|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2006 : 11:02:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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".
Actually, science is a popularity contest. A scientist comes up with a theory and/or an experiment and this idea is peer reviewed or the experiment is replicated. If the experiment can be replicated the theory is strengthened.
Your theory is simply - "golly, in this RD video the surface looks solid!" That a couple of Bozos outside of there field of expertise happen to agree with you is nothing more than embarassing.
The individuals who wrote the programs and the scientist that analyze the data know that what you think is a solid surface is simply the way a RD images represent the data.
Let me assure you that if these scientist missed something so clear as a solid surface to the sun they would indeed be stupid. I do not think for the most part you are stupid but clearly you are simply "wrong" and you are probably worried about tossing 15 years of your 'work' out the window.
That you think you have some insight into the sun over the scientist that have collected, processed, and shared the data is the pinnacle of arrogance and pathetic.
|
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 : 11:12:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Nor have I. I suggest then that we begin then with SOHO images and see how things compare. It might be useful here for us both to make a few predictions ahead of time so we can have a fair way to judge the outcome when we put together the RD images.
Based on my model, the "patterns" we're likely to see in magnetic field measurements will be "generally" related to the "current" changes in the coronal loops, and the way these changing loops carry current through the atmosphere. These patterns would not be directly related to the surface patterns, however they're may be some similarities, particularly in the "lightest" areas of both RD images, which will probably retain the same general "shape" (not necessarily very well mind you), whereas the other end of the loop may change more dynamically. In other words, there may be "some" correlation between emission patterns and magnetic fields, but the overall patterns left by a RD image of magnetic fields should generally be related to the the immediate changes in the coronal loops, not the surface features themselves.
It might be helpful if you were to throw in some disclaimers and clerifications here of your own before we begin so we are both clear with each other about what we each expect to see in advance, and where we might expect to see differences between the two types of RD patterns (if any).
quote:
Except that for that particular RD image, you've got no "after" shot with which to confirm your hypothesis.
Actually it's a continuous run of "aftershots", and in fact it's sort of an "as it happens" phenomenon, when it's done in movie form like this. Those "peeling" features you see should be *very* noticable in the magnetic RD images by the way, since that is where all the action is happening. On the other hand, a lot of the features, like that little hill in the upper middle of the Trace image wouldn't probably show up at all in the magnetic RD images if I am correct.
quote:
Why do you think that's interesting? Would LMSAL deny the obvious?
Well they "obviously" fall back to the surface and change the surface when the land too, but they deny that it's changing the "surface" as the material lands. I find it interesting in other words that the confirm the "dust" as being a physical feature in the image, but then deny every other physical feature in the image. It's irrational IMO.
quote:
Where is your evidence that that occurred for this particular RD image?
Watch the particles flow, and pay particular attention to the "surface" as I call it, in the area where they land. Notice the smooth features on the surface before hand, and notice the lines that appear in the image after the particles land. After work I can draw some before and after circled areas for you if you like, but If you follow the dust trail, they land on the surface, and you can see the changes that occur as a result.
quote:
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.
I'm willing to put both our ideas to the test here and compare SOHO RD images (which NASA/ESA have already provided for us by the way) to a day or two's worth of magnetic field RD images and see what kind of "patterns" show up in these images and compare their "lifetimes" together. Are you willing to do that? If I'm right, what do I get? :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/24/2006 11:15:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 11:36:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Actually, science is a popularity contest.
No, fortunately it is not a popularity contest or the theory of evolution would have been ridiculed out of existence in the first few years after Darwin presented his theory.
quote:
A scientist comes up with a theory and/or an experiment and this idea is peer reviewed or the experiment is replicated.
Great. Some of my work has been peer reviewed and replicated by NASA and Lockheed. In fact I used their images in my peer reviewed papers.
quote:
If the experiment can be replicated the theory is strengthened.
Great. I'd say then that our theory is "strengthened" by the fact that NASA and LMSAL were both able to replicate my results in creating highly consistent features in RD images over extended periods of time.
quote:
Your theory is simply - "golly, in this RD video the surface looks solid!"
No, that's not what my theory is based on. It's based on "look at these observations of the the rigid surface under the photosphere that can be seen in all these satellites, and heard in heliosiesmology techniques, and was predicted by isotope analysis"!
quote:
That a couple of Bozos outside of there field of expertise happen to agree with you is nothing more than embarassing.
