|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2006 : 10:59:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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!
I simply meant that the "core" issue of the RD debate is the rididness or the lifetime of the patterns, or features. Believe me when I tell you that the "core" solar problem has given me fits as well. :) |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 12:00:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I simply meant that the "core" issue of the RD debate is the rididness or the lifetime of the patterns, or features. Believe me when I tell you that the "core" solar problem has given me fits as well. :)
Oh, OK. Yes, for RD stuff, things like the mass of the sun don't matter. And the "core" pun, is well, not bad. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 12:11:47 [Permalink]
|
| Fine, I'll give you points for creativity. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 12:56:06 [Permalink]
|
Left image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000412_033151.gif
Right (difference) Image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000412_033151_033322_annotated.gif
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000412_033151_033322.gif
Page:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive.html
quote:
Solar flare
This solar flare was observed by TRACE at 03:30UT on 12 April 2000, in the 171Å passband, characteristic of 1-million degree gas. The image on the left was taken shortly after the flare started. It shows the primary flare site just right from the center. Very fast beams of energetic particles traveled along the field lines toward the left, which upon impact on the lower, cooler atmosphere light up along a curved track. That track is more easily seen on the right. This is the difference between the image at 03:33:22UT and at 03:31:51UT. Where it is white, the image brightened; where it is dark, it became dimmer. It shows that the flare site is connected to a dome of field lines, ending along the ridge on the left; this dome is presumably a separatrix, that is, a surface that separates field lines that connect to different magnetic concentrations on the solar surface. The difference image also shows that loops are distorted by the flare. The so-called moss, the footpoints of loops that are too hot to see in this image, have moved about rapidly in the short time interval, causing the black-and-white reticulated pattern at various locations in the image.
We see the same sorts of "peeling" effects in this RD image as we see in the Gold RD image from LMSAL. In the movie we can see the peeling effect is actually moving backwards in a rough line as pieces of the surface are being ionized by the electrical discharge between two surface areas.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/23/2006 12:57:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 14:11:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We see the same sorts of "peeling" effects in this RD image as we see in the Gold RD image from LMSAL.
Outline the areas of "peeling," 'cause I can't see any "peeling" in a static RD image. Heck, I can't see any "peeling" in the "gold" video, either, and have asked you repeatedly to point it out by taking a frame and drawing an arrow on it or something. |
- 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 : 14:19:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
That's where all similarities end, as far as I've seen, since I can't see the "boiling" patterns in the helium.quote:
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.
So you say, but you've provided no evidence that a plasma a thousand times hotter and a million times less dense should behave like that of the photosphere.quote:
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.
I can't find any evidence that there are "reflection patterns" in any TRACE image or video, Michael. Where is your evidence that there are reflections?quote:
So tell me exactly what you wish to attribute these rigid patterns to, or the long lifetime of these features to?
Why don't you just admit that you don't remember our previous conversations, and are unwilling to go back through the threads to find 'em?
Okay, I'll toss you a bone: the "rigid patterns" (which aren't) are all entirely caused by the interactions of the continuously moving plasmas with the Sun's magnetic field loops, some of which remain for days. |
- 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 : 14:20:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We see the same sorts of "peeling" effects in this RD image as we see in the Gold RD image from LMSAL.
Outline the areas of "peeling," 'cause I can't see any "peeling" in a static RD image. Heck, I can't see any "peeling" in the "gold" video, either, and have asked you repeatedly to point it out by taking a frame and drawing an arrow on it or something.
In this annotated image, it's called the "ridge of connected field". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/23/2006 14:22:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 14:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
I told you why: it isn't true. More people than just John and I have commented on your "core issues," you're just too forgetful or too careless to notice, and so it's insulting to them when you use the word "only." |
- 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 : 14:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave. I never claimed that "dark" areas were valleys, and I never claimed that light areas were hills, or visa versa.
