Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
phunk said:
Incorrect. The answer is A.
Click to expand...

Well, based on what I learned from the GIF files that Zig mentioned, that is a possibility.

I'll be honest here. The files Zig suggested were very interesting to me and not what I expected. The alignment of the exterior parts (iron, helium, photosphere) looks to match the standard solar model IMO, but the overlay of the 1700A, 1600A, and 4500A looks to me to favor a plasma separated and "layered" plasma model. I can't really say a lot more without FITS files, but I have to say that Zig's comments, and yesterday's perusal of the GIF's had a significant impact on me. I'm not sure what to think now.

The jagged dark edges of the iron line images are certainly not 'artifacts' in any way shape or form. It could be however that the folks that made that composite image "lopped off" more of the chromosphere than simply subtracting out the photosphere as I originally assumed. The positioning of the HeII emissions could be misleading in the composite image.

What still makes no sense to me is the fact that the 1600A, 1700A and 4500A all show a different diameter disk, with 4500 being the LARGEST. That's consistent with a plasma layered model, but that is not what I expected to see if the SSM were correct.

In short, after going through tons of GIF's yesterday based on Zig's suggestion, I can't make them fit either my model or the SSM. ?????

Hmm. I guess I need FITS files to say much more at this point unless you can tell me why the 1700A and 1600A both have a *SMALLER* diameter than 4500A. Any suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
I said ... "does not have that green feature in it"
Then you said ... "I see an "opaque" (GM style) horizon on that image, with the same "jagged" edges and everything."
Which part of the word "GREEN" was too much for you to handle?
Click to expand...

The "green" color is not an artifact either Tim. The color on the horizon directly relates to the colors that are assigned to the iron lines. The only thing that *might* be an "artifact" is the distance that is displayed from the opaque limbs to the chromosphere emissions as phunk stated yesterday . I can't justify that space between the iron lines and the chromosphere based on the GIF files.
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
Can you link to the two images you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Sure.

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f4500.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f1700.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f1600.gif

If you layer the two images as Zig suggested yesterday, you'll notice that the 1700A image produces a much smaller disk. The 1600A produces a *THIRD* sized disk that fits between the 4500A and 1700A. That's consistent with a plasma separated (non opaque) photosphere, but I don't know how to explain that with the SSM.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sure.

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f4500.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f1700.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/f1600.gif

If you layer the two images as Zig suggested yesterday, you'll notice that the 1700A image produces a much smaller disk. The 1600A produces a *THIRD* sized disk that fits between the 4500A and 1700A. That's consistent with a plasma separated (non opaque) photosphere, but I don't know how to explain that with the SSM.
Click to expand...

Yup, I measure just under 28000km difference in diameter between the 1700A and 4500A images. But that's assuming the images are scaled properly to match each other, which I doubt. Features near the limb don't line up between the 4500 and 1700 images, they move outward by the same amount as the scale difference between the images.

I also see differences between the images with the same filter but at different times. Did the sun's diameter change a couple percent in a few days?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If you layer the two images as Zig suggested yesterday, you'll notice that the 1700A image produces a much smaller disk. The 1600A produces a *THIRD* sized disk that fits between the 4500A and 1700A. That's consistent with a plasma separated (non opaque) photosphere, but I don't know how to explain that with the SSM.
Click to expand...

I do: the images do not cover identical solid angles. Relative sizes don't mean anything here. My first post was basically a lie: the direct superposition of images was never valid to begin with.

But that doesn't mean you can't learn something from any of those raw images. You can. In fact, you can learn something which is absolutely critical. None of the images show the sharp, smooth boundary that GeeMack pointed out here:
sdored.jpg


That boundary is not real. It is the result of a photoshop filter, used to enhance image contrast. The only image with a smooth boundary is the 4500 Angstrom image, but that's bright on the inside, not the outside.
 
phunk said:
Yup, I measure just under 28000km difference in diameter between the 1700A and 4500A images. But that's assuming the images are scaled properly to match each other, which I doubt. Features near the limb don't line up between the 4500 and 1700 images, they move outward by the same amount as the scale difference between the images.

I also see differences between the images with the same filter but at different times. Did the sun's diameter change a couple percent in a few days?
Click to expand...

Well, if the various GIFS aren't scaled properly then there isn't really much else I can learn from them. Various amounts of mass flows from the surface (wherever that might be) to the heliosphere could in fact change the various sizes of the plasma layers depending on the current flow going on at that time. I would in fact expect them to be a bit different during active vs. quiet times.
 
