Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Hellbound]

*giggle*

Oh, and I forgot to add GeeMack to my earlier list, great job on explaning an RD image. Too bad it missed it's target (although he was ducking and weaving so much I can't blame you for the miss ).

MM:

You still seem to be failing to understand...well...a lot of things. BUt focus particularly on the RD images.

You keep claiming to see rigid features on an RD image.

An RD image is designed to take out all the things that are rigid, so you can see only changes. And if the original images from which it is made don't show solid matter (for example, they're temperature readings), they don't necessarily correlate to physical structure, either.

Your claim to see rigid features in RD is, well, silly. You really need to figure out something else if you want to be taken at all seriously.

It's like claiming to see colors in a black and white photo. The media is specifically designed to pull remove the things you claim to be seeing.

 

[D'rok]

So shall I put you down on the RD bet? You're willing to ante up your public opinion on the size of the RD disk seen in 171A at a long cadence?

Tim?

You've staked your public reputation on a bet with me that pi will have a different value in the Mozinaverse. And you're going to prove this with an RD image of the sun.

Doesn't this worry you at all?

 

[Michael Mozina]

GM,

In the native American cultures that lived in the Mt. Shasta region, it was not uncommon for quarrels to occur between two braves of the tribe. If the young braves could not stop quarreling about the matter, they were brought before the Chief. The Chief would listen to their grievances and try to resolve them amicably. If that became impossible, the Chief would decide upon an appropriate "test" to decide the outcome. The looser of the appropriate test had to shave their head bald and keep their mouth shut about the disagreement until they at least grown back their hair. If they didn't shut up while bald, they were forced to leave the tribe.

You have spent the last five years dogging me around the internet, calling me a crackpot in every single post. You've probably said a dozen times or more that I didn't have the math skills to balance a checkbook. In all those five years I have never even met anyone else that claimed to "understand' RD images besides you and me. You've claimed for years now that I could not possibly see the surface of the sun under you supposedly 'opaque" photosphere.

In case you haven't noticed, I have already scalped you of your professional pride. I even sent Mr. Spock over to give you a hand on those calculations so you had something to work with. I trust his numbers by the way because those are pretty much the same ballpark numbers I came up with the first time through based on LMSAL thermal claims that you've been parroting for years now. I thought I dropped the constant. Evidently LMSAL did and never noticed. Tim even provided you with reference that shows that number is about 1.1, which is at least a lot closer visually. You therefore have a logical range to work with from every perspective of standard theory. If standard theory is correct, you absolutely cannot loose, because I even gave you everything from the photosphere to infinity.

All I asked for was a tiny little "slice", a thin range where the outline of the rigid disk will end, and the electromagnetic lines will begin.

This is a no brainer. You're the "expert" on RD images. If you won't ante up your hair, I guess I'll just have to live with having scalped you of your professional pride. Anytime you want it back, ante up.

 

[Perpetual Student]

When I started to follow this thread, I knew virtually nothing about solar physics, solar imagery, etc. (I still don't understand much, but now, I'm beginning to know enough to be dangerous). The technology and the methods for obtaining information about the sun are amazing.
As an interested eavesdropper, I do find it far beyond incredibility that Mozina, a computer programmer (or whatever), has outsmarted all the highly trained solar physicists throughout the world and has conjured up a better model of the physics of the sun by looking at pictures.
I still don't understand why MM thinks fixed features can be seen in RD images (assuming I understand the nature of RD images correctly). I have asked several times in vain for an explanation from him.
If the RD images show changes in time (of light), how big should the RD image visible disk be in relation to the disks of the photosphere, chromosphere? I’m really not sure, but if differences in light emissions create features in RD images, should the size include the chromosphere, which is active and bright? Or, would it depend on the particular emission line(s) used in the RD image, which may depend on changes on the surface of the photosphere?

 

[ben m]

GM,

When there's a post that you feel as an insult, you manage to find the time and energy for a detailed response, in which you show a reasonable awareness of an ongoing story and you appear to be aware that there have been several posts relevant to the same thing.