I never claimed you did, and so have no idea why you would raise such a lame "objection" to what I said.quote:
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!
Right, and the local pattern which looks like "a hill" isn't due to any "rigidity," it's due to the processing of the original data. Otherwise, we'd be able to see "a hill" in the original images, but we don't.quote:
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?
I see that you are unwilling to correct your strawman, which is now especially egregious because you've just admitted to not knowing what your opponents' argument really is.quote:
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.
No, Michael, you're going to have to back up several threads. I wasn't talking about Neal's explanation, I was talking about mine.quote:
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.
Nope, you're just talking about something other than what he's talking about.quote:
quote:
Has anyone here denied that?
Yes Dave, see Geemack's quote from above.
I see no denial that the features are "related to events on the Sun." I see only denial that those features resolve into patterns which can be reliably interpreted as solid objects.quote:
quote:
Holy cow, Michael! You're praising the guy for stating the obvious?!?
It's evidently not that obvious to Geemack!
Since you're not talking about the same thing as he, I don't see how you can make such a statement.quote:
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.
I don't see anyplace that GeeMack has said "the lifespan of these features is not a key issue," so I see no statements to the contrary that I for which I could cover.quote:
Upriver simply tried to explain to the problem to him in a slightly diffent way.
upriver only explained the problem if one accepts the premise that all events in a solar plasma should have durations on the order of minutes. I don't accept that premise, and I'm sure that GeeMack doesn't accept it, either. You and upriver are trying to push that idea, though, but have no evidence upon which to base it.quote:
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!
Yes, you're still arguing about something that GeeMack wasn't arguing about, simply by conflating different meanings of the word "pattern" and "features" to suit your purposes.quote:
The what is creating the consistent patterns in the image Dave?
|
- 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 : 14:39:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this annotated image, it's called the "ridge of connected field".
I just see a "line" (loosely fits the definition) of bright pixels. Where is there evidence of "peeling?" |
- 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 : 14:48:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I told you why: it isn't true. More people than just John and I have commented on your "core issues," you're just too forgetful or too careless to notice, and so it's insulting to them when you use the word "only."
Dave, I've debated this image now on at least a half dozen different forums. Every time I drop that image in someone's lap and ask them to explain it, they tend to do one of two things. Either they stop responding to me entirely, or they skip my specific questions alogether. Few people have even attempted to explain the image. This is in fact one of the few forums where anyone has even tried. The only other person I know of to attempt to say anything about this image on any other website was Van at the BA forum who claimed it was the surface of the photosphere we're looking at.
This isn't a simple image to epxlain or understand unless one knows a something about satellite filters, and something about RD images, and one has studied the original images in some detail. Most people do not know much very about either the satellite capabilites or the RD imaging technique let alone studied the raw images.
Technically, yes others have actually "commented" on these image, but their comments have either been false, or they simply didn't address the rigid patterns or the lifespan of the features as upriver put it. You and John have put some significant effort into analysing these images, whereas most people do not, or don't have any idea what they're looking at.
I can't say I blame anyone, expecially since these images took me months to figure out and to explain properly, and only with significant help from others. Such images are not something one simply "picks up" typically in a single afternoon. It requires great patience and significant amount of effort to understand what's happening in these images. Very few individuals are willing to spend that kind of time and that level of effort. I simply meant to compliment you and John for your efforts, I certainly didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/23/2006 14:51:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 15:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I told you why: it isn't true. More people than just John and I have commented on your "core issues," you're just too forgetful or too careless to notice, and so it's insulting to them when you use the word "only."
Actually Dave, you're absolutely right. My appologies to upriver. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 15:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, and the local pattern which looks like "a hill" isn't due to any "rigidity," it's due to the processing of the original data.
The "pattern" is technically not *necessarily rigid". Any sense of "rigidity" would have to be dependent upon the movement patterns, or lack thereof over a period of time. In other words, no 'single' RD image would reveal a consistency of patterns.
quote:
Otherwise, we'd be able to see "a hill" in the original images, but we don't.