Ziggurat said:
I do: the images do not cover identical solid angles. Relative sizes don't mean anything here.
Click to expand...

Could you point me to the SDO specs about the different solid angles related to different channels. That was not my impression from going through the link I posted here a few weeks ago.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, if the various GIFS aren't scaled properly then there isn't really much else I can learn from them.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. You can learn that the sharp border in the composite image which you interpreted as the surface of the photosphere is an artifact of image processing, and does not appear in any of the individual images.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, there is. You can learn that the sharp border in the composite image which you interpreted as the surface of the photosphere is an artifact of image processing, and does not appear in any of the individual images.
Click to expand...

If they aren't scaled properly, then how can I tell that from the GIF's Zig? If it's valid to compare the iron lines and photosphere in those files, why can't I also compare the 1700A to the 4500A in the same way and also learn things?

You don't seem very consistent.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If they aren't scaled properly, then how can I tell that from the GIF's Zig?
Click to expand...

Because you don't need to compare them to each other, you can tell by looking at them individually. That sharp boundary doesn't exist on ANY of them, because it's an image processing artifact. It doesn't matter how you composite them, it doesn't matter how you scale them to match, you will never reproduce that sharp, smooth boundary unless you apply an artificial photoshop filter, as GeeMack said NASA told him they did. That sharp smooth boundary is not the surface of the photosphere, it's the edge of the photoshop filter.

If it's valid to compare the iron lines and photosphere in those files, why can't I also compare the 1700A to the 4500A in the same way and also learn things?
Click to expand...

Neither one is valid, Michael.

You don't seem very consistent.
Click to expand...

Because I lied. And you didn't catch it. But you should have, and that's my point. You aren't examining any of this stuff critically enough.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because you don't need to compare them to each other, you can tell by looking at them individually. That sharp boundary doesn't exist on ANY of them, because it's an image processing artifact.
Click to expand...

It is not. I can create the same "sharp border" by subtracting the 4500A diameter "disk" from the HeII image. That's what I *ASSUMED* they did in the press release image. It creates a ring that looks exactly like the one in the image, with the same "smooth' inner edge.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because I lied.
Click to expand...

I could not possibly know if the GIF's were properly scaled without examining them closely ZIG. I examined them closely enough to see that I couldn't make them fit with either solar model.

I don't have access to the FITS files Zig. Beggars like me take what they can get from the public domain at the moment. I can't "know" what's a lie and what's the truth without doing the research on the images. Sorry if that bugs you, but that's the best I can do with the images I have to work with so far.
 
phunk said:
Michael Mozina said:
Sure.

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlight/20100418_000108/

http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlig...0108/f4500.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlig...0108/f1700.gif
http://aia.lmsal.com/public/firstlig...0108/f1600.gif

If you layer the two images as Zig suggested yesterday, you'll notice that the 1700A image produces a much smaller disk. The 1600A produces a *THIRD* sized disk that fits between the 4500A and 1700A. That's consistent with a plasma separated (non opaque) photosphere, but I don't know how to explain that with the SSM.
Click to expand...
Yup, I measure just under 28000km difference in diameter between the 1700A and 4500A images. But that's assuming the images are scaled properly to match each other, which I doubt. Features near the limb don't line up between the 4500 and 1700 images, they move outward by the same amount as the scale difference between the images.

I also see differences between the images with the same filter but at different times. Did the sun's diameter change a couple percent in a few days?
Click to expand...
Some time ago now - many pages I expect - Tim Thompson wrote an excellent post on PR images and science images (actually data).

A bit later MM posted his hilarious "empirical" 6-step method for proving there is a solid iron surface below the chromosphere (or some such) using RD images (and I posted one or two comments on just how hopeless this is, in terms of the MM's declared objective).

Yet we still see MM using non-science images!

What makes this all so astonishingly ironic is MM's bald, bold, unambiguous declarations concerning the role of maths in observations and empirical science in general (you haven't forgotten have you dear reader?)

To take just one, tiny, example:

To determine where any feature that you unambiguously and objectively identify in the data (image) from the output datastream from one waveband channel of one AIA telescope is - in relation to a disk of radius r, centered at location (x, y) on the sky, at a distance d from the SDO - involves an enormous amount of work, and a great deal of math (much of it far, far more advanced than any MM has himself used, in any post here in JREF, to date).

To determine the spatial relationship between two such features - one from channel A on telescope A, the other from channel B on telescope B - is doubly challenging.

