AR3363

[Sotiris Konstantis]

So, what is that? Never seen it before is it a glitch ?

Edited July 10, 2023 by Sotiris Konstantis

[Vancanneyt Sander]

That's a sunspot region and it's a simple alpha configuration. 

[Sotiris Konstantis]

Edited July 10, 2023 by Sotiris Konstantis

[Jesterface23]

Sort of a product of it being real time data

[Ester89]

I think I see a positive spot right in the hole in the negative polarity spot.  I wonder if the umbra corresponds only to the negative zone or if it's a mixture of both.  Anyway, the area doesn't seem very active so far

 

[Christopher S.]

55 minutes ago, Ester89 said:

I think I see a positive spot right in the hole in the negative polarity spot.  I wonder if the umbra corresponds only to the negative zone or if it's a mixture of both.  Anyway, the area doesn't seem very active so far

 

The colorization algorithm lacks the resolution required to correctly "fill in" that space with the proper color/polarity, and is not representative of reality. How such an algorithm handles large, powerful, and compact phenomenon in contrast to its surroundings is, within the realm of data, insufficiently attempting to detail information that has blown out its arbitrary scaling used for shading. Hence we'd need a special algorithm for phenomenon lying on their respective extremes in some physical capacity as opposed to the more generalized one which has worked for the other ~99% or so - or more practically, to use FITS files and file readers as opposed to web-based ones.

Fortunately, our interests generally don't require every sunspot to be 100% accurate at all times, but this does serve to show a limitation of public access materials/tools.

10 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Sort of a product of it being real time data

I'd argue it's more a matter of resource allocation carried over from a time where bandwidth was severely limited globally. I feel we're either beyond that point or sitting on it today, where such information and processing thereof is possible on generally any modern computer, not requiring insular or specialized programming. In my opinion, public access to such resources is one of the most important tools for human progress today, and as technology and raw processing power have increased drastically since the inception of web-based science resources, I've noticed across several such websites either a stagnation or regression of good web design conventions, generally resulting in some self-sabotage and the eventual loss of such resources.

As science evolves to be more topical in mainstream discussions and politics, it could certainly benefit from "cracking the window open to let air in" so to speak. Apologies for the non-sequitur subject matter here, however, SWL is one such website which has been quite successful at providing a wealth of these resources to a more casual "audience" and as such, "boring" data is made much more digestible/appealing. To confront the boundary of such a positive element in the form of "too much data to be convenient to deliver to public on-demand via web tools" is certainly one thing I'd like to do less often. SDO's movie viewer is an excellent way to digest tons of raw information, and as such expedience is necessary for my work, I similarly use SWL as a launching pad since so much is compiled on a single tab in the home page, which loads FAST.

Perhaps it is a matter of some gifted programmer seeing the potential widespread benefits to removing certain obsolescent obstacles.

[Jesterface23]

2 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

I'd argue it's more a matter of resource allocation carried over from a time where bandwidth was severely limited globally. I feel we're either beyond that point or sitting on it today, where such information and processing thereof is possible on generally any modern computer, not requiring insular or specialized programming. In my opinion, public access to such resources is one of the most important tools for human progress today, and as technology and raw processing power have increased drastically since the inception of web-based science resources, I've noticed across several such websites either a stagnation or regression of good web design conventions, generally resulting in some self-sabotage and the eventual loss of such resources.

To be fair, we probably don't know what all goes into creating the science data and the amount of processing power it takes to go through multiple levels of data from thousands of images per day. Real time data might be labeled as real time for a reason.

[Christopher S.]

12 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

To be fair, we probably don't know what all goes into creating the science data and the amount of processing power it takes to go through multiple levels of data from thousands of images per day. Real time data might be labeled as real time for a reason.

I don't know what you expect me to write in response here, as you didn't really add anything to the discussion. I'm pretty sure that's built-in to what I wrote, so perhaps you did not interpret my comment accurately? You came here to point out what might not be known to say X is labeled X for a reason, maybe. I don't have an appreciably intelligent follow-up to such a remark, and would ask that you put more effort into this discussion if you're really wanting to have it. Otherwise, I have nothing for a simple contrarian structure.

[Jesterface23]

19 minutes ago, Christopher S. said:

I don't know what you expect me to write in response here, as you didn't really add anything to the discussion. I'm pretty sure that's built-in to what I wrote, so perhaps you did not interpret my comment accurately? You came here to point out what might not be known to say X is labeled X for a reason, maybe. I don't have an appreciably intelligent follow-up to such a remark, and would ask that you put more effort into this discussion if you're really wanting to have it. Otherwise, I have nothing for a simple contrarian structure.

In that case I probably read it wrong