PDA

View Full Version : Naked-eye sunspot



ToSeek
2003-Apr-29, 02:58 PM
Cool photo (http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=135392), but remember to observe with caution.

Reacher
2003-Apr-29, 03:50 PM
Is that for real? Its amazing!

logicboy
2003-Apr-29, 03:56 PM
A Sun filter for your eyes or your telescope/camera? Would a good pair of Sun Glasses be sufficient? Or would you need something like welder goggles?

kilopi
2003-Apr-29, 04:10 PM
Today's sunspot number (http://www.sunspotcycle.com/) is only 175, but that is one big spot. According to yesterday's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0428SRS.txt), it's size is 450. However, the one last August (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=28624#28624) was more than four times that, and the one of 1947 was more than twelve times the current one.

kurtisw
2003-Apr-29, 04:23 PM
A Sun filter for your eyes or your telescope/camera?
Would a good pair of Sun Glasses be sufficient? Or would you need
something like welder goggles?

Sunglasses would not be safe for observing the sunspot. I've observed
naked-eye sunglasses using mylar solar eclipse goggles. Welder's goggles
of rating 14 or higher are reasonably safe for naked-eye viewing. But
welder's goggles are not safe for looking through a
telescope/binoculars/camera with. If you want to look through a
telescope, there are special filters you can buy that completely cover
the telescope aperture. (The dinky eyepiece filters that come with many
cheap telescopes are dangerous and should never, ever, ever, ever,
ever be used.) The most safe method of using a telescope to look at
the sun is to project the image onto a sheet of paper.

See
http://www.spaceweather.com/sunspots/doityourself.html and the links
therein.

kilopi
2003-Apr-29, 04:32 PM
Welder's goggles of rating 14 or higher are reasonably safe for naked-eye viewing. But welder's goggles are not safe for looking through a telescope/binoculars/camera with.
This subject came up last August (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=25346#25346). At the time, MrEclipse.com (http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh11.html#Filter) did not have such a warning. I emailed him, and I'm glad to see that he has updated his pages.

LTC8K6
2003-Apr-29, 04:36 PM
Awwwww come on. You folks know that's the dreaded planet X, you just won't admit it. :wink:

Glom
2003-Apr-29, 04:38 PM
That's super impressive.

logicboy
2003-Apr-29, 04:42 PM
Even with the Atmosphere dimming the Sun when it is close to the horizon you still need special equipment? I guess it doesn't hurt to be safe, thanks

kurtisw
2003-Apr-29, 04:59 PM
This subject came up last August (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=25346#25346). At the time, MrEclipse.com (http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh11.html#Filter) did not have such a warning. I emailed him, and I'm glad to see that he has updated his pages.

A few years ago I went to Germany to watch the total solar eclipse. I had
my telescope, complete with an appropriate solar filter. The German
goverment must have done a great job of warning people about the
dangers of looking at the sun, as several people approached me while I
was setting up to warn me that I was going to go blind. Most were appeased
when I showed them my filter and eclipse glasses, but one gentleman was
exceptionally persistent. I finally got fed up and snapped (in German),
"I'm an astronomer. I know what I'm doing!" A few bystanders snickered, but
I did manage to finish setting up the telescope in time for the thunderstorm
which lasted until 15 minutes after totality. :cry:

beskeptical
2003-Apr-29, 09:01 PM
I have welder's lenses that cover my small binocs, (they go over the binocs, not inbetween the binocs and my eyes!). I look at sunspots all the time with them. You can find one or more spots almost any day the sky is clear. You can also use mylar. Just cut up a mylar balloon and use the silver part where there isn't any printing.

beskeptical
2003-Apr-29, 09:11 PM
I did manage to finish setting up the telescope in time for the thunderstorm
which lasted until 15 minutes after totality. :cry:

I have missed 3 good total eclipses. As a child, my parents made us go to the movies so we wouldn't get blinded. Sheesh.

In 1978, I was in Australia when the eclipse occurred in the USA.

And in 1991, I went to see the big one in Mexico. It was clear all morning. Just as totality was approaching a cloud started coming from the land out to the sea. I literally ran ahead of it all the way to the tip of a little penninsula. At that point the cloud overtook me and everyone else out there just as totality came. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

But, I am determined. I will prevail. I will see a total eclipse, I will, I will!

