|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2005 : 02:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Michael, difference images require a bit of knowledge to interpret correctly. For example compare these two images of Eta-Carinae.
Eta-Carinae
Eta-Carinae (Difference Image)
Notice how parts of the difference image appear solid with features akin to craters and plateaus. If we were to zoom in on a small section of this image (to deprive ourselves of the larger context) we might naively conclude it was some sort of landscape.
I second Dave's request for links to raw footage. I'd be particularly interested in the raw footage that was used to produce this running difference image. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 13:02:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, it does "glow", just not as brightly.
I don't mean reflected light.
Actually, Mozina has a point. The Earth does glow (and I'm not talking about reflection), just not in the visible spectrum.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 13:09:49 [Permalink]
|
| Everything glows in that respect, including me. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 14:26:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Huh? Show me a paper about supernova explosions that suggest that no "rocks" are released in the explosion, only "atoms"?
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernova_remnants.html
Quote from the site:
quote:
During the second phase, known as the Sedov or Adiabatic Phase, the SNR material slowly begins to decelerate by 1/r(3/2) and cool by 1/r3 (r being the radius of the SNR). In this phase, the main shell of the SNR is Rayleigh-Taylor unstable, and the SNR's ejecta becomes mixed up with the gas that was just shocked by the initial shock wave. This mixing also enhances the magnetic field inside the SNR shell. This phase lasts 10,000 - 20,000 years.
The third phase, the Snow-plow or Radiative phase, begins after the shell has cooled down to about 10,000,000 K. At this stage, electrons begin recombining with the heavier atoms (like Oxygen) so the shell can more efficiently radiate energy.
It takes 10,000 to 20,000 years before the SNR is cool enough for a stable atom to occur - there are no 'rocks' flying out from a Supernova.
quote:
quote:
Come on Micheal! Are you really saying the core of the earth is hot, therefore energy from neutron to neutron repulsion is viable? One has nothing to do with the other. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
How do you *know* that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other?
Well gee, since there is no evidence or any sort of acceptable theory to support energy produced from neutron to neutron repulsion , I would say that the heat from the earths core is not related to that.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 16:45:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That's just a load of crap, and you should know it. Wake up and smell the BS you're making.
The only BS around here is your use of fallacy in absense of a valid scientific arguement. Wake up and realize I'm not impressed.
quote:
Newton's Law of Gravity was proven false by observational evidence.
The orbit of the innermost planet, Mercury, did not conform to the standard gravitational "law". It wasn't until Einstein's Theory of Relativity that the modified "law" was finally made to fit observational data. And there was no need to discard Newton's Law of gravity, only adjust it.
And your point was?
quote:
The fact that you're a "computer scientist" and not a physicsist is rather telling. The parallels to the scientists at the Discovery Institute is rather blatant, now that you are finally revealing you area of expertese.
More arguement by ridicule. Yawn. I don't suppose you'd be specific in any scientifically demonstrateable way. This sounds more like a rant to me, and a pretty poor one at that.
quote:
If you are unfamilliar with the Dicovery Institute, they are a bunch of self-proclaimed "scientists" who thinks that a PhD in mathematics or structural engineering makes it possible for them to speak with authority against the theory of evolution. 
Yes, but they have nothing at all to do with our conversation. It's just smear by association, the oldest fallacy in the book. Like I said.....Yawn.....
quote:
Oh, before I forget:
I've hidden a spoiler in the post, in case you don't get what I'm hinting at regarding the law of gravity.
Frankly, your post seems pretty pointless. Their was no scientific objection to anything I've presented. In fact you are the one trying to deny the validity of isotope analsis with a little handwave of an insult. You are the one ignoring the fact that no gas model in the history of science predicted the stratification layer where Berkley found it. You are the one simply ridiculing and failing to put up any scientific explanation for these satellite observations. If any of us sounds like a creationist here it's you, not me. Get real.
