Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
First, (all?) the references for (all?) the images in your paper are websites, and a mixture of .jpg and .gif files at that. Why did you not obtain the native FITS files?
|
I obtained most of the RAW dit video directly from the SOHO website. If you follow the link the archives, you'll find all the grey video located there. All images presented on my website are snapshots taken from these vidoes using Quicktime. I simply copied and pasted the Quicktime snapshots in Microsofts Movie maker program and used a "morph" between snapshots to simulate movement from one from to the next. I did not alter or change these images in any way.
Quote:
|
Second, your analyses seem to have been (with the exception of SERTS - see below*) entirely of the 'photointerpretation' kind - i.e. you looked at an image and you made a word picture interpretation of it (or several). In particular, you seem to have no quantitative model, based on the physics which one learns when one does a university degree in that subject.
|
If you want a "physics" based answer, I suggest you study the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He studied lunar soil samples and comet debris. My model however was in fact based on direct observation as you suggest.
No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.
I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?
Quote:
|
Nor do you seem to have attempted to 'ground' the reader in how SOHO, etc obtain the data you use, what the observatory operators claim the data represent, how they were gathered, processed, etc (other than provide a link to some websites). This may seem a nit, but IMHO it's not. For starters, webpages are somewhat ephemeral, so if I wanted to check your sources for myself, in a few years' time, I may not be able to do so.
|
I don't think that's a minor nit pick actually. I need to make some time to document my images better. I'll have to quit responding to messages in the forum for awhile and apply some of the feedback I've gotten to my website sooner or later. All of the images on my website come straight from the SOHO or TRACE archives, or from Harvard or Stanford. I made only the running difference movies from SOHO. All the rest are public domain photos and videos.
Quote:
|
Finally, for today, there are the 26 "Predictions Of A 21st Century Solid Surface Electrical Model". All of these are qualitative. How far along are you in terms of building a quantitative model?
|
I'm currently working on a joint effort with Dr. Manuel. I hope to update my manuscript in another week or so to include the data from the other 3 satellites from my evidence page as well as links to Dr. Manuels work. You might check back in a week. I should have it finished by then. I'll probably change some wording as well and use the term iron rather than ferrite. I thought it was a clever idea at first to talk about a magnetic ferrite, but I'm finding it confuses some poeple. The term IRON would be a better choice in certain sentences of the manuscript.
Not really. I ASSUMED that readers had some understanding of valence shells and energy states and some understanding of nuclear physics. That turns out to be a bad assumption on my part. I think I'll reference Dr. Manuels work a lot more often in the next "draft".
Thanks for your feedback by the way. I appreciate it. |
Thank you for your reply.
As you indicate you are working on a quantitative model, I will wait until you have it ready before I ask you any further questions about it, and will work from your document in asking questions.
For today then, some (minor) clarifications, and responses to your questions of me.
The importance of using
FITS files is many-fold; for your idea, you may find it important for the following reasons:
- they carry provenance (in the headers)
- there's no loss of information (unlike many common image compression schemes)
- recovery of fully characterised, 'output from the instrument', quantitative data is usually assured
- your analyses can be fairly easily verified and validated, independently.
The importance of relating your data processing (image processing, in your case I guess) to the 'user guides' from the 'observatory staff' is so you can show your readers that you have understood the capabilities of the observatory and instruments (and, almost always, the data reduction pipelines), especially their known limitations, systematic errors, and so on. (You can probably imagine how annoying responses to your work - along the lines of "Michael's image analysis is deficient in the following 987 ways {looong list}" - would be!).
Quote:
No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.
I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?
|
I have only just started to read the material Dr. Manuel has on his website, so I really can't comment about his work.
However, I do note that there appear to be quite a few differences between the 26 predictions in your paper and what I have found so far from Dr. Manuel's website (apart from the fact that he seems to have at least some quantitative conclusions and you, as yet, have none).