Somethings up with venus

reply to post by Phage
Well then,that clears that up.Why doesnt Venus have a magnetic field? and why does Venus rotate the opposite way from Earth? that kind of throws the planets forming out of the suns spinning disc theory right out the window...imo.Six of the planets also rotate about their axis in the same prograde,rotation direction.The exceptions,the planets with retrograde rotation,are Venus and Uranus.Hows that possible? Unless they were captured by the suns gravity after the solar system was formed...

Perhaps Venus and Uranus are,or were once massive Comets?...www.unmuseum.org...

thunderbolts.info... > The image on the left in the following link is just a diagram and today Venus’ comet tail can only be detected by magnetometers and charged particle detectors. However, place Venus on an eccentric orbit in a highly charged ‘dusty’ environment and the normally invisible magnetotail (and bow shock) would become highly visible.

Wal Thornhill commenting on Venus’ cometary magnetotail..."A power surge in those filaments today would cause them to glow, and Venus would form a "stupendous" cometary apparition in the sky. The forensic evidence would stand up in court, showing that Venus was a comet within human memory"...

Hmmmmm?...a bow shock...

reply to post by blocula

No one knows why Venus has no magnetic field.

Venus and Uranus don't exactly rotate opposite the other planets, it's more like their axis of rotation is severely tilted. Venus is sort of upside down and Uranus is lying on its side. It's thought that very early in the formation of the solar system they were struck by large bodies resulting in a catastrophic disturbance of their angular momentum.

No, they were not comets.

reply to post by Phage
What were and where are the massive objects that may have struck them? Surely if they collided,those massive objects would'nt have enough forward momentum left over to continue on out of the solarsystem.So maybe thay received a glancing blow by the comet venus?...It is "possible"...

Originally posted by blocula
If this is a lens flare,what are the odds that a lens flare would be exactly lined up with and seem to be leaving the surface of venus? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10,000? or more?

1 in 1. It happens every time.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Phage

 

The fantasy about calling that a flare is just that, supposition, though ridiculous, and fantasy.

Right, because the fact that it happens every single time Venus enters or leaves the field of view, and the fact that it happens in reverse depending on whether Venus is entering or leaving, and the fact that it always points towards the center of the field of view, is all a massive freaking coincidence. And the fact that other telescopes looking at Venus show nothing there is just proof that those people are lying and faking their videos. Or it's just a lens flare. Yeah, it's just a lens flare.

Heres an informative "lens flare" link that should clear up all the flare ups concerning wether or not this venus activity is one or isnt one > en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by blocula
Heres an informative "lens flare" link that should clear up all the flare ups concerning wether or not this venus activity is one or isnt one > en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 31-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Yes, it is informative, but could you be more specific as to how it should clear up the issue? Those who seem determined to believe it was anything but a lens flare don't seem to care that a lens flare is a normal consequence of a bright object shining into a lens and reflecting within the camera or telescope off of various optical elements.

Originally posted by imc3dxx
I was working my overnight shift during new years eve. I went outside to my vehical around 11:40pm and noticed the moon was not only low in the horizon, but had a red tint to it.

There was probably some kind of pollutants in the air. Smoke tends to have a strong effect the Moon's colour close to the horizon. I've seen some red Moons before.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by imc3dxx
I was working my overnight shift during new years eve. I went outside to my vehical around 11:40pm and noticed the moon was not only low in the horizon, but had a red tint to it.

There was probably some kind of pollutants in the air. Smoke tends to have a strong effect the Moon's colour close to the horizon. I've seen some red Moons before.

no, no, no FORGET the color. When does the moon set in the middle of the night? ODD

Originally posted by imc3dxx

no, no, no FORGET the color. When does the moon set in the middle of the night? ODD

When it's a first quarter moon. Not odd at all.

reply to post by Pauligirl
When we see what looks like an obviously larger moon low on the horizon,it is not really any bigger then when we see it high in the sky when it looks obviously smaller,they are actually both the same,we are looking at an as yet unexplained mystery of the moon illusion,why do we see the moon as being larger when its not? > en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ngchunter
I made an updated video through 12/28 23:18 UT:

Just to give a preview of coming attractions, a little while after Venus leaves the field of view, perhaps a day or two later, it will produce a flare that looks like this (this is from beacon data recorded in December of last year and processed using my technique):
i319.photobucket.com...

My prediction has come true. Here's an updated video with data through 1/3/12 15:18 UT:

Now, would the lens flare deniers please explain how I was able to predict this?

Yeah, seriously. Ngchunter has now provided a rational explanation for this, provided compelling evidence for it, made a prediction based on that evidence which has not only turned out to be correct, but has been proved to be correct with further (you guessed it) compelling evidence.

Unless we are now going to venture beyond the context of this topic and into philsophical existentialism (i.e. we don't really know for certain whether we're here right now... which, hey, I'm your guy if you want to discuss that! Lol. But as I said, that's beyond the context of this thread, by a long shot!) I think people really need to seriously consider retracting their objections and accepting that this is a lens flare.

With all due respect.

Peace.

reply to post by Unity_99

We've had major windstorms, the kind that happen with geomagnetic storms. Including Christmas, where a tree was downed and power out until late. We ate just after 11 pm

Oh.....have MERCY! A solar storm isn't like a storm on earth and blowin down trees....pu-leeeeze. You may have had some wind, but it wasn't from the Sun. Why would you even think that? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

One final nail in the coffin, check out this pre-flight test of the HI-1 camera, particularly page 6, figure 6:
orbi.ulg.ac.be...
Pre-flight tests with a newtonian collimator showed the exact same lens flare pattern as bright objects cross the field of view, even the final horizontal flare I succesfully predicted. In particular, the ring pattern was identified as a reflection on the last two retainers of the HI-1 lens barrel.

reply to post by StealthyKat
Just wanted to clear up what wind actually is...

"Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale.On Earth,wind consists of the bulk movement of air.In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the sun through space,while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet's atmosphere into space"...en.wikipedia.org...

just read thru this whole thread not really sure why but it proved interesting on many levels.
and now i am almost positive that it was not lens flare.
before you start to bite my head off i do think the odds of it being artificial are nearing unity.
now why do i say that, because somewhere in the middle of this thread was a link to nasa's explanation for it.
bah now i cant even recall how they put it but it was some kinda of reflection and they had all kinds of pictures just like the ones in this thread to prove it.

so while i will agree that this phenomana is artificial and shouldnt be worried about. i am also pretty sure it is not lens flare (actually i am not sure if that satellite actually has lenses at all).

sigh... so much ado about nothing.

there were alot of interesting ideas presented here though the best of these were tangential to the whole question of the photo.

one last comment to make to ngchunter you amaze me, you were a great contributer to this thread, were pretty much right (except that you missed that link to nasa and keep using the term lens flare) you have a good grasp on many things and knowledge to back it up; but somehow you still came out as the biggest troll in this thread! please try not to denigrate people so much, we get it you are smart but you dont have to try to rub everyones nose in it when they dont think exactly as you do; particularily when they are not actually dissmissing your ideas but adding a whole other layer to what this thread could have been.