Offer me one ligitimate explanation for that structure see in the stratification layer at .995R. What is that angular structure under the wave in the tsunami video? What about that shockwave video? What deflected all that energy away from the sun if not solids? What makes you explanation more valid than mine? Care to put any science on the table, or do you intend to do what creationists do, and just ridicule science from the sideline, and hope nobody notices you aren't offering any science of your own? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 16:51:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually, it does "glow", just not as brightly.
I don't mean reflected light.
Someone else already addressed this. I didn't mean reflected light either, though that can play a part, and would play a part in any real like universe where energy surrounds us.
quote:
No, and I probably never will because I have no experience decyphering technical papers. A laymans explanation from you will be fine.
There's a big problem with that attitude. I'm not your mommy. I shouldn't have to repeat myself only because you are too lazy to read what I've already spent months writing. More importantly the way I presented the material on my website is meant to show the visual evidence that led to the conclusions I have presented. There is no way for me to give you that kind of information more consisely than I already have. There are litterally pages worth of scientific analysis to read through if you wish to fully comprehend these ideas. You can treat these ideas friviously, but then why in the world should I waste my time trying to educate you if you won't bother to lift a finger to read a few web pages and a couple of scientific papers? It's only a couple of mouseclicks and a 30 minutes of your time. Surely if I've blown something, you'll be able to pick out the exact error that way, not simply question every detail that has already been explained in some detail. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 16:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Michael, difference images require a bit of knowledge to interpret correctly. For example compare these two images of Eta-Carinae.
Eta-Carinae
Eta-Carinae (Difference Image)
Notice how parts of the difference image appear solid with features akin to craters and plateaus. If we were to zoom in on a small section of this image (to deprive ourselves of the larger context) we might naively conclude it was some sort of landscape.
I second Dave's request for links to raw footage. I'd be particularly interested in the raw footage that was used to produce this running difference image.
The raw footage can be downloaded in the FTS files at Lockheed Martin. You can find them here:
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
I agree with you that interpreting running difference images can be "tricky", and it should not be assumed by one imaging technique that this "structure" is necessarily solid. In fact it's the MOVEMENT these images show, and particularly the changes in movement that these images show.
You'll notice however from the third and forth images on my website, that the raw images also show these same structures. If they had not appeared in raw image as well, I would be inclined to share your skepticism about jumping to conclusions based on a single kind of image. What is also quite telling in these raw images is that very specific structures are visible even in the raw photos.
If you have Photoshop by the way, there is an extension for CS2 that allows you import FTS images directly into Photoshop and you can create your own running difference images. I prefer to use those by Lockheed and NASA so I cannot be accused of manipulating any images.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 17:12:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There are litterally pages worth of scientific analysis to read through if you wish to fully comprehend these ideas.
I don't want to fully comprehend these ideas. There is no way I'm wading through pages of technical jargon just to find clarification on a single point, nor could I make heads or tails of it if I tried. Why are you so god damned difficult about everything? If you find your ideas impossible to express in plain English, then perhaps you should seek evaluation elsewhere, since this is not a technical forum. It is a skeptics website.
What, in your model, is responsible for sun's total light and heat output if it has a solid surface? It's been two pages now since I've asked this and you could have answered it in two sentences.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/14/2005 17:13:00 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 17:20:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I don't want to fully comprehend these ideas. There is no way I'm wading through pages of technical jargon just to find clarification on a single point, nor could I make heads or tails of it if I tried. Why are you so god damned difficult about everything? If you find your ideas impossible to express in plain English, then perhaps you should seek evaluation elsewhere, since this is not a technical forum. It is a skeptics website.
I'm not trying to be difficult just realistic. I could never hope to personally explain every detail of my model to every individual in cyberspace. I was trying to save some time by putting my ideas and the data that supports my ideas into a cohesive model that anyone could read about if they wish to. I don't mind answering a few questions but I resent the 'tude' I get from you considering you've never bothered to read what I wrote.
quote:
What, in your model, is responsible for sun's total light and heat output if it has a solid surface?