When there's a post about geometry (what does a thin sphere actually look like in 2D projection, Michael?) or non-SDO data (what's the professionally-analyzed value of the radius, Michael?) or even about your model (which layer is emitting those photons, Michael?), you have the attention span of a distracted goldfish.

(These are all things JUST relevant to your "predict the radius, chump" bullying, which you seem to have programmed to auto-post no matter what is actually said in the thread. There's much more, and much worse news for you, in many other facets of the non-problem.)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And now for something completely different ...

Well, sorta.

Running difference images are star actors in the drama which is this thread, at least RD images of the Sun.

Would you, dear lurker, have guessed that RD images are a very useful tool in the hands of astronomers studying historical supernovae?

This recent Sky&Telescope article summarises how, using Cas A (a supernova remnant) as example.

Note:
* there is only one RD image displayed
* all stars, but one (plus, maybe two), are invisible in the RD image
* the light echo shows up as a negative and a positive
* the artifact in the 9/14/2009 image shows up in the RD image (why?)

What more proof - of the 'bunny picture'/eyeball kind - do you need that RD images capture only that which has changed?

Puzzle for the day: how to explain the (one/three) stars which show in the RD image, as "craters" (i.e. they look all the world like small craters on the Moon do)? Do we conclude, from the existence of these "craters" that the sky is a solid surface, and that (some) stars are merely impact craters on it?

 

[Perpetual Student]

And now for something completely different ...

Well, sorta.

Running difference images are star actors in the drama which is this thread, at least RD images of the Sun.

Would you, dear lurker, have guessed that RD images are a very useful tool in the hands of astronomers studying historical supernovae?

This recent Sky&Telescope article summarises how, using Cas A (a supernova remnant) as example.

Note:
* there is only one RD image displayed
* all stars, but one (plus, maybe two), are invisible in the RD image
* the light echo shows up as a negative and a positive
* the artifact in the 9/14/2009 image shows up in the RD image (why?)

What more proof - of the 'bunny picture'/eyeball kind - do you need that RD images capture only that which has changed?

Puzzle for the day: how to explain the (one/three) stars which show in the RD image, as "craters" (i.e. they look all the world like small craters on the Moon do)? Do we conclude, from the existence of these "craters" that the sky is a solid surface, and that (some) stars are merely impact craters on it?

Wonderful! Thanks.

 

[dasmiller]

Puzzle for the day: how to explain the (one/three) stars which show in the RD image, as "craters" (i.e. they look all the world like small craters on the Moon do)?

Ooooh! Oooh! Pick me!

Proper motion of the stars?

Do we conclude, from the existence of these "craters" that the sky is a solid surface, and that (some) stars are merely impact craters on it?

And I suppose you subscribe to the "huge, nearly-empty universe" theory that has the stars magically suspended in some "vacuum" that's billions of light-years across. Which is plainly impossible, because the vacuum would create a suction that would pull everything together. Clearly, the "sky" is the inside of a giant iron shell, as the S&T image proves.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Puzzle for the day: how to explain the (one/three) stars which show in the RD image, as "craters" (i.e. they look all the world like small craters on the Moon do)?

Ooooh! Oooh! Pick me!

Proper motion of the stars?

Nice try, but no cigar (I think).

HINT: look at the dates of the two images from which the RD one was created.

Do we conclude, from the existence of these "craters" that the sky is a solid surface, and that (some) stars are merely impact craters on it?

And I suppose you subscribe to the "huge, nearly-empty universe" theory that has the stars magically suspended in some "vacuum" that's billions of light-years across. Which is plainly impossible, because the vacuum would create a suction that would pull everything together. Clearly, the "sky" is the inside of a giant iron shell, as the S&T image proves.

Close, but you're stuck in a "Birkeland rut" (he of the "iron" "terrella"); a wealth of astronomical data proves - wanna bet? - that the shell is made of an "exotic" hydrogen-helium "composite", probably a "bose-einstein"-alfven condensate, "zapped" by trillion-amp currents, but held at a balmy "500K" temperature.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why hasn't the "thin" GREEN "line" shown up in other "outer-space" images?