I'm sure some people said crap like that to everyone who's ever made any new discoveries of any kind.
quote:
The individuals who wrote the programs and the scientist that analyze the data know that what you think is a solid surface is simply the way a RD images represent the data.
Yes, I know what some of them think that, and I suspect most of them think this in fact. I also know what I see, and I also know that I've studied their code, line by line. I know what I saw after I downloaded and studied 10's of gigabytes of their images, on all sorts of wavelengths, and I've studied satellite images for more than 15 years as well. I'm also an "expert" on these images, and certainly moreso than LMSAL, since they can't even seem to get the heat signatures right.
I don't really doubt that Stein from NASA/ESA (Dr. Soho) still believes that I am wrong, but he didn't believe that the light was coming from inside the loops themselves, so I understand the cause of his confusion. I respect him very much, and I appreciate the time he spent with me personally, and particularly his patience in explaining his position to me, and for explaining RD images to me. In the end however I could not agree with his analysis, because he had not identified the light source of the raw images, any better than LMSAL had indified the light and heat signatures of the raw images. The "experts" are human furshur.
quote:
Let me assure you that if these scientist missed something so clear as a solid surface to the sun they would indeed be stupid.
So I guess I was "stupid" up until April of 2005, and then I became Einstein in one fell swoop one night while watching my monitor.
quote:
I do not think for the most part you are stupid but clearly you are simply "wrong" and you are probably worried about tossing 15 years of your 'work' out the window.
Not me. It's not my livelihood. In fact I'd save money by "letting go". :) I don't really care if I'm ridiculed, I simply can't ignore what I know, and what I see. I can't help the fact I've read Kosovichev's findings of stratification subsurface centered at around .990R. I can't ignore what I know about nuclear chemistry and plasma separation in magnetic fields and gravitiational well. I can't ignore what I see in the SERTS data, or the sattelite images.
If and when someone comes up with a "better" scientific epxlanation, I'll consider it. As it is, I've talked to the experts you put your faith in, and I can't agree with their logic, particularly since none of them seem to be able to identify the light source and the heat signature of the corona. If they can't do that much, I can't simply close my eyes to what I see furshur.
I'm afraid I'm now a gas model atheist, and you'll just have to accept me as I am, or educate me back into your religion.
quote:
That you think you have some insight into the sun over the scientist that have collected, processed, and shared the data is the pinnacle of arrogance and pathetic.
But of course Shoemaker Levy 9 was first seen by an "amateur" astronomer, who obviously was arrogant and pathetic too for noticing it first. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/24/2006 11:46:27 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 13:07:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
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!
No part of any image viewed on a computer monitor has any patterns which are not made up of combinations of lighter and darker pixels. So there is nothing in any such image which "can only be descerned [sic] from the 'patterns' Dave, not the light and dark pixels." But...
Since you obviously see hills and valleys in these images, and you don't attribute them to the apparent light and shadow effects caused by the placement of the light and dark pixels resulting from creating the running difference output, you're going to have to explain yourself better if you expect anyone else to see your alleged surface.
Here's a copy of your "Lockheed gold" image all neatly marked off into a grid. You go ahead and point out some place on the image where there is a pattern of any sort which is not caused by the existence of lighter or darker pixels. The grid lets you easily name the area according to its row and column. Then further describe the details we should look for within that area so we can know how to recognize the patterns you believe you're seeing.
Obviously all of us believe there are pixels of varying brightness in every single location within the image and that those light and dark pixels are what create the patterns. Obviously every one of us has been under the impression that you think you're seeing light and shadow relative to the areas of lighter and darker pixels. And now you claim the lighter and darker pixels aren't making the patterns you're seeing. So why don't you try to clear this up and explain exactly what we should be looking for. Then we may finally be able to help you understand how you're misinterpreting the image.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 13:20:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, fortunately it is not a popularity contest or the theory of evolution would have been ridiculed out of existence in the first few years after Darwin presented his theory.
Um, it was ridiculed and it was not accepted at first, but evidence was found by many different researchers to support it. When enough of the researchers and scientist found supporting evidence it was accepted by mainstream science.
quote:
So I guess I was "stupid" up until April of 2005, and then I became Einstein in one fell swoop one night while watching my monitor.