I did get to see the Leonids meteor storm though. :D :D :D :D :D :D

tvelocity
2003-Apr-29, 10:34 PM
I remember seeing a partial eclipse as a kid in southern California. If I remember correctly, the sun was about 80% occulted. I remember being outside when it happened, and everything started to look strange. I saw a shadow of a tree next to me with the sun shining through the leaves, and the sunlight passing through the tree projected what looked like thousands of tiny crescents within the tree's shadow. I made a small circle with my hand and held it out and, lo and behold, another eclipse was projected onto the shadow of my hand on the ground. A very surreal experience for a twelve-year-old. :o

Charlie in Dayton
2003-Apr-29, 11:52 PM
I remember viewing several eclipses here in The Great Midwest, using the pinhole-in-the-card method. I recall one that got over 50% total. I remember that it didn't start to get what I consider dark, just that the light was awfully weak and washed-out...an odd feeling to be sure.

Make your own telescope solar filters! (http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/solar_acc/astrosolar)

Peter B
2003-Apr-30, 12:19 AM
I've seen sun spots by looking directly at the Sun.

BUT, I was looking at the Sun through fog (which ocurs with depressing frequency here in Canberra in winter :) ).

ljbrs
2003-Apr-30, 01:40 AM
This is a general statement regarding all of the statements above:

Hydrogen Alpha filters are the things to use. They are very expensive, but I understand that they are safe for viewing sunspots through telescopes. I have used Shade 14 Welders' goggles, but not through a telescope. If there is even a pinprick in the welders' glass, that can be hazardous. I also have Shade 14 Welders' shields, which I think have not harmed me yet.

Of course, for watching Lunar eclipses, one need not worry. However, looking at the full moon can be temporarily blinding, which is the reason all of us prefer to do our observing at new moon time.

ljbrs

Pinemarten
2003-Apr-30, 07:11 AM
When I was younger we used a stack of film negatives from grandma's shopping cart for solar eclipses. No binos or 'scope, but still unsafe?

gethen
2003-Apr-30, 02:05 PM
I remember viewing several eclipses here in The Great Midwest, using the pinhole-in-the-card method. I recall one that got over 50% total. I remember that it didn't start to get what I consider dark, just that the light was awfully weak and washed-out...an odd feeling to be sure.

Make your own telescope solar filters! (http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/solar_acc/astrosolar)

Charlie, have you used these filters? I've been thinking about buying some kind of solar filter for my 8" Newtonian, but wasn't sure where to start.

kurtisw
2003-Apr-30, 06:12 PM
When I was younger we used a stack of film negatives from grandma's shopping cart for solar eclipses. No binos or 'scope, but still unsafe?

Most negatives are unsafe; though they cut down on optical light,
they don't filter out UV and infrared light, so you can simultaneously
burn and cook your eyeball yet feel completely comfortable while doing
it. I have heard that film negatives containing exposed & developed
silver are okay (color film negatives don't contain silver, but some
black and white negatives do).

Mylar eclipse glasses are fairly cheap, especially in the lull between
total eclipses. Several years ago I bought 25 glasses for $25, and each
eclipse or sunspot I break out a new pair.

SouthofHeaven
2003-Apr-30, 08:13 PM
Is it me or does it look like Mercury in transit. :) Or at least wha tit would look like from Venus. maybe

Charlie in Dayton
2003-May-01, 01:05 AM
I remember viewing several eclipses here in The Great Midwest, using the pinhole-in-the-card method. I recall one that got over 50% total. I remember that it didn't start to get what I consider dark, just that the light was awfully weak and washed-out...an odd feeling to be sure.

Make your own telescope solar filters! (http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/solar_acc/astrosolar)

Charlie, have you used these filters? I've been thinking about buying some kind of solar filter for my 8" Newtonian, but wasn't sure where to start.

