Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

2. There is not a single instance of the "type" of strike we are addressing here. I looked, I'm not sure IF I beleive it yet.

I see. Nothing exactly like your "not cosmic rays". So we're going subjective. Ok, show us some of your "not cosmic rays" which are exactly alike.

I think I specified the fundamental attributes of the "kind" of strike I'm looking for.

And, I said absolutely nothing that would indicate any degree of "subjectiveness". Where you get that? Do you think there is no data to analyze So I have to go subjective?

Think again.

3. A proton storm really IS a special case, and can not be used in the analysis of "noral" condition data. Sorry, all it really is; is noise.

Cosmic rays are "noise". The only difference between a proton storm and background levels is the flux.

Actually, cosmic rays are not noise. Noise is like "weeds"; you know those pesky flowers and other vegitation nobody likes?

Noise is data. All data can be analyzed. I'm not sure what you "see" when you look at these images, but, I sure the expirence is not very "rich" for you. When I look at these I see a zoo of different cosmic ray type and strike / streak types. And, they are all quite distinctive. Give me some more time and I'll try to show you. Until then consider this a "work in progress".

Oh, and please; do your homework.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Noise is data.

Changed your mind from this?

3. A proton storm really IS a special case, and can not be used in the analysis of "noral" condition data. Sorry, all it really is; is noise.

Which is it? Noise is data? Or is it "just noise"?

Oh, and please; do your homework.

Says the alien who knows nothing about the instruments used or how the data is processed.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

Says the alien who knows nothing about the instruments used or how the data is processed.

Rather unbecoming don't you think? Oh well, at least you're not biased.

So, please enlighten us all with your knowledge and understanding of the device and its processing. Please.

You might also throw in something about yourself that indicates you have some knowledge, expirence, whatever, that illustrates that you have soe greater capacity than me. Hell; I'll even start: MSEE, MSCS (california university), 38 years as a hardware / software engineer. Projects: Q8000, IBM-PC Clone, GM's Factory of the Future 1, Early internet gaming sites, ecommerce, the list goes on. I was involved with the early development of computer networks, speech technology, graphics,

What have you done?

I want to see some indication of expertise Phage. We all should be able to know that the primary contestants at least have some remote chance of actually knowing what they are talking about. Unless of course yu wish to continue to blow smoke, misinterpret science and technology, and generally lead away from truth.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

So, please enlighten us all with your knowledge and understanding of the device and its processing. Please.

Please see your other "not cosmic ray" thread.

What have you done?

None of your business. I am not the topic.

Unless of course yu wish to continue to blow smoke, misinterpret science and technology, and generally lead away from truth.

What is inaccurate about what I have said? What have I misinterpreted?

ATTENTION!

Please keep to the topic and just the topic! Please stop focusing on other members...as they are not the topic!

In case it has been forgotten....the topic is Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO. Debate THAT not the resumes of each other!

Thank you....

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

 

ATTENTION!

Please keep to the topic and just the topic! Please stop focusing on other members...as they are not the topic!

In case it has been forgotten....the topic is Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO. Debate THAT not the resumes of each other!

Thank you....

 

If I am not allow t know the level of expertise of those I "debate" with, then I feel there is little to no point continueing.

If I am to debate this with a "plumber" as opposed to an engineer, I see little. Most people will have little to no idea what I'm talking about if I don't "dumb it down". So, I kind of need to know "how much".

Also, if the "reader" has no idea of the technical accumen of each of the participants, how are they to know who's opinion should carry the greater weight?

So, you see, in the end; it is not abut the individual participant, but about the data. And, who's interpretation is the most valid.

Phage:

So far you haven't shown anything. You claim to have some greater knowledge about the construction and engineering of SOHO, but, you have not shown us how, nor have you shown us any engineering drawings to back up your assertations.

You have demonstrated a somewhat lacking knowledge of probability, and the nature of Cosmic Rays, not to mention data analysis. But, is that not "why" we argue these things; to see what we have overlooked, to find those "kinks" in our perception, to help us on our way to truth


If management wishes to close this discussion; so be it. It will be everybodies loss however. There is potentially a great learning opportunity here. And, maybe we can discover something ... perhaps important.

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

 

ATTENTION!

Please keep to the topic and just the topic! Please stop focusing on other members...as they are not the topic!

In case it has been forgotten....the topic is Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO. Debate THAT not the resumes of each other!

Thank you....