For example, the EUVI (Extreme UltraViolet Imager) on the STEREOs takes images at 17.1 nm, 19.5 nm, 28.4 nm, and 30.4 nm, with an instrument resolution of 1.6". Given that the green band in the SDO non-science, semi-artistic image MM is so excited about is, apparently, some 20" in width, it should show up clearly in the STEREO science images.

But, apparently, it doesn't.

Why not?

(to be continued: SOHO, TRACE, and maybe others ...)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why hasn't the "thin" GREEN "line" shown up in other "outer-space" images? II - TRACE

1" spatial resolution, 17.3 nm, 19.5 nm, and 28.4 nm pass bands (among others).

How odd; no sign of a thin (~20") green line in TRACE images either ...

(to be continued: SOHO, and maybe others)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know GM,

It occurs to me that you have a way to keep your hair and salvage your professional reputation. This is afterall jokers wild poker, and we've all been dealt a new hand recently.

Just to prove I'm a compassionate man, and to make sure I've given you every opportunity possible, you're welcome to switch sides now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When I started to follow this thread, I knew virtually nothing about solar physics, solar imagery, etc. (I still don't understand much, but now, I'm beginning to know enough to be dangerous). The technology and the methods for obtaining information about the sun are amazing.
As an interested eavesdropper, I do find it far beyond incredibility that Mozina, a computer programmer (or whatever), has outsmarted all the highly trained solar physicists throughout the world and has conjured up a better model of the physics of the sun by looking at pictures.

Ya, I can understand how incredible that sounds, but evidently that is the case. Of course there's really no point in having an ego about it. Birkeland and his team beat everyone to the idea by 100 years or so. It is only now with SDO that his cathode solar model can even put "put to the test" in any conceivable manner. Now that I have seen the SDO images with my own eyes, I am certain I am right.

FYI, one of the reasons our little 4 person group had a problem choosing between the terms "rigid" and "solid" is due to the wavelength in question. The only way to see the 171A light is if it came from "tiny" discharge loops flowing along the surface, following the contours of that surface. That plasma is not technically "solid", it's "superheated plasma" inside discharge loops. It moves and flows like the filaments inside a plasma ball. It's not actually solid, but it is "rigid" in terms of created "persistent features" all along the surface.

Now that I have seen the closeup images of FEXX following contours along he surface, I now no longer have any doubt that we are correct. There are also some *FABULOUS* MDI images in the first light images that show those same mass flow patterns around "persistent features" under the photosphere.

Kosovichev was right that those loops are mass flows, not solid objects. I understood his objection perfectly, but I also understood how that all fit with an electrical solar model. I knew full well I could never convince him then, but with SDO, his work and the AIA images will completely revolutionize solar physics. I now have no doubt in my mind of the validity of Kosovichev's work, and the validity of Birkeland's solar model. Everything we thought we knew about solar physics is about to change. This is the dawn of a new era in solar physics thanks to the hard work of the engineers that designed, built and launched SDO. Mark my words PS, everything is about to change.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Limb brightening, courtesy of SOHO's SUMER (Solar Ultraviolet Measuments of Emitted Radiation) - Ne VIII 77.04nm line:


http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/soho/sumer/pictures/atl_s006301ne8_compl.gif

C III 97.7 nm:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/soho/sumer/pictures/atl_s005803c3_compl.gif

Si VI 93.3 nm:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/soho/sumer/pictures/sls_s6a.gif

Ly epsilon (93.7 nm):
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/soho/sumer/pictures/sls_lye.gif

Edited by LashL: 

Converted hotlinked images to links. Please see Rule 5.

SUMER has a spatial resolution of 1.2" to 1.5".

Where in the world Sun is Carmen Sandiego the thin green line?

(to be continued: SOHO's EIT)

 

[dasmiller]

more image analysis . . .

So I stared at the SDO image for a while, trying to puzzle out what was really happening in that green band. The green 'limb' in the SDO image was just too perfect, too clean, too even, especially when compared to the aia images that apparently went into the composite.

With that in mind, look at the first image below. It's a still from a .mov of the flare that appears on the left side of the big SDO composite image. The second image below is the same region in the SDO composite image.

If you look around the base of the flare in the first image, it appears to me that it's all on the near side of the sun.

