|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2006 : 09:16:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Fine, I'll start making comments as I get time today. Let me start by pointing out that there is no *single* feature in this image that is most significant. *All* the features are significant, as are their geometric relationships to one another over the timespan of the movie are the most significant aspect of the image.
Solids keep their geometric shapes in relationships to one another. Plasmas do not. Dave's idea of stable magnetic fields is "somewhat" viable, in the sense that some areas of the image will remain "relatively" magnetically stable during this timeline. The loops however are very active, and they can change over much shorter timelines, changing the magnetic alignments. The key here is the "lifetime" of these *many* different features, and their stable relationship to one another.
The reason I wanted GeeMack to provide another overlay using his own specific grid sizes, line widths, etc, from another period of time, is so that I can begin demonstrating how many of these features stay in exactly the same goemetric relationship to one another, dispite the changing current flow around the surface as witnessed in the changes in the coronal loops during this timeline. You could literally take a a single grid section of Geemack's image from a later image, and insert it into an earlier image, and all the patterns would line up with other grids in the image. There is significant rigidity to these "features", even while that "dust" blows in the plasma atmosphere.
In magnetic alighment images, the movements tend to be far more "fluid" in relationship to SOHO RD images (these are the only types of images I've tried to apply them to). While the "structures" seen in the SOHO RD images tend to last for days, and are consistent across the surface, the magnetic alignments show dramatic changes over such timelines. I've tried Dave's way of explaining these rigid features, but it won't work.
While Dave's answer sounds "plausible" (it did to me at first as well), once we start comparing long term SOHO RD images to magnetic field alighnments on the solar surface, it becomes obvious that they are not "directly" related.
If we look at any image before the CME occur, (prior to the dust blowout) the areas of the surface I listed for Dave are relatively "smooth", and show very few "patterns" in those grids. LMSAL seems to be in agreement with me that we can actually see "dust" particles blowing in the plasma wind, but they don't seem to be paying the least bit of attention to where these particles land, and the effect they have when they do land. The key here is this technique does show reflections from heavy plasma or solids, so long as they are moving, or "changing" (as in reflecting light differently) over time. What's not changing however are the geometric relationships to one another, over very estended periods of time. What is changing are the coronal loops during this timeline. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 09:40:15 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 09:52:21 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I finally found my old post with the "gold" video details. Let's see if we get lucky, and find some MDI images in the same timeframe...
...no luck. They've got one magnetogram at 11:31, and then the next is at 19:46, skipping right over the 16:01 through 17:36 timespan of the "gold" video.
Of course, it's pretty easy to see that the white-and-black blobs off the lower-left corner of the white square in the magnetograms is where the "action" occurs in the "gold" video. In this intensitygram, there are three sunspots in that same area.
(For those interested, the SOHO Database Search Engine is easy to use.) |
- 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 : 09:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
LMSAL seems to be in agreement with me that we can actually see "dust" particles blowing in the plasma wind...
How in the world do you get that from what they say?This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud. That's their enitre commentary, and it doesn't mention "dust" or "blowing" or "wind" at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 10:27:12 [Permalink]
|
| Are we still woriking with 100KM+ pixels? If so thats some impressive "Dust". If not Ill remark that this is a disturbingly long thread, 150Pages! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 10:45:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, this is your chance to make your theory shine.
It is in fact a breath of fresh air to be finally be talking about the images I *wish* to talk about, I'll certainly grant you that. I'll be more than happy to "shine" for you on this topic Dave.
quote:
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).
Ruining my credibility any further? :) Did I have any credibility in the first place? It's comments like this Dave that "skew" our relationship. You really don't need to editorialize like this.
quote:
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?
Since GeeMack has provided an image after the CME occured, the logical choice of a second image would be one that preceeded the CME event, and has surface detail in it. The key here Dave is that these many different features do not move in relationship to one another, whereas we can see that the coronal loops change during the CME event. I can pick out the surface changes from these coronal loop changes too, including the rising and falling lighting on the center structures.
quote:
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.
But I already located for you the areas of surface "peeling" or surface erosion that is due to the current flow in this area. I've isolated it as a "line" the moves from left to to right, leaving surface reflection changes in it's wake.
quote:
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.
You can't see those lines forming on the surface from the settling dust in the areas I listed? You can't see the line of peeling (call it "activity" if you like) I listed in the areas I meantioned?
quote:
Well, that narrows the "peeling" down some, but you're still too vague.
How is it vague when I isolate the location for you and everything? Vague in what way? There is a connection here between these "lines of motion", and the location of end end of the coronal loops. In other words the loops are changing rather dynamically during this timeline. This is a good example of solar moss activity, or surface erosion activity. It demonstrates that the surface *does change*, albeit at a much slower pace that any other "surface" on the sun.
quote:
Oh, that's a "hill?" How do you know it's not a "valley?"