There is still a number of plasma layers above the surface. The same principles could in theory still apply, with the idea that electricity is the primary heat source of the plasma. On the other hand I do believe that most of the visible light comes from the neon penumbral filament layer, not "black body radiation" as some suggest. The overall heat output however is computed pretty much the same in my model as in any plasma model. The only difference here is that the plasma in my model is just an atmosphere above the surface.
quote:
It's been two pages now since I've asked this and you could have answered it in two sentences.
Ok, I tried a short version. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 17:33:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
There's a big problem with that attitude. I'm not your mommy. I shouldn't have to repeat myself only because you are too lazy to read what I've already spent months writing. More importantly the way I presented the material on my website is meant to show the visual evidence that led to the conclusions I have presented. There is no way for me to give you that kind of information more consisely than I already have. There are litterally pages worth of scientific analysis to read through if you wish to fully comprehend these ideas. You can treat these ideas friviously, but then why in the world should I waste my time trying to educate you if you won't bother to lift a finger to read a few web pages and a couple of scientific papers? It's only a couple of mouseclicks and a 30 minutes of your time. Surely if I've blown something, you'll be able to pick out the exact error that way, not simply question every detail that has already been explained in some detail.
Here's what you've given us so far: You have personally interpreted some images and some video in a way that is different from anyone else's interpretations of those same images. To you it looks like a solid surface. There are some aspects of the gaseous sun theory that aren't completely understood, and other aspects of it that don't support your notion, therefore you think that helps prove your "theory". It doesn't, any more so than a few unknowns in the theory of evolution somehow "proves" intelligent design. That has been pointed out to you several times in this discussion. Either you're not paying attention, or the fact that your argument is that weak isn't important to you.
And now you've come to believe demeaning the other participants in this discussion might help your cause. You're wrong about that, too. Your presenting yourself as a patronizing prick isn't likely to help your effort to convince people of your claim. If you can't explain your theory in laymen's terms, to a group of non-scientists, then take a walk. You've come to the wrong place. Although there are some pretty sharp characters on these forums, we are not generally the experts you need to convince.
I might suggest you go have your debate with groups of astronomers and physicists, but apparently you already have, and you didn't have what it takes to convince them, either. There is something about your effort here that looks a lot like the big guy who feels good about beating up a little guy. We've seen that big fish in the little pond tactic before, and we're not impressed.
If all you have to go on is your belief that it looks like a solid surface, and that the gaseous sun theory doesn't support your belief, you've got nothing. Maybe it's time to go do more homework, or set the whole thing aside until you get that proof you expect from the STEREO satellite data, or learn how to legitimately answer questions from laymen in a clear understandable manner without presenting yourself as a condescending jerk.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 18:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Here's what you've given us so far: You have personally interpreted some images and some video in a way that is different from anyone else's interpretations of those same images.
No, that is not so. I'm not the only one who interprets these images as I do, certainly not since I've put this information on the web. I get emails all the time from people who agree with me. Dr. Manuel even included them into our more recent presentations. I interpret them differently than Lockheed Martin and Nasa, but it's not just MY personal opinion, at least not any longer.
quote:
To you it looks like a solid surface.
No, it ACTS like one too. Notice that shock wave video? What deflected all those shock waves? Notice the sunquake video and that giant crack in the surface?
quote:
There are some aspects of the gaseous sun theory that aren't completely understood,
You mean like that stratified layer at .995R that was never predicted by any gas model on the planet? Ya, I'd say the gas model fails to explain a lot of observations, starting with those first few images on my website.
quote:
and other aspects of it that don't support your notion, therefore you think that helps prove your "theory". It doesn't, any more so than a few unknowns in the theory of evolution somehow "proves" intelligent design. That has been pointed out to you several times in this discussion. Either you're not paying attention, or the fact that your argument is that weak isn't important to you.
