|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2006 : 18:43:24 [Permalink]
|
| Please remind me again... What is the pixel resolution? (I mean, how many square kilometers is one pixel) |
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. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 19:01:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please remind me again... What is the pixel resolution? (I mean, how many square kilometers is one pixel)
I have been curious about this too, Mab. I'd like to tag on a general question I asked earlier but never hear back on: how much movement should we expect to see given things like distance and resolution? On an airplane at ten or twenty thousand feet over the ocean, I can't see water moving, and certainly motion satellite images of the earth don't pick up ocean movement. Shoule we expect to see that on the sun? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 19:02:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
And now crank the motion up even more, and remember the shutter times on the 171A and 195A cameras.quote:
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?
It's not. It's so unstable that the plasma itself is just a blur. The boundaries of the magnetic fields, on the other hand, become quite clear under such conditions.quote:
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.
The rigidness of the patterns is evidence for reflections, which is itself evidence for the rigidity of the patterns. Nicely circular, Michael.quote:
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.
Yes, because when I first tried to discuss it, you blew off my explanation and decided to attack your own strawman version of it, in which the plasma was somehow magically "held together" by magnetic fields in the shapes we see. Why would you remember something so ridiculous? I only remember it because it was an early hint that you didn't give a rat's patootie about what anyone else said to you, you felt free to twist a good explanation into a freakish caricature and then lambaste other people for it.quote:
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...
Magnetic cooling, continuum emissions, density fluctuations... you know, all those things that happen to plasmas within extremely strong magnetic fields, like in the Z-pinch here on Earth.quote:
...and please answer my other question about whether or not the magnetic fields/loops should be "consistent" in the original raw images.
Some are, and some aren't. How things turn out in the RD images will depend entirely on the timespan of the motions of the magnetic field loops. It's clear from the raw images of the "gold" video that some loops last through the entire thing, while others come and go. The most amazing thing to see is to connect all the raw images together into a movie, and watch not only the magnetic field loops moving around, but also to see the ejected mass fall back along some magnetic field lines (which vanish in the RD video, leaving the possibility that one who is so inclined might see some "dust blowing in the plasma wind").
Hey, did you answer my question about that line of white blobs in that single RD image that you called "peeling," or did I just miss your answer? |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 19:08:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please remind me again... What is the pixel resolution? (I mean, how many square kilometers is one pixel)
If I remember correctly, for the TRACE cameras, the resolution is such that each pixel in the center of the Sun is about 350 km on each side (half an arcsecond at 149 million km). Obviously, since the Sun is spherical, each pixel closer to the "limb" of the Sun takes up more surface area of the Sun, while still being about half an arcsecond. That won't make too much difference until you're halfway out from the center or more, though. |
- 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 : 19:24:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please remind me again... What is the pixel resolution? (I mean, how many square kilometers is one pixel)
A single pixel on Trace at full resolution represents about .5 arc seconds, or about 360km. If you're looking for a number in square kilometers, it's about 129,600 square kilometers.
As far as coronal loops are concerned, that's chump change. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2006 : 19:57:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's so unstable that the plasma itself is just a blur. The boundaries of the magnetic fields, on the other hand, become quite clear under such conditions.
So we could (in theory at least) look at a MDI magnetogram movie during this same timeline and find stable boundries within the magnetic fields?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 05:19:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So we could (in theory at least) look at a MDI magnetogram movie during this same timeline and find stable boundries within the magnetic fields?
"Stable" being a relative term, sure.
By the way, how do you get from a "line" of white blobs in a single RD image to "peeling?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 07:11:57 [Permalink]
|
You know Michael the RD movies and images do in fact make the sun look like it has a solid surface. No doubt about it - it looks like a solid surface in the RD videos.
So why would all of the scientists (the ones with acutal degrees) fail to see it?
Are they all blind and stupid, just unable to see the obvious?
Or is there something more insidous like a conspiracy to with hold this fact from the public? I was thinking, if there is a conspiracy, why would they release them to the public since these images clearly look like the sun has a solid surface? I think it could be a sort of reverse psychology; you know release this data and continue with the tired old gas model. Sort of like the Emeror's New Cloths.
Or could it be that the processing of the RD images just makes it appear that the sun has a solid surface? The explanations given on RD images here make perfect sense and clearly point to this latter case.
Yet you do not believe this last case so I was wondering - do you think that all of the scientist are idiots or do you think that there is a conspiracy and you are shouting "the Emperor has no cloths"?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 08:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Stable" being a relative term, sure.