I can see a crater in the two raw images on my website however. It is possible to see "patterns" from surface features.
quote:
]I see that you are unwilling to correct your strawman, which is now especially egregious because you've just admitted to not knowing what your opponents' argument really is.
Oh for goodness sake! Fine Dave, whatever you want. Will you tell me now what you think creates the rigid patterns or what?
quote:
No, Michael, you're going to have to back up several threads. I wasn't talking about Neal's explanation, I was talking about mine.
I don't recall you personally giving me an explanation of the rigidness of the patterns other than to suggest they were "camera transients" or something to that effect. We stopped there with the intent of going on to the electrical nature of coronal loops. I'm willing to pick this up if you want to go there, and these issues are related. The surface is what allows these discharges to occur and to remain stable in these same configurations over extended periods of time. Likewise the electrical discharges are what "light up" the surface features. I don't know how you want to handle this, and it's up to you how we proceed.
quote:
Nope, you're just talking about something other than what he's talking about.
That's a nice rationalization I suppose, and I might buy it, except I then asked him to explain the patterns and all I got back was more attitude and parroted explanations of pixel intensities. He's been awefully silent for a guy that seems to fancy himself as a RD "expert" of some kind.
In fact Neal's been rather quiet about who created the image. You'd think the least he could do is answer that part of my last email.
quote:
I see no denial that the features are "related to events on the Sun." I see only denial that those features resolve into patterns which can be reliably interpreted as solid objects.
I would say then that you see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear, expecially since he's avoided my other three direct questions for days if not weeks now. For that matter, Dr. Hurlburt's been pretty quiet too. I'll cut Dr. Hurlburt some slack however since I didn't ask him any softball questions, and if I were in his shoes, I think about how I wanted to respond to my questions as well.
quote:
Since you're not talking about the same thing as he, I don't see how you can make such a statement.
Oh boloney. I told Geemack I'd keep asking him about those rigid patterns and the movements in the image and the effects of the CME, and I have continued to stick those questions in his face, and he's repreatedly not answered them. If he actually knew the answers he would give them to me and gloat about it. Who's kidding who?
Frankly I'm tired of talking to you about Geemack. I'd rather we talk about RD images or electrical discharges or how the two interact. You and I discussing Geemack is a complete waste of effort. Neither of our opinions is going to change.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 16:00:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, I'll toss you a bone: the "rigid patterns" (which aren't) are all entirely caused by the interactions of the continuously moving plasmas with the Sun's magnetic field loops, some of which remain for days.
So if we go back and look at the original images, the loops will all have stayed in exactly the same relationships to one another throughout the timeframe in question? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 16:06:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's where all similarities end, as far as I've seen, since I can't see the "boiling" patterns in the helium.
Nor do I. The fluid motion however is "usually" even more pronounced since it is even lighter plasma than the plasma of the photosphere and the plasma that sits above it, is thinner still.
quote:
So you say, but you've provided no evidence that a plasma a thousand times hotter and a million times less dense should behave like that of the photosphere.
Why would it be "more" stable?
quote:
I can't find any evidence that there are "reflection patterns" in any TRACE image or video, Michael. Where is your evidence that there are reflections?
In the rigidness of the patterns.
quote:
Why don't you just admit that you don't remember our previous conversations, and are unwilling to go back through the threads to find 'em?
I certainly don't want to go back and look through 8 months of discussions to find them if you can save me the time. Obviously I don't remember you discussing the rigid features.
quote:
Okay, I'll toss you a bone: the "rigid patterns" (which aren't) are all entirely caused by the interactions of the continuously moving plasmas with the Sun's magnetic field loops, some of which remain for days.
Describe the "interactions" you're talking about, and please answer my other question about whether or not the magnetic fields/loops should be "consistent" in the original raw images. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