Now the people who designed, built, calibrated, and operate SDO and the AIA put a huge amount of effort into addressing these questions (and many more besides of course), and have published a great deal of material on their solutions, and from this material you can at least begin to develop a plan to make estimates of the relative separation of a pair of features, one in a channel A/telescope dataset, the other in a channel B/telescope B dataset.

If you want to produce a robust estimate, one that is independently verifiable (where one 'line' is in relation to another 'line', say), you will have to do a lot of detailed, quantitative work. Curiously (or not), MM has declared that all such work is invalid, and that he can overthrow standard solar models merely by visual inspection of PR images. :jaw-dropp

What sorts of things might you have to address, to make robust estimates of the projected separation of two features in separate AIA datasets, two 'lines' say?

Here are some:
* geometric distortion (crudely, the image of a perfectly rectangular grid will not be perfectly rectangular; how to map one to the other?)
* SDO's distance from the Sun
* image scale (crudely, how many arcsecs does one pixel correspond to?)
* unambiguous, quantitative, objective definition of the location of a feature (think of how you'd go about defining the position of a crater on the Moon, say, from an image taken through your backyard telescope)
* registration (crudely, what is the difference between the centres of two images, and how much is one rotated with respect to the other?)

On top of that, to be of any use scientifically, you need to make robust estimates of your uncertainties, and explain - objectively, in a manner that is independently verifiable - how you accounted for the known uncertainties (if you aren't familiar with 'uncertainty', think 'error') ... etc.

Who wants to bet that MM hadn't even thought of most of this (before he read it, assuming he does), and is essentially clueless wrt actually *doing* any of the above?
 
Last edited:
One simple RD composite image based on the gold LSMAL high cadence/averaged RD technique, and the base of the chromosphere should tell us a lot DRD. Anytime you "insiders" want to push the process along, I've already made my "prediction" on the outcome. I don't really know what more I might do now based on the information I have access to at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It is not. I can create the same "sharp border" by subtracting the 4500A diameter "disk" from the HeII image.
Click to expand...

Thus creating an image artifact.

That's what I *ASSUMED* they did in the press release image.
Click to expand...

Just like you assumed that all the images covered identical solid angles. And that's the problem: you keep assuming things when you don't know if they're true. In this case, they are not.
 
Ziggurat said:
Thus creating an image artifact.
Click to expand...

That is *NOT* an image artifact Zig. That gives us an idea of where the photosphere ends and the chromopshere begins along the limbs.

Just like you assumed that all the images covered identical solid angles. And that's the problem: you keep assuming things when you don't know if they're true. In this case, they are not.
Click to expand...

I didn't "assume" anything Zig, I checked it out for myself. I found that I could not get it to match either solar model, so it is only logical that the GIFS are not scaled properly and I cannot use them to determine the outcome of this debate as they current exist.

The only thing that I know is "true" is that the GIFs in their current form really don't help me decide anything without doing more research.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I could not possibly know if the GIF's were properly scaled without examining them closely ZIG.
Click to expand...

But you assumed they were anyways. Which was my point. You never should have assumed they were, because nothing ever actually indicated they were.

I can't "know" what's a lie and what's the truth without doing the research on the images.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't that you didn't know that I was lying. Hell, it didn't matter if I was lying or just mistaken. The point is, it should have occurred to you that scaling could be an issue, and that nothing about the images (or my claims about the images) indicated that the scaling had been checked. Likewise, you shouldn't trust the publicity photo you've based your entire argument on, because you don't know how it was made.
 
Ziggurat said:
But you assumed they were anyways. Which was my point. You never should have assumed they were, because nothing ever actually indicated they were.
Click to expand...

I didn't *ASSUME* anything Zig, I simply compared them all and realized they don't jive with any solar model in their raw form. That's all I "assumed".

I could not know if you were "lying" or not until I checked out *ALL* of the images. You'll note I didn't just stop with the two images you suggested, now did I?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That is *NOT* an image artifact Zig. That gives us an idea of where the photosphere ends and the chromopshere begins along the limbs.
Click to expand...

Not if it's not correctly scaled. So, how do you know the filter that was applied to the publicity image was scaled correctly? Do you have any reason to believe that the filter was even based on the 4500 Angstrom image?

I didn't "assume" anything Zig, I checked it out for myself. I found that I could not get it to match either solar model, so it is only logical that the GIFS are not scaled properly and I cannot use them to determine the outcome of this debate as they current exist.
Click to expand...

And yet, you never said anything about that possibility until you were told about it.

But what would you have done if it HAD matched your solar model? Would you have concluded that it supported your solar model, even though it could still have been the result of improper scaling?
 
