|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2006 : 21:07:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
... the "Lockheed gold" image/video, the first image on your web site, the one you keep insisting nobody has explained.
And that remains the case to this day.
Michael, if you want to claim that no one has explained to the images in a fashion which agrees with your ideas, or (therefore?) in a fashion which is acceptable, to you, then fine, I can live with that. If however, you are going to dishonestly claim that no one has explained these images at all, then I don't see much point in re-addressing them.
A couple of reminders:
My discussion of the TRACE RD Movie
Follow on discussions
To others who have participated in these discussions: I am in no way attempting to insinuate that my own explanations/observations are the best or only ones presented, however I only have accurate references for the discussions for threads 6,7 and a little of 8. This stuff comes from before then, therefore, my own comments, for me, were easier to find. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 21:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Firstly, I'm going to drop the whole "scientists avoiding change" discussion, since it was fairly subjective anyway, and it's fairly obvious that you believe as long as "mainstream" scientists disagree with you, they're doing so for non-scientific reasons, but once they do agree with you, it will all be for scientific reasons.
I've cut and pasted a bunch of stuff for replies that I've been drafting for weeks, but never got around to posting as there's been so much new stuff appearing of late. I've decided to just post it anyway, even if chronologically, it may not be entirely sequential.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here's what just do not understand about our discussions Dave.
I would like to go back to the satellite images, but you seem to have a whole lote of resistance to accepting the notion that the coronal loops are "hot".
I don't believe anyone is doubting that the loops are hot. We would simply like to see evidence that the images prove that the loops are hotter than other parts of the image.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Furthermore, we can't simply "assume" that the whole corona reaches such temperatures. That's why we need these images in the first place, so we can see where the high temperture plasma is located.
If you're going to use the the presence of photons from one part of the image as evidence for temperatures within the filter's range, you can't reject the same evidence in other parts of the image. (For you're attempt at an "out" here via scattering, more below)
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The exposure time for such images is measured in terms of "seconds", leaving plenty of time for various forms of scattering to be observed in such images. Even still, for some reason you continue to resist accepting the idea that the loops are hotter than the surrounding material.
Do you know what scattering profiles would look like? If the loops were the light source, and the rest of the atmosphere simply a scatterer, the loops themselves would look much broader. The decline in intensity would look entirely different. All the evidence suggests the rest of the atmosphere is also a direct source of photons.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
There is no way to look at that Yohkoh/Trace overlay on the first page of my website and logically come to the conclusion that the loops are somehow "cooler" than the rest of the corona.
There is no way to look at that image and make any scientific quantitative assessments.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In all the high energy images, the light is always concentrated inside and directly around the loops.
Since when does light concentration in an image correlate to temperature?
Have you ever seen worked with IR/thermal images of turbulent fluids ? I've used various infrared and thermal imagers for a variety of purposes. You often see features that indicate jets or flows, which are exactly the same temperature (within the resolution of the gear at any rate) as the surrounding material but, because of density and flow rate differences, look brighter. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2006 : 22:41:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
Hello everyone.
I have to put my 2 cents in since I've been following this discussion with some interest.
A difference image is just that. An image that shows the difference between two time periods.
The image is a representation of the light that is transmitted from a subject.
The difference image is what has changed in that time period.
If a line of 50 pixels is lit in the first image and in the second image that line is shifted 4 pixels to the right, that represents a movement of that feature on the object of interest.
It's that simple. If that feature is recognizable over several images, it's not a processing error.
They really are images of features on the sun. And the lifetime of these features is really reflected by the RD images.
Yes, a running difference image shows what has changed from image to image. By definition, therefore, an RD image is incredibly bad at showing surface features, unless they are changing. Michael has attempted to use "changing lighting" to get around this fact, but unless the lighting changes significantly from frame to frame, a running difference image is still going to reduce the visibility of fixed features.
If that feature is recognizable over several images, it's not a processing error.
No, it's indication that the intensity of light coming from this region of the image is changing by similar amounts between frames over time.
Assuming an 8 bit resolution, a change in intensity of 25% in a relatively dark section of an image (say a change in brightness from 20 to 25 "intensity units" will stand out less than a 3% change in some pixels which were in a brighter section of the image (say from 200 to 206). This will all change depending on the intensity profile mapping and any other profiling done in the image processing. I would in fact be very surprised if NASA were using a linear algorithm. The point is we don't know exactly what algorithm was used, so saying that these running difference images "really are images of features" is wrong from both a theoretical and evidentiary perspective.
They really are images of features on the sun.
