APOD: A Triple Sunrise Over Gdansk Bay (2009 Aug 04)

[Alnilam]

To Green1 :

Your picture is very interesting for me : by duplicating the initial sun image, you noticed also the dupication of its reflection on the sea surface but you don't remark that the sun "wings" (parts of the front clouds over-expoded) are too, and very much brighter.

There is no such patern on the original picture as I mentionned in a previous message. So the perfect replication of the original sun image (sun, clouds, etc...) is not so obvious than numerous writers asserted... ???

The remarks about surimpression of the sun image over clouds that could explain the illusion of the "second sun" behind clouds is a mistake. In an overimpression (additional), light + shadow = light.

In my opinion, the discussion about left or right is useless : all depends on the angle of the hypothetical window with the camera axis. Another point : the reflection in lens could not produce such pattern : the reflection is always symetrical in a central symetry. That's exactely the case of the small "red spot" near the center of the first picture.

[PeterW]

Without wishing to enter the thorny topic of witness testimony.... three questions/comments:

1. Before we all end up discussing something which may have a simple answer can we have it clarified whether the photographs were taken in the open air or through any windows (double glazed or not)!

2. If we are to accept this is an atmospheric optical effect; why is there apparently a cloud layer between the primary and secondary images in the photographs?

3. Similarly, (If we are to accept...) why is the apparent horizontal spacing between the primary, secondary and tertiary images reducing and rotating clockwise (relatively quickly) through the sequence of photographs? (Is there a later photograph which shows a further difference in the spacing and ‘rotation’ ?)

[socaldad]

From the glossary of the book "Color and light in nature" by D. Lynch and W. Livingston (Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2001), p.266:
"multiple suns (moons) unexplained occurrences of multiple images of the sun".

I would like to know what was in this book. Are they talking about multiple images above, below, left or right?

[socaldad]

[quote="luchio"]

balkon.jpg

In this picture one can see the reflection of the balcony railing in the 'window" good catch luchio. This does indicate that there is a window between the camera and the sun. as for the direction and angle problem being discussed, depending on the parallelism or lack there of the images can go in any direction. That does not even take into acount the position of the camera. The apparent change in distance between the 'suns' makes me think that the camera was moved from one place to another between photos. Occam's razor once again.

[Chris Peterson]

From the glossary of the book "Color and light in nature" by D. Lynch and W. Livingston (Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2001), p.266:
"multiple suns (moons) unexplained occurrences of multiple images of the sun".

I would like to know what was in this book. Are they talking about multiple images above, below, left or right?

I find nothing in the book about multiple Sun or Moon images. There is simply the lone reference in the glossary.

[sillyman03]

I have several points of evidence, which to me suggest this to be a natural phenomenon:

I would have to argue against the double-pane window arguments due to the cloud formations in the photo. If the multiple suns were an artifact of internal reflection, whether from the interior of the lens or from window panes, the additional suns would appear "on top" of the background and would look like 'ghosts' sitting in front of the clouds. Further, if internal reflections in the lens or window were to blame, then there would be multiple images of the highlights from the cloud cover as well, they too are clipping above the camera's sensitivity. However since the clouds are clearly in front of the additional suns I would rule out both refraction from the camera, and from the window and finally argue that the image is in fact natural.

I think it is important to note that the multiple suns are converging in the later photos, which suggests that the phenomenon is dependent upon the angular distance from the horizon. (or to be fair to competing theories, that the photographer has shifted weight).

It has been suggested that the 'mirage' effect would only produce false-suns directly above the original. That statement in my opinion is only accurate for equatorial observations. Higher elevation reflections would be closer to the observer than the horizon, making them further from the source, which with Poland's high latitude gives the observer an angular difference from the equator, which is then exaggerated by the atmosphere. Equatorial observation would cast three vertical suns, but the closer the observer moves to the poles, the greater the angle towards the nearest pole the mirage will take with respect to the horizon.

My vote is that this is a fantastic visualization of atmospheric gradients as illustrated by the sun bouncing its own image off of different layers of the Earth's atmosphere, akin to whales bouncing whale-song off of salinity-temperature differences in the ocean.

I vote natural phenomenon.

[asaguiar]

The horizon line and the clouds seem to be in the same stepwise arrangement as the sun disk in the mirages. There is no reflection of mirages in the closer sea (a and b). The atmosphere looks clean.

http://asaguiar.med.br/arquivos/apagar/1.jpg (68.5KB)
The most likely explanation is the existance of uniformly refracting layers between the clouds (supposedly closer than horizon) and the "film". My bet is a window or door and/or camera lenses themselves.

Alexandre Aguiar

[tytower]

If it is not the glass then what about reflection from clouds at different height levels behind the first cloud. Cloud is obvious from the picture. The main pic is the sun the next left is a reflection of the sun off the closest cloud back to the second cloud and forward to the eye. The next left is a similar reflection of the reflection.

