Somethings up with venus

page: 18
106
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
now why do i say that, because somewhere in the middle of this thread was a link to nasa's explanation for it.

And their explanation, sure enough, matched my explanation.


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.

That's what a lens flare is; it's an internal reflection in an optic.

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).

It does have lenses, as I explained earlier in this thread in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


(except that you missed that link to nasa

No, I didn't miss it. They explained what was happening, and if you look at their description, they're describing a lens flare. That's what a lens flare is, an internal reflection in an optic.
sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil...
In fact, I found out exactly where the internal reflection was coming from, a couple of retainers in the lens barrel as I explained here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


and keep using the term lens flare)

That is the appropriate term for an internal reflection in an optic. In cases where it occurs with a reflector it can be a bit of a misnomer, but it is still a generally accepted term and that is not even the case here; we're dealing with a multi-element lens system with the heliospheric imagers. It IS a lens system.


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!

So I'm a "troll" because I know what I'm talking about and back it up with hard evidence? No, I am not. Name calling is not permitted on ATS.


please try not to denigrate people so much,

If you feel I have denigrated someone in a post, then report it to the mods because such behavior is against the rules. Otherwise, do not make accusations. I stand by everything I said.
edit on 5-1-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Benevolent Adversary
 


Where did you feel he denigrated anyone? Can you quote it? In my opinion he provided a factual, scientifically valid analysis of the images, formulated a hypothesis based on that, made predictions based on it that turned out to be correct, and then proved it with compelling evidence. In my opinion he was civil in tone and conducted himself with decorum. He didn't insult anyone that I can see. He may have become a bit (understandably) frustrated at times with the repeated insistence by some that it wasn't a lens flare even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, but that isn't the same as denigrating people.

Speaking from authority and experience, as he did, is often perceived as being condescending even when that is not the intent. I'm not inside his mind, so I can't speak for him and if I'm wrong I'll gladly say so. But in my view he said nothing to indicate that he was on a high horse. That's just my own subjective impression of his posts, of course. If you feel differently, that is your prerogative and I will certainly respect your opinion.

However I feel in that case that it should be reiterated that some in this topic weren't simply considering alternative possibilities, but rather were rejecting his evidence and analysis, even going so far as to call him a liar and a disinfo agent on that basis. Proving his hypothesis to them doesn't make him a troll or heavy-handed in my book.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Ngchunter is an asset to this forum, the only person I believe he ever insulted was ME, due to me not accounting for a shadow being cast on to an invisible atmospheric layer from a Space Shuttle plume by the sun. I was calling an explanation of the phenomena by an accredited astrophysicist an error and he basically attacked my attack of the presenter's incomplete explanation (never was it mentioned the shadow was on a thin atmospheric layer). So I researched it, I learned, but hold to my main argument that a shadow can't be cast on the sky, a shadow can only be cast on to a surface, the surface was a thin invisible layer of atmospheric difference, (invisible cloud/moisture difference layer). Over a vast expanse, it becomes a surface.

Generally I never read ngchunter actually attack a poster, a question, or even a reply that acknowledges the continuing referencing of each side of an ongoing debate.

Star for you both.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Whatever it is,things have changed.Time is a no constandere



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
image artifacts-internal reflections.
not lens flare.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...stereo
en.wikipedia.org...wikipedia




Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens.

note this quote from wikipedia only talks about lens flare in relation to a lens



This is caused by reflections of the bright planet off of the camera barrel.

note this qoute from the stereo learning center does not talk about the anomaly coming from a lens.
in fact in reading the stereo/nasa explanation for this phenomana no where is the term lens flare used in relation to what they are explaining about this image artifact.
now i would assume (this is an assumption on my part) that if this term lens flare were in fact broad enough to include the image artifact they are trying to explain, they would in fact use said term as it is a term that is familiar to the laymen (which i definately include myself within).

normally i wouldnt bother with pettiness like this but many of the responses in this thread seemed to reach this level that i felt i needed to make a point.

kudos to you ngchunter you did in fact bring alot to this thread (which i also acknowledged in my other post)
but i still dislike greatly the manner in which you engage others.

but unless there is some broader definition of lens flare then i think we can safely say this was not lens flare but more correctly termed image artifact or internal reflection.

sorry to be completely and obnoxiously petty but sometimes one needs to hold up the mirror in order to see clearly.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
image artifacts-internal reflections.
not lens flare.

Internal reflections ARE lens flares. It even says so in your own link, heck even the quote you extracted from it says so:


Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens.



note this quote from wikipedia only talks about lens flare in relation to a lens

Note that STEREO's heliospheric imager uses a lens:

Page 6

The HI-1 lens system has a focal length of 78 mm and aperture of 16 mm

www.sstd.rl.ac.uk...





This is caused by reflections of the bright planet off of the camera barrel.

note this qoute from the stereo learning center does not talk about the anomaly coming from a lens.

