It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something shooting the sun? NASA removes images

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

hana1
I so knew phage would use cosmic rays & everyone would just accept it like the sheep they are...lol

Oh yes, clearly I just "accepted it like the sheep I am" and I did not provide any supporting evidence or agree with Phage based on the evidence at hand. No sir, not at all. What an insult. Seriously, is this what ATS has come to? This thread belongs firmly in the hoax bin. The image isn't missing, it wasn't deleted, this thread's claim is a hoax. The image shows a cosmic ray strike which caused a streak in the image, and not just because Phage said so. You can see the same sorts of streaks in images taken on earth with sensitive astronomical CCDs, even while indoors, with the camera's shutter closed.
h.dropcanvas.com...
And that's with the attenuation of the earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, neither one of which apply to SOHO.




posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Jobeycool
Huge problem is you guys do not do a good explanation whatsoever of showing why this man claims there is missing time.Alot of you just simply say there is no missing time and there fore there is no missing time,which is why I am asking a common sense simple question explain why this guy came up with missing time.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

We did a perfect job showing that there is no missing time. Like I said, BPearthwatch is a liar and not to be trusted. The "missing image" is right here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
It's not missing, NASA did not remove it, it's right there. Done, end of story, what part of this do you not understand?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

ngchunter

Jobeycool
Huge problem is you guys do not do a good explanation whatsoever of showing why this man claims there is missing time.Alot of you just simply say there is no missing time and there fore there is no missing time,which is why I am asking a common sense simple question explain why this guy came up with missing time.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

We did a perfect job showing that there is no missing time. Like I said, BPearthwatch is a liar and not to be trusted. The "missing image" is right here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
It's not missing, NASA did not remove it, it's right there. Done, end of story, what part of this do you not understand?


I read through the whole thing and no one did anything but argue and bicker back and fourth.You showed me what I was trying to find.I wanted to make sure NASA did not delete what they believe are cosmic rays.Thank you.
We come on here to discuss these very kind of subjects and some of the bad skeptics just make it hard to even figure out what to believe and insult people.Thanks again for providing this.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Jobeycool

ngchunter

Jobeycool
Huge problem is you guys do not do a good explanation whatsoever of showing why this man claims there is missing time.Alot of you just simply say there is no missing time and there fore there is no missing time,which is why I am asking a common sense simple question explain why this guy came up with missing time.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

We did a perfect job showing that there is no missing time. Like I said, BPearthwatch is a liar and not to be trusted. The "missing image" is right here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
It's not missing, NASA did not remove it, it's right there. Done, end of story, what part of this do you not understand?


I read through the whole thing and no one did anything but argue and bicker back and fourth.You showed me what I was trying to find.I wanted to make sure NASA did not delete what they believe are cosmic rays.Thank you.

I showed the exact same thing three pages ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by tanka418
 




I'm not sure how well it would be received, but, this event seems to work fairly well...

I guess.
Cosmic rays are extraterrestrial after all but they sort of happen all the time so assigning them to a particular time frame is sort of ridiculous.

Ok, so a cosmic-ray-striking-the-lens-theory is a strong possibility. Especially if we consider that a camera lens is able to capture wavelengths our eyes would not see. Most would leave it at that, but where the hell is the scientist/explorer type going if not wherever you CAN logically go? Thus science is not normally willing to allow a proven unscientific method of using exclusive theories as I sense you are using here and always on these anomolies. If any are a reasonable explanation, however out of the box it may be to you Phage, then I feel those should not go totally poo pood. As you do so with such finality like the IPCC stances on CO2 bringing me to conclude you are a good debate team candidate if I was hiring one.

I most certainly appreciate your proper skepticism. I would acknowledge that you are nothing if not very resourceful on locating data to support your theories.

I am willing to explore the possibilities related to what wavelength these events are captured as. Rather than commit every time to the same theory that it is a cosmic energy strike on the lens.When you do that, as often as you have been right on so many subjects, it still smacks of an insult to the rest of the scientific community as some of us do perceive the way you don't seem to be open minded enough to take in all the possible facts. The door should never be closed all the way on any theory. Strong data supporting you is not being ignored at all here in my assessment of this. I know from long lingering here, you mean it sincerely as science. So if I, not knowing one way or another what these things are bringing to the table, were to suggest this could have also been something in the "visible" range, would it not change the possibilities? If so, then there is a chance there is more to it than, well , meets the eye? Any ideas as to what wavelength range that "cosmic particle" came in as it buzzed the camera? I am willing to say my theory would be IF that is in the visible range, we have something else. Whatever that is.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for forcing me to continually challenge and correctly apply the scientific process I have come to love all my life. Right or wrong opinions, you do that for all of us. Makes it worth coming here.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

hana1
I so knew phage would use cosmic rays & everyone would just accept it like the sheep they are...lol


Hello Mrs. Pot.

Not a wise analysis when the people falling for this video and others like it are people who a haven't bothered to learn the science behind the images and swallow some random youtuber's story hook, line and sinker.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

ngchunter

Jobeycool
Huge problem is you guys do not do a good explanation whatsoever of showing why this man claims there is missing time.Alot of you just simply say there is no missing time and there fore there is no missing time,which is why I am asking a common sense simple question explain why this guy came up with missing time.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

We did a perfect job showing that there is no missing time. Like I said, BPearthwatch is a liar and not to be trusted. The "missing image" is right here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
It's not missing, NASA did not remove it, it's right there. Done, end of story, what part of this do you not understand?


I don't argue the OP's point lightly in my post but I do consider this information about missing or not missing a side story to what the wavelengths of these events are captured by the equipment means to the plausible theories.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Justoneman

ngchunter

Jobeycool
Huge problem is you guys do not do a good explanation whatsoever of showing why this man claims there is missing time.Alot of you just simply say there is no missing time and there fore there is no missing time,which is why I am asking a common sense simple question explain why this guy came up with missing time.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

We did a perfect job showing that there is no missing time. Like I said, BPearthwatch is a liar and not to be trusted. The "missing image" is right here:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
It's not missing, NASA did not remove it, it's right there. Done, end of story, what part of this do you not understand?


I don't argue the OP's point lightly in my post but I do consider this information about missing or not missing a side story to what the wavelengths of these events are captured by the equipment means to the plausible theories.


Considering that it's a cosmic ray strike, it makes no sense to suggest it was captured in any given "wavelength." All the pixels respond to cosmic rays the same way regardless of what wavelength of light they were filtered for. You don't see the rays systematically and repetitively dimming and brightening from pixel to pixel in individual streaks in my example despite the fact that it was a color CCD with individual pixels filtered for red, green, or blue light.
h.dropcanvas.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Justoneman

Phage
reply to post by tanka418
 




I'm not sure how well it would be received, but, this event seems to work fairly well...

I guess.
Cosmic rays are extraterrestrial after all but they sort of happen all the time so assigning them to a particular time frame is sort of ridiculous.

Ok, so a cosmic-ray-striking-the-lens-theory is a strong possibility. Especially if we consider that a camera lens is able to capture wavelengths our eyes would not see.

The cosmic ray did not strike the lens, it struck the CCD. It does not matter what wavelength of light the camera was designed to collect. These particles of radiation strike the CCD directly which is what causes the charge to build up in the pixel wells along the vector of the cosmic ray collision and any backscatter radiation. There was no lens at all attached to the CCD that collected these cosmic rays, the shutter was closed, and it was indoors:
h.dropcanvas.com...

Don't attack Phage when you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of this phenomenon or what causes it. It is well understood, and not just because Phage, myself, or anyone else took someone else's word for it.


So if I, not knowing one way or another what these things are bringing to the table, were to suggest this could have also been something in the "visible" range, would it not change the possibilities?

No. Science works based on evidence, not suggestions from uninformed individuals who don't even understand the basics behind the mechanism previously described. Science doesn't mean you get to suggest whatever nutty claim you want and be taken seriously until it is directly addressed and disproven. It means you are free to present evidence for your claims if you believe the phenomenon is not correctly understood, but you must overcome the evidence already presented and show that your hypothesis works better at explaining the phenomenon and makes correct predictions.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Aye. looks like what you describe is correct, tho the flares do look scary



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

ngchunter

Justoneman

Phage
reply to post by tanka418
 




I'm not sure how well it would be received, but, this event seems to work fairly well...

I guess.
Cosmic rays are extraterrestrial after all but they sort of happen all the time so assigning them to a particular time frame is sort of ridiculous.

Ok, so a cosmic-ray-striking-the-lens-theory is a strong possibility. Especially if we consider that a camera lens is able to capture wavelengths our eyes would not see.

The cosmic ray did not strike the lens, it struck the CCD. It does not matter what wavelength of light the camera was designed to collect. These particles of radiation strike the CCD directly which is what causes the charge to build up in the pixel wells along the vector of the cosmic ray collision and any backscatter radiation. There was no lens at all attached to the CCD that collected these cosmic rays, the shutter was closed, and it was indoors:
h.dropcanvas.com...

Don't attack Phage when you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of this phenomenon or what causes it. It is well understood, and not just because Phage, myself, or anyone else took someone else's word for it.


So if I, not knowing one way or another what these things are bringing to the table, were to suggest this could have also been something in the "visible" range, would it not change the possibilities?


No. Science works based on evidence, not suggestions from uninformed individuals who don't even understand the basics behind the mechanism previously described. Science doesn't mean you get to suggest whatever nutty claim you want and be taken seriously until it is directly addressed and disproven. It means you are free to present evidence for your claims if you believe the phenomenon is not correctly understood, but you must overcome the evidence already presented and show that your hypothesis works better at explaining the phenomenon and makes correct predictions.




Sorry, I guess you misunderstand my point. The mechanisms for collecting the data, basically captures the energy signature based on a range of wavelengths. In spectroscopy collection we can ascertain basic understandings of the matter emitting the wavelength. So if it can be shown that it is in visible range, no matter the non visible light that is available from the event, then THAT would open the possibilities because we do not currently see cosmic energy using the human eye. I am under the impression that no one is going there in this discussion. It is like the tree falling in the woods analogy, if know one notices, did it emit in the visible spectra?

Anyone who ignores the basic fundamentals of scientific study will easily fail to grasp the importance of the missing facts when those become excluded from the process. Don't wish any data challenges away that is lazy and dangerous to the truth.
edit on 14-4-2014 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Justoneman

ngchunter

Justoneman

Phage
reply to post by tanka418
 




I'm not sure how well it would be received, but, this event seems to work fairly well...

I guess.
Cosmic rays are extraterrestrial after all but they sort of happen all the time so assigning them to a particular time frame is sort of ridiculous.

Ok, so a cosmic-ray-striking-the-lens-theory is a strong possibility. Especially if we consider that a camera lens is able to capture wavelengths our eyes would not see.

The cosmic ray did not strike the lens, it struck the CCD. It does not matter what wavelength of light the camera was designed to collect. These particles of radiation strike the CCD directly which is what causes the charge to build up in the pixel wells along the vector of the cosmic ray collision and any backscatter radiation. There was no lens at all attached to the CCD that collected these cosmic rays, the shutter was closed, and it was indoors:
h.dropcanvas.com...

Don't attack Phage when you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of this phenomenon or what causes it. It is well understood, and not just because Phage, myself, or anyone else took someone else's word for it.


So if I, not knowing one way or another what these things are bringing to the table, were to suggest this could have also been something in the "visible" range, would it not change the possibilities?


No. Science works based on evidence, not suggestions from uninformed individuals who don't even understand the basics behind the mechanism previously described. Science doesn't mean you get to suggest whatever nutty claim you want and be taken seriously until it is directly addressed and disproven. It means you are free to present evidence for your claims if you believe the phenomenon is not correctly understood, but you must overcome the evidence already presented and show that your hypothesis works better at explaining the phenomenon and makes correct predictions.




Sorry, I guess you misunderstand my point. The mechanisms for collecting the data, basically captures the energy signature based on a range of wavelengths.

I understood your "point" just fine, you do not understand how cosmic rays work or how they appear in CCD images like this. It has nothing to do with "wavelength." Again, it does not matter what "wavelength" of light the CCD was filtered for, cosmic rays will leave streaks and marks on the image anyway which do not correspond to any wavelength of light. I'll repeat myself again since you didn't listen the first time, do you see the cosmic ray streaks in my example repetitively dim and brighten as they pass through pixels filtered for different colors (meaning different wavelengths) of light? No? Then guess what, the "wavelength" the CCD is filtered for has nothing to do with it.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

pffft.


Detectors, you feel i don't understand how detection electronics work? Why am I not surprised by you? You don't know me and it might be a surprise that I agree mostly with Phage, I am throwing an idea around that needs vetting that we should consider. THAT is how science works, not presuming my skill level is to or not to your satisfaction. In my daily professional duties, I am charged with detecting chemicals by by their electronic trace signatures using sophisticated equipment. I do grasp collecting signals on several forms of collection media. I suspect you don't based on your willingness to throw me under the bus.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

ngchunter
You can see the same sorts of streaks in images taken on earth with sensitive astronomical CCDs, even while indoors, with the camera's shutter closed.


You are aware that the CCD devices used in modern photography equipment is far superior to the old CCD used in SOHO, right?