Yes I have. (I used them, not made them). The club has several of these filters around for use on various scopes, and I checked one out last month at a stargaze. I compared it to a hydrogen-alpha filter on another club scope (they were side by side, and it was too good a chance to pass up). The Baader filter gives a white image vs the H-A's yellow-orange image. Sunspots are plainly visible, and gas swirls across the face of the disk may be discerned. You will not see any prominences off the edge of the disk unless they're intense enough to cause TEOTWAWKI.
Hydrogen alpha filters are hideously expensive. I was told that generally speaking, when you order one, they throw in the telescope as a bonus... :o

The Baader filter is definitely the way to go for the beginner.

tracer
2003-May-01, 01:11 AM
Of course, for watching Lunar eclipses, one need not worry. However, looking at the full moon can be temporarily blinding, which is the reason all of us prefer to do our observing at new moon time.
I prefer to do my Solar Eclipse observing at new moon time, too, but not because I worry about the moonlight blinding me. ;)

kilopi
2003-May-01, 08:50 AM
Is it me or does it look like Mercury in transit. :) Or at least wha tit would look like from Venus. maybe
Or maybe Venus in transit. :)

Now is as good a place as any to remind people that Venus will transit June 8 of next year, for the first time since 1882.

SeanF
2003-May-01, 01:48 PM
Now is as good a place as any to remind people that Venus will transit June 8 of next year, for the first time since 1882.

Is that going to be visible in the US?

kilopi
2003-May-01, 02:10 PM
Now is as good a place as any to remind people that Venus will transit June 8 of next year, for the first time since 1882.

Is that going to be visible in the US?
Not much. I think it's finishing its transit as the sun rises, on the east coast. I think 2012 is much better.

Hale_Bopp
2003-May-01, 04:46 PM
Actually, H-alpha filters are not as good for viewing sunspots as a good Baeder filter. You can see some sunspots with an H-alpha filter, but it is better for viewing prominencs and granulation on the Sun.

I just observed with H-alpha and Baeder filters last week. The number of sunspots visible through a Baeder was much higher than through the H-alpha.

As is frequently the case, they each give good views of different things. The best tool depends on what you want to observe (and, admittedly, your budget in this case!)

Rob

kilopi
2003-May-28, 12:34 PM
Today's sunspot number (http://www.sunspotcycle.com/) is only 116, but according to today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0528SRS.txt), the size of spot 10365 is 400. Pretty big, and I just received an astro-alert that this spot produced two powerful solar flares with "coronal mass ejections containing Earthward directed components." Lots of lights May 29-31.

kilopi
2003-May-29, 04:40 PM
H*ly smoke. When I look at the sunspot, it doesn't look that big, but today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0529SRS.txt) says the size of spot 10365 is now 840. It's going to go around back soon, but I just received another bulletin saying it had unleashed another explosion. "third major X-class solar flare in less than 36 hours."

kilopi
2003-Jun-08, 12:33 PM
Today's sunspot number link (http://www.sunspotcycle.com/) (spaceweather.com) is around 116, and according to today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0608SRS.txt), the size of spot 10375 is 570. That's a pretty big spot.

Let's see if I got this right. Area is in millionths of the Sun's disk. Since the radius of the Sun is about a hundred times the Earth's radius, the disk of the Earth would be about one ten thousandth of the Sun's, so a sunspot the size of the Earth would be about 100. That makes spot 375 about six times as big as the Earth.

[screwed up the repost, and redid the calculations]

carolyn
2003-Jun-08, 09:10 PM
Cool photo (http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=135392), but remember to observe with caution.

I am soooo tempted to knick that photo and paste it on skywalkers post. but that would be cruel so I will resist (for now!!!!! :evil: :wink: )

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jun-08, 09:31 PM
I just used a pair of binocs to project the Sun onto some paper. Yikes! That's a big spot complex. I may try to see it tonight when the Sun sets.

jest
2003-Jun-08, 10:59 PM
Cool photo (http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=135392), but remember to observe with caution.

MY EYES!! Damnit! I forgot to smother sunscreen on my monitor before clicking that link :-?

Cool pic, actually.

Pluto is a planet
2003-Jun-09, 12:45 AM
aaaaaaaarrrrggggggg.....my eyes :evil: :x

carolyn
2003-Jun-09, 05:20 AM
been looking around to try to get an up to date image of 'that' sun spot

went here http://sec.noaa.gov/solar_images/current_fdha.gif but can not see it? so could some one point it out for me please :D

kilopi
2003-Jun-09, 07:53 AM
Go to that today's sunspot number link (http://www.sunspotcycle.com/) (spaceweather.com) and look at the Sun image there. The sunspot number is now 167, and not only do we have 375, but 380 is coming up. According to today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0609SRS.txt), the size of spot 10375 is up to 800, and 10380 is 550. Nice views, be sure to duck if they blowup.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-09, 08:25 AM
Welder's goggles of rating 14 or higher are reasonably safe for naked-eye viewing. But welder's goggles are not safe for looking through a telescope/binoculars/camera with.
This subject came up last August (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=25346#25346). At the time, MrEclipse.com (http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh11.html#Filter) did not have such a warning. I emailed him, and I'm glad to see that he has updated his pages.

I don't want anyone to take my word for it, lest they damage their eyes, but I've been looking at the Sun for years with welders glass over my binocs. I have no damage that I know of. I think what's being misunderstood here is Mr. eclipse is talking about not putting the filter between your eyes and the binocs. I put the filter between the Sun and the binocs.

Also, I use two welders lenses together. It looks completely black except the Sun itself which looks green. And, I'm only using 7X25 binocs. The spots are readily visible.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh11.html#Filter


Warning! Do not attempt to use these filters behind a pair of binoculars or telescope (that is, between your eyes and the binoculars or telescope). The magnifying optics of these devices will focus the full power of the Sun onto the welder's filter which could crack and shatter from the intense heat after only a few minutes. If you wish to observe the eclipse with binoculars or a telescope, you must use a specially designed solar filter on the front end (or Sun-side) of the instrument. These filters are discussed in the next section. (2002/09/03)

beskeptical
2003-Jun-09, 08:31 AM
been looking around to try to get an up to date image of 'that' sun spot

went here http://sec.noaa.gov/solar_images/current_fdha.gif but can not see it? so could some one point it out for me please :D

It's at 22:00 on that pic. From that instrument, the spots are lighter than the rest of the Sun. I presume it is the wavelength being captured.

Here's a comparison of the versions including the one you were looking at.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

kilopi
2003-Jun-09, 08:34 AM
I originally sent Mr. Eclipse an email about his page and welders's goggles, and it looked like it was updated--but I think it's been updated since, even though the date hasn't seemed to change.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-09, 08:36 AM
I originally sent Mr. Eclipse an email about his page and welders's goggles, and it looked like it was updated--but I think it's been updated since, even though the date hasn't seemed to change.

I thought that update date correlated with what you had said. IE, I gave you credit for the info he added.

kilopi
2003-Jun-09, 08:47 AM
Yes, possibly probably. I had email problems back in August and I'm not sure if he ever responded, so I don't know for sure. It seems like the text is different than when I checked it out last time. Regardless, it's all good advice.

BTW, carolyn's link seems to be to an image from four days ago, the sunspot would have been quite a bit smaller.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-09, 08:59 AM
Yes, possibly probably. I had email problems back in August and I'm not sure if he ever responded, so I don't know for sure. It seems like the text is different than when I checked it out last time. Regardless, it's all good advice.

BTW, carolyn's link seems to be to an image from four days ago, the sunspot would have been quite a bit smaller.

Nah. I've been watching it. It was big a few days ago, even though it's bigger now. It has now rotated past the center and is headed West. I'm still waiting for that X flare to send aurorae our way. I probably go to spaceweather. com waaaaay too often.

David Hall
2003-Jun-09, 05:48 PM
I checked out the sunspot this morning using binocular projection and it was fairly easily visible, but I can't say it was as spectacular as the one I saw last year naked-eye. Of course, that's sort of to be expected, right? :-)

kilopi
2003-Jun-09, 06:00 PM
I can't say it was as spectacular as the one I saw last year naked-eye. Of course, that's sort of to be expected, right?
I remember that! That was a monster (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=28617&highlight=sunspot#28617), maybe (according to the figures) two or three times bigger than this one now. Something to watch though.

carolyn
2003-Jun-09, 07:09 PM
they are huge !!!!!! thanks for the current links people think that I will book mark those as mine seems a bit out of date! so potentialy then, lots of pretty lights. educate me, x class flare means what exactly ? havn't got the time to go roulin round for the info as I am supposed :oops: to be marking papers. :wink:

David Hall
2003-Jun-09, 07:53 PM
Here's (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2011) my report on that sunspot. The photo link seems to have expired, but fortunately I saved a copy for myself. This is what I saw:

http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/images/my_sunspot.gif

carolyn
2003-Jun-09, 08:16 PM
were did that come from again? I can not find it, all the images I get are different?

beskeptical
2003-Jun-09, 09:10 PM
were did that come from again? I can not find it, all the images I get are different?

It came from soho but note the date. It was last year.

Sunspots are areas of strong magnetic fields. As they form, they develop shapes that are predictive for solar flares. At some point, a burst of magnetic energy may flow from one side of the spot to another side. It does so in those great big loops you see in all the pictures. If it is large enough, much of the energy, and solar material with it, are thrown out into space. Thus you get those large solar prominences that you see in the eclipse photos.

The flares are classified on a log scale as A, B, C, M, and X. Cs and smaller don't affect auroras here. Ms do if they are big enough and Earth directed. Xs do if they are Earth directed.

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5mBL.html

A short time after the flare is visible, solar radiation reaches the Earth. That is what determines the rating of the flare. We get radio blackouts at certain frequencies and solar radiation storms, (which affect things in space but don't reach the Earth's surface.

Two to three days after the flare the solar wind reaches us. Often, it only glances or misses the Earth. But if it is Earth directed, we get great aurorae. Of course we get other things too but that's another story.

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SWN/

carolyn
2003-Jun-10, 05:40 AM
thanks for that :)

David Hall
2003-Jun-10, 04:53 PM
Sorry if I confused you. Since I mentioned the sunspot I witnessed last year, I wanted to post it again. But since the image I had linked to in my previous thread has gone bye-bye, I thought I'd post the copy of it I have saved on my computer instead. That's all. Read the thread I linked to for all the details of my sighting. :-)

beskeptical
2003-Jun-10, 05:52 PM
thanks for that :)
You are welcome, and we had an X1.7 flare yesterday from the sunspot in question, followed by 6 M flares so far.

The X flare caused a strong radio blackout for about 10 minutes. It came from the Sun when it was about midway between directly facing us and the western limb as it is called. So we may or may not see the effects. If we do it will be tomorrow sometime, probably at evening over the Americas.

carolyn
2003-Jun-10, 06:44 PM
So coming from Britian then what should I watch for? pretty lights, no radio 1 for ten minutes (I live in hope) no digi TV i.e. Kerange ( In which case my prayers have been answered and there is a god!)

beskeptical
2003-Jun-11, 05:54 AM
So coming from Britian then what should I watch for? pretty lights, no radio 1 for ten minutes (I live in hope) no digi TV i.e. Kerange ( In which case my prayers have been answered and there is a god!)

Unfortunately one usually watches and nothing happens. If you have clear and hopefully dark skies, you watch for aurorae around local midnight. I usually check the web to see the activity to see if it's worth a vigil.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-11, 06:09 AM
Well, there goes another X flare as I speak. It isn't on the locator site yet but I can check in a few minutes to see if it is coming toward the Earth or not.

http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/

Scroll down to the bottom, if you have a slow computer you don't have to wait for the pics to load. It will probably be #61, but I'm not sure how they change the numbers when a new 24 hour period is added.

The location of the flare will be xxN or S and xxE or W. The smaller the E/W # is, the closer the flare is to facing Earth. Numbers in the 70s and greater are perpendicular to the Earth and any CME will not likely be Earth directed.

The N/S degrees are less important only because they don't vary that much. Sunspots, which are areas of greatest flare size, run in 2 bands on either side of the Sun's equator.

kilopi
2003-Jun-11, 01:42 PM
Today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0611SRS.txt) has 375 at 1200--pretty big--whereas 380 has shrunk a bit (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0610SRS.txt) to 560. However, I just got an astroalert warning that it was pretty much lined up to blast at the Earth, should a flare occur. And that none of the flares associated with 375 were expected here (but...SOHO was shut up for awhile).

ToSeek
2003-Jun-11, 04:38 PM
Sky and Telescope coverage (http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_975_1.asp)

sarongsong
2003-Jun-14, 01:29 AM
From another chat group, 6/12/03:
"... a scientist friend of mine who said NASA scientists won't go public, but
current sun eruptions are so massive that a direct hit on Earth could/would
"destroy" satellites and disrupt/END world communications. He said NASA Scientists know, but won't go public for reasons of national security and public panic, etc. (you already know all those "important" reasons they give).
THE ABOVE IS ALL MY FRIEND WOULD TELL ME. I'VE KNOWN THIS MAN FOR MANY YEARS. HE IS NEVER GIVEN TO HYPERBOLE OR UNTRUTHS. HE HIMSELF IS GENUINELY CONCERNED..."
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes%3Bread=32950

beskeptical
2003-Jun-14, 11:19 PM
From another chat group, 6/12/03:
"... a scientist friend of mine who said NASA scientists won't go public, but
current sun eruptions are so massive that a direct hit on Earth could/would
"destroy" satellites and disrupt/END world communications. He said NASA Scientists know, but won't go public for reasons of national security and public panic, etc. (you already know all those "important" reasons they give).
THE ABOVE IS ALL MY FRIEND WOULD TELL ME. I'VE KNOWN THIS MAN FOR MANY YEARS. HE IS NEVER GIVEN TO HYPERBOLE OR UNTRUTHS. HE HIMSELF IS GENUINELY CONCERNED..."
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes%3Bread=32950

I hope you are not suggesting this nonsense has any credibility, sarongsong.

Just what instrument would NASA be using that detected invisible flares that no other instrument in the world could detect?

Since the Sun is rotating, what would be Earth directed long enough to fit the description in the link, but not yet have arrived?

After reading the thousand and sixth claim of these impending disaster stories on the web (for example on Godlike), don't they at least start to sound idiotic? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

sarongsong
2003-Jun-15, 12:20 AM
The beauty of the BABB is its composition of those, like yourself, in a position to know what is/isn't going on. Since I could not find information to verify or disprove the issue raised, I sought the most relevant GA topic thread available to address a most credible friend's genuine concern. So far, it seems there's nothing to it, but you must admit our Sun is not exactly in a peaceful mode lately.
Thanks for addressing the issue.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-15, 08:01 AM
The beauty of the BABB is its composition of those, like yourself, in a position to know what is/isn't going on. Since I could not find information to verify or disprove the issue raised, I sought the most relevant GA topic thread available to address a most credible friend's genuine concern.
Was this 'credible friend' your friend or someone else's? I had to re-read the link to figure that and finally settled on you were just quoting what someone else posted.

I don't mean any disrespect, but there had been a rash of similar posts in the last few days. There were several different inquiries on the PX thread with links to the godlike site and chats that were very very similar. Including the 'my friend at NASA' bit.

So far, it seems there's nothing to it, but you must admit our Sun is not exactly in a peaceful mode lately.
Thanks for addressing the issue.
Actually, our Sun is winding down from its normal 11 year peak that occurred in 2000. Activity is very normal.

One thing to keep in mind, what on Earth would NASA gain from keeping news of unusual solar activity secret? And, how on Earth could they keep it secret? Not only are there multiple agencies and individuals with instruments that observe the skies, but also, the data being collected is mostly available on the internet.

I just watched a program on our university channel about the growing science of informatics, (the science of getting and using massive amounts of data through computer science). Microsoft is encouraging the University to use astronomy data because it is widely available and not likely to be kept secret for commercial purposes. They suggest students take the massive amount data available and design programs that will not only manage the data to answer questions, but might also ask the questions.

It was fascinating to see how much astronomy information is being collected by various instruments from Hubble to COBE to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They have to keep making new words for the next '10 times' increase in data bits: gigabytes, terabytes, pedabytes or something and even bigger bytes.

Apparently, there is a new field emerging of web-astronomy. If the sky is falling, it won't be a government secret.

kilopi
2003-Jun-15, 02:28 PM
Today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0615SRS.txt) has 380 shrunk quite a bit to 280, and not much else.

sarongsong
2003-Jun-15, 05:42 PM
The quoted post was sent to me by my own credible friend, 15 years my senior, living on a New Hampshire mountain-top.
Around the time of the inquiry to me, I found this:
"Maverick physicist James McCanney...in the first hour of Friday's show...comment(s) on developments in the solar system and how they relate to our planet. "The sun is going crazy," McCanney said, citing solar wind speeds that are double and triple their normal levels...".
http://coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/06/13.html#solar
Not having heard his comments and quite aware that a physicist trumps my spatial awareness, I brought the question here.
Can't help but notice frequent references to "the godlike site", which I have not visited. If it's such a sham, why do people keep visiting it, then continue putting it down?
I wouldn't put anything past this government, BTW; thank God for the Internet.
Again, thanks for your perspective, beskeptical, and kilopi's report reference.