Too bad, this one does:

Page 5

Ray-tracing simulations have identified this ring pattern as a reflection on the last two retainers of the HI-1 lens barrel

orbi.ulg.ac.be...


in fact in reading the stereo/nasa explanation for this phenomana no where is the term lens flare used in relation to what they are explaining about this image artifact.

Irrelevant, what they describe is a lens flare, even according to the description of a lens flare you yourself posted.


now i would assume (this is an assumption on my part)

Well, there's your mistake right there. I've already proven it to be a lens flare, specifically an internal reflection off of the last two retainers of the lens barrel.


sorry to be completely and obnoxiously petty but sometimes one needs to hold up the mirror in order to see clearly.

Drop the personal attacks.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
sigh..... have it your way.
its your thread now do as you please i wont bother you or your bridge.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ressiv
 

European Space Agency has the Venus Express probe orbiting Venus currently. But I haven't been able to find any recent data from it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I absolutely adore this video.


On thing I'll say, lense flare, right?


Breaking News! Venus Explodes, Hits and Moves Mars as Comet Lovejoy Passes 1/6/2012 II



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

That isn't lens flare, surely? That isn't Mars orbit changing either!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

Yes. As pointed out in this very thread.
Exactly what happens every time Venus enters or leaves the field of view.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Oh yes, it does look like the flare on page 5 of this thread. It just looked brighter there and I got excited. Unity99's hype got to me for a moment there.

edit on 6/1/12 by Pimander because: spelling mistake (flair! Flare
)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Breaking News! Venus Explodes, Hits and Moves Mars as Comet Lovejoy Passes 1/6/2012 II

As mentioned, it was a lens flare. Mars didn't get "moved" by it either; when mars moves up in the video suddenly, all the other stars in the image move up as well. That means the spacecraft rotated slightly.

Oh, by the way, I predicted that "flash" at the end which received special attention in the video.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
How did I do that?
edit on 6-1-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Phage
 

It just looked brighter there and I got excited.

Different processing of the raw data made it look brighter. It's just a matter of how they perform their pseudo-dark subtraction (background subtraction as they call it) and how they adjust the histogram levels of the image.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



Page 5

Ray-tracing simulations have identified this ring pattern as a reflection on the last two retainers of the HI-1 lens barrel


Looks like that pretty much sums it up I'd say.


Good job, keep up the good work.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Im sorry this mystery cannot be wrapped up in such a throway and cavalier attitude.

The curtain of truth sometimes needs to be taken down and washed.This situation of the Venus visitation fly by has happened before,im sure it will again.

Im just hoping people are not put off by all the posters spoiling the thread.
edit on 6-1-2012 by paperface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by paperface
 


That's OK, you are excused.

If something that cataclysmic happened to Venus, our closest neighbor, do you think we wouldn't have felt any effects from it yet?

I feel fine, just like normal, except it was nearly 60ºF today in Columbus on January 6th. (It melted the snow on the ground so don't go anywhere with that fact).



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
i havent found topic about this, so i will post it here:
V enus spinning slower than it should




The Venus Express spacecraft has peered through the crushing and poisonous atmosphere of the planet, and found that it's spinning slower than expected.


so question is: was it always spinning at this rate,and we were wrong about calculations or data, or something recently happend making it spin slower
edit on 17-2-2012 by griswold because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by griswold
i havent found topic about this, so i will post it here:
V enus spinning slower than it should




The Venus Express spacecraft has peered through the crushing and poisonous atmosphere of the planet, and found that it's spinning slower than expected.


so question is: was it always spinning at this rate,and we were wrong about calculations or data, or something recently happend making it spin slower


I could be wrong, but from what I gather, Venus was perhaps always rotating at this rate, and our calculations/understanding of those calculations were wrong.

From Earth-based observation and former satellite observations, Venus is too cloud-covered to see the surface features and get precise data. However, the 'Venus Express' probe has instruments that can help it peer through the cloud cover, thus it can "see" ground features better, and with a high enough resolution.

Of course, if science couldn't see the surface features before, there is no way of telling if it slowed down recently or not, but odds are that it did NOT suddenly and coincidentally slow down around this same time that we are actually able to measure its rotation more precisely.
edit on 2/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by griswold
 


Fascinating! Something has to have changed. Magellan's measurements would not have been that far off. That said, I'll bet they go back and take a close look at the four years of Magellan data to see if the rotation rate was changing during that time. It's the sort of thing that simply would not have occured to them to look for.

The "Daily Fail" does make some errors such as this one:

The orbit could be being affected by Venus's dense atmosphere – more than 90 times the pressure of Earth’s and high-speed weather systems, which are believed to change the planet’s rotation rate through friction with the surface.
(Emphasis added)

The article mentions...

Other effects could also be at work, including exchanges of angular momentum between Venus and the Earth when the two planets are relatively close to each other.
.

This is them being thorough and considering all possibilities. However, tidal forces (which would be the mechanism for exchanges of angular momentum) between Earth & Venus are thousands of times too weak to generate this sort of change. Also, this would have generated a very noticable effect on the Earth's rotation, which we do not see.





new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join