Because it reflects light most strongly on the side that faces the center structures, that are emitting the bulk of the light in these images, and the lit side is facing the plasma flow, which again lights up that side of the hill.
quote:
How do you know it's not a place where plasma on the left got colder and plasma on the right got hotter?
The brightness does indicate hotter plasma, so I can't exactly refute your suggestion either. The difference is that I can explain *why* that side is more active than the other, namely it's orientation withing the plasma flow.
quote:
As many as you like. My "five or ten" suggestion is really what I would consider a bare minimum. The more, the merrier?
Fine, I'll make a number of comments today as I get time.
quote:
Here's a question for you: which grid best represents an image of just "the surface?"
Every single one Dave, every single one. The only grids where were there aren't many obvious features, can also tell us a lot, including the two grids where the dust lands. There only a couple of grids that don't seem to have much in the way of surface elevation changes that would be hard to get much information from, but almost all the rest of the grids show enough surface pattern to demonstrate the notion that there is litle if any movement in the "surface". |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 11:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How in the world do you get that from what they say?
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
quote:
This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.
Of course they neglect to mention where this material came *from* or where it fell back *to*, and how it influenced the surface when it fell. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 11:28:48 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 11:30:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Are we still woriking with 100KM+ pixels? If so thats some impressive "Dust". If not Ill remark that this is a disturbingly long thread, 150Pages!
I've used that term very loosely, and pointed out that it may (and probably does) refer to "dense plasma". I single pixel is a huge surface area, and all it takes is a few extra reflections to be able to see it. It does not need to be particularly thick to be seen moving in the atmosphere, but it does have to be quite a bit of actual material to affect the surface when it lands. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 11:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, I finally found
FYI Dave, your links had some strange characters in them. I was able to look at them however by fixing the strange characters.
I don't think we're going to be able to compare Trace images to magnetic field alignments. The "better" option IMO is compare the SOHO RD images from the archives to a running difference set of SOHO field alighnment images. The SOHO RD images also give us a longer timeline, and a larger surface area to work with and compare.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 11:45:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 12:12:11 [Permalink]
|
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive9.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000210.mov
FYI, this has to be one of my all time favorite movies to demonstrate the odd flow patterns of plasma in the solar atmosphere. It shows the complex nature of the magnetic field arrangements as well. In the upper right corner, you can see a diagonal line where solar moss activity is taking place at the base of the coronal loops.
One of the key aspects of this debate will eventually center on the very unusual magnetic flow patterns that form "right near the surface", that are not "smooth" extensions of any sorf of "field" that might be flowing from underneath. The loops will often take off at accute angles from one another near the surface. In a rigid surface model, that behavior is relatively easy to explain, but how do you explain such acute angles of coronal loops movements so close to the surface if these are being driven by magnetic fields from deep in the core and all this is light plasma? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 12:27:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI Dave, your links had some strange characters in them. I was able to look at them however by fixing the strange characters.
What strange characters? The links all work fine under Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.blah-blah-blah, which is smart enough to know that a %77 in a link should be a lowercase w. The SFN forum code doesn't like to see "www" with a period after it in the middle of a link (only at the beginning), even buried in URL tags. So, I had to change the "sohowww." part of each URL to "sohow%77w." so the links would work under SFN forum code, and such a modification is allowed under an Internet standard (RFD something-or-other). What browser are you using that rejects it?quote:
I don't think we're going to be able to compare Trace images to magnetic field alignments.
I can see the magnetic fields in your alleged "crater" just fine. The only "problem" remaining is translating from TRACE coordinates to an X,Y location on a SOHO/MDI magnetogram and back again, and I put "problem" in quotes because that can be solved in a fairly trivial manner (I just don't have time right now).quote:
The "better" option IMO is compare the SOHO RD images from the archives to a running difference set of SOHO field alighnment images. The SOHO RD images also give us a longer timeline, and a larger surface area to work with and compare.
Why don't you go dig some of these images up for the "gold" video, or for the "crater," and we'll see whether this option is "better" or not. |
- 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 - 08/25/2006 : 12:38:11 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I'm going to pick three "structures" in this image and let's note their shape and their geometric relationships to one another.
The first "structure" I'll pick is that little hill we see between C1 and D1. Note it's entire outline and shape, and note it's position relative to the cross hairs of your grid GeeMack. We'll call that object "Teardrop Hill".
The second structure I'll select is the long flowing line shaped structure that traverses most of B6. Note it's shape and outline, and note the location of that object relative to your grid lines. Note that it has an entirely different "shape" than the first object I selected. We'll call that object the "Skidmark Ridge".
The third object has a completely different shape from the other two, and it is located in H5. We'll call this pattern "Starfish Willey" for now. Again, note it's shape, and it's location inside the grid.