Ziggurat said:
Michael Mozina said:
It is not. I can create the same "sharp border" by subtracting the 4500A diameter "disk" from the HeII image.
Click to expand...
Thus creating an image artifact.
That's what I *ASSUMED* they did in the press release image.
Click to expand...
Just like you assumed that all the images covered identical solid angles. And that's the problem: you keep assuming things when you don't know if they're true. In this case, they are not.
Click to expand...
There's more.

MM apparently is unaware of *how* the images are (were) created (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts).

As the descriptions of how the images are (were) created involves a great deal of math far beyond that which MM has demonstrated a command of so far, even if he were aware, he wouldn't understand it (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts; check out the ones on the Casimir effect, or magnetic reconnection, for example).

Even if MM did understand how the images are (were) created, the fact that he chose PR images to stake his "theory" (and reputation) on strongly suggests that the details of how the images are (were) created are irrelevant to the so-called test he posted (read his posts - in this thread - again, paying particular attention to his responses to the many others, by others, who clearly stated some of the many shortcomings - shall we say - in his method).

And that, in turn, leads us to the well-founded conclusion that there is, fundamentally, no difference between MM's idea and religious dogma (as he has presented that idea, in this thread).
 
Michael,
You keep saying if only you had the FITS file.
Can you tell me why?
What is the difference between FITS, TIFF, JPG and GIF?

What parameters make the FITS file the key ?:confused:
 
dasmiller said:
Do you still believe that the 'B' line in the SDO composite image is not an artifact? If so, why?
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.

I see nothing in the GIFs or the public release image that looks to be an "artifact" in any way. The only thing that could be an "artifact" is the distance issue. In other words, they could have subtracted out a larger diameter disk than the photosphere itself, but why would they do that?

Now that I have more GIFs to work with, and I understand a bit about why nothing jives to any solar model, maybe I can move forward based on attempting to scale the other wavelengths. Frankly that is a job for Mr. Spock IMO. :)
 
Skwinty said:
Michael,
You keep saying if only you had the FITS file.
Can you tell me why?
What is the difference between FITS, TIFF, JPG and GIF?

What parameters make the FITS file the key ?:confused:
Click to expand...

The FITS file typically contains a lot of data other than just the raw image. It provides necessary information to properly align the image. Without such information, the best I can do is "guess" at what that GIF represents and I'd have to "align" everything by hand. The margin of error goes off the scale if you simply try to do things without the FITS files. The FITS files are a lot like an XML file. They include data, not just the image itself.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
There's more.

MM apparently is unaware of *how* the images are (were) created (there is an abundance of objective proof, in the form of MM's own posts).
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying that point DRD. I "assumed" that they scaled things properly in the public release image. That's the only "assumption" that can burn me at this point. There are no other potential "artifacts" in the image. That whole claim was baloney. The opaque outline in the iron ion wavelengths all fit to each other by the way along that same opaque line in the raw GIF's. FYI, I "predicted" that a long time ago.

The only thing I can really do is go by Kosovichev's data, go by those MDI images from SDO, and go by what I've learned over the last five years. I have every reason to believe that there is nothing wrong with the public release images, and that they correctly reflect the physics of the sun in terms of the relationships between images. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please produce it.
 
Last edited:
Michael, As a minimum I would suggest buying, reading and understanding "The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing" by Richard Berry and James Burnell.

This would give you a better understanding of the subject.
You also get some software called AIP4WIN.
Got loads of complicated functions for the @HUGE@ FITS files.
Lots of processing power required:rolleyes:
 
Skwinty said:
Michael, As a minimum I would suggest buying, reading and understanding "The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing" by Richard Berry and James Burnell.

This would give you a better understanding of the subject.
You also get some software called AIP4WIN.
Got loads of complicated functions for the @HUGE@ FITS files.
Lots of processing power required:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Processing power shouldn't be a problem due to my line of work. Thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I see nothing in the GIFs or the public release image that looks to be an "artifact" in any way. The only thing that could be an "artifact" is the distance issue. In other words, they could have subtracted out a larger diameter disk than the photosphere itself, but why would they do that?
Click to expand...

They did it to normalize the brightness when merging images of different features, to make a pretty press release image. As to why they didn't exactly match the size of the disk of the sun when applying that filter, you'll have to ask them, but I'd assume they didn't care too much about such a detail because they didn't intend for anyone to attempt scientific analysis of a PR image.
 
phunk said:
They did it to normalize the brightness when merging images of different features, to make a pretty press release image. As to why they didn't exactly match the size of the disk of the sun when applying that filter, you'll have to ask them, but I'd assume they didn't care too much about such a detail because they didn't intend for anyone to attempt scientific analysis of a PR image.
Click to expand...

