Object beside the sun?

Originally posted by VirtualParadise
I have noticed the sun seems a bit brighter than usual, I stare at the sun often (only for a few seconds), but I can barely look at it for a second or 2 now without squinting. Well we can all take pictures of the sun, so lets get hunting!!

TO ALL WHO VIDEO/FILM THE SUN: There is a lens anomaly in which a static small orb can appear next to the sun when filming it, and a few of the 'second sun' vids are undoubtedly that, but someone posted a video showing that if you tilt the camera the orb will follow the sun around even though it appears static when moving back and forth or up and down, so if you catch a small static orb next to the sun, tilt the camera to see/prove that it isn't that anomaly.

Peace ..v,

was this done in those videos? As far as i saw it looked like there was another ball in the reflection.

Someone get a welders mask and take a look ffs LOL

Okay, here's the result of my reflection experiment. I was planning on using a million-candle-power flashlight to reproduce the effect in the windshield of my jeep, but it died 10 seconds after I turned it on, so that plan's been temporarily put on hold. But, in the meantime, I reproduced the pool reflection in small-scale using a sink and a laser:





Admittedly, the secondary reflection of the laser light moved when I moved, but that's because of the small distance between the sink and the laser. The distance between the pool and the sun is significantly larger, so the angle is a lot smaller, resulting in the sun's secondary reflection in the pool staying in the same location relative to the sun's main reflection.

Now, the case should be closed, but I fear it's not...

reply to post by CLPrime


Could you film it and move the camera?

Also, that still doesn´t explain the other vids where an object is seen directly in the sky, but isn´t a lens flare.

Well good effort anyways.

reply to post by UrgentInsurgent


I could film it, but, like I said, the secondary reflection moves when I do, due to the close proximity of the laser to the sink. If you want, though, I could show that, the further away I place the laser, the less it moves, meaning that, for the distance from the sun to the pool, the reflection won't appear to move at all (like in the video).

reply to post by CLPrime


So is the secondary reflection actually projected on, or in the water or on the lens of your camera?

When you say you move, you mean the camera?

reply to post by CLPrime


I recreated your experiment, also with a red laser.

The secondairy reflection, is the reflection from the white sink, and it´s roughly the same size as the original reflection.

I don´t think the bottom of the pool is reflecting the object in the vid.

Also I don´t see much difference in the amount of movement of the reflection when the viewing angle is changed, using different heights for the laser.

Any ways it moves a lot when the viewing angle changes, nothing like the vid.

I don´t think you can call this case closed.

reply to post by UrgentInsurgent


The reflection is on the top of the water. And, I move the camera. You'll see in this video (if you can see it, that is...there always seems to be problems with viewing videos, so, if you can't see it or can't get to it, let me know, and I'll try plan B)...

Reflection video

Note how little the reflection moves relative to the main point of light when the laster is farther away, compared to how far it moves when the laser is closer. At the distance of the sun from the pool, the secondary reflection doesn't appear to move at all (it would have to be a HUGE pool to even begin to notice any relative movement by the secondary reflection).

Also, I realize the secondary reflection is the reflection off the sink...as I believe the secondary reflection of the sun is its reflection off the pool.


And the size of the secondary reflection is going to depend on the distance from the surface of the water to the bottom of the sink/pool. The pool is deeper than the sink, so the secondary reflection in the pool is a lot smaller than the main one.

reply to post by Justin9258


I swear i took exactly the same pic as the last one in your post .07/03/2011 , 16h25 belgium . it come straight from my android mp3 and werent altered in any way

its a cresent moon today here and way above the sun , i didnt take the picture behind glass , it was when walking home from work , the odd thing is the shape of the object is exactly like in your picture

Interesting how it is a camera issue though, you say you took the pic(assuming it is your pic) today in Belgium. I had my scope out watching the sun off and on all day in Belgium, saw nothing like what is in your pictures though. There is physically nothing there apart from our sun that is emitting/reflecting any light at all.
At least though taking photo's of the sun with your camera is doing the optics in it a world of good, that puts a smile on my face.

