Magnetic fields also fit all of these.
Baloney. Which *NATURAL* "event" in the Earth's atmosphere that causes all the aforementioned items is the the result of "magnetic fields" to the exclusion of electrical discharge?
Give us some numbers from your theory,
Give us a physical demonstration of your theory. Where can I go on Earth to see a *NATURAL* event that is due to magnetism, that is going to emit x-rays and gamma rays and such?
e.g. what is the X-ray specturm from your electic discharges and how does it fit observations.
Electrical discharges are used to generate x-rays in your dentists office. You have to plug it in of course because it requires "electricity' (you know, those flowing charged particle thingies that make stuff work) .
You're going to have to learn to do some real experimentation, show real cause effect relationships, and figure out that that there is in fact a light source associated with both original images, specifically the discharges (or whatever you prefer) in the solar atmosphere that release such high energy photons. When you get that far, we might actually have a rational discussion. As it stands, your childish and cartoon like understanding of a RD image is preventing us from having a rational or real scientific discussion on this topic.
We have stated what all of the features in the RD - they are records of changes.
Well, we all agree that they can and do show us changes over time, but you've failed to acknowledge that the whole surface is rotating between images and therefore the "outlines" we observe are in part due to the light sources simply rotating to the right.
That is what every specific observation, by frame, location, etc. is.
This statement is a childish and stupid cop out. There are actual physical processes that cause the light to be emitted, that cause the CME event, that generate the shapes we observe in the image, etc. There are specific events that occur in the image that have specific cause/effect relationships associated with them, like that "flying stuff" we observe in all the images from the CME event. To actually "explain" this image you will need to focus on and explain (cause/effect and everything) all the important events in the image. You haven't touched nary a single one of them. You mentioned the flying stuff being associated with the CME. That's about as far as you ever got. GM blew so many important aspects of RD imaging that he's into minus territory in the credibility scale. You're hanging in there by your fingernails, but only by your fingernails. Let's see you do some real science stuff, and address some of the specific events in the image, like the peeling along the right, the angular persistent features, etc.
Your "mountain range" delusion is merely areas of increasing temperature on one side of the flares and areas of decreasing temperatures on the other side of the flares.
In the sense that the shadows in the image are caused by the rotation of the sun, and the light sources are moving left to right, ok, I agree, shadows are generated this way. The rest of your rant is pointless until you address some of the other important aspects of the image, like persistent angular features, etc.
The "mechanical aspects" of an running difference animation are easy - each frame is the record of changes between two of the original images.
That is only a layman's explanation of the general process. That is not a specific explanation related to a specific event associated with specific frames and locations in the image. You're tossing out a general explanation of RD imaging that you might have read on LMSAL's website and claiming you somehow explained *THIS SPECIFIC* image. That's not how it works. You've only explain the some of the fundamental issues, but you actually explained them incorrectly. There are two light sources, not *NO* light sources. Each original image is lit and visible due a specific *PROCESS* on the sun. It's a solar related and generated photon that hits each and every pixel of each original image. The solar process called "rotation" combined with the length of time between images will determine the total amount of movement in the image, as will any changes in the solar processes that generated the photons in each original image.
There are no light sources in the result because an RD image is no longer a photograph.
It does not matter if it is a "photograph" by your standards. It still has two original light sources, both of which are solar generated in origin. It's probably the exact same set of original light sources too because whatever caused the light in the first image is likely to be causing the same light in the second image as well. There is one set of solar light sources moving left to right in the image. To say there are "NO" light sources is irrational and physically incorrect. All the photons came from the sun, and the rotation of the sun between images will have a large effect on image.
Photographs have light sources. There might be records of changes in the positions and intensity of light sources in the RD animation.
Those "changes" you're talking about are 90% the result of rotation alone, and only maybe 10% of the actual changes we observe in a RD image are due to changes in the light source between shots.
A young child could be fooled into thinking that the RD animation have "mountain ranges" in them because they do not know better.
A 'child" might think there are no light sources. A scientist understands that the sun is the light source of both original images and the RD image as well, mostly due to rotation between images.
An older child would know:
- An RD animation only shows changes in position or intensity
An older child would understand that the sun is rotating between the images, and the light sources are staying relatively constant throughout the image.
Temperature changes on the order of several OOM's here on Earth are the direct result of electrical discharges in the atmosphere. That something a child learns as they grow older.
Thus any persistent feature is something that is always changing temperature but is not changing position.
That is not so. You are not considering the rotation aspect at all. It's changing in part simply due to rotation, not because anything actually changed much in temperatures between images.
[*]The "shadows" in the animation point in various directions.
Which side are they on typically? Hint: The sun is rotating between shots.
Until you start to acknowledge that the sun is simply rotating in between images, and that rotation shows up in the specific features in the image, we can't get very far. You're going to have to sit down and create a couple of RD images yourself like I did with those STEREO RD images on my blog page to start to understand some fundamental processes (like rotation) that have a specific effect on these images.
.
).