No, they are graphic representations of what has changed between consecutive images of the sun. The more unchanging a feature is, the less likely you are to see it in a difference image.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
By the way, *this* was a *perfectly* accurate explanation of running difference images. That makes at least two of us now that understand them properly. The consistent "features", and the "lifetime" of these features are key issues of this arguement.
Michael, while I'm sure you must be delighted to have someone who sees things more as you do, but even if the underlying premises were correct, you could hardly call this explaination, concise or unambigious from a scientific standpoint. Take this:
The image is a representation of the light that is transmitted from a subject.
Or the light that is reflected by a subject. Or the light that is reflected/refracted by anything else between the object and the camera. A difference image is a mathematical abstraction of the aggregation of all of these effects in two separate images, in order to form a third.
Or this:
And the lifetime of these features is really reflected by the RD images.
Grammar and choice of terminology aside, that's a really poor explanation. Unless you employ an averaging algorithm (probably a rolling, weighted average), temporal image stability is decidedly not well "reflected" by a running difference image.
Other than these (and other) issues, I agree, it's *perfectly* accurate.
Don't let your elation for someone's agreement with you cloud your objectivity.
Below is a difference image for the two TRACE images on the first page of Michael's web page.
Even if we grant that the approximately circular shape near the centre of the raw images is some sort of crater in a solid surface, why is it mostly obliterated in the difference? Where is the local light source that has selectively highlighted some parts in the difference image?
To me, it is far more likely explanation would be that the region which is much brighter in the second raw image is undergoing some local temperature/density changes. It could be hot material flowing through from below, or heat conduction from a region below. The images provide no real 3D information, so it is impossible to say for sure.
To my knowledge, no one has ever provided a detailed explanation of this lighting phenomenon using a Birkeland model. 
BTW, welcome to SFN, upriver. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 08:20:51 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you John for moving this conversation forward in a professional manner. Let me grab a cup of coffee, and I'll respond fully. You have been one of the few individuals I've met that has been willing to openly discuss these images and I appreciate that very much. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 09:13:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Yes, a running difference image shows what has changed from image to image.
Let me start John by acknowledging you and Dave for publically putting in some time into these images. The two of you (and probably Dr. Mabuse) at least seem to understand the complexities of this issue. I appreciate your efforts. These are not "simple" satellite images to understand, but once one understands them, I believe they unlock the keys to understanding the inner workings of our sun. They definitely help us to understand the electric nature of our universe.
quote:
By definition, therefore, an RD image is incredibly bad at showing surface features, unless they are changing.
I agree. In fact RD images as a rule show changes, either in lighting or position.
quote:
Michael has attempted to use "changing lighting" to get around this fact, but unless the lighting changes significantly from frame to frame, a running difference image is still going to reduce the visibility of fixed features.
It's not a matter of "getting around" anything. If you look at the raw images, you can see significant lighting changes from frame to frame and the coronal loops move throughout that timeline. The images are very active.
quote:
No, it's indication that the intensity of light coming from this region of the image is changing by similar amounts between frames over time.
It's not always "similar" amounts however. Sometimes the lighting goes up, sometimes it goes down, but the features are always in the same relationships to one another, regardless of the up or down intensity of any given pixel in any given frame. The outline in otherwords is consistent, even if the lighting is not.
quote:
Assuming an 8 bit resolution, a change in intensity of 25% in a relatively dark section of an image (say a change in brightness from 20 to 25 "intensity units" will stand out less than a 3% change in some pixels which were in a brighter section of the image (say from 200 to 206). This will all change depending on the intensity profile mapping and any other profiling done in the image processing. I would in fact be very surprised if NASA were using a linear algorithm. The point is we don't know exactly what algorithm was used, so saying that these running difference images "really are images of features" is wrong from both a theoretical and evidentiary perspective.
I know for a fact that NASA is using a simple subtraction process to create the SOHO RD images. I have no reason to believe these are any different. The main point here, is that changing lighting conditions will create different reflection rates from any rigid surfaces. In fact even if the surface isn't rigid, as in it's made of plasma, some of that surface will sometime reflect some light. Keep in mind each pixel is hundreds of kilometers in size, and you only need some material to reflect differently in this area to get noticeable surface relfection changes.
When plamsa relfects, or emits the light, the patterns tend to change rapidly, particularly during something like a CME, where all sorts of material is being ejected.
Solids however, unlike plasma, tends to resist change over time. That reason I liked uprivers use of the term "lifetime" is because it addresses the nature of the movements, or in this case, lack thereof.
quote:
quote:
They really are images of features on the sun.
No, they are graphic representations of what has changed between consecutive images of the sun.
Both these statements are true.
quote:
The more unchanging a feature is, the less likely you are to see it in a difference image.