Also as per somebody else's post, please do not look at the sun with welding goggles. It can cause your eyes permanent damage, but hey knock yourselves out if you want.

reply to post by CLPrime


Jeah I can see your vid.

Mmm, I think there are more variables to this. A laser is concentrated beam. It´s diameter of light is much smaller in relation to the sink, compared to the sun´s diameter to the pool, I don´t know.

But my observation was wrong.

It is the actual laser beam that hits the bottom of the sink and bounces back to create the original reflection.

The secondary reflection is actually the light that comes from the nozzle of the laser that is reflected on the water level, directly, just because it hangs above the water, if you know what I mean here.

How this relates or compares to the real life sun pool situation, I´m not sure.

I don´t think a blue pool bottom will reflect as well as a smooth white sink.

I still don´t think the object in the pool vid, or windscreen vid is a reflection, and I don´t think the laser is a valid comparison with the sun.

Actually if you just a light bulb, wich is more like the sun I think, you get no secondary reflection at all, it´s the nature of a laser that causes this double reflection in your experiment.

reply to post by pazcat


its taken in zeebrugge belgium when coming home from work , i swear it's my picture and please just notice the form is exactly the same as in the OP's picture the location 2 . dont u find it at least abit strange . and for all our minds can comprehend it could be a 5-dimensional planet shifting back and forth but this will probably be way above your rational thinking and i respect that truly.

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Jeah I can see your vid.

Mmm, I think there are more variables to this. A laser is concentrated beam. It´s diameter of light is much smaller in relation to the sink, compared to the sun´s diameter to the pool, I don´t know.

But my observation was wrong.

It is the actual laser beam that hits the bottom of the sink and bounces back to create the original reflection.

The secondary reflection is actually the light that comes from the nozzle of the laser that is reflected on the water level, if you know what I mean here.

How this relates or compares to the real life sun pool situation, I´m not sure.

I don´t think a blue pool bottom will reflect as well as a smooth white sink.

I still don´t think the object in the pool vid, or windscreen vid is a reflection.

Obviously, I'm rather convinced that it is...even if mainly because, when I did the laser-sink experiment, I didn't know what to expect. It was a guess on my part that the smaller light in the pool was a secondary reflection (regardless of what's reflecting where), and, because it was a guess, I didn't know I would be able to reproduce it with a laser and a sink. Fortunately, and perhaps a little to my surprise, I was able to reproduce it with no effort whatsoever...simply shining a laser in the sink, just as the sun is shining in the pool.
So, I tested my guess and got the (un)expected results. That makes me much more confident in the results. But, by all means, if you can find some other way to reproduce the pool video, go right ahead

Also, I can't imagine what difference there would be between a blue surface and a white surface. What really matters is what the surface is made of... even a black surface will reflect light.

And, finally, the sun's light is, in fact, comparable to that of the laser, because both have a central region of high luminosity, as opposed to something like a flashlight, which is a large and more evenly distributed light source. However, note that I said I had originally intended to reproduce the windshield video with a million-candle-power flashlight. The brighter the light, the more focused its central beam. The sun is ridiculously bright, so its central beam is intense compared to the light surrounding it (hence why you can look all around the sun but not at it). That's why I feel the laser is a legitimate representation of the sun at this scale.

Originally posted by yets777
reply to post by pazcat

 

. dont u find it at least abit strange . and for all our minds can comprehend it could be a 5-dimensional planet shifting back.

Not at all, this is what happens when you point cameras that were not designed to handle intense light through their optics at the sun, things go wrong. The optics and the sensors are in overload and try to disperse the light as best they can.
Why would a 5th dimensional planet that pops in and out for a bit(lol) only seem to be visible when people point crappy cameras at the sun? It's not there at any other instance, it is never observed, never photographed, why? Because there is nothing to see.

reply to post by CLPrime


I added to my post that the actual primary reflection is actually the laser beam hitting the bottom of the sink.