The fact you personally label the arguement "weak" is not important to me. I've shown you nuclear chemical information based on isotope analysis which you reject like any good creationist. I've handed you satellite images you fail to explain using gas model theory, but you keep putting your "faith" in that theory anyway. I've shown you data from Stanford from just a few months ago that shows a stratified layer that isn't predicted in any gas model of the sun but was predicted by me over 6 months ago.
quote:
And now you've come to believe demeaning the other participants in this discussion might help your cause. You're wrong about that, too. Your presenting yourself as a patronizing prick isn't likely to help your effort to convince people of your claim.
I've tried to respond to each "participant" in kind. Most folks here have been rather civil. Some have been downright rude I've tried to keep things focused on the science. Period.
quote:
If you can't explain your theory in laymen's terms, to a group of non-scientists, then take a walk. You've come to the wrong place. Although there are some pretty sharp characters on these forums, we are not generally the experts you need to convince.
I have no problem explaining my ideas to anyone and everyone on terms that each can relate to. Frankly IMO, anyone and everyone can understand how a sun works. The problem I have with a "few" is that they are all too quick to ridicule and real short on scientific arguement. That is very much like argueing with a creationist. The only thing that I can do here is present evidence and look for some "better" scientific answers. So far a couple of folks here have been rather intent on ingoring the science altogether and focusing on individuals.
quote:
I might suggest you go have your debate with groups of astronomers and physicists, but apparently you already have, and you didn't have what it takes to convince them, either.
Everyone who has ever put forth new ideas that turned out to be true were first ridiculed and their ideas were first rejected by their peers. It's no surprise that most would not be immediately swayed on something like this. That is why I look forward to the STEREO program and new technologies that will simply add more evidence to the discussion and will prove what I'm saying is true. Some of them have funding issues to worry about as well. Eventually they'll come around, but not without some serious soul searching and a lot more scientific data.
quote:
There is something about your effort here that looks a lot like the big guy who feels good about beating up a little guy. We've seen that big fish in the little pond tactic before, and we're not impressed.
I'm certainly not trying to come accross that way, but I must admit I've lost my patience with a couple of folks in this thread. For whatever part I played in this drama, I appologize. I do think these ideas are relevant, important and worth serious scientific consideration. Sometimes I just get frustrated at the lack of effort, and the quickness to ridicule on the part of a few.
quote:
If all you have to go on is your belief that it looks like a solid surface, and that the gaseous sun theory doesn't support your belief, you've got nothing.
That is why I pointed out the heliosiesmology evidence and the isotope analysis evidence that supports my views as well. If we were talking only about one field of science here, I would understand your concern. As it is, we have satellite images, nuclear chemical evidence and heliosiesmology evidence all pointing us in the same direction. We have Birkeland's work and Charles Bruce's work as well. There is a wealth of information here to consider, not just a couple of images.
quote:
Maybe it's time to go do more homework, or set the whole thing aside until you get that proof you expect from the STEREO satellite data, or learn how to legitimately answer questions from laymen in a clear understandable manner without presenting yourself as a condescending jerk.
I'm not trying to be a condescending anything. As I said anyone and everyone CAN understand these ideas *IF THEY WANT TO*. I do not however think it's particularly ethical to hurl insults at me without the courtesy of even reading the materials I have worked so hard to |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 19:52:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The raw footage can be downloaded in the FTS files at Lockheed Martin. You can find them here:
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
This is interesting stuff. For example, it shows that the images on your website (the 3rd and 4th down) have timestamps which are off by two seconds. The third image was actually from 09:00:03 and the fourth from 09:02:33. Searching Aug 18, 2003, from between 08:50 to 9:10 reveals no images taken at 09:00:01 or 09:02:31. I also note that the images on your website have been cropped and colorized, so they're not exactly "raw" satellite images, now are they?
