That is certainly true of the images in question.

Well, I'm quite in agreement it's not the "best" tool for this specific task, but assuming the techiniques used did not change the data in any way, the data would be "accurate" no matter what package is used. I hear your point however and my experiences with Photoshop (even with extensions) make it pretty clear it's not well suited to this kind of work specifically.

In an of itself, you are correct, though it would certainly isolate the areas that emit the most light and the areas that do not. Many areas that are "dark" in the original three images (171, 195 and 284A) are "painted" blue by Lockheed, which presumably represent HIGHER temperatures than the areas that are lit.

In this particular case, I'm inclined to agree that a "better" software tool would be quite helpul from a purely mathematical perspective. On the other hand, adding the black and white images together show areas of the surface that remain dark yet are colored blue in processed image. That does not jive with their explanation.

The key reason I have tried to introduce other satellite images like RHESSI, and added the link from Maryland University is to demonstrate that the highest electron concentrations, and the highest temperature plasma is found in the arcs/loops. I have seen this effect since the very first Yohkoh image I looked at. It never occured to me that this issue would ever even be in doubt. I assumed everyone already KNEW that the loops were the "hottest" things we see based on the fact that these loops/arcs emit the highest energy photons. It never occured to me that this aspect of solar physics was ever in question, even in gas model theory.

This is at best an incomplete statement – observations are only part of the story. An observation is worse than useless if you misapply it: it leads you in the wrong direction. Observations in and of themselves are important, even critical, but they must be interpreted. Therein lies the rub.

Thousands upon thousands of words have been written here, but it really still boils down to the same thing we have been saying since Word One: you've been simply looking at images and interpreting them without the benefit of any math, physics, or even understanding of how the images are made. There have been countless posts here trying to show you how to apply any and all of these three things, yet you have studiously avoided doing so. After all this time, that's a banning offense by itself.

But we also have a rule here about answering direct questions in a timely manner. Nereid asked you questions, and gave you two days to answer them. You then promised multiple times that you'd respond to his pointed questions next. You didn't. In fact, it's been 12 days since the questions were asked, and you've posted in other threads since then, but still have not answered the questions. In fact, this can be traced even farther back to October of last year, still with no real answer. Then, when you do post again in that thread, it’s about your solar model, and does not answer the imaging questions asked of you.

Nereid and I are in agreement about this. I and the moderators here have bent over backwards for you, hoping against hope you'd post an actual quantitative reply to any of the questions asked of you, and it's clear you never will.

I cannot make this any more clear:

1) Looking at pictures posted on the net, even looking at raw and processed data, does not support your ideas if you don't understand the processes behind how the data were taken and the basic physical processes involved, and

2) People must answer direct questions asked of them, especially in the ATM forum, doubly especially when a moderator/admin asks them.

Given this, I am banning Michael Mozina permanently. I am also closing this thread.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com