But the more change that does occur, the more likely we are to see it in a difference or an average movie.
quote:
Michael, while I'm sure you must be delighted to have someone who sees things more as you do, but even if the underlying premises were correct, you could hardly call this explaination, concise or unambigious from a scientific standpoint. Take this:
The image is a representation of the light that is transmitted from a subject.
Or the light that is reflected by a subject. Or the light that is reflected/refracted by anything else between the object and the camera. A difference image is a mathematical abstraction of the aggregation of all of these effects in two separate images, in order to form a third.
I agree. Then any explanation we might come up with to explain these rigid and non-moving "features" will have to address all these issues.
quote:
Or this:
And the lifetime of these features is really reflected by the RD images.
Grammar and choice of terminology aside, that's a really poor explanation.
I disagree. What I actually like about his explanation was the term "lifetime". I had never really thought to put it that way, but the lifetime of these patterns is the key issue, and by using that term, it puts the issue front and center. It really liked his use of that term.
I would be the very last person to pick on anyone over grammer or spelling. :)
quote:
Unless you employ an averaging algorithm (probably a rolling, weighted average), temporal image stability is decidedly not well "reflected" by a running difference image.
Well, I agree with you that an averaging algorith may help to bring out more contrast, but even simple RD images can produce surface images, particularly if you add several (three or more) to the process and average them this way. The primary issue here howver is that there *are* rigid pattern or features with an unusually long lifetime as upriver described them. Somehow that aspect o |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 09:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
... the "Lockheed gold" image/video, the first image on your web site, the one you keep insisting nobody has explained.
And that remains the case to this day.
Michael, if you want to claim that no one has explained to the images in a fashion which agrees with your ideas, or (therefore?) in a fashion which is acceptable, to you, then fine, I can live with that. If however, you are going to dishonestly claim that no one has explained these images at all, then I don't see much point in re-addressing them.
A couple of reminders:
My discussion of the TRACE RD Movie
Follow on discussions
To others who have participated in these discussions: I am in no way attempting to insinuate that my own explanations/observations are the best or only ones presented, however I only have accurate references for the discussions for threads 6,7 and a little of 8. This stuff comes from before then, therefore, my own comments, for me, were easier to find.
John's comments on this subject are well worth reading. John and Dave are the only two who have commented on the features and lifetimes of these images, and these remain the core issues. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 09:26:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're right Dave. Geemack tried to pass them off as an artifact of the processing technique, but a quick glance at some Lasco image blows that theory out of the water.
No, you're just not listening to what he was saying. The "hills" and "valleys" you claim to see are what GeeMack was saying were processing artifacts, and he's right. The "rigid" stuff, I don't think I've seen him address that in a long time, since he's been busy trying to get you to address the "hills and valleys" bit.quote:
quote:
That's a mistake, Michael, and one you've never bothered to correct despite having it pointed out to you a zillion times.
I can't "correct" anything other than to correct the error that Geemack made when he claimed these features were an artifact of the imaging technique. I know that this is factually incorrect, and it's the only "explanation" offered thus far. Therefore I can't "correct" anything thing else that's been said about these features or the lifespan of these features.
You can correct what you have said about the arguments of your opponents. Nobody here has claimed that the features seen in TRACE imagery are due to "persistent" clumps of plasma, but that's what you say every time you express your incredulity at the features being made from "thinner than aerogel plasma." Nobody has made such an argument, Michael. It's a strawman you've created to avoid dealing with the explanations previously offered.quote:
Give me some "better" explanation and I'll listen and decide if it makes sense.
You've already been given the scientists' explanation, and you blew it off with your standard strawman argument that plasma won't behave in such a way as to make persistent features. Again: nobody here is claiming that plasma is making persistent features.quote:
Geemack's explanation doesn't make sense or we'd see similar "patterns" in LASCO RD images too.
Again, I'm not sure I've seen GeeMack try to explain the "rigidity" to you in a long, long time, so attempting to claim that what he's talking about now addresses that issue is to create another strawman.quote:
He didn't assert any such thing. He simply pointed out that the "features" in the image are related to events on the sun.
Has anyone here denied that? Holy cow, Michael! You're praising the guy for stating the obvious?!?quote:
He also noted that the "lifespan" (I love that phrase) of these "features" is the key issue.
Another bit of obviousness that's been dealt with already - the problem seems to be that when people disagree with you, you seem to take it to the utmost extreme, and so think that nobody agrees with what is obvious, even though it's obvious.quote:
He at least understands the nature of the core issues, whereas Geemack is still parroting pixel intensity explanations ad nausium and refusing to cognitively identify the key points.