Well, I am technically only trying to use that image to verify Kosovichev's data. The fact it fits so perfectly, right down to the best margin of errors I could extract from each method sure bolsters my confidence in those numbers. I need to see the RD images and FITS files to really tell anything else about the images in question. The best I could hope to do is utilize that image to verify that 4800-6000km figure that Kosovichev's data suggested. At that 4800km point, the mass flows all go from vertical to horizontal, indicating the point at which the mass flows are related to "current flow' through the shell rather than related to the ion mass flow of the "tornado" under the sunspot. It just cannot be a "coincidence" that these numbers work out to within 24KM at the low end, and 40-60Km at the high end. Somehow those numbers must be related. It think I even know how they are physically related, specifically by the dark opaque surface we see all along the limb of the public release composite image at point A.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

But, for the 4th time - why do you think that? I and others have pointed out aspects of the image that suggest a photoshop artifact (unnatural smoothness of the B line, the fact that B is not concentric with A, the fact that the green color doesn't vary with depth) - are there aspects of the image that you think are not consistent with a photoshop artifact?

What aspects of the picture I posted in 3058 would make you say "oh, that's an artifact" or "oh, that's real?"
 
Skwinty said:
Michael,
Look at these pictures for the perfect example of PR vs Science pictures.
You will notice the PR sun pix have many rings around them due to compositing.



http://thebigfoto.com/best-of-soho-i
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I was really only trying to compare that image to the numbers I got from the Heliosiesmology data. The fact that they come out so closely just doesn't seem like a "coincidence' from my perspective. I understand that tying to use a PR image to extract scientific data is not a "good practice", and it's certainly not my first choice. About all I can do is "wait and see", but now at least I have more confidence in the numbers I pulled from Kosovichev's data. I still need to see the RD images to really know for sure if I'm right or I'm wrong. That is my next logical step, but I'll have to wait for quite some time to have that kind of access to the data files.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I do not believe it is an artifact. I believe it is the point where the chromosphere meets the photosphere when everything is properly scaled. All they did is take the HeII image (scaled properly), and subtracted out the diameter of the photosphere (scaled properly) and what we are left with is the distance from the "surface of the sun" (my definition) and the base of the chromosphere.
Click to expand...

You have invented a procedure for what they did out of thin air. You don't know that this is what happened. Hell, you didn't even know scaling was even an issue until it was pointed out to you. You've got no idea whether that circular filter is the right size. And you won't even bother to ask NASA about it like GeeMack did.
 
And, of course, MM lied to me when I asked if he'd properly researched the images to rule out any alternate hypothesis before proclaiming them as support for his theory...you know, the basic step of insuring your data is good before you present it that every real scientist shoudl follow.

Really, how hard is an email to NASA asking about the photo? How about waiting until you can get the actual data instead of the PR data? And, of course, Zig's commetns about scaling and such that should be obvious.
 
dasmiller said:
But, for the 4th time - why do you think that? I and others have pointed out aspects of the image that suggest a photoshop artifact (unnatural smoothness of the B line,
Click to expand...

I got exactly that same "smoothness" just by subtracting the diameter of the photosphere from the HeII image. That's not an "artifact", that's simply a function of the mathematical process of subtracting the photosphere from the chromosphere.

the fact that B is not concentric with A,
Click to expand...

I can't see well enough along the right side to determine that. I can play with the contrast of the images however and see it's there. I just can't measure it all that accurately.

the fact that the green color doesn't vary with depth)
Click to expand...

In a "transparent", highly ionized atmosphere, it wouldn't.

are there aspects of the image that you think are not consistent with a photoshop artifact?
Click to expand...

I played with photoshop all night long last night and I assure that that nothing in that image could possibly be an "artifact" other than the exception I noted about the diameter of the disk they removed from the chromosphere image. That's the only "artifact" they could have introduced into that image.

The color I came up with in any iron line images was entirely dependent upon the color I selected. I mostly played with all the iron line images to make sure they all aligned themselves along that same darkening region. They do.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That is my next logical step, but I'll have to wait for quite some time to have that kind of access to the data files.
Click to expand...


I predict that the FITS files , header data and array values will not confirm or corroborate your notions no matter how long you wait for them.

Just my honest opinion.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom