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.

 

Unknown Satellite Crossing The Sun

page: 9
111
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
Besides somebody just did the math on the speed of this thing and either way you look at it it is moving faster than even our fastest known terrestrial or space objects.

That somebody did not have enough information to make any calculations. Anyone can do math, but doing correct math is something else.




posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

DigitalJedi805
Well... I'm no astrophysicist or anything, but it looks to me like either this thing materialized out of nowhere, or it came Out of the sun...


The object does not materialize out of nowhere. The object is in the first frame of the movie and is in every frame thereafter. There are no frames that show a blank Sun without the object.

You may be confused by the fact that the movie is on a continuous loop.

It's likely that the astronomer did not begin recording the video until the object was already partly across the Sun.






edit on 12/4/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by skyblueworld
 


A shadow from a satellite that was traveling by?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

TiM3LoRd
lol how can a telescope focusing on the sun have a low earth orbiting satellite in view. That is just the height of illogical ideas. First off it wouldnt even be remotely in focus and even if it was it would take up the entire field of view. Do you have any idea how much zoom you would need to get that much resolution of the sun??


Its something we dont understand...Jesus are we that full of our own ego as a species that we cant just say " dam we dont know " Common sense tells me unless this telescope was on Mercury that is NOT a satellite.



I just love it when people on here make comments about optics when they KNOW nothing about the subject.

The field of view and MAGNIFICATION produced by a lens/telescope when a digital camera is attached CHANGES depending on the sensor.

I have a digital slr it has whats called a crop sensor ie it is not full frame.

If I put a 300mm lens on my camera due to it's crop factor of 1.5 to get the same magnification on a full frame camera I would need a 450mm lens 300x1.5 that's why many compact cameras can have a 20,30-50x zoom lens the VERY SMALL sensor gives a high crop factor.

The satellite or possibly weather balloon passed across the field of view and the DEPTH of FIELD of the optical set up meant the object was in focus.

Also on here MANY members are into ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY we even have a thread about it!!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 4-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

ChuckNasty

ikonoklast

ChuckNasty

ikonoklast

alfa1

BGTM90
it does look like a balloon.



What do you guys think?


Interesting idea.
Going by the orientation of the sunspots on that day, and orientation of the dangling payload, we can also predict (a later finding) that if it is a balloon, then the images were captured quite early in the morning, not too long after sunrise.


I wondered about a balloon too. Do you think that it would appear to travel 1 degree in 1 second though?

The degree is a perspective of the observed distance from the source. The perceived degree at X distance is a multiplier at a lesser X distance.



I can see how perspective can play a trick on you, but I think it would have to be much closer than something like a balloon. I once saw a fly land on top of the state capital of Texas from about a mile away with the telescope in the observatory at the University of Texas.

But a weather balloon would be much further away. Weather balloons can go up to about 25 miles in altitude. If a weather balloon with a tethered instrument package was 30 miles away, to travel 1 degree in 1 second it would have to travel about a half a mile in 1 second. That's 1800 miles per hour. If it was 45 miles away it would have to travel at 2700 miles per hour.

At 1 degree per second, an object would appear to go from the western horizon to the eastern horizon in 3 minutes. Perception and illusion would be much more of an issue for something really small and a lot closer than a weather balloon. Even the fly 1 mile away would have to travel 60 miles per hour to travel 1 degree in 1 second. That's about 4 times the maximum speed of a fly. But something really small and close, say 300 feet away, would only have to travel 5 feet per second, or about 3.4 miles per hour.

I think those calculations are right, but hopefully someone will correct me if they are wrong. If they are correct, I think they rule out a weather balloon. If it was something close creating an illusion, it would have to be a lot closer than a weather balloon.


Your viewing area is a cone. Let's say the furthest distance diameter is 10,000 and you see something moving 1000 per sec at that distance, it will take 10 secs to cross. When viewing the same distance, but something closer comes into view and moves at the same 1000 per second at a distance diameter of 1000 - it will take 1 second to move across.

The degrees are in the same ratio from your fixed perspective. 1 degree at the 1000 diameter distance is a shorter distance than the 10,000 distance, but they are both 1 degree. When viewed from a cone, 1 degree is 1 degree.


Agreed, I think. Are we in agreement that this is more or less the trigonometry of it?



This is an approximation based on what we know (or think we know). For example, if it is not orbiting the earth and is not moving at a tangent to the line of observation, then the speed would be even greater because it would also be moving toward or away from the earth. It appears to be traveling way too fast to maintain orbit, it would exceed escape velocity.

I would really appreciate it if others could check this and comment on whether this model is approximately correct or if there is an error somewhere. Because if this model is correct and it is a physical object, then unless it is very tiny and very close to the telescope it seems to be moving too fast for current publicly known man-made technology.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


We know the size of sunspots and solar granulation. Sun is around 1 degree across, and since the telescope is zoomed in on the Sun, the angle of view must be far less. Since the satellite moves across the Sun, it can't be a geostationary satellite, so must be closer in to Earth. So that would put some constraints on the size, mass and distance of the satellite.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Staroth
reply to post by skyblueworld
 


A shadow from a satellite that was traveling by?

Do you really think something can cast a shadow on the sun? Where have the intelligence in these forums gone? *shakes his head*



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Apologies if this was already uploaded but here is FalconSat 3.

www.astronautix.com...



The "boom" can deploy quite a distance. If you go to the web page you can see other pictures with it more extended.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

ParanormalGuy

bottleslingguy
Besides somebody just did the math on the speed of this thing and either way you look at it it is moving faster than even our fastest known terrestrial or space objects.

That somebody did not have enough information to make any calculations. Anyone can do math, but doing correct math is something else.


We definitely don't know much. We don't even know for sure that it is a physical object.

But we do have the reported angular velocity from the observatory and there are some known distances we can plug into basic algebra and trigonometry equations to get estimates at various possible distances. Yes, they are just estimates, but they don't take more than high school level algebra and trig and should be close enough unless you want to go intercept the object.

Which information do you think is missing that makes it impossible to do calculations? And which calculations do you think are incorrect and what do you think is incorrect about them?

I'm one of the people who was doing some calculations. I can't speak for any of the others, but I would like to correct my calculations it if you (or anyone) finds an error in the calculations or the underlying assumptions. I'm pretty sure there isn't an error in my calculations, but there could very well be an error in some of my assumptions.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
www.flickr.com...What is the streak or scratch I've seen for the last several days on the sun

AIA 4500Å White Light from iSolSeek v1.3, an app for monitoring the Sun. The AIA 4500Å White Light images the solar atmosphere at a temperature of 5,000 Kelvin (K). These images reveal the Photosphere of the solar atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ikonoklast
 


I'm thinking the observations of it traveling 1 deg in one sec was a wag on his part. I read that satellites move way slower than that.

Did that observer guy put up more data elsewhere?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Nice. Bet falconsat is popular with the ladies.

I think the satellites nickname is Satdingo.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

ChuckNasty

I think the satellites nickname is Satdingo.


The one in the picture is called Oersted, after a Danish scientist. I don't know where the FalconSat name came from but when I used it as a search term the Oersted image came up.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

ChuckNasty
reply to post by ikonoklast
 


I'm thinking the observations of it traveling 1 deg in one sec was a wag on his part. I read that satellites move way slower than that.

Did that observer guy put up more data elsewhere?


I haven't seen any additional data from the observatory or the astronomer, but I haven't really searched.

Low earth orbit satellites commonly complete an orbit in about 90 minutes. If this is at the same altitude, it would be 15 times faster. At that altitude, it would be traveling at 10 times escape velocity, so it would not stay in orbit.

I would think he would have to know this (assuming he thought about it). Maybe a decimal point got left out. Or maybe it is not in orbit.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

ParanormalGuy

bottleslingguy
Besides somebody just did the math on the speed of this thing and either way you look at it it is moving faster than even our fastest known terrestrial or space objects.

That somebody did not have enough information to make any calculations. Anyone can do math, but doing correct math is something else.


your post would've had more impact if you had supplied the corrected math



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


you guys are never gonna convince me a cube is a sphere no matter how many times you repeat yourselves



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
How did thread get this far and nobody mention the black knight.

It isn't a good conspiracy without it...



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
It does appear to be a balloon to me...

sapien82
if it was a balloon wouldn't they have simply been able to go outside and see if a balloon was passing by if of course they observed this in real time ! that would be a simple solution

A high altitude balloon is most likely not going to be visible to the naked eye. Its just too small to be seen at that distance. They are up there all the time, how many have you seen?


sapien82
my third thought if its a balloon then why is it show the other way around , are we looking at images upside down through telescopes relative to the observer ?

Various telescopes will show the image upside down, or even upside and reversed. I believe that all refractors do both upside down and backwards, and certain reflectors do upside down.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


The Ørsted (oersted) sattelite seems to be a good bet, there must be other shots taken by amateurs or pros
that will be possible to find via google and other picture providers, And maybe superimpose known shots of Ørsted/falconsat on top of each other.
directory.eoportal.org...
link to the ørsted sattelite site looks like a closed case to me.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
How did thread get this far and nobody mention the black knight.

It isn't a good conspiracy without it...


Lol, I was wondering when someone would mention the black knight too.

But since at satellite altitude this would appear be going too fast to stay in orbit, it's not clear that this is a satellite.




top topics



 
111
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join