Re-did the sun pictures. Morning, noon, and sunset. Additional observations.

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.

9:11


1:00


4:49


There are three things I'd like to point out.  If anybody has any other observations, by all means let us know.

1. Looks the same size.  Been over that before, and I'm sure Tom will post his link to that site with it's explaination containing no photographic evidence.


2. Sunspots, and how they appear to rotate.  There is a prominent spot, and a fainter, smaller spot just below it (it is visible in all three images).  Throughout the day the spots appear to rotate around the sun.  This is (RET) due to the latitude I'm located on, and the angle I'm viewing the sun at in the morning shot versus the noon shot versus the evening shot (which is angled opposite from the morning) 

If it sounds complicated, you can re-create this easily in your home with a small ball and a paper with a circle and a couple spots drawn on it. 

In FET, the sun would have to be 'rolling' as it moves through the sky, and in places where the sun passes directly overhead, the sunspots would appear to move vertically across it's surface.  Correct?  Has anyone ever witnessed this?


3. Observing the sunspots again, they don't move closer to, or further away from the edge.  That would be the case if a sphere 3000 miles was passing by.  With RET, the explanation is simple.  It's about 92900000 miles away, and we see the same side of it throughout the day (even though is does slowly rotate).

In FET, as the sun passes by throughout the day, it would have to be rotating in order for the same spot to always face me.  Simple enough concept, but in order to keep the same side facing me without deviating, the rotational speed would have to vary slightly.  Rotating faster at noon than at sunrise or sunset. 

The problem with that should be obvious.

Again, this can be demonstrated with a small ball, or by keeping your face turned toward something on the side of a road as you approach it and pass by (an exaggerated example of course).

These observations of the sun will be more pronounced during the summer.

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort, but I have a problem with the results that I can't resolve.

-You used both 3x digital zoom and 12x optical zoom, for an effective 36x.
-You did not enlarge the photos.
-The images show the Sun with a diameter of 214 pixels.
-Your photo has 314 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.68 inches.
-The image at: http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~physics/EarthLightSky/Spring2011/SunSize/SunSize.html is 23 pixels.
-That image has 72 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.32 inches.

So your image seems more than twice as large as it should.

Can you help me here? Thanks.

Huh...not really sure.   I'll borrow my dad's spotting scope tomorrow and see what I get with it set to 36x and the camera at 1x (the camera is optical zoom, not digital.  I forgot to mention that.)

Does that site you linked to say anywhere what magnification was used?   I don't see it.  Two different optical magnifications should give two different pixel counts and visible sizes for an object in an image, but the same dpi and overall image pixel size.  It appears to be 1000x665 pixels after I saved it.

My original images are 3072x2307 at 314 dpi, resolution unit 2

I saved one of them from this site, and noticed it they're showing up as 800x600 at 96 dpi, resolution unit 72 after imageshack.  Forgot I selected to re-size them for 15" monitor when uploading.  If I do fullsize, they won't fit on the screen.

I'll take a look at it all tomorrow sometime.  It's 2am, and I'm just too tired to be of much use at the moment.

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort

wat?

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

You are neither a professional astronomer nor do you hold any qualification whatsoever in this field. You're opinion isn't worth a peanut. You are only qualified to give advice on telephone etiquette.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 12:43:15 AM

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort

wat?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

You are neither a professional astronomer nor do you hold any qualification whatsoever in this field. You're opinion isn't worth a peanut. You are only qualified to give advice on telephone etiquette.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

And how do you know what degrees I hold? You aren't making things up again, are you?

And how do you know what degrees I hold?

>Implying a degree is enough to validate astrological submissions to the wider scientific community.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 02:38:15 AM

And how do you know what degrees I hold?

>Implying a degree is enough to validate astrological submissions to the wider scientific community.

And where did I imply that? You aren't making things up again, are you? I'm just challenging your unsupported claim in red below.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 12:43:15 AM

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort

wat?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

You are neither a professional astronomer nor do you hold any qualification whatsoever in this field. You're opinion isn't worth a peanut. You are only qualified to give advice on telephone etiquette.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

Well the burden of proof lies with you. Please provide evidence that you are suitably qualified to peer review 29silhouette's work or allow him to present his evidence without your inane prattle diluting his efforts.

Well the burden of proof lies with you. Please provide evidence that you are suitably qualified to peer review 29silhouette's work or allow him to present his evidence without your inane prattle diluting his efforts.

You made the claim that I highlighted. The burden rests with you.

You are a halfwit.

Huh...not really sure.   I'll borrow my dad's spotting scope tomorrow and see what I get with it set to 36x and the camera at 1x (the camera is optical zoom, not digital.  I forgot to mention that.)