Any any running difference image we might make of the magnetic field would have the same sorts of stable patterns over these sorts of timelines?
quote:
By the way, how do you get from a "line" of white blobs in a single RD image to "peeling?"
I don't. I get it from watching a number of both raw image sets, as well as RD image sets. The base of the coronal loops is always in these locations. More importantly, after the "peeling" takes place, it's possible to discrern surface changes in the RD images. There are also particles tossed into the atmosphere during such events. I think it's interesting that LMSAL acknowledges the particles are tossed up in that image. These "particles" do in fact create surface changes too as the land.
So, how do we test your idea? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 08:30:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Any any running difference image we might make of the magnetic field would have the same sorts of stable patterns over these sorts of timelines?
If you could find magnetomic "images" with the same sort of resolution (spacially, temporally and for field strength), sure. I've never seen magnetometer "images" that meet TRACE specs, though.quote:
quote:
By the way, how do you get from a "line" of white blobs in a single RD image to "peeling?"
I don't. I get it from watching a number of both raw image sets, as well as RD image sets. The base of the coronal loops is always in these locations. More importantly, after the "peeling" takes place, it's possible to discrern surface changes in the RD images.
Except that for that particular RD image, you've got no "after" shot with which to confirm your hypothesis. At least, none that you've shown here.quote:
There are also particles tossed into the atmosphere during such events. I think it's interesting that LMSAL acknowledges the particles are tossed up in that image.
Why do you think that's interesting? Would LMSAL deny the obvious?quote:
These "particles" do in fact create surface changes too as the land.
Where is your evidence that that occurred for this particular RD image?quote:
So, how do we test your idea?
Go ask the solar scientists how they've tested the idea over and over and over again in the last few decades. After all, they think it's true already. You're the one trying to change the status quo, not me. |
- 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 - 08/24/2006 : 09:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
You know Michael the RD movies and images do in fact make the sun look like it has a solid surface. No doubt about it - it looks like a solid surface in the RD videos.
There is a very good reason for that. :)
quote:
So why would all of the scientists (the ones with acutal degrees) fail to see it?
They don't *all* fail to see it furshur. Dr. Manuel didn't fail to see it when he read my website and looked at these images. Hilton did not fail to see it. Sumeet didn't fail to see it either. I get emails from plenty of people with degrees that see the surface in these images just like I do.
Let's be real for a moment and talk about these images. How many folks even know what a running difference image is, degrees or no degrees? How many of those individuals have sat around watching 20+ gigabytes of SOHO RD images as I have? Up until 2005, I'd never seen a RD movie of the surface through SOHO's iron filters before. Why didn't *I* see it before then? I have no idea how many folks with "degrees" fail to see it, and I don't really care. There could be a million reasons why someone doesn't see it.
quote:
Are they all blind and stupid, just unable to see the obvious?
I don't think most people even watch solar RD images using an iron ion filter in the first place furshur. Those that actually watch a couple probably don't see anything in them they find "disturbing" in any way, or at least not enough to toss all their life's conditioning out the window.
I think that some of the individuals that do "see" the surface, and don't interpret it as such, seem to believe it can be explained in another way. When I've directly asked these individuals for their explanations however, they don't seem to have one.
There are also surface changes from one cycle to the next which tends to confuse the issue. Those that might be expecting the surface to remain static over months and years are clearly not going to recognize *that* kind of surface in these images.
quote:
Or is there something more insidous like a conspiracy to with hold this fact from the public?
Well, obviously there is *no* conspiracy of any sort otherwise I wouldn't have any of the materials on my website, and I wouldn't have access to the satellite information in the first place.
Most everyone I've emailed over the past year and a half has been very helpful and very nice. Only LMSAL has been less that forthcoming with information about their images. Every other individual and institution that I've spoken with has been more than happy to chat with me about the images on their website, or the images they created. Only LMSAL has kept any information "hidden" from me. Even after more than a year and a half, they still won't tell me who created that RD image, and they won't lift a finger to find out who created that image. They have not answered any of my tough questions about it. That's a little wierd frankly, but individuals from LMSAL have returned my emails regarding other images on their website.
Obviously however, even LMSAL put the data I was looking for right on their website, and it was right there when I went looking for it. I consciously went looking for it too, since I knew such images could be created from the Trace images. I believe that these images should show rigid features too, only they might give me a "closer" view of the surface. Note however that this Gold RD image was *not* the image that sold me on the concept of a "surface", I just knew such images must exist, and they were right there in plain sight. Obviously there is no conspiracy of any sort. At worst case you might have one or two individuals trying to "not get involved", but all the information is fully accessable.
quote:
I was thinking, if there is a conspiracy, why would they release them to the public since these images clearly look like the sun has a solid surface? I think it could be a sort of reverse psychology; you know release this data and continue with the tired old gas model. Sort of like the Emeror's New Cloths.