In the pool vid, the sun is clearly not reflecting from the pool bottom, but from the water.

The secondary reflection in your exp is actually the light that escapes from the nozzle of the laser, something you see if you look at the laser from a sideways angle, this red dot is reflected on the surface of the water, just because it hangs above the water.

The secondary reflection in the pool vid is also clearly not reflecting from the bottom of the pool, but from the surface of the water.

Once again, I don´t think a laser beam can be compared to sunlight, I think your experiment is not valid, since the parameters are very different.

Originally posted by pazcat
It makes more sense than two suns anyhoo.

edit on 7-3-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)

It makes more sense then too suns? Though a very funny post, it seems like a rather strange final statement. Of course we have 2 different Suns... I am sure that our solar system is binary like most others. So your vampire planet analogy does not make more sense then 2 suns. Anyhoo... I do not personally believe that these images are of that second sun though..


Edit: Although there is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF of a binary companion, it is very logical and just waiting for the "proof" of actually finding the second body in space.

Researchers at BRI have noticed a number of problems related to the current theory of precession. While VLBI, laser ranging and other related technologies do a good job at determining the earth’s orientation, the sun’s movement through space has not been coordinated with these findings resulting in unintentional bias of precession inputs. In examining the phenomenon of the precession of the equinox (which was the original impetus for the development of lunisolar precession theory) we have found that a moving solar system model is a simpler way to reproduce the same observable without any of the problems associated with current precession theory. Indeed, elliptical orbit equations have been found to be a better predictor of precession rates than Newcomb's formula, showing far greater accuracy over the last hundred years. Moreover, a moving solar system model appears to solve a number of solar system formation theory problems including the sun's lack of angular momentum. For these reasons, BRI has concluded our sun is most likely part of a long cycle binary system.

Source: www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...



Final Note for those who do not think their is such a thing as a companion star in our solar system. I am getting sick of Nay-Sayers)

The only way the Sun can appear to move around the Earth, and be confirmed by lunar data, is because the Earth is spinning on its axis. Likewise, the only way the Earth’s axis can appear to precess or wobble relative to inertial space, and not wobble relative to the Sun as confirmed by lunar data, is if the solar system (the reference frame that contains the Sun and Earth) is curving through space. Furthermore, the only way the solar system can be curving through space at a rate of 50 arc seconds per year, is if it were gravitationally affected by another very large mass: a companion star.

Proof please.

Sunlight is a mixture of seven different colors, whereas Laser light is always of one single color (monochromatic). Sunlight is disorderly whereas laser beam is very orderly (coherent). Sunlight is not parallel whereas laser light runs parallel (collimated).

reply to post by CLPrime


See, a lightbulb would be more like the sun, try to recreate your exp with a lightbulb, doesn´t work.

Case still not closed.

reply to post by pazcat


the camerastatement i agree with it's not healthy, but question was can it create same form ,same place; and im sure u know how flares work . u say its never been observed and this clearly shows you dont reason to the fact the fuzz is about mainstreamnews reporting second suns ,even nasa is giving u hints watch carefully. nobody is forcing you to believe this . it's just people sharing thoughts

What could it be? Maybe one of the many things floating in the sky for the past 5 billion years.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9bb98081a63.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e7b86d62a49.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


If our system is binary, the other star would have to be a planetary object and not a star, (because we can't see it) and... it has never been seen. So how would the orbit change to a point where we could see it.... up close.... next to the sun?

Also, please reference a binary star system that has an orbit anywhere near what it would take for "our second star" to get anywhere near us. The binary star systems that pop up in my mind orbit at distances of light years. If we do have one and it is at some insane distance like that, I don't think we are going to notice a dead planet for quite awhile.