No, you're refusing to acknowledge GeeMack's point, which is necessarily a stepping-stone towards your points.quote:
At least explain to Geemack what he needs to focus his attention on, since he doesn't seem to "get it".
I think he "gets it" just fine: you see "hills and valleys" where none exist.quote:
Fine Dave, then you or Geemack explain these persistent features anyway you want, but don't hand me a song and dance about pixel intensities I've already agreed with and don't tell me it's an artifact of the processing technique because I know for a fact that this is factually inaccurate.
So you have some other evidence of "hills and valleys" on a "surface" of the Sun which doesn't rely on your personal interpretation of satellite images? Please, do explain it to us, because so far, you haven't done so. |
- 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 - 08/23/2006 : 09:37:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
RD images of plasma surfaces like the helium filter on SOHO or Trace show very similar "patterns" by the way. The difference between the helium surface and this surface however is quite noticeable over time. While the helium surface moves, and emission patterns change, the patterns seen in the iron ion filters do not change and do not move around. They have a different "lifetime" as upriver put it.
Since they're images from different parts of the Sun, and are images of different plasmas under different physical conditions, why is it that you think they should be similar?quote:
I like that word because it allows us to differentiate reflections or emissions from moving plasma, vs. reflections/emissions from non-moving "features".
No, it doesn't allow us to do any such thing, Michael. In the TRACE 171A and 195A images, everything seen is being emitted by fast-moving plasma. Your strawman argument is that your opponents claim that the "rigid patterns" are very slow-moving features "made out of" plasma, but your strawman isn't shared by anyone else here but you. |
- 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 - 08/23/2006 : 09:38:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Firstly, I'm going to drop the whole "scientists avoiding change" discussion, since it was fairly subjective anyway, and it's fairly obvious that you believe as long as "mainstream" scientists disagree with you, they're doing so for non-scientific reasons, but once they do agree with you, it will all be for scientific reasons.
I agree. I think however you have to admit that change isn't always "instant", or universal.
quote:
I don't believe anyone is doubting that the loops are hot. We would simply like to see evidence that the images prove that the loops are hotter than other parts of the image.
They are hotter for the same reason the atmosphere of earth isn't as hot as the plasma in the lightning bolt. As you so elequently put it: Scattering happens. :)
quote:
If you're going to use the the presence of photons from one part of the image as evidence for temperatures within the filter's range, you can't reject the same evidence in other parts of the image.
I'm not. I'm simply expecting that scattering will occur since that's pretty much a given in plasma, not to meantion QM.
quote:
Do you know what scattering profiles would look like?
Not yet, though I posted this image earlier to get some idea of the "fuzziness" of each of the filters.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
quote:
If the loops were the light source, and the rest of the atmosphere simply a scatterer, the loops themselves would look much broader.
How do you know that, especially given the timelines of the shutter?
quote:
The decline in intensity would look entirely different.
Same question.
quote:
All the evidence suggests the rest of the atmosphere is also a direct source of photons.
I guess you'll have to explain this logic to me in some detail because I've seen plenty of lightning in my life and I know that light is reflected from the atmosphere of earth. I know each pixel in a Trace image is hundreds of kilometers in size too. I don't see how you can make these sorts of 'judgements' about the scattering patterns given all the unknowns, and given the light nature of the coronal materials.
Even if the coronal itself is "hot" there is no evidence in any satellite image, that the coronal material is anywhere near as hot as the material inside and directly around the coronal loops. Geos and Yohkoh images also show a direct correlation between the loops and the light.
quote:
There is no way to look at that image and make any scientific quantitative assessments.
So why assign temperature ranges to filters and overlay images like this? Even if you aren't willing to use this information mathematically yet, from a theoretical perspective this image is pure gold. We can tell from this image that the light on all the higher energy wavelengths is directly associated with the coronal loops. That dark right hand corner is dark in both images. Another interesting feature in the image is that the x-rays occur (or become visible) closer to the tops of the loops, rather than the base of the loops, suggesting that there could be a density change in plasma where the yellow area begins, or extra heat in this region in particular.
quote:
Have you ever seen worked with IR/thermal images of turbulent fluids ? I've used various infrared and thermal imagers for a variety of purposes. You often see features that indicate jets or flows, which are exactly the same temperature (within the resolution of the gear at any rate) as the surrounding material but, because of density and flow rate differences, look brighter.
I have already agreed with Dave that density *can* play a role, and IMO does play a role too. In other words I believe the loops are more dense as well as a greater temperature. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/23/2006 12:23:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 09:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
John and Dave are the only two who have commented on the features and lifetimes of these images, and these remain the core issues.