[drollere]

I would have to argue against the double-pane window arguments due to the cloud formations in the photo. If the multiple suns were an artifact of internal reflection, whether from the interior of the lens or from window panes, the additional suns would appear "on top" of the background and would look like 'ghosts' sitting in front of the clouds. Further, if internal reflections in the lens or window were to blame, then there would be multiple images of the highlights from the cloud cover as well, they too are clipping above the camera's sensitivity.

the clouds are in front of the sun. therefore the clouds are in front of the sun in the images of the sun. they are images of clouds, not more clouds.

before anyone opines on what should or should not be visible in a reflected image, they need to compute the luminance ratio between the source and image. the fact that the third solar image is barely visible indicates there is a very steep luminance decrement at each reflection.

if we assume the camera sensor has a 3 log effective response range (1 to 1000), and the first image (sun) is at the camera's upper limit, and the third image is near the camera's lower limit, then the amount of reflected light is less than 10%. so let's say it is 8% transmission. then if the sun is luminance response 1000, the first reflection is luminance response 80, and the second image is luminance response 6.

the image of the sun is clipped, so the actual luminance ratio of the images cannot be computed from the image. the solar reflections show that the luminance of the clouds is quite a bit lower than the luminance of the sun behind them (which makes sense, since the sun's light has to travel transversely through the entire cloud layer), but they appear invisible over the sun's primary image because the solar image is drastically clipped by the camera's luminance response range. (they are bright, but the sun cannot be imaged any brighter.) however the camera's speed (either its exposure, or aperture, or automatic iso setting) is pushed to the very high end by the solar image, so environmental light that would normally appear bright must be very dark. this causes the clouds in the reflected image, which reproduce the actual luminance ratio between sun and clouds at a much lower luminance level, to appear dark or black.

again, people who want to explain this as an atmospheric lensing phenomenon need to come up with a causal explanation as to why there is a vertical wall of thermal discontinuity that is at minimum dozens of miles long (to create the small image displacement it must be nearly parallel to the direction of view and therefore seen in really severe foreshortening) and across that entire distance is absolutely free of any thermal turbulence (serrating of the sun's edge) or curving (elliptical distortion of the sun's primary image).

it simply doesn't happen, boys and girls.

[drollere]

From the glossary of the book "Color and light in nature" by D. Lynch and W. Livingston (Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2001), p.266:
"multiple suns (moons) unexplained occurrences of multiple images of the sun".

I would like to know what was in this book. Are they talking about multiple images above, below, left or right?

i own the book, and chasiotis has quoted the entire glossary entry in this book for the phrase "multiple suns/moons". there is only one entry for "multiple suns/moons" in the index, and it is to page 266, in other words, the glossary entry.

there is no photograph or treatment of "multiple suns/moons" anywhere in the book. there is an extensive treatment of mirages, all of them vertical (not horizontal) image displacements.

the cite is a red herring.

[drollere]

In the attached image, I took a flashlight and a scanner with two clear windows, much like a 2-pane window, and shined a flashlight through it and took a picture in the same orientation as the sun, window, and camera in the picture. What you will notice is the the reflected images go to the RIGHT, not the left. Can one of the window people explain why the sun would reflect differently in the picture?

in your image, there is no primary image of the flashlight; all the images are reflections. they are all at a snell angle to your flashlight and your eye (camera).

in the topic image, there is a direct (line of sight) image of the sun, and the reflections are displaced in relation to it. the reflection geometry is completely different.

ask someone to shine the flashlight on your window from the inside, then go outside and look at the reflections; take a photograph that contains both the flashlight's primary (line of sight) image, and any reflections you see.

[socaldad]

drollere thanks for the clarification of the book cite .

[gaz2inf]

One very striking feature of this picture tells me this is an atmospheric effect. The repeated solar images are behind the clouds and each cloud bank is different. I fail to see how any window or lens effect would result in that. Perhaps this is another atmospheric warming effect that hasn't previously been recorded.

[Chris Peterson]

One very striking feature of this picture tells me this is an atmospheric effect. The repeated solar images are behind the clouds and each cloud bank is different. I fail to see how any window or lens effect would result in that. Perhaps this is another atmospheric warming effect that hasn't previously been recorded.

To reiterate: each solar disc shows both a reflected cloud pattern, which appears the same, and a superimposed cloud pattern, which does not. There's no way to completely separate the two, but it is pretty clear that this is what we see, and that is precisely the expected result if you are looking through double glazed windows and getting internal reflections.

[kamoses]

Looking closely at my slightly edited version of IMG_9805, it seems each progressing "reflection" grows closer to its predecessor relative to the horizontal axis, but seems to grow farther vertically. Essentially it curves upward.

Considering the window reflection theory, assuming that the window is of standard construction with two panes that are actually parallel to one another, I could buy into the left side reflection if and only if the window is closer on the left side of the frame and farther on the right, i.e. parallel to the closest rail of the balcony to the camera. This would seem to be a very odd construction and placement of a window/balcony, but whatever. People may build their buildings however they like.

However, assuming the windows are flat, the centerlines of each reflection should line up. There should not be any curving in the line of reflections. The only exception to this would be if the windows were curved. This however would distort the images, which we can see is not the case.