Does that site you linked to say anywhere what magnification was used?   I don't see it.  Two different optical magnifications should give two different pixel counts and visible sizes for an object in an image, but the same dpi and overall image pixel size.  It appears to be 1000x665 pixels after I saved it.

My original images are 3072x2307 at 314 dpi, resolution unit 2

I saved one of them from this site, and noticed it they're showing up as 800x600 at 96 dpi, resolution unit 72 after imageshack.  Forgot I selected to re-size them for 15" monitor when uploading.  If I do fullsize, they won't fit on the screen.

I'll take a look at it all tomorrow sometime.  It's 2am, and I'm just too tired to be of much use at the moment.

I believe that the orange disc on the wall and the Sun in the sky are to be the same size. I don't see anything else to support my inference that the Sun photo was to scale. I fear that both may have been taken at the same magnification, but I really doubt that.

I think the problem is the focal lengths of the camera probably are different, so the apparent size in the photograph would be different. Reference: http://diyphotography.net/tutorials/sunset-photography-guide

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 05, 2012, 11:57:57 PM

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort, but I have a problem with the results that I can't resolve.

-You used both 3x digital zoom and 12x optical zoom, for an effective 36x.
-You did not enlarge the photos.
-The images show the Sun with a diameter of 214 pixels.
-Your photo has 314 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.68 inches.
-The image at: http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~physics/EarthLightSky/Spring2011/SunSize/SunSize.html is 23 pixels.
-That image has 72 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.32 inches.

So your image seems more than twice as large as it should.

Can you help me here? Thanks.

DPI is only relevant for printing out or for systems that scale the image directly dependent on monitior resolution. An image's DPI can be set independently of the number of pixels in it. Anyone who has tried to make a CD cover from scratch without a template will know this

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 05, 2012, 11:57:57 PM

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort, but I have a problem with the results that I can't resolve.

-You used both 3x digital zoom and 12x optical zoom, for an effective 36x.
-You did not enlarge the photos.
-The images show the Sun with a diameter of 214 pixels.
-Your photo has 314 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.68 inches.
-The image at: http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~physics/EarthLightSky/Spring2011/SunSize/SunSize.html is 23 pixels.
-That image has 72 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.32 inches.

So your image seems more than twice as large as it should.

Can you help me here? Thanks.

Your calculations have two very important parameters missing: the size of the CCD and/or the widest angle the camera can take.

Depending on the cost of the camera and the intended use the CCD can be typically from 4/10th to 2/3 of the size of a 35 mm camera's negative. Also, some cameras come with a very wide angle lens (when it is set to its maximum wide) and others start with a wide angle that is about the angle of a "normal" lens of a 35 mm camera.

If you want to compare sizes you must know the actual focal length which was used (in this case, 17.4 mm) and the size of the CCD of your camera (unknown in this case). You can alternatively know the angle of the widest setting in your camera and the maximum zoom.

In this case we know only a few data from both cameras, so comparing the 12x of 29silhouette with the 50 mm (adjusted?) focal length of the other camera is just not possible.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 12:43:15 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 05, 2012, 11:57:57 PM

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort, but I have a problem with the results that I can't resolve.

-You used both 3x digital zoom and 12x optical zoom, for an effective 36x.
-You did not enlarge the photos.
-The images show the Sun with a diameter of 214 pixels.
-Your photo has 314 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.68 inches.
-The image at: http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~physics/EarthLightSky/Spring2011/SunSize/SunSize.html is 23 pixels.
-That image has 72 dpi, giving us an effective size of 0.32 inches.

So your image seems more than twice as large as it should.

Can you help me here? Thanks.

Your calculations have two very important parameters missing: the size of the CCD and/or the widest angle the camera can take.

Depending on the cost of the camera and the intended use the CCD can be typically from 4/10th to 2/3 of the size of a 35 mm camera's negative. Also, some cameras come with a very wide angle lens (when it is set to its maximum wide) and others start with a wide angle that is about the angle of a "normal" lens of a 35 mm camera.

If you want to compare sizes you must know the actual focal length which was used (in this case, 17.4 mm) and the size of the CCD of your camera (unknown in this case). You can alternatively know the angle of the widest setting in your camera and the maximum zoom.

In this case we know only a few data from both cameras, so comparing the 12x of 29silhouette with the 50 mm (adjusted?) focal length of the other camera is just not possible.

Yes. I think I said that already...

And now, some analysis from the EXIF data:

The first and third photos got about the same exposure, with 1/160 and 1/100, respectively, seconds of exposure. The second had a shorter 1/640 exposure. But the second photo is considerably darker. Your eyes are not very good showing that difference because they are not made to do so, but you can get pixel values and compare them.