Actually, it does not appear that the afore mentioned change occured in April of 2005
quote:
If and when someone comes up with a "better" scientific epxlanation, I'll consider it.
Give me a break! 
quote:
But of course Shoemaker Levy 9 was first seen by an "amateur" astronomer, who obviously was arrogant and pathetic too for noticing it first.
What a great analogy!
Here is a better analogy though, you're more like a member of the Heavens Gate cult that thought they could see the spaceship in the tail of a comet....
|
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 : 14:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Hey very cool Geemack. Nice graph, and very timely too.
Dave, checkout the D1,D2, and E2 grid areas as the "dust/plasma" starts settling to the surface. Notice the "groves" that form on the surface in these areas as things start to settle and fall back to the surface. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 14:21:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Um, it was ridiculed and it was not accepted at first,
Gee, why does that sound familiar?
quote:
but evidence was found by many different researchers to support it. When enough of the researchers and scientist found supporting evidence it was accepted by mainstream science.
And when STEREO starts returning data to support me, and other scientists confirm what I've found, I expect that a Birkeland solar model will be accepted by mainstream science too.
quote:
quote:
So I guess I was "stupid" up until April of 2005, and then I became Einstein in one fell swoop one night while watching my monitor.
Actually, it does not appear that the afore mentioned change occured in April of 2005
As it relates to my atheism in gas model theory, I can tell you the exact date it started, specifically April 16th, 2005, because I stayed up most of the night watching SOHO RD movies from the archives. Up until then, I had no serious doubts in gas model theory at all. In fact my mind had always tried to conceptualize everything I'd seen in satellite images from that perspective.
quote:
Give me a break!
One arm or two? :)
quote:
What a great analogy!
Here is a better analogy though....
Except I'm not leading any cult, and nobody said a word about suicide or religion. Sure, other than that, it's a great analogy furshur. You guys sure know how to "play fair".
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 14:24:41 [Permalink]
|
| Well Geemack, the first thing you might do is pick another individual image from that set, preferably one just before the CME occurs and overlay that same graph on it. Put the two images side by side. I'll be happy to then start pointing out the particular areas of interest in both images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/24/2006 14:27:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 14:53:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well Geemack, the first thing you might do is pick another individual image from that set, preferably one just before the CME occurs and overlay that same graph on it. Put the two images side by side. I'll be happy to then start pointing out the particular areas of interest in both images.
Good grief, Michael! I've been asking you for months to specifically point out the various "features" you think you see. GeeMack went way out of his way to help you do so, and all you're going to do is to suggest that he help you more? Why don't you pick a frame from the video and overlay the grid on it? You claim to be handy with PhotoShop, fercryinoutloud. Lift a friggin' finger already! |
- 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 : 15:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Oh for crying out loud Dave, pick any grid in the lower half of the image and you'll see plenty of "features". Put two images together and then I'll be able to show you that these features stay in persistent relationships to one another over time, but you need two images to demonstrate this point. I thought it would simply be better if Geemack did the overlay himself, and selected his own two images, so he couldn't blame me for tinkering with the two images, or being selective about which one's I chose. I already told you personally where you should be looking for changes to the surface features.
I'll tell you some other places to pay attention to as well, including G4 & G5 where most of the "peeling" takes place.
You'll notice that the little "hill" at the corner of C1 and D1 will remain there in both images. How many of these would you like me to run through? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/24/2006 16:16:15 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 17:33:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh for crying out loud Dave, pick any grid in the lower half of the image and you'll see plenty of "features". Put two images together and then I'll be able to show you that these features stay in persistent relationships to one another over time, but you need two images to demonstrate this point. I thought it would simply be better if Geemack did the overlay himself, and selected his own two images, so he couldn't blame me for tinkering with the two images, or being selective about which one's I chose. I already told you personally where you should be looking for changes to the surface features.
I'll tell you some other places to pay attention to as well, including G4 & G5 where most of the "peeling" takes place.
You'll notice that the little "hill" at the corner of C1 and D1 will remain there in both images. How many of these would you like me to run through?
