Today's X1 flare - CME or Laser Beam???

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Why did they change the pictures?

I'm not sure they did. SDO has 3 DIFFERENT instruments onboard that look at different things.
SDO

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Why did they change the pictures? Isn't this supposed to be science? It's not some glamour shot on Facebook......

They didn't change the picture. The second image is the same as the first in higher resolution. You are given your choice of different versions based on how much bandwidth you want to use.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Why did they change the pictures? Isn't this supposed to be science? It's not some glamour shot on Facebook......

They didn't change the picture. The second image is the same as the first in higher resolution. You are given your choice of different versions based on how much bandwidth you want to use.

I find it quite humorous how many on here are so quick to tell me what I'm seeing and not seeing, I'm here to learn but I also have multiple University degrees in science, have traveled around the world and lived in other countries, sold a successful business by my mid-thirties, and yet I cannot tell the difference from a straight line with continuous width from one that does not have continuous width?

Here again is the original:



And NASA's new and "enhanced" one:



I can tell the difference between doctored and high resolution.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

I find it quite humorous how many on here are so quick to tell me what I'm seeing and not seeing, I'm here to learn but I also have multiple University degrees in science, have traveled around the world and lived in other countries, sold a successful business by my mid-thirties, and yet I cannot tell the difference from a straight line with continuous width from one that does not have continuous width?

I'm an underachieving moron, and even I know that you lose a lot of detail when you upload an image to YouTube, which is what the top picture is. A screen grab from YouTube. Where is the detail in the prominences? Why does the surface look washed out, rather than granular? You are interpreting the greater detail of a higher resolution image as "doctoring." Perhaps you have spent too much time in academia; in the real world, we can all see that those images are identical, except for the resolution.

By the way, there are other sources you can used to corroborate solar observations, you know. I don't see any X-shaped laser beams here, do you?

howard.astro.ucla.edu...

obs.astro.ucla.edu...

Originally posted by DJW001
By the way, there are other sources you can used to corroborate solar observations, you know. I don't see any X-shaped laser beams here, do you?

howard.astro.ucla.edu...

obs.astro.ucla.edu...

Your statement above did give me a laugh - you sound like one of my buddies.

Anyway, I never said it was a laser beam, even though in my title I asked that question - the inference I was trying to attempt was that it looked like a laser beam - obviously if there were some kind of energy pulse that huge on the Sun that wasn't a solar flare I wouldn't even begin to try to classify it - and laser beam was the only reference point I had for any kind of physical description.

Also, as I'm sure you realize, the above links are probably not the final word on pulsed energy in the Universe.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

I can tell the difference between doctored and high resolution.

Can you tell the difference between doctored and possibly a layered composite image from the multiple instruments on SDO?

FYI, I'm not a NASA apologist so you can save all the slander for someone who cares. At the same time I have no axe to grind with them either. Try to stick to your topic, which is caused by the cameras. Have you checked out the link to www.cameratechnica.com... yet?
Evidently not, why bother with the facts? They just interfere with the fun.

ETA:

NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash:

This is written just above the color image you posted from spaceweather.com
Your first image looks like it's from HMI only. Have you read what I linked about the DIFFERENT instruments onboard SDO? Willful ignorance allows the imagination to run free I suppose.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Why did they change the pictures? Isn't this supposed to be science? It's not some glamour shot on Facebook......

They didn't change the picture. The second image is the same as the first in higher resolution. You are given your choice of different versions based on how much bandwidth you want to use.

I find it quite humorous how many on here are so quick to tell me what I'm seeing and not seeing, I'm here to learn but I also have multiple University degrees in science, have traveled around the world and lived in other countries, sold a successful business by my mid-thirties, and yet I cannot tell the difference from a straight line with continuous width from one that does not have continuous width?

Could you kindly inform us what degrees you hold? The thread topic is not about you of course, but making statements like that makes one curious what fields of sciences you hold an accredited degree in.

I lived around the world too and visited many places both as a kid growing up and later while I was in the Navy. What places have you lived at?

As for the flare pictures, it looks like a artifact to me, and as was pointed out, YouTube videos degrade the quality of the pictures due to how the video is compressed for online streaming. Would be interesting to see the originals.

reply to post by Argyll


Actually if you took a picture of the sun from earth, you would get mysterious black spots instead. The camera can't process such intense light without a lens filter.

Glare is caused by a significant ratio of luminance between the task (that which is being looked at) and the glare source. Factors such as the angle between the task and the glare source and eye adaptation have significant impacts on the experience of glare.

Glare

reply to post by eriktheawful

Would be interesting to see the originals.

They are "originals". www.spaceweather.com....

The first one looks like this M-Class flare from July 4th.

This image, captured by the Solar Dynamics Observatory, shows the M5.3 class solar flare that peaked on July 4, 2012, at 5:55 AM EDT. The flare is shown in the 131 Angstrom wavelength, a wavelength that is particularly good for capturing the radiation emitted from flares. The wavelength is typically colorized in teal as shown here.

