
Of course it is an animation and states nothing about the visibility of the magnetic fields under the photosphere.

These magnetic fields cause sunspots and flares. They cause coronal loops. So what?

So the density of the photosphere is significantly less than the density of air at sea level and less than the density of plasma in the plasma ball on my desk if I'm not mistaken. What makes you think you would not see high energy wavelengths inside of such a light plasma?

FYI Tim, I started a response to you after work, stepped away for awhile to eat and finished it later. When I went to post it, evidently my "token had expired" and it ate my post. I will respond to you again. Please be patient.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This does not matter for the TRACE discussion since astronomers have measured the coronal temperature

Huh? That was a complete non sequitur. The two things aren't even related. It does matter and when the "measure"" the coronal temperature they don't seem to apply any technique at all to deal with Thompson scattering from the loops, so what exactly are they measuring?

and use the 171A pass band to detect activity only in the corona

You do not KNOW that for a fact. If the loops begin under the photosphere, and the photosphere is very light, how can you know you don't observe under the surface of the photosphere at this particular wavelengths?

(the surface of the sun is invisible) but...
As as been stated to you many times (in this an other fora):
Coronal heating problem and proposed solutions.

The corona is heated by coronal loops and by discharges process between the surface and the heliosphere. I was no mystery as to why this happens to Birkeland and his companions. 100 years later and the mainstream is still scratching their heads and ignoring the one demonstrated method to achieve these temperatures, these patterns in the solar atmosphere and these observations of high speed solar wind.

I'm afraid you'll need to explain to me why you think we can't see these loops deep inside the photosphere, particularly in light of various composite images and the fact that Birkeland's loops originate at the "bumps" on his "surface" and rose up through the plasma atmosphere.

This Yohkoh (yellow)/Trace (blue) image demonstrates that the 171A wavelengths are visible far deeper into the atmosphere than the x-rays.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This part merits some additional commentary because Michael is completely ignorant of what a running difference image is, and it could be confusing for other readers when they see him constantly describing it so very wrongly. The "light source" in the running difference image truly is the florescent light behind the LCDs on your flat screen monitor (or the glowing phosphorous if you still have a CRT). Regardless of the appearance, there is no light and shadow in a running difference image.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you (others actually): "What is the light source of the *ORIGINAL* 171A images?"

Now run those two images through a small computer program that compares them pixel by pixel. If a pixel in Photo A is lighter than the corresponding pixel in Photo B, the program prints a pixel representing the amount of change to the lighter side in the corresponding location of the output, the running difference image. If the pixel in Photo A is darker than the same one in Photo B, the program prints a pixel showing the amount of change darker into the matching location in the running difference output. The pixels that create the output only show the change between the pixels in the two photos being compared.

. No method of solar imagery can possibly look deep enough into the Sun to see Michael's alleged surface at or near .995R.

Bull. Not only do the 171A standard and RD images allow us to see deeply enough into the solar atmosphere, so do Kosovichev's doppler techniques which is why we observe persistent features and structures in both images. RD images of clouds change over time. That's what these sorts of images show us in fact. They also demonstrate which regions are NOT changing. In a light plasma, during a CME event, we would expect light plasma to blow around all over the place and for nothing to remain "stable or persistent" for any lengthy duration. Instead we find persistence in these images that is unlike the lifetimes of structures in the photosphere that come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, but rather we find persistent structures that remain for hours on end in angular patterns like the small angular block at the top of the RD image.

Oh, and the colors are arbitrary, too.

Duh.

Review: Running difference images aren't pictures. They are charts or graphs of data showing the differences between source images from a running sequence.

They also show us what did not change, even in the middle of significant CME event as witnessed in that video. Plasma ebbs and flows, much like those particles flow in the atmosphere after the CME event.

There. I've addressed the issue of the running difference images, every single tiny detail, every last pixel, thoroughly and completely, again.

You did not. You never addressed or explained a single specific detail of this image, not the rigidness or persistence of any of the features in the image, not the "dust in the wind", not the CME itself, not the peeling effect along the right, nothing. Not one single specific detail within the actual image was addressed. If that's his best "analysis" of multimillion dollar satellite images you are capable of, that is completely pathetic. Some "pixel by pixel" analysis.

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? That was a complete non sequitur. ...snipped...quote]
Talk about non sequitur!
This is a discussion of the TRACE instrument and the fact that it cannot detect the photosphere because the photosphere has been measured to have a temperature of ~6000 K.



What matters is that astronomers have

1. Measured the temperature of the photosphere.
2. Measured the temperature of the corona.
3. Designed an instrument (TRACE instrument) with a filter (the 171A pass band) that excludes radiation that is emitted from objects that are cooler than 160,000 K or hotter than 2,000,000 K.
4. Taken images in the the 171A pass band of a CME event that happened in the corona.

A similar experiment for the simple minded (Hi Michael ):
Put a red ball in front of a blue screen.
Add a red light pass band filter to the lens of a camera.
Take a picture.
Will anyone but the simple minded expect to see the blue screen in the picture?

Replace the blue screen with the photosphere (which emits white light) and the red ball with the corona (which emits ultraviolet light). All we have done is shift along the electromagnetic spectrum.
Replace the red light pass band filter with a 171A pass band filter.
Take a picture.
Will anyone but the simple minded expect to see the photosphere in the picture?

ETA:
Maybe MM will suggest that the million degree activity is happening on the photosphere - this is comparable to the red ball being on the blue screen above. Astronomers will find this laughable since that will be easy to detect. Side on views of flares and CME show that they happen in the corona. Of course MM will then have solid iron "mountain ranges" that are 1,000,000 K hot!

Let us end up with some simple yes/no questions for you to ignore.
First asked 26 June 2009.


Michael Mozina:

1. Does the the photosphere have a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K?
2. Does the corona have a temperature of between 1 and 3 million K?
3. Will the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument only detect radiation from material that has a temperature between 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K?
4. Can the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument detect radiation from material that has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K?

If your answer to 4 is yes then everyone will see that you are lying.
If your answer to 4 is no then the TRACE images are of activity in the corona. Your statement on your web site that "The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges." is then wrong. If it remains then you are lying again.