beskeptical
2003-Jun-15, 11:31 PM
The quoted post was sent to me by my own credible friend, 15 years my senior, living on a New Hampshire mountain-top.
Around the time of the inquiry to me, I found this:
"Maverick physicist James McCanney...in the first hour of Friday's show...comment(s) on developments in the solar system and how they relate to our planet. "The sun is going crazy," McCanney said, citing solar wind speeds that are double and triple their normal levels...".
http://coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/06/13.html#solar
Not having heard his comments and quite aware that a physicist trumps my spatial awareness, I brought the question here.

This McCanney fellow has been discussed before on this board. He really has no evidence supporting his theories. If he does have an MS in physics, which may not even be true, the general consensus was that a PhD was the minimum required for that particular science field. Even so, being educated does not mean your thought processes function normally.

The Sun is not 'going crazy'. Comets lose material, you can see it streaming away when they near the Sun, and, the Earth goes through cometary debris on a regular basis which results in annual meteor showers. Historical comets, like Halley's have gotten smaller over time.

Mr. McCanney also has a lot of stuff for sale on that web page, which doesn't add to his credibility in my book.


Can't help but notice frequent references to "the godlike site", which I have not visited. If it's such a sham, why do people keep visiting it, then continue putting it down?

The site has a lot of ongoing chats that a person will start with one of those impending disaster claims. Since people, like yourself, aren't sure of the truth in the claims, conversations start on this BB about the chats. Either someone who thinks it is a true claim brings it up here or someone who has read the claim and responses will bring it up to share.


I wouldn't put anything past this government, BTW; thank God for the Internet.
Again, thanks for your perspective, beskeptical, and kilopi's report reference.

I'm not an autopilot government truster, and I definitely don't trust the big corporate interests to be truthful and reliable. But at the same time, I think it is extremely important not to trust folks who make absurd claims on the web.

Find a method that works for you to verify this stuff. Coming to a chat room like this helps. But there are other ways as well. University web sites are a wealth of knowledge. If you think they are government influenced, go to universities from other countries. There are all sorts of organizations like international astronomy associations. They can't all be government conspired sites.

If someone has a non-mainstream idea, there is a small chance they are on the right track. So take it with a grain of salt and wait a few years to see if their ideas have gained any acceptance. If the evidence is there, lots of people will pay attention. If there is no evidence, and the person is trying to claim NASA or someone is stopping him/her from getting the word out, chances are very good that the person has a mental illness. And, I mean that sincerely.

The internet is allowing freedom of information like it has never been allowed before. It is thousands of time harder for the government to keep secrets than at any time in the past. Keep that in mind when you hear these claims of 'my discovery is being covered up'.

kilopi
2003-Jun-16, 01:29 PM
Today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0616SRS.txt) only shows that 380 has shrunk to 180, but it mentions that 365 is due to return. I just received an AstroAlert (http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/proamcollab/astroalert/article_332_1.asp) entitled "RETURN OF THE KING" - A POWERFUL SUNSPOT COMPLEX RETURNS WITH A BANG, mentioning that 10365, which was responsible for many flares in May, has been noticed to produce a couple in the last day--though it hadn't yet appeared on the visible side of the Sun.

kilopi
2003-Jun-23, 10:11 AM
Today's report (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/forecasts/SRS/0623SRS.txt) only shows that 386 (aka 365) has shrunk to 90, but spaceweather.com (http://www.sunspotcycle.com/) says "it still has a delta-class magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares."

Hey, you can sign up for Space Weather Phone (http://spaceweatherphone.com/)!

From the webpage:


Email is wonderful, but sometimes there's no substitute for an old-fashioned phone call.

Sign up for our service and we'll phone you when things are happening in the sky. You'll never miss another meteor shower or geomagnetic storm just because you didn't check your email in time. When auroras appear over your hometown, your phone will ring. When the space station is about to fly over your back yard, your phone will ring. When interesting new asteroids and comets are discovered ... you get the idea.

The voice you hear will be Dr. Tony Phillips telling you what to look for and when.