NASA


Note to PX: AN M-Class flare with an "X" pattern. How about that?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Yep, that looks like a classic Diffraction Spike



I've always thought they look cool myself.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

So, if everything about this "flare" is normal, why is the Space Weather image now heavily photoshopped and changed from the original image? The new image alters the pencil thin/laser like appearance of the original image. What are they trying to hide? Anyone who believes what NASA is feeding them is truly gullible.

Here is the original image:

Here is the "new" image on space weather (from the video):

If you can't spot the difference I cannot help you, and will leave you to your soon to be determined fate/karma.

edit on 7-7-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addendum

Would you please hurry up and post your ultimate planet X thread and please stop using a threatening tone telling posters that see differently from you.

Oh wise one, would you please tell me my fate, whats in store for my future?

What have I done right or wrong to have karma determine my fate?

Please do tell oh wise one _javascript:icon('')

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

If you can't spot the difference I cannot help you, and will leave you to your soon to be determined fate/karma

I'm curious you find my above statement threatening. All I said is that I would leave the poster to his fate/karma - how is that threatening? I must assume you understand the concept of karma and further infer that if you find that statement threatening - that you feel you have done sufficiently "bad" things in your life to warrant unpleasant karma - otherwise it wouldn't be threatening to you.

Anyways, I said it as a joke - I should have added a smile or a wink at the end of the sentence. I certainly didn't want to alarm anyone. I have read that only those that have interfered in the free will of other souls will suffer a truly horrible karma - if you haven't done that you have nothing to worry about.

Did you know light can activate your DNA? I think these pulses may be activating our DNA in some way - I must explore this further.

Anyway, I'm afraid we're all going to have to agree to disagree - that X-flare looked too highly ordered to be anything natural - just like the triangle on the Sun. And until I can by-pass NASA and fly a spaceship out there myself or I'm convinced NASA has changed it's ways and not anymore primarily an arm of the defense and intelligence agencies - I refuse to believe anything they say. They cannot be trusted. Don't be gullible.

Would you please hurry up and post your ultimate planet X thread and please stop using a threatening tone telling posters that see differently from you.

This may be a moot point now. I've recently done more research and discovered that if you are mentally, spiritually and physically prepared you can weather any earth changes and take part in the new golden age.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

that X-flare looked too highly ordered to be anything natural

What do you think it is then?

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Anyway, I'm afraid we're all going to have to agree to disagree - that X-flare looked too highly ordered to be anything natural - just like the triangle on the Sun.

Wait. I'm confused now.

What you see for the flare looks too highly ordered to you.

But the deffraction spikes in the starfield picture I posted do not look highly ordered to you?

Could you explain why that is?

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Anyway, I'm afraid we're all going to have to agree to disagree - that X-flare looked too highly ordered to be anything natural - just like the triangle on the Sun.

Wait. I'm confused now.

What you see for the flare looks too highly ordered to you.

But the deffraction spikes in the starfield picture I posted do not look highly ordered to you?

Could you explain why that is?

edit on 8-7-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

Sure, but I would have thought it would be obvious. That picture you gave was quite beautiful - but I have no idea where it came from or what it is - how close or far from the light it was taken - it could be CGI for all I know - but I do know where the picture I took is from - capturing natural phenomenon - that do not appear to have the random/chaotic pattern associated with fluid systems as the surface of the Sun is. I wish I could give formulae/laws for why it should not be this way, but astrophysics, thermodyanamics and fluid dynamics are not my strong suits - though I do have some basic understanding.

I just know when I'm seeing natural phenomenon as opposed to artificial phenomenon and do not need a PhD in astrophysics to prove it, I would no more expect to see a giant pulsing "X" with a straight line beam of light coming out of the Sun anymore than I would expect to see such a thing in my campfire - where the thermodynamic properties are essentially the same.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

that X-flare looked too highly ordered to be anything natural

What do you think it is then?

I truly have no idea, but if forced to guess, some might be:

1. Something to do with the giant triangle on the Sun, as this event appears near to one of it's corners.

2. Bleeding off excess energy so as not to harm humans.

3. Activation of our DNA.

4. An unmistakeable sign to humans that other intelligent life is out there - which seems to have failed.

A blink of light, nothing more... Laser? Jeee bus,,,

I think most of the normal posters have tried to explain this, but just to add my own thoughts (I logged in at work to post this as it was too much of a head shaker not too).

The artifact is either lense flare or camera overload, nothing more, nothing less, it is the same effect your eyes (or pocket camera) see when looking at bright street lights or car main beams.

The two different pictures are either different filters/cameras on SOHO, or they have been enhanced to highlight different features, similar to what they do do Mars pictures (False colour).

Nothing to see here that is out of the ordinary......next....

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

So, if everything about this "flare" is normal, why is the Space Weather image now heavily photoshopped and changed from the original image? The new image alters the pencil thin/laser like appearance of the original image. What are they trying to hide? Anyone who believes what NASA is feeding them is truly gullible.

Nothing has changed...except for what image spaceweather used...

This image:



Is looking at the sun at 131 angstroms.


Direct link to the latest image HERE

This image:



Is a combination of 3 wavelengths, I believe that it is a combination of 094, 335 and 193 angstroms...

Direct link to it HERE

You can see all of the different wavelengths at the SDO webpage HERE.