 

If I am not allow t know the level of expertise of those I "debate" with, then I feel there is little to no point continueing.

If I am to debate this with a "plumber" as opposed to an engineer, I see little. Most people will have little to no idea what I'm talking about if I don't "dumb it down". So, I kind of need to know "how much".

Also, if the "reader" has no idea of the technical accumen of each of the participants, how are they to know who's opinion should carry the greater weight?

So, you see, in the end; it is not abut the individual participant, but about the data. And, who's interpretation is the most valid.

Phage:

So far you haven't shown anything. You claim to have some greater knowledge about the construction and engineering of SOHO, but, you have not shown us how, nor have you shown us any engineering drawings to back up your assertations.

You have demonstrated a somewhat lacking knowledge of probability, and the nature of Cosmic Rays, not to mention data analysis. But, is that not "why" we argue these things; to see what we have overlooked, to find those "kinks" in our perception, to help us on our way to truth


If management wishes to close this discussion; so be it. It will be everybodies loss however. There is potentially a great learning opportunity here. And, maybe we can discover something ... perhaps important.

My note was clear. Debate the topic and post contents NOT who a member is. Period. If that does not happen, the thread will be closed.

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by Phage

 

No Phage you are not the topic, not any more than I am. However, our educations, our expirences, etc have a bearing on how we interpret the data. This "intel" is also valuable to the Reader as it allw him to begin to decide on who's opinion should carry the greater weight. It also let me know to which level I should "target" my remarks.

If you are educated, and have the right expirence my responses will have an entirely different "color". As it is, I have to presume that you are a high school dropout, that has only worked at McDonnales his entire life and never made manager). It also affects my frustration level.

This will be my last staff note.

TERMS & CONDITIONS OF USE
ii) You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

You can assume whatever you wish about me but your baiting is pretty juvenile.

As far as the topic goes, what exactly have I misrepresented about the science and technology? What is inaccurate about what I have said?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

You can assume whatever you wish about me but your baiting is pretty juvenile.

As far as the topic goes, what exactly have I misrepresented about the science and technology? What is inaccurate about what I have said?

Iwasn't trying to bait you, I was trying to gather intel that could help the reader, and us in this discussion.

But, that seems out of bounds. And, we are given no recourse.

So, here is what I'll do, I'll research the probability of cosmic rays, I'll post on this later, prolly a day or two given my current work load. In the meantime, why don't you learn something about prbability.

I've been thinking about the probability of a cosmic ray; it seems that few want to talk about "raw" numbers in an environment like SOHO is in. I can get the probability that one will afect my computer, considering how uch memory I have, it could be noticed. But, not so uch about probabilities in space. Common sense and logic would dictate that the probability is greater in space due the the lack of a filter.

SO, here is a thought I would throw out to see if any like it.

I "grab" all of the iages from Phage's Proto Storm, and an equal number of sequential images from a relatively "normal" period. I write an application to open each "png" and count the cosic ray strikes, compile statistics, and perhaps save. I do this to both sets of images.

From this data we derive a probability of a cosmic ray under the two conditions. Then I will "re-run" the numbers and we will see what we see.

Would that be acceptable Phage?

ETA: Oh, by the way, Phage, do you happen to know the native resolution of SOHO? I seem to be expirencing difficulty in that area. Thanks.

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

Is this what you meant to say about figure 4?

There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. In fig. 4 the two "vectors" have the "ear marks" of a cosmic ray entering at an oblique angle. The "trace" starts with great energy (as it enters the "top" (sensing area) of the device. And "looses" energy as it travels through the structure, then terminates at the substrate.

Bothe of these "traces" could easily be cosmic rays, even the terminis of the "dot" in front seems consistant with cosmic rays. So, yes, what I said.

The problem with it is the probability.
.

edit on 8-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)

When did you change your mind about that? This is in stark contrast to what you have said about this image before, for example

You may think that it is improbable that this is an actual object, and you would be right, however, the probability of an image like that being cosmic rays is orders of magnitude less. Making it far more likely to be an object.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even if entering from the side, there is a very small probability that the strike will be at the correct angle and trajectory to strike more than one cell. I suppose there is a chance that one entering frm the frnt may "so over load" the system that many are activated, but, that would "look" more like a "splotch" than anything else. I would expect to see "discharge trails" toward the edges. But, none of that is there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So why the change in opinion?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


What change of opinion?

Those "tracks" "look" like the "tracks" left by some cosmic rays. As I beleive I stated, However, the probabilities involved would suggest otherwise.