Since this keeps getting lost in the discussion (or I keep missing your reply), I'll ask again: given that the sun is 93 million miles away, and that it's almost a million miles across, and we're looking at it on tiny screens where each pixel represents about 210 miles per side, then how much movement should we expect to see? I've flown over the Atlantic more than once and noticed each time that from that elevation I detect no water movement. Satellite pictures that show cloud movement similarly don't show any water movement.
Can we epect to see things moving about in images like the one shown above? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 17:56:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh for crying out loud Dave, pick any grid in the lower half of the image and you'll see plenty of "features".
Michael, it has been pointed out to you several times in the past, but obviously needs repeating:
It's your claim, so the burden of proof is yours. You are the one who needs to convince us. This means that the ball is in your park. When we ask for evidence, we shouldn't have to go looking for evidence, it should be provided by you.
I don't have clue what portions of that photo is significant to you, and I suspect Dave doesn't know either, that's why he's asking you to focus on any portion of the pic of your choice. So you can zoom in, and concentrate/focus your/our attention to one single feature to explain it to us. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2006 : 19:47:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh for crying out loud Dave, pick any grid in the lower half of the image and you'll see plenty of "features". Put two images together and then I'll be able to show you that these features stay in persistent relationships to one another over time, but you need two images to demonstrate this point. I thought it would simply be better if Geemack did the overlay himself, and selected his own two images, so he couldn't blame me for tinkering with the two images, or being selective about which one's I chose.
No, Michael, this is your chance to make your theory shine. It's time for you to make your best possible case, and I (for one) trust you to not tinker with the images (especially since you'd likely get caught if you did, ruining your credibility even further). As for being "selective," the easiest thing for you to do to make a good case would be to select two consecutive frames, but that'd be easy to spot, also. Why not just select one near the beginning, and one near the end, tell us which ones you pick ('cause I don't know which frame that is on your homepage, but it doesn't look like the first), and then present your case with the best five or ten features that you select?
After all, if you allow GeeMack (or me) to pick stuff, if it happens to shift in relation to other stuff, you're just going to shout "erosion" or "lighting changes" and we're not going to get anywhere.
quote:
I already told you personally where you should be looking for changes to the surface features.
Yes, and it still doesn't make much sense, since you're not supplying nearly enough detail for me to see what you want me to see.quote:
I'll tell you some other places to pay attention to as well, including G4 & G5 where most of the "peeling" takes place.
Well, that narrows the "peeling" down some, but you're still too vague.quote:
You'll notice that the little "hill" at the corner of C1 and D1 will remain there in both images.
Oh, that's a "hill?" How do you know it's not a "valley?" How do you know it's not a place where plasma on the left got colder and plasma on the right got hotter?quote:
How many of these would you like me to run through?
As many as you like. My "five or ten" suggestion is really what I would consider a bare minimum. The more, the merrier?
Here's a question for you: which grid best represents an image of just "the surface?" |
- 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 - 08/24/2006 : 20:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Yeah, I love that movie. It's way cool.
It does, indeed, show that some features of the corona can change in a very short time, and it shows that some features of the corona can last for well over 24 hours. If the "gold" video is only three hours long, that's only about 18 frames of the video you just linked to. There are plenty of features in this new video which last for more than 18 frames, along with plenty that come and go in just a few frames. None of this is unexpected in the plasma-and-magnetism "model" of the corona.
Nor, by the way, would it be unexpected for your "crater," and the mainstream explanation doesn't even require the extra hypotheses of "erosion" or "lighting changes" to explain it's variations over 57 hours:
(See this old post for a full explanation of the above image, including timestamps for each.) |
- 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 - 08/25/2006 : 09:13:52 [Permalink]
|
Well, working from the "crater" data, we can watch the field responsible for it emerge in the MDI data:
(All images from August, 2003. Below are dates and times.)
(If you'll notice the large black "blob" near the bottom of the right-hand side of the white square. Sortof "within" the black blob, you'll see a white dot.)(The white dot has turned into a blob within the black blob. The white blob is the magnetic field "intrusion" which looks like a "crater" up in the corona in the TRACE images. Keep watching it in the images that follow.)(My earliest sighting of the "crater" was at 21:57)(My last sighting of the "crater" was at 07:37)Nifty stuff to watch happen. The white blob does, indeed, grow larger and smaller, and slowly change shape, just like the "crater" does in the TRACE images.
Maybe I'll try to turn the above into a movie sometime. Maybe I'll even make RD images out of it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