And wow, that "crater" certainly changes shape over the course of the next few hours, don't it? In this photo, there are streamers "under" it!
By the way, by my calculations that "crater" is over 25,000 Km across. Why is 2.5 minutes "virtually an eternity in solar terms" for something bigger than the Earth?
A more complete reply (to other posts) will be forthcoming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 20:16:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Everyone who has ever put forth new ideas that turned out to be true were first ridiculed and their ideas were first rejected by their peers.
Everyone who has ever put forth new ideas that turned out to be false were first ridiculed and rejected by their peers, too. Ridicule is not a predictor of the truth of an assertion.
"They laughed at Galilleo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 20:32:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Everyone who has ever put forth new ideas that turned out to be true were first ridiculed and their ideas were first rejected by their peers.
Everyone who has ever put forth new ideas that turned out to be false were first ridiculed and rejected by their peers, too. Ridicule is not a predictor of the truth of an assertion.
"They laughed at Galilleo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
I agree. Then again, I wasn't the one that suggested that ridicule was meaningful in the first place.
There is a whole website of material that I have put together and I'll be adding materials as I find them over the years. I'm not worried about what people might think at the moment. I have faith that newer technologies and new findings will continue to validate this model over the years. The STEREO system offers us a really good opportunity to put these ideas to the test to find out whether my placement system is correct or NASA placement system is accurate. As time goes by, I'm confident that new information will continue to show that my interpretation was accurate. Ridicule all you like for the time being, but don't be a bit surprised if STEREO's data ridicules you right back in another year or so. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 21:04:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The raw footage can be downloaded in the FTS files at Lockheed Martin. You can find them here:
http://trace.lmsal.com/trace_cat.html
This is interesting stuff. For example, it shows that the images on your website (the 3rd and 4th down) have timestamps which are off by two seconds. The third image was actually from 09:00:03 and the fourth from 09:02:33. Searching Aug 18, 2003, from between 08:50 to 9:10 reveals no images taken at 09:00:01 or 09:02:31.
By golly Dave, you're right! That's what I get for trusting Lockheed Martin! :)
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive18.html
You'll note however that these images are still two and half MINUTES apart, even with the two second error on Lockheed's timestamping. I find that amusing. I suppose I should have check up on Lockheed, but you know how you want to trust the establishment where you can, and I don't want to be paranoid about it. :) I guess I should be more vigilant in the future. Thanks for noticing the two second error.
quote:
I also note that the images on your website have been cropped and colorized, so they're not exactly "raw" satellite images, now are they?
They may have been cropped and colorized to highlight the detail and timestamped a few seconds off, but I didn't perform any of those functions personally. You can thank Lockheed Martin for that. Notice however that the fundamental arguement is unchanged by these issues. The "surface" hasn't changed much in that 2 and half minutes. Plasmas tend to be a lot more dynamic over a two and half minute timeframe, expecially in a closeup image such as this.
quote:
And wow, that "crater" certainly changes shape over the course of the next few hours, don't it? In this photo, there are streamers "under" it!
Actually Dave, I don't see any change, and I see stramers coming OVER a the upper corner of it. Other than this interference, the crater looks to have exactly the same shape and depth and everything even several hours later. You've convinced me I could put together a much better case with a greater duration set of images. That 2 second error is also a bit embarassing. I guess that's what I get for believing everything I read on Lockheed's website. :)
quote:
By the way, by my calculations that "crater" is over 25,000 Km across. Why is 2.5 minutes "virtually an eternity in solar terms" for something bigger than the Earth?
In plasma terms, that is nearly an eternity. When we watch the behavior of the surface of the photosphere, we notice the convection processes that are visible in this layer over a relatively short time frame. You've shown us images over hours that show little or no change in the shape or structure of that crater IMO, and yet we see drastic change in the plasmas of the photosphere over the course of a just a few moments:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 12/14/2005 21:10:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