Whatever second image you might select from that movie Geemack, that shows any surface detail (there are some corrupted images in that movie however) will also show these same identical shapes in exactly these same locations within your grid system. It does not matter which earlier image you might select, it will show these same geometric features. The outlines will remain consistent, though the lighting might be different in any other frame, either lighter or darker. The distance between the objects will remain consistent as well.
The geometric relationships of each shape will remain consistent, as well as the geometric relationships (distance) between each of these objects, regardless of which second frame you might select. Again, I'll qualify that statement since the first few images have no detail, and there are a few "corrupted" images in the set. Any other image you might select however will have these features in them in these same locations. The distance between these three objects will remain consistent, and the geometry of the objects themselves will also remain consistent, even if the lighting is different. In other words, the outline will remain the same, regardless of the pixel intensity at the time. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 13:03:31 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 12:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What browser are you using that rejects it?
Firefox, and you're absolutely right, it works fine under explorer.
quote:
I can see the magnetic fields in your alleged "crater" just fine. The only "problem" remaining is translating from TRACE coordinates to an X,Y location on a SOHO/MDI magnetogram and back again, and I put "problem" in quotes because that can be solved in a fairly trivial manner (I just don't have time right now).
As I mentioned earlier, there will be areas where there is some agreement, particlarly at the bases of loops, or around structure that are actively "lit up". Let's stick to comparing SOHO RD images to your magnetic field images. You'll see a difference between them over time, particularly longer periods of time. A single image might not work, but comparing a days worth of RD images would certainly do the trick. SOHO's 195A RD images are already online at the archives, so we would only need to do that with the MDI images for a day when there is overlapping data.
quote:
Why don't you go dig some of these images up for the "gold" video, or for the "crater," and we'll see whether this option is "better" or not.
The resolution between TRACE and MDI images is sustancial. It would make a lot more sense to try use a full surface image so we can see how well this idea works over a very large surface area, using similar resolutions. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 13:09:48 [Permalink]
|
| One more point Geemack: Any image you choose to select that predates the CME event itself will show a significant diffence in grid D2. Specifically that grid will show far fewer diagonal lines between the center area and Teardrop hill. That is because those lines were created by the material that fell to the surface after the CME spewed that material into the atmosphere. Much of the material landed in grid D2, and it's influences on the previously smooth surface are noticeable in this region in particular. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 13:12:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 14:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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?
We see tons of movement in the photosphere over just half hour increments. In fact the average lifespan of objects in the photosphere is about 8 minutes. That is because plasma is very "fluid-like" in it's movements, and the sun is very "active", particularly during CME events.
quote:
Can we epect to see things moving about in images like the one shown above?
It depends on the timeframe, and the movements in the atmosphere. If these images are created by the atmosphere, or in the atmosphere, or the light comes from things inside the plasma atmosphere, then we would expect to see movement, much like the movements we see in the plasma dust that blows around in the plasma wind. That is typical of the way plasma moves and flows. Something that isn't moving in a solar image cannot however be plasma, or it would show signs of movement over these kinds of timelines (more than an hour and a half), just like the dust in the wind.
If you look at any single RD image, you will not get any sort of idea of movement, or lack thereof, or get a feel for the "lifetime" of the feature as upriver put it. If however we look at two images before and after the CME event, we would expect anything made of plasma would move during such an event, much like the plasma blowing in the wind.
Dave at least is on the right track, because technically the magnetic field lines can and do in fact operate independently of any of the solar surfaces. In fact these lines traverse through all of them. Magnetic field lines could in theory remain stationary, while plasma moves around them. Unfortunately however, I've done these comparisons already, and I know that there is no one to one correlation between the magnetic fields and these consistent structures, or at least I could find none when comparing MDI images to 195A RD images from the SOHO archives. While the magnetic field lines around the "hot zones" of the original images is similar, the movements of the magnetic fields follows and flows with the movements of the coronal loops, not the surface features seen in RD images. There are some areas of similarity, but not over a whole surface, and not over longer periods of time.
If you watch RD images of the HE II emmssions in SOHO images, they behave very differently than the RD images taken in 195A. In 304A, we're looking at plasma patterns in the chromosphere that change rather dramatically from one frame to the next. Because these emissions come from moving plasma however, the pattern in the image do not last typically into even the next image, let alone over many hours the or days as can be seen in 195A images. That is because we're looking at two different surfaces. At 304A, we're looking down into the moving patterns of the chromospohere. In 195A, were looking through the chromosophere, and through the photosphere and to the solid surface itself. That is why there is so much less "movement" to be seen in these images, and that is why SOHO RD images can show consistent patterns of a period of days, not just 8 minutes like we might see in photosphere or chromosphere RD images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/25/2006 14:14:54 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 14:15:30 [Permalink]
|
This thread is locked due to length.
Please continue the discussion in this thread.
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