In my case, I saw the following numbers:

Photo 3: (hue, saturation, value) = (112,71,100)
Photo 2:  (hue, saturation, value) = (124,72,87)

The hue and saturation are not very important (they say we are seeing the same kind of green) but the value is very different. every 10 marks (or 10%) in value correspond to twice the luminosity, so Photo 3 is more than twice as bright as photo 2.

You also have to take into account that there is some haze in both Photo 1 and Photo 3, so Photo 2 benefits a little from a clearer sky.

Taking all considerations into account, the sun at noon does seem to be a little shinier than at mid morning and mid afternoon, but not by much. Never, not in your wildest dreams, is the Sun 8 or 10 times more luminous at noon than in mid-morning, as all FE "theories" require.

Better results would be possible with a camera that can be manually set to a given exposure length and f/stop, but the results are already so close to what real science tells us and so deeply in contradiction with all FE "theories" that this matter is clearly settled.

And now, some analysis from the EXIF data:

The first and third photos got about the same exposure, with 1/160 and 1/100, respectively, seconds of exposure. The second had a shorter 1/640 exposure. But the second photo is considerably darker. Your eyes are not very good showing that difference because they are not made to do so, but you can get pixel values and compare them.

In my case, I saw the following numbers:

Photo 3: (hue, saturation, value) = (112,71,100)
Photo 2:  (hue, saturation, value) = (124,72,87)

The hue and saturation are not very important (they say we are seeing the same kind of green) but the value is very different. every 10 marks (or 10%) in value correspond to twice the luminosity, so Photo 3 is more than twice as bright as photo 2.

You also have to take into account that there is some haze in both Photo 1 and Photo 3, so Photo 2 benefits a little from a clearer sky.

Taking all considerations into account, the sun at noon does seem to be a little shinier than at mid morning and mid afternoon, but not by much. Never, not in your wildest dreams, is the Sun 8 or 10 times more luminous at noon than in mid-morning, as all FE "theories" require.

Better results would be possible with a camera that can be manually set to a given exposure length and f/stop, but the results are already so close to what real science tells us and so deeply in contradiction with all FE "theories" that this matter is clearly settled.

Well argued. Kudos.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

Unfortunatly, my camera isn't manual focus, and even at it's maxed zoom, it doesn't want to focus very well on the sun.  Even looking through the binos with it, the focus was hit or miss.  I had a total of at least 20 pictures, half of which were useless.  Those are the best 3.

I'm not sure how I could really demostrate the scale.  All I can say is they were taken with the same magnification using the same method for each.

*or are you refering to the different angles I brought up.  I could make an illustration of that without too much trouble.

What I photographed is actually more easily observed just looking through the binoculars, and without the camera and it's zoom anyway.  A cheap set and some really dark filters (preferably without the green tint) is all that's needed to view the sun and it's spots (when they occur).  It's an easy experiment for anyone to try.

If you want to compare sizes you must know the actual focal length which was used (in this case, 17.4 mm) and the size of the CCD of your camera (unknown in this case). You can alternatively know the angle of the widest setting in your camera and the maximum zoom.

In this case we know only a few data from both cameras, so comparing the 12x of 29silhouette with the 50 mm (adjusted?) focal length of the other camera is just not possible.

Something else I realized, the focal length and objective lense sizes create differences in how that 12x magnification will appear.  Objects through my larger and longer 10x 42mm binoculars look the same size, perhaps even a tiny bit larger (would have to really look at it or photograph some stuff) than through the compact and shorter 12x 25mm binoculars.

I've seen big differences in how large things appear through some of my rifle scopes too.  I've compared two that were both 3-9x, and the length and lense sizes made a big difference.

Because of the camera lense particulars, and the bino particulars, it might total 36x, but would probably appear different compared to an image taken through an entirely different means of 36x magnification.

I find it interesting that when I mentioned my degrees and the fact that I am working on a PhD in physics I am told I am making an appeal to authority. But when CT does an analysis his lack of degrees is brought up.

Does that mean that all the FEers who do not hold degrees in physics, math, chemistry, engineering and the like will refrain from commenting? Or that moderators will tell them that since they do not hold requisite degrees for commenting that their comments are therefore bunk?

Excellent work on the photos.

These pictures are obviously fake. Last time I checked the sun wasn't green.

These pictures are obviously fake. Last time I checked the sun wasn't green.

Your claim to being an FE'er is obviously fake.  Last time I checked you could think.

