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.

 

Object beside the sun?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Taken yesterday morning from a location in the middle of England. I've messed around with the colours a bit to make it easier to see. Or rather, easier to see that there's nothing there.





posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Urantia1111
reply to post by CLPrime
 


what i fear is that one of your laser dots is the beam reflecting off of the water and the other is the beam hitting the bottom of the sink.


That's what I'm saying it is, because that's what I think is causing the double reflection in the pool.


Well your wrong, as I pointed out.

Do your experinment with a normal lightbulb, wich is kinda like the sun. A laser is a whole different ballgame.

With a lightbulb, you only get the reflection of the lightbulb, no secondary reflection.

Once again, a laser and the sun are two way different types of light.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


Actually, I explained that, so I don't think it's an unreasonable analog. But, if you want me to, I'd be happy to do the math so we can both know for sure.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
If there was indeed something as big as is being suggested, would we not see it all round the world, rather than just in a few random scattered places around the Earth?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   


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
reply to post by CLPrime
 


That´s the problem, you are trying to reproduce the pool vid, using different parameters in order to get your desired result.

You need to reproduce the exact same circumstances, and then see if you get the same anomaly.



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.


And my answwer was this,

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).


It´s not the same.

You´re going to do math on what?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by leeangqi

TWO SUNS in the sky prophecy by ancient sumerian

I justtt...hate their g_ds



LINK; Warning


interesting video footage



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent

You´re going to do math on what?


The scaling of the luminosity of the sun compared to that of the laser. It's not a colour issue, because water isn't exactly known for treating red light any differently than any other colour. The problem with a light bulb is its light is too dispersed to accurately represent a scaled version of the sun. At least, that would be my (educated) guess. But, like I said, I could do the math on scaling the luminosity to know for sure.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Do you need a little push, or should I fire a gun into the air?




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


weelllll, I'm busy doing some other "Fragile Earth"-related calculations, so I'm making sure it'll actually be worth my time. I'm a man of many maths...I gotsa weed out the unimportant ones. So, give me a sec...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Wee, lol. No pressure, I don´t want you wasting your time for this discussion.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


It's not a waste if someone other than me cares. So, here it is...

The sun's luminosity, at 1 AU (from Earth), is 3.839*10^26 W, with 1 AU = 1.49597870691*10^11 m.
The irradiance of the sunlight at the surface of the Earth = (sun's luminosity)/(surface area of sphere @ 1 AU)
= (3.839*10^26 W)/(4*pi*(1.49597870691*10^11 m)^2) = 1.365*10^3 = 1365 W/m^2
The laser light doesn't dissipate significantly with distance, so, at an average distance of 0.5 m (the distance in the middle of the two distances I held the laser at, 6 inches and 3 ft), the luminosity of the laser that would reproduce that irradiance is the sunlight irradiance multiplied by the area of the beam of light. The width of the laser beam is 3.25 mm = 0.00325 m. This is a radius of 0.001625 m.
So, the luminosity of the laser should be:

Irradiance x beam area = (1.365*10^3 W/m^2)(4*pi*(0.001625^2)) = 0.0453 W = 45.3 mW.
Interestingly enough, my laser is a 50 mW red laser pointer. I didn't even expect that.

Therefore, the luminosity of my laser is a perfect match for that of the sun at this scale, whether or not it only emits red light.
edit on 8-3-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by leeangqi

Originally posted by leeangqi

TWO SUNS in the sky prophecy by ancient sumerian

I justtt...hate their g_ds



LINK; Warning


interesting video footage


TWO SUNS IN HOLLAND

TWO SUNS IN SRI LANKA

NASA VIDEO FOOTAGE

Timelapse of Two Suns Rising

A MUST WATCH FOOTAGE Very Odd Capture of Something In Front Of Sun - Video anomaly confirmed


TO BE CONTINUED...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Hey, I took a pic with my droid, n got the same effect with it but before I took the pic I noticed the flare would move around the sun depending on the angle I had the phone.