That isn't true, Michael. Why is it that you claim to want to have an adult discussion about these things, but then go out of your way to insult people? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 09:47:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
John's comments on this subject are well worth reading. John and Dave are the only two who have commented on the features and lifetimes of these images, and these remain the core issues.
Well, for you!  For me, though, thinking about the sun in such a radical new way-- having a solid iron surface, for example-- brings up bigger "core" issues. We've had a few rounds with that, though, and can't seem to come to some common ground as a starting point and so my issues will take a back seat for now. But "core" is subjective in this case! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 10:06:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since they're images from different parts of the Sun, and are images of different plasmas under different physical conditions, why is it that you think they should be similar?
The movements seen in "patterns" of the the helium chromosphere images are not unlike the movements of the patterns seen in photosphere images. The structues move and flow in a very fluid-like manner. If the area seen in 171A images "flows" like plasma, we should see that flow manifest itself in the "patterns" of the image, particularly during somthing like a CME.
quote:
No, it doesn't allow us to do any such thing, Michael. In the TRACE 171A and 195A images, everything seen is being emitted by fast-moving plasma.
All the photons are emitted from fast moving plasma, but the reflection patterns are not from plasma, or we would be able to see this surface move and flow like plasma.
quote:
Your strawman argument is that your opponents claim that the "rigid patterns" are very slow-moving features "made out of" plasma, but your strawman isn't shared by anyone else here but you.
So tell me exactly what you wish to attribute these rigid patterns to, or the long lifetime of these features to? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 10:13:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
John and Dave are the only two who have commented on the features and lifetimes of these images, and these remain the core issues.
That isn't true, Michael. Why is it that you claim to want to have an adult discussion about these things, but then go out of your way to insult people?
Your take on my comments sometimes is very hard to guage in advance. I don't have the slightest idea why you would react negatively to this comment. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/23/2006 10:13:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 10:53:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you're just not listening to what he was saying. The "hills" and "valleys" you claim to see are what GeeMack was saying were processing artifacts, and he's right.
No Dave. I never claimed that "dark" areas were valleys, and I never claimed that light areas were hills, or visa versa.
quote:
The "rigid" stuff, I don't think I've seen him address that in a long time, since he's been busy trying to get you to address the "hills and valleys" bit.
The "hills and valleys" can only be descerned from the "patterns" Dave, not the light and dark pixels. A part of a hill can appear dark or light depending on what's going on. The lightness and the darkness are not correlated to hills and valleys!
quote:
You can correct what you have said about the arguments of your opponents. Nobody here has claimed that the features seen in TRACE imagery are due to "persistent" clumps of plasma, but that's what you say every time you express your incredulity at the features being made from "thinner than aerogel plasma." Nobody has made such an argument, Michael. It's a strawman you've created to avoid dealing with the explanations previously offered.
What "previously offered" *explanation" are you refering to Dave?
quote:
You've already been given the scientists' explanation, and you blew it off with your standard strawman argument that plasma won't behave in such a way as to make persistent features. Again: nobody here is claiming that plasma is making persistent features.
What *explanation" Dave? All Neal stated was the the light and dark pixels are function of the processing technique. I agree. The features or the patterns however are not, despite Geemacks claim to the contrary.
quote:
Again, I'm not sure I've seen GeeMack try to explain the "rigidity" to you in a long, long time, so attempting to claim that what he's talking about now addresses that issue is to create another strawman.
Boloney Dave.
quote:
quote:There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again.
He's dead wrong.
quote:
Has anyone here denied that?
Yes Dave, see Geemack's quote from above.
quote:
Holy cow, Michael! You're praising the guy for stating the obvious?!?
It's evidently not that obvious to Geemack!
quote:
Another bit of obviousness that's been dealt with already - the problem seems to be that when people disagree with you, you seem to take it to the utmost extreme, and so think that nobody agrees with what is obvious, even though it's obvious.
No Dave, the problem is you're trying to cover for Geemack's statements to the contrary. Upriver simply tried to explain to the problem to him in a slightly diffent way.
quote:
No, you're refusing to acknowledge GeeMack's point, which is necessarily a stepping-stone towards your points.
Oh come now. I even pointed out that what Neal stated was true. I've agreed with the pixel intensity issue since day one. That's never been the issue here Dave, the issue is the rigid pattern or the lifetime of the features, not the light and dark pixels!
quote:
I think he "gets it" just fine: you see "hills and valleys" where none exist.
The what is creating the consistent patterns in the image Dave?
quote:
So you have some other evidence of "hills and valleys" on a "surface" of the Sun which doesn't rely on your personal interpretation of satellite images? Please, do explain it to us, because so far, you haven't done so.
Now you're directly and obviously trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