And that the CCD used in the SOHO are/were not anything "special" in the first place.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

tanka418

ngchunter
You can see the same sorts of streaks in images taken on earth with sensitive astronomical CCDs, even while indoors, with the camera's shutter closed.


You are aware that the CCD devices used in modern photography equipment is far superior to the old CCD used in SOHO, right?

And that the CCD used in the SOHO are/were not anything "special" in the first place.


What does that have to do with anything I said? Cosmic ray strikes will still create streaks in the CCD whether it's old or new. There's nothing about my CCD that makes it inherently immune to cosmic ray strikes. The most fundamental difference is the anti-bloom gating on my CCD which automatically prevents any cosmic ray hit from causing blooming (not that I'd expect the presence of many such high energy cosmic ray hits here at sea level anyway).



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 

The cosmic rays interact directly with the CCD, producing a burst of electrons. It doesn't matter what lens is on there, or filters, because the ray is striking the CCD itself. The CCD readout is only concerned with electrons: it doesn't know or care what liberated them.

An analogy. Imagine you have a light meter like photographers used to use. It has a needle that swings across the dial to measure the light intensity. Now imagine that you hook a wire directly to the needle circuit, bypassing the light sensor electronics altogether, and feed it a strong current. The needle goes off the scale, but that doesn't mean the electricity is "visible light".

Same principle. The rays are interfering with the detector itself, not producing visible light. I appreciate your argument but it is not a case of recording light at any wavelength, it is a physical action liberating electrons directly inside the CCD.


PS what instruments do you work with? Back in my chemistry days it was HPLC and GC but I don't really follow analytical methods these days thank goodness


edit on 14-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Justoneman
reply to post by ngchunter
 

pffft.


Detectors, you feel i don't understand how detection electronics work? Why am I not surprised by you? You don't know me and it might be a surprise that I agree mostly with Phage, I am throwing an idea around that needs vetting that we should consider.

Your "idea" shows that you don't understand the fundamentals at work here. I'm sure you're great at electronics, whatever, but you clearly do not understand how cosmic ray hits affect CCDs. From your very first response you've made that much clear. It didn't "hit the lens," it isn't specific to a "wavelength," etc. Cosmic ray hits the CCD pixel, the CCD pixel registers the charge induced. I know what I'm talking about, despite your aspersions, I've been doing astrophotography for 14 years now and I've dealt with cosmic ray hits for a long time. Moreover, I've shown evidence proving what I said, that it has nothing to do with "wavelength" or the lens.
edit on 14-4-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 





The trick is, knowing who to trust.


This can be learned also by checking peoples facts at numerous other places and you soon learn who is often giving fact or fiction.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Rob48
reply to post by Justoneman
 

The cosmic rays interact directly with the CCD, producing a burst of electrons. It doesn't matter what lens is on there, or filters, because the ray is striking the CCD itself. The CCD readout is only concerned with electrons: it doesn't know or care what liberated them.

An analogy. Imagine you have a light meter like photographers used to use. It has a needle that swings across the dial to measure the light intensity. Now imagine that you hook a wire directly to the needle circuit, bypassing the light sensor electronics altogether, and feed it a strong current. The needle goes off the scale, but that doesn't mean the electricity is "visible light".

Same principle. The rays are interfering with the detector itself, not producing visible light.


Nice explanation, thanks. My experience with events on my equipment would be a washing out type of signal so I do find these set of pics interesting at the least every time this comes up. Regardless of the final conclusions. I might see another parameter go nuts with a cool reaction just before the event is one way of looking at what I am thinking of with this.


I also would like say I realize the visible light from our sun might interfere with a human eye being able to detect any IF there are any bursts in a visible range when they pass by our feeble eyesight range. I am curious as to if it did detect a signal in that visible range that microsecond before the energy struck the dectector? Because of the potential for other explanations, only and that the signal appears as a streak not a splat type of event when we see it. NOT to say it is a f'ing ET or the HAARP. I am not on that angle. Just the "did it emit something before it smacked into the detector in the visible spectra" is all I am wanting to know. Then we could find something else to explore here. Otherwise, it IS beating a dead horse.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 

I don't know the answer to that (remember that the cosmic ray could be coming from any direction, not just through the imaging aperture), but on a related note you might be interested in this if you haven't heard of it:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Astronauts outside the magnetosphere have reported seeing flashes which are believed to be caused by cosmic rays. However it is unknown whether this is down to rays generating visible light flashes within the eye, or direct interaction with the optic nerve or brain (analogous to direct interaction with the CCD in a camera).

Interesting stuff whichever it is

edit on 14-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join