"You doubt the science but you offer no evidence for an alternative or you offer the same amount. For example Gravity = Magic, you have replaced it with UA + Celestial Gravitation = Uber Magic. This entire thread you have declined to offer a real alternative to what you believe the sun is made out of and what studies you performed to reach such a conclusion." - IRUSHWITHSCVS

These pictures are obviously fake. Last time I checked the sun wasn't green.

I like green though.  I need some green glasses.  I have some yellow aviators.  The world looks so much cooler through them, and I feel cooler.

I did'nt know that the Sun is green.

I did'nt know that the Sun is green.

You do understand enough about optics that you know that filters block certain colors, right? If you block all but green, then you'll see the object as green--if it emits any light around the wavelength assorted with green (roughly 520–570 nanometers). Oh, and green welding goggles are commonplace.

I did'nt know that the Sun is green.

Like Clocktower said,  green welding lenses.  Nobody has addressed the sunspot issue I mentioned though.  Since you're in Mexico, you're in a better location to capture images of the sun passing directly overhead throughout the day.  If there are any sunspots present, they should rotate differently than what I have shown if it's really only 32 miles across and 3000 miles high.  That would be significant evidence in support of a 3000 mile high sun.

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on February 19, 2012, 07:27:38 PM

I did'nt know that the Sun is green.

Like Clocktower said,  green welding lenses.  Nobody has addressed the sunspot issue I mentioned though.  Since you're in Mexico, you're in a better location to capture images of the sun passing directly overhead throughout the day.  If there are any sunspots present, they should rotate differently than what I have shown if it's really only 32 miles across and 3000 miles high.  That would be significant evidence in support of a 3000 mile high sun.

You might be interested in this site's webcam: http://www.pari.edu/telescopes/OpticalTelescopes/sun/sunspots/. I'll try to watch once the Sun comes up in North Carolina, US.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 21, 2012, 06:26:24 PM

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on February 19, 2012, 07:27:38 PM

I did'nt know that the Sun is green.

Like Clocktower said,  green welding lenses.  Nobody has addressed the sunspot issue I mentioned though.  Since you're in Mexico, you're in a better location to capture images of the sun passing directly overhead throughout the day.  If there are any sunspots present, they should rotate differently than what I have shown if it's really only 32 miles across and 3000 miles high.  That would be significant evidence in support of a 3000 mile high sun.

You might be interested in this site's webcam: http://www.pari.edu/telescopes/OpticalTelescopes/sun/sunspots/. I'll try to watch once the Sun comes up in North Carolina, US.

I inquired about the webcam's status and received:

RE: Sun Spot Telescope?
Inbox
x


Michael Castelaz [email protected]
8:29 PM (5 hours ago)

to me
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

We are in the process of modifying the telescopes with a new mount and
cameras.  We expect the telescopes to be back in operation in April.  Thanks
for your interest in PARI.

Best Regards,
Mike Castelaz

______________________
Michael W. Castelaz, Ph.D.
Science Director
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
One PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772

Office: 828-966-4207
e-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.pari.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sun Spot Telescope?


You are receiving this mail because [email protected] is
sending feedback about the site administered by you at http://www.pari.edu.
The message sent was:

This page seems to not work any more. Did you turn off this telescope's cam?
http://www.pari.edu/telescopes/OpticalTelescopes/sun/sunspots/ Thanks.


--
PARI WebMaster

I rememeber tracking sunspots as a kid with nothing more than a cheap telescope, a white piece of paper, and a clipboard. How times change.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 12:43:15 AM

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort

wat?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

You are neither a professional astronomer nor do you hold any qualification whatsoever in this field. You're opinion isn't worth a peanut. You are only qualified to give advice on telephone etiquette.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

You have picture of the SUN, rotating.... YOu can see sun spots.... rotating.....
DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!  THE SUN, NOT A DOLLAR COIN, A SUN, ROTATING.....not flat!!!...hemisphere!!!

So, stop spreading wrong informations

Quote from: Thork on February 06, 2012, 02:34:54 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 12:43:15 AM

I'm peer reviewing your excellent effort

wat?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field.

You are neither a professional astronomer nor do you hold any qualification whatsoever in this field. You're opinion isn't worth a peanut. You are only qualified to give advice on telephone etiquette.

@29silhouette - Is there any way you could give us a better idea of scale? The images are very abstract and so drawing reasonable conclusion by observation, is difficult. They are very pretty though.

You have picture of the SUN, rotating.... YOu can see sun spots.... rotating.....
DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!  THE SUN, NOT A DOLLAR COIN, A SUN, ROTATING.....not flat!!!...hemisphere!!!

So, stop spreading wrong informations

You are exactly the kind of person we are trying to help here. Take a deep breath and calm down. We'll have you understanding and embracing flat earth theory in no time.