The mind-blowing game-changer you can't unsee.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by HiramA
Do you consider this a reliable benchmark?

Are you trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing in something different?

Look at the animated gif roncoallstar just posted showing a relatively stable corona.
Perfectly stable? no.
Stable enough to tell it's not rotating? yes.

"Are you trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing in something different?"
I am presenting new evidence. Why would I obfuscate my own thread?
Dissenters have been obfuscating this thread at will.

"Stable enough to tell it's not rotating?"
CMEs do not rotate, but they move and they don't last very long as seen in the 2 hr. time-lapse, wave. When interpreting images over spans of days and months, a flare is a bad reference point.

reply to post by raymundoko


Thank you for replying and providing that explanation, because once again you have changed my mind. It truly is an illusion and for some reason I couldn't quite understand it, but what you just posted paints a pretty clear picture. You are probably right, my original post was correct, and I feel I have done all of the research I am capable of here. If our results are incorrect, I don't see how, but I just don't know at this point as I have spent way too much time on this in the past few days.

Good luck everyone.

reply to post by HiramA


No, a flare lasts for, one more time, HOURS DAYS AND WEEKS depending on their scale. That prominence is clearly MASSIVE which means it would last for many hours. More than enough time for the roll to complete. Again, remember the sun is only about 3/4 of diameter of the occulting disk. What you are doing now is trying to find a straw man argument to distract from the fact that that prominence clearly does not rotate with the artifacts on the lens. However a straw man argument actually needs some type of weight behind it. Yours has none.

Originally posted by HiramA
I am presenting new evidence. Why would I obfuscate my own thread?

To avoid addressing this which proves your claims that the sun is stabilized in your rotating gif false:

Originally posted by roncoallstar
reply to post by raymundoko

 

We seem to be offtrack here. Nevermind the corona. I am talking about the original camera roll. Look at it.

via Imgflip GIF Maker

It shows a relatively stable, non rotating corona, and the objects rotating with the camera rotation. So this gif shows what a relatively stable corona looks like when the camera rotates, not yours in the OP.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by HiramA

 

Unfortunately you are wrong again:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The white circle is where the actual sun is.

Your first image
From NASA:
"The red circles highlight a few of the image artifacts caused by defects in the COR1-A field lens. The blue circle highlights dark areas where image saturation is occurring."

The above is from Stereo A. This satellite's images were not used in any of my first three .gifs.
I do not know why it is referenced.


Your second image
From NASA:
"The red circles highlight a few of the image artifacts caused by defects in the COR1-B field lens."

These fingernail looking wavy lines are pointed out as being artifacts. Why then pick out these small features if the entire disk around the occluder is an artifact? Wouldn't they instead have said that everything between this line and that line is an artifact as has been claimed earlier in this thread?

reply to post by HiramA


Because it looks like they used snagit to do their editing...you really are trying everything you can here, but for the most part this thread was /threaded a long time ago.

They simply use circular markers to show you what the artifacts look like, they are not saying those are the only artifacts. If they say this is an artifact, and the rest looks exactly the same, then everything is an artifact. It seems now you are going to try and still convince people that the dark ring around the occulting disk is the corona of the sun, when in fact I already showed everyone, including you, where the boundary of the sun is. It is the white circle inside the occulting disk. As you can see that is nowhere NEAR what you are trying to purport as the corona.

Originally posted by HiramAThese fingernail looking wavy lines are pointed out as being artifacts. Why then pick out these small features if the entire disk around the occluder is an artifact? Wouldn't they instead have said that everything between this line and that line is an artifact as has been claimed earlier in this thread?

From the program site:

They are caused by small defects in the field lens of each COR1 telescope, though some have also appeared since launch due to the migration of individual dust particles onto the surface of the field lens. Although they can appear anywhere within the image, they are most visible near the edge of the occulter. These artifacts appear as bright rings with a dark center, reflecting the shape of the input aperture with the occulter in the center. Generally, only one side or edge of the ring is visible, giving the artifact a "fingernail" appearance.

The "Rings" entirely encircle the occulter. There are MANY rings. This causes the appearance of many rings around the occulter, which you are confusing for the corona. However, depending on where the most luminosity is coming from, only parts of these artifacts will appear at any given time.

reply to post by finitedualities


After viewing the images in the OP and after reading explanations presented in the thread, I am of the opinion the images are lens artifacts.

FFS, they don't give up easily, and turn to using terms like "ignorant" and "small-minded" very quickly.