And yet, in the SDO composite image (second picture below), the base of the flare is behind the green disk.

So, we have a perfect, smooth, even green disk that seems to fall between the viewer and, well, everything else in the image. And so far it's only appeared in one image, and that image was created for PR.

I believe that disk was created in photoshop to make the image more dramatic by emphasizing all the stuff going on in the corona.

Any thoughts?

 

[Perpetual Student]

So I stared at the SDO image for a while, trying to puzzle out what was really happening in that green band. The green 'limb' in the SDO image was just too perfect, too clean, too even, especially when compared to the aia images that apparently went into the composite.

With that in mind, look at the first image below. It's a still from a .mov of the flare that appears on the left side of the big SDO composite image. The second image below is the same region in the SDO composite image.

If you look around the base of the flare in the first image, it appears to me that it's all on the near side of the sun.

And yet, in the SDO composite image (second picture below), the base of the flare is behind the green disk.

So, we have a perfect, smooth, even green disk that seems to fall between the viewer and, well, everything else in the image. And so far it's only appeared in one image, and that image was created for PR.

I believe that disk was created in photoshop to make the image more dramatic by emphasizing all the stuff going on in the corona.

Any thoughts?

Well done!

 

[Tim Thompson]

PR Images

Any thoughts?

Believe it or not, the PR images are often created contrary to explicit instructions from program scientists, for dramatic or artistic purposes. They literally are propaganda and should never be used the way Mozina is using this image. I was close to a lot of this image stuff in my 28 years at JPL and I remember scientists complaining about the caption text and/or images created for PR material, websites included.

I can't say, of course, that this is what happens here. I can only speak in generalities from my own experience. But it would certainly not be unprecedented to create a PR image that is contrary to the science images from which they are made, as bothersome as that can be.

 

[tusenfem]

So shall I put you down on the RD bet? You're willing to ante up your public opinion on the size of the RD disk seen in 171A at a long cadence?

Oh, sweetypie, you can put me down for whatever you want.

I still don't get your stuck-up-ness with RD immaging, from which you claim to see real steady features on the surface, when that is basically an imposible feat. Unless you get a light source that blinks at half the frequency at which the images are made, you will never ever see anything solid. A little light from here, a little light from there is not going to cut the cheese. Maybe you should do an experiment with a set of stroboscopes lighting a paper-mache mountain range. Set the strobes at different frequencies and make a movie. Then do a RD on that movie and see whether you get a real image of your mountains.

So apparently, now you are stuck-up with the radius of the Sun in 171 A. Well, just take a set of images and do an averaging or a superposed epoch of the images. That will give you a good estimate of the radius. However, you seem to want to get it from an RD image, for some weird reason. Depending on what is happening on the sun the running difference image is either going to show the same size as a normal, which means that there is a lot of activity at the "edge" of the sun, or you will find a smaller radius when there is a rather quiet Sun. If the sun is quiet, then the brightness will be the same between the images and thus the RD will show dark (~0) and thus will lead to a wrong answer.

Well, give it to MM to use the wrong tool for the right job.

 

[Dancing David]

I have been looking at this image, and I don't see the green line in this one:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/firstlight/preview/composite20100330_4096.jpg

I think this is the same one MM linked to?
ETA:I agree it is a compression artifact.

I am way wrong, I have a different photo, it is a conspiracy I tell you!

ETA: Mine is different, it is the first with the AIA cameras.

 

[ben m]

And yet, in the SDO composite image (second picture below), the base of the flare is behind the green disk.

....

Any thoughts?

I disagree. First, in the case of optically thin features, it is literally impossible to tell what is in front of what in 3D. There's no point even trying.

In the case of an absorption feature, in some cases you can tell (provisionally, anyway) what's in front of what---but only if you have really independent images from the different cameras. As soon as the PR department touches any color-balancing knob in Photoshop, the separate colors get mixed a little and "the red and green features overlap a bit" can turn into "the red-green overlap region contains a little less green" which looks like absorption.

I wouldn't trust ANY armchair image analysis of this sort---not Mozina's, not yours, not mine. My eye invents all sorts of interpretations for the "shapes" along the green-black edge, but they're not worth the electrons they're printed on.