On a completely different note, if anyone finds it useful, here should be the daily weather summary for Gdansk, Ploand on July 10th:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/air ... me=NA&MR=1

[kamoses]

In the attached image, I took a flashlight and a scanner with two clear windows, much like a 2-pane window, and shined a flashlight through it and took a picture in the same orientation as the sun, window, and camera in the picture. What you will notice is the the reflected images go to the RIGHT, not the left. Can one of the window people explain why the sun would reflect differently in the picture?

in your image, there is no primary image of the flashlight; all the images are reflections. they are all at a snell angle to your flashlight and your eye (camera).

in the topic image, there is a direct (line of sight) image of the sun, and the reflections are displaced in relation to it. the reflection geometry is completely different.

ask someone to shine the flashlight on your window from the inside, then go outside and look at the reflections; take a photograph that contains both the flashlight's primary (line of sight) image, and any reflections you see.

Incorrect: you can see my arm reaching around the back of the scanner to hold the flashlight. The brightest is the actual flashlight as you can see completely through the scanner (it's kind of a weird scanner).

[dockwatcher]

It has been fun but work is almost over & I have to go play now.

Just one more observation. The colors do go white - yellow- orange or maybe yellow, orange, red: just like you would expect from refracting light.

I also droped the brightness and uped the contrast just to make sure the size change was real. I used a nickle instead of a ruler this time. big-medium-mediumer.

If this was multiple exposures I think it wold have to be diferent magnifications or months apart.

Also If you play with the brightness enough the reflection above the sun is clearly a flying saucer!

The last observation I could make is that posts like these almost always turn out to be realy good hoax's and the real question may be, how many people does this site draw in.

[Qev]

Considering the window reflection theory, assuming that the window is of standard construction with two panes that are actually parallel to one another...

I harbor serious doubts that anyone manufactures double-glazed windows with panes that are aligned in optical-quality perfect parallel...

[zuzufam]

I'm thinking the photo must have been shot through a window, most likely a double paned window. I'll take an additional leap here and speculate that the window opened and that the shot was made through the 4 panes of glass. The first two panes would be fairly close together, producing the first false image of the Sun to show fairly close to the original. the third pane of glass, however, would be a greater distance away, causing the second false image to be a greater distance away from the first false image. Also, imagine if you were seeing this as it happened, as you moved from left to right and from right to left the images at one point would line up as the line of sight was straight on the the Sun. I'm wondering if the shot was not taken straight on, but rather slightly from the right of the scene.

All guesses.

[apodman]

Why use logic to try to construct the image from a proposed phenomenon? Use logic to deduce the phenomenon from the image. Conclusion: Window. Window at whatever angle, pane spacing, composition, and lack of flatness are required to produce what we see. Period.

Atmospheric phenomenon? Not to produce the image we see. Temporary existence of three actual suns is more likely. I didn't feel any gravity surge and have not heard any reports that the earth's orbit has been perturbed, so (once again) "window". A window explains the sun images as well as the reflected images from nearby - is an atmospheric phenomenon responsible for those reflections too?

The can be little reason for the photographer not to have jumped in by now and clarify the window matter except to have fun reading the conjectures by all of us lab rats. At least I know my role here.

[geckzilla]

The can be little reason for the photographer not to have jumped in by now and clarify the window matter except to have fun reading the conjectures by all of us lab rats. At least I know my role here.

Ahahaha, that crossed my mind as well. Several times today I thought man, I have wasted far too much time on this silly topic. But I didn't have much to do otherwise. Oh well... at least no one was here to see me playing with the picture frame glass.

[apodman]

Here's what I mean by logic:

Syllogism 1:

Premise 1: There is a window in this location.
Premise 2: There are reflections in the photo.
Conclusion: The photo was shot through the window.

Syllogism 2:

Premise 1: Windows have been reported and shown to produce this effect.
Premise 2: The photo shot through the window shows this effect.
Conclusion: In the absence of a better explanation, it is likely that the window in the photo produced the effect. ("Atmospheric phenomenon" is not a better explanation.)

[green1]

series.JPG (132.6 KiB) Viewed 1870 times

just for fun I decided to cut and past a series of these photos to see what transpired as the sun rises. I still don't see any reflections that would be caused by window glass. As the sun rises, the reflections merge, and the angle of attack increases from about 90 degrees to close to 50. if this was a reflection in glass, the angle of attack (from horizontal to vertical) would not change, even if the location of the camera was changed. In fact, if you consider the angle of the camera through the window can only change to the degree that the window size allows, even if the window was 10 ft wide, the apparent angle to the sun would not change enough to make the images closer. The sun would have to change in its angle of attack to the window (i.e.: shift to the south) a huge amount to make window reflected images merge like this. (Remember this is reflected in surfaces that are 3/4" apart) the sun doesn't move that far in these images.

[XLIV]

There is also a reflection above AND below the "real" sun..looks like one even higher above (in the clouds)

6 suns in one photo.

[pjfcpa]

This is just a simple thank you for a lovely picture.

I leave all the debate to those of this knowledge, I do know that it is just a truly peaceful moment in the early dawn.