Also, at this point I don't think it prudent to call thes "formations" anything other than "formations". There is little t no evidence that would suggest "what" they are. Although in all fairness, they could be cosmic rays, on two of the examples I have shown, a case could be made that they are cosmic rays.

Those would be the two where the "arms" are converging, the third, with its "diverging" arms, is the most curious.

But, we shall see.The results and "numbers" are likely to change before onday, as I do a wee study on SOHO Cosmic Ray "hits", it should be interesting and enlightening.

What I need now is a "known refelection" for comparison. I have hundreds, perhaps thousands of different Ray strikes and streaks to look at and hopefully catalog some of them.

And speaking of "catalog". That first image in the OP I think is a "classic" 'parallel surface streak'. It enters from the edge and continues on a straight line until terminis. Also, if you lk at the beginning (nearest the edge), you can see some degree of "shading" before it becomes more "solid";; this "shading" I think is caused by a particle that is radiating energy, hence the somewhat less "solid" look to it, later as energy is lost, it becomes more "solid".

Anyway, we will soon have much more information and a tool ... so, we shall see.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

What change of opinion?

The one I just illustrated in my post. From your OP, fig. 4

There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.

Does that agree with your position on fig. 4 in these quotes?

Actually, it seems that the image is a "proper" triangle, viewed at an angle. And, it's not likely Cosmic rays, rather low probability.

Perhaps its one of these.

Referencing alpha's cosmic ray image, you can see that it is nearly "white noise", just as One should expect. Thus the formation of any shape is remote at best. Events with remote probabilities virtually never occur twice in the same region, yet, this shape has been seen several times near Sol.

The production of a straight line in natue is rare, although, it seems that "narrow" lines (1 - 2px) are indeed produced by cosmic rays, as can be seen in the image I referenced. However the "broader" lines (>= 2 - 3px) are not seen. I've seen others and this seems to be the "rule".

Does One really need all sides of a shape to recognize that shape? In this case we have two sides of a triangle. I can rotate that triangle, measure its existing sides and angle, then compute the third.

Here's the clincher for me

I'm saying that in my opinion it is probably NOT cosmic rays.

Do you see that? Here it is again, can you spot the change in opinion?

I'm saying that in my opinion it is probably NOT cosmic rays.

vs

There is very little about this image that would suggest that this wasn’t cosmic rays.

Same image. What gives?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Oh MY!!!

Did you notice the change in context?

I'm not addressing "what" these things are in this thread, only the issue of whether they might be cosmic rays or not.

In the other, ... well, what can I say? I "thought" I had stronger evidence than I actually did when I said that. There is an Image, that I'm still absoutely certain I saw, but, didn't "record", and now can't find. If I can't find it, I can't use it.

Now, I have additional data, and, I haven't actually changed my position on the starship. However, I do wish to have my ducks in a bit "neeter a row" before I start thumping on that one again. I feel the evidence is there, but, it needs developed a bit more.

In other words; I need to demonstrate that these might not be cosmic rays first, then I should illustrate how it might be a solid object. Neither will be easy

If I were a rich man I would throw money at this, since I'm not, I will throw "lines of code" at it ... I have an unlimited supply of "lines of code" ... and a fast compiler.

Does that clear it up?

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Does that clear it up?

Clear as mud. You don't seem to know whether you think fig.4 is cosmic rays or not. I can only go by what you have written and you have conflicting views on it.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


And, I fail to understand just how; you don't seem to understand that I can "think" it looks like something, but can also "think" it may be something else.

Hows this: It looks like ti could be cosmic rays, but, probability suggests something else.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Hows this: It looks like ti could be cosmic rays, but, probability suggests something else.

That's fine I guess, if that's your opinion now.
So about fig.4 you really meant to say there is very little about this image to suggest that this wasn't cosmic rays except that probability says it's probably not? If you think about it that doesn't really make sense.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

That's fine I guess, if that's your opinion now.
So about fig.4 you really meant to say there is very little about this image to suggest that this wasn't cosmic rays except that probability says it's probably not? If you think about it that doesn't really make sense.

If One keeps in mind the mechanics of how these things can be formed, it makes a great deal of sense.

The two "arms" shaded the way they are, could either be blique, but not parallel cosmic rays, or, a parial reflection off of a surface, or perhaps something we've not thought of.

That is part of the purpose here; to try and discover what these "interesting" formations are.