If any one is interested, could you help me out? I cant load the pic up with my droid nor my comp, since the comp freezes when I try usb or email.

Thanx, VV6



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I´ll have to take your word on that one. Impressive.

So there about the same strength.

What about the other factors,


Sunlight is disorderly whereas laser beam is very orderly (coherent). Sunlight is not parallel whereas laser light runs parallel (collimated).



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I´ll have to take your word on that one. Impressive.

So there about the same strength.

What about the other factors,


Sunlight is disorderly whereas laser beam is very orderly (coherent). Sunlight is not parallel whereas laser light runs parallel (collimated).


I think a flashlight would be more effective than a laser if it satisfied 2 conditions:

1. its luminosity were comparable at the scaled distance, and
2. its light spread out in a comparable way

Condition 1 is satisfied by the laser pointer.
So, does a flashlight really have a comparable spread to the sun? Honestly, I don't think either a laser or a flashlight do. As you say, a laser's light is focused, whereas the sun's light is not (and that's certainly fortunate for us...focused energy like that is known as a Gamma Ray Burst). But, then, it's possible that a flashlight is too disorderly. I've never known a regular flashlight to be as evenly distributed as the sun, leading to interference and refractions in the water different from those produced by the sun's light. That's why I wanted to use the million-candle-power flashlight, because it's a much more accurate analog, solving both the luminosity and beam focus issues.
Personally, I'm satisfied with the fact that the laser accurately represents the luminosity of the sun, but that may very well be a bias on my part. It's a sunny day here today (for the first time since this whole double-sun thing began), and I might just see if I can position my jeep to reproduce the windshield video, and see if I can also get the million-candle-power flashlight up and running to reproduce it that way, to see if there's any difference.
I've also got some other tests in mind, as well. I think I'm in Mythbuster mode.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Just one more reason to own a pool in a sunny place.

In the meantime I´ll see if I can catch the sun in some water.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Yes, Boncho. I am aware that an even a fraction of a light year is incredibly far. The whole reasons for my posts in the first place was the comment by pazcat that a "Vampire Planet" was far more likely than a binary star companion, which in deed it is not. I am also not trying to use scientific fact to glorify the "2nd Sun" Images seen all across ATS. But like I also showed, this object (if on an elliptical orbit) would NOT NEED to be right behind the sun to see it, nor would it NEED to be 845 AU at all times, who knows where its closest point of its approach occurs. But our larger star would likely suck its little companion quite close. Close enough to view... I cannot say with 100% certainty.

*sigh* That being said, this is a thread about a 2nd Sun not necessarily about this "supposed" destroyer. (Nagatu, Nibiru, Nemesis.. Whatever the F*ck they want to call it) I don't believe our binary companion is going to get close enough to become apocalyptic. But the extra mass pulling on our magnetic field could distort it enough to cause a reversal. And a geomagnetic reversal could have some negative effects on the planet... Especially if the field is already weakened due to our own Sol cycle. If the companion had some planets/moons in its orbit their is always a possibility for collision but I feel that is also doubtful.

I have de-railed this thread long enough, I will let it go back to a discussion about optical illusions and Camera effects, as that is a good counterpoint on the picture in the original post.

edit on 8/3/2011 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VenomVile.6
 


I did the same with my htc phone this afternoon and it also produced an object that wasn´t a lens flare, but it did move around the sun as I tilted my camera, so it wasn´t the same as the more convincing object vids.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


Hm...what would you say if I told you I just expended a lot of energy trying to recreate the "anomaly" in the windshield...and I couldn't. I tried it in the windshield, at an angle. I tried it in the side window, with the window on the other side down. I tried it in the side window, with the window on the other side up. I tried everything I could think of, but it didn't work.
Also, if that isn't bad enough, when I look at the sun in the windshield, I see two suns overlapping (one covers maybe three-quarters of the other - kinda like this), but, when I take a picture of it, only one turns out, so I don't know where the other reflection's going.
So, yeah...a failure on this end.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


So you would say that, technically, in the windshield vid, the second reflection could´ve been a real object?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join