Just to be sure, I re-read the first 4 pages of the thread and I failed to find one instance where any critical analysis of the OP images were accompanied by the terms "ignorant," and/or "small-minded." On the other hand, I did find two instances where the OP: 1) Asked a member if he/she was working for NASA, appearing as an attempt to smear or besmirch the authenticity of the member's contribution; and, 2) characterized opposing explanations offered by other members as, "diversionary tactics."

reply to post by HiramA


I already answered your question.

Again and with a new image:




That massive outburst which is several times larger than the sun is a CME..do you think the label is going to be way inside by the white circle in the occulter (which is the location of the boundary of the sun) or on the CME itself?

reply to post by HiramA


I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I would think these labels are demonstrating coronal mass ejection spots in a place where we can see them in the images. We cannot see the surface of the Sun in these images.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by finitedualities

 

After viewing the images in the OP and after reading explanations presented in the thread, I am of the opinion the images are lens artifacts.

FFS, they don't give up easily, and turn to using terms like "ignorant" and "small-minded" very quickly.

Just to be sure, I re-read the first 4 pages of the thread and I failed to find one instance where any critical analysis of the OP images were accompanied by the terms "ignorant," and/or "small-minded." On the other hand, I did find two instances where the OP: 1) Accused a member of working for NASA; and, 2) characterized opposing explanations offered by other members as, "diversionary tactics."

I did not write what is presented in your quote. Not saying you said I did either, still...

"Accused a member of working for NASA"
Interesting phrasing. I asked if someone worked at NASA. This is not an accusation.
I've had posts removed and paid the penalty as have many many others.
Now that the mods have said their word, I thought we could move past this.

reply to post by HiramA

Interesting phrasing. I asked if someone worked at NASA. This is not an accusation.

Correct. My sincere apologies.

2nd line.

Also, as Hiram even said, I was wrong for bringing that up and I agree I should have been warned for it. Let's move on. Nothing I said changes the pretty solid damning proof I have posted throughout this thread.

reply to post by raymundoko


I see, a critical error indeed. It seems I now need some type of enormous frying pan to help cook all of this egg that has adhered itself to my face. My apologies. That said, I do sincerely respect the enormous of amount of time both you and the OP have put into this thread, although I'm not entirely convinced one way or another, particularly in regards to the rotation .gif, but I realize that stems from my own inability to clearly perceive what is being argued and how exactly it applies to what I'm seeing, so I'll just chalk it up to me being too stupid to comprehend what is being argued. I've already clearly demonstrated that lack of perception in my previous post from today.

I thought I had a fairly reasonable argument here-

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
I'd just like to again point out that, as we can clearly see in this image, when there is a coronal mass ejection, the resultant plasma wave passes over the object in question. If the object in question were an artifact that is inside of, or affixed to, the camera, this would not be possible. The only way for us to see what is show in the .gif, is if the plasma wave is between the object in question and the camera, and since we know the plasma wave is being ejected from the sun, it would stand to reason that the object in question is somewhere quite near the sun. Thats what my logic is telling me, although I'm open to alternate explanations or ideas.

Which I've heard explained in various ways, the most prominent of which I think is that the plasma wave appears to pass over it because the object/artifact is clear, or perhaps more accurately, partially translucent. Is that your explanation as well?

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
Which I've heard explained in various ways, the most prominent of which I think is that the plasma wave appears to pass over it because the object/artifact is clear, or perhaps more accurately, partially translucent. Is that your explanation as well?

I believe the plasma wave appears to pass in front of the artifact (or "over it", as stated) because of the basic principle of superposition when applied to imaging sensors.

When the plasma wave reaches a position where it is interfered with by the artifact, the electromagnetic radiation picked up by the sensor may simply be superimposed (or "added", so to speak) with the errant radiation signal caused by the artifact or "defect".

It is not so much that the object or artifact is translucent, but rather can be considered a baseline error signal to an imaging sensor. The defect is present during specific conditions, most likely governed by the physical geometry of the apparatus.

This, in my estimation, adequately explains the illusory effect of the wave passing "in front of" the "object".

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


Yes, and earlier I gave an example of how to replicate this with hand mirrors and sources of light with differing luminosity on the wall. See the post above me as well.

Also, just to be clear, there would be bow shocks in the CME if they were hitting a solid object, they would not passively pass over it like that. I know in 2d you think it is this flat protrusion, but a CME is a 3d object, and one that size would be many times larger than the sun. We would see interference of the CME if there was such a massive object near it.

I think I am done with this thread for now. I feel enough scientific evidence has been given that anyone who disagrees with it will not be dissuaded at this time and further discussion would be pointless. Denying ignorance works both ways.

this whole discussion seems to be about two different views.
its either black or white.
what if it is neither?
what if the object is not solid and not a camera defect?
we know very little about the universe really.
and even less about what inhabits it.

Wow! Nice share!