I already mentioned in my previous post that some of the oscillatory results I’m getting are weird. Here is another, more extreme example of that weirdness.
My hunch is this is caused by the rapid movement of the magnetic loop over the field the view. But I need to check it up.
And that means, a new approach to the analysis.
I like to watch TED talks. And one of those talks introduced an open-source machine-learning algorithm for the feature identification. And I got that proverbial light bulb turn on above my head.
I plan to use that approach for my loop analysis. The open-source code can process image per image fast, identify loops and their position. For me, that TED talk was like an early Christmas gift.
BTW. This graph I posted really shows that after the flare happens, there is a big shake up among the loops. And how I deal with such a result is the basic difference between scientist and non-scientist.
Science requires way more details and way more scrutiny before drawing the conclusions. Although conservatives do not like science, science is a perfect illustration of a conservative approach.
The over confidence is always met with the suspicion in science. (At least it is when the science is done correctly.) The fact has to be checked over and over again before a majority of the scientific community accepts it as truth. It is a slow, detailed, and very conservative approach. You can be sure that explanation is the best humanity has, and until a new one is confirmed by a rigorous process of checks, that’s it.
The hardest part of the science is forcing oneself to keep an open mind and accept the results which do not confirm the initial idea. That’s why good scientist tends to do test after the test, making sure that results are not caused by something else. And that’s why we have peer review.
See, scientists are humans, and we suffer from the all human faults as everyone else. Single scientists values hers/his own work, and tends to defend his/hers biases, as anyone else. That’s why scientific results go through peer review. Some other colleague who is not personally invested in the research might easier see mistakes. And good scientist welcomes such critique because ultimate result is correct science result. And that’s why scientists shrug off the ‘evidence’ of the type ‘it worked for my neighbor.’ Your neighbor did not bother to keep his/her biases and beliefs in check.
So although the fact that the loops go nuts after the flare is confirming my idea, I know I have to do additional analysis, I know I have to do more tests before saying “See, I was right.”