I think it's more of a question of just not recognizing what you're looking at. I'd actually seen that gold RD image before April 2005, and never recognized or understood what I was looking at. It takes time to even begin to understand how RD images work, and it takes even more time to understand what's going in in RD images. That doesn't typically happen in a day. One first has to begin to recognize what they're looking at and looking for to find the images to make such a case. I don't believe that a case can even be built with a single image or a couple of images. I certainly did not attempt to do that. I had to sit through gigabytes of RD images to get any idea what was going on, and I just don't think that very many folks with degrees or or without degrees spend hours and weeks looking at RD images from SOHO or Trace.
quote:
Or could it be that the processing of the RD images just makes it appear that the sun has a solid surface?
That is a possibility but it's a very unlikely one IMO. I was a lot less confident a year ago however.
quote:
The explanations given on RD images here make perfect sense and clearly point to this latter case.
No. Dave's explanation is in fact "interesting" in the sense it is scientificly "possible". In fact it's an idea that I pondered a while myself. It's the only option offered by any "skeptic" or gas model proponent to explain the rigidness of the patterns in the image that *might* be a logical possiblity. The test however is in the lifetime of the moving magnetic fields. I've watched them to be sure I understand the "lifetimes" involved in such images as well as every other surface or image I could find. Every surface and every type of image pattern has a "lifetime" to it, and these "qualities" allow us to discern what's going on.
I pretty confident however, that as Dave and I agree on way figure out how to this notion that the fields remain stable, this particular explanation is going to fail. It's a nice idea mind you, but the loops change, and therefore the magnetic fields are changing throughout the image. There will be "some" stability to these "features" as well (in fact I know there are), but I highly doubt that a RD image of the magnetic fields will look anything like the patterns in this image. I suspect |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 10:03:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael said:
I don't think most people even watch solar RD images using an iron ion filter in the first place furshur. Those that actually watch a couple probably don't see anything in them they find "disturbing" in any way, or at least not enough to toss all their life's conditioning out the window.
So you believe the scientist are stupid and/or blind, with the possibility that the blindness is due to prejudice. That is what I thought but sometimes you lean towards a conspiracy what with the powers that be withholding evidence.
Having 2 or 3 fringe scientist agree with you does not really bolster your case, I can site several scientist that believe a guy built a big boat and saved all of the animals when a world wide flood occured several thousand years ago. An advanced degree does not ensure that the individual is rational....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 08/24/2006 10:03:57 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 10:11:09 [Permalink]
|
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/125211main_active_640x480.mpg
FYI Dave, you might want to look at this image, since it shows the relationship between the magnetic fields and the coronal loops, and demonstrates movement in the magnetic fields is consistent. I grant you that the timelines are very different than the Gold RD image, so the "lifetimes" are not easily comperable in these images. All I wanted you to notice is that the magnetic patterns change sometimes rather rapidly, and this change is reflected in the coronal loops. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 10:20:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
So you believe the scientist are stupid and/or blind, with the possibility that the blindness is due to prejudice.
When I directly state that I not believe anyone is "stupid", why then do you begin with a strawman that directly refutes what I just said?
quote:
Having 2 or 3 fringe scientist agree with you does not really bolster your case, I can site several scientist that believe a guy built a big boat and saved all of the animals when a world wide flood occured several thousand years ago. An advanced degree does not ensure that the individual is rational....
You were the one that made a big deal about "degrees" furshur, not me. You know full well that appeals to popularity are unscientific, and no measure of "truth". |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 10:25:06 [Permalink]
|
FYI, just to set the record straight (again):
The folks at NASA, LSMAL, Stanford, ect that design, test, build, launch and maintain these satellite systems are my personal heroes. If it were not for their hard work, dedication and continuous efforts, I would have no data to work with at all. I do not think they are "stupid" at all, in fact I'm awed by their abilities as a whole. I'm tickled pick they're out there doing this kind of job day in and day out. They are certainly not "stupid", and I certainly don't think of them as stupid.
The only individuals I might have a beef with are the folks that do the "interpretation" of these images, and I certainly don't think they are stupid, simply "wrong". Very intelligent individuals can be wrong, and being right about a topic is no guarantee of intelligence. There is no one to one correlation between intelligence and knowledge.
Like I said furshur, the folks that design, launch and maintain these systems are my heroes. Stop putting words in my mouth like that, I find it very offensive frankly. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/24/2006 10:26:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
