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

[Hangar#8]

I think that after 300 posts it is high time for the moderators to step in and end this discussion that is now going nowhere...

Let us know if the author of the original photo tried it again on subsequent days (that's what I would have done...)

It has already been pointed out that the fact that reflections could be seen with the naked eye show that the camera lens has nothing to do with it.

Remember Occam's razor?

[apodman]

Remember Occam's razor?

It seems most likely that I do.

Regards,
Sherlock

---

William of Ockham



Let's hear it for ontological parsimony!

[bystander]

I think that after 300 posts it is high time for the moderators to step in and end this discussion that is now going nowhere...

Let us know if the author of the original photo tried it again on subsequent days (that's what I would have done...)

What makes you think the moderators know? We don't control what's posted on APOD!

Remember Occam's razor?

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Plurality should not be posited without necessity

[dockwatcher]

The broken camera just reduces it to a simple explination. For what it is worth I still haven't found out if the camera uses a prism for the view finder. Most links don't mention the thru the lens viewfinder so I don't know for sure if it even has one.

Is there a window in the picture or just a dirty lens that somone thought was curtians? Does the building have double glazed glass? Has anyone tried taking the picture in a mirror? And if you did, HK (who cares). I think the answer has to come from information available in the picture and none of these explinations (camera too) does.

The boat in the distance shows evidence of layering in the air (superior mirage).
Givin it is morning we should be able to add an atmosperic conduit caused by cold air over the water. We can even add ice cristals in the air at low altitude if you want, but as Dave pointed out there isn't any way to explain the horizontal element.

There is a lot of pasion developing over the outcome here, I hope it turns out there realy is a window.

[bystander]

It is not a broken camera. It is not an atmospheric phenomenon. It is simply the reflection between two imperfect panes of glass. The camera is just a recorder, the images were apparent to the naked eye. No atmospheric phenomena explain the horizontal displacement.

[apodman]

The broken camera just reduces it to a simple [explanation].

A simple phrase does not mean a simple explanation. Your simple phrase requires an impossibly and unnecessarily complicated explanation, the devil being in the details thereof.

[dockwatcher]

and I have a good deal on property in Stocton for you

[The Code]

The boat in the distance shows evidence of layering in the air

When is a boat not a boat? When its an oil rig? Did anybody notice the plane in the sky with a funny ring around it?

Why are there 3 sets of clouds next to the sun?

why are there ghost shadows in the tree's?

why is there shadows on the walls

why do some clouds have no shadows when they should?

Mark

[dockwatcher]

So don't split hairs.
The glass panes if any are just two more elements in the cameras lens.

Dave's post didn't like a natural horizontal phenomenon which I think still stands. That makes this an optical ilussion.

[apodman]

The air is layered? Three suns is an optical illusion? Who would ever have thought?

---

Optical Aleutian

[dockwatcher]

So what we need now is a metorologist to explain how two convection layers with ice crystals caused by warm land mass' on either side of a cool calm body of water on an oblique angle to the sun would cause a horizontaly shifted image (just cut and paiste). That or this is an optical illusion.

[bystander]

why are there ghost shadows in the tree's?

Those are ghost images (reflections) from inside the room.

why is there shadows on the walls

What walls? If you are talking about the left side of IMG_9802, that is the drapes or curtains on the inside of the window.

The glass panes if any are just two more elements in the cameras lens.

Again, the camera is a non-issue. The ghost suns were visible to the naked eye. See RJN's original post.

[apodman]

So what we need now is a metorologist to explain how two convection layers with ice crystals caused by warm land mass' on either side of a cool calm body of water on an oblique angle to the sun would cause a horizontaly shifted image (just cut and paiste). That or this is an optical illusion.

You can't fish in a pond where there are no fish. You can cast your line in the water, but there's nothing to catch. There is no need to explain something that is not happening.

[Honza]

http://www.osud.cz/cs/extpict.php?pic=i ... ek_055.jpg

There is a similar snap from Czech Republic few months ago....

Honza

[apodman]

http://www.osud.cz/cs/extpict.php?pic=i ... ek_055.jpg

There is a similar snap from Czech Republic few months ago....

Honza

Osud.cz, as far as I can tell, is a Czech online magazine. "Osud" is a Czech word that means "fate" or "destiny" in English.

I obtained the rough translation in a failed effort to get a description of the circumstances of the photo. Obviously the article isn't 100% about photography and science. I apologize for the content, but I wanted to point out how thankful I am that the theories proposed for the APOD aren't this outlandish. They are nice pictures, but certainly not the same kind of effect in the APOD.

Sorry I don't speak Czech, so I can't do any better than this:

The object of the Sun, April 2009: Nibiru, or second sun?

The building, which sent us on a photo one of our readers, whose daughter picture sunset on the 12th April 2009 (I assume that the West) in Beroun raised your relatively large (and totally deserved!) attention. Of course, it is not a month, please, go to the astro nastudovat in their programs. Of course, that nejdná an error or a reflection of camera light, please, go to the nastudovat in their graphics programs. And .. please, go vygooglovat the observation of objects in the sun during the period 11-22.4.2009 ... and you will be surprised by the frequency of references. Here are the pictures again, that the reader has sent us a few days ago to the editor:





According to many sources concerning the dust flying around the ball of "red" planet, Nibiru known that in its go-around always zdevastuje Earth. This is a record, for example, in Russia, about a week later, 21-4-2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq7eaUmR ... r_embedded

Besides, access code 2012 event is 1-2-0. It is at least interesting that the daughter of readers photographed 12.4. and that Russia 21.4. He writes me a lot of people that they often naskakují a combination of numbers jedniček and dvojek, sometimes supplemented by zero.

The mosaic will add the latest report that NASA and the U.S. military begins censor satellite images of the accession of objects from space. Why? How much time is left us thus? According to leaks of secret information, the Norwegian policy elites build extensive underground covers, more in this old article (Norwegian policies with respect truth out? Coming planet X, over 2 million Norwegian citizens hides under the ground, others have, unfortunately, bad luck ...)

According to other sources (see our article from 24.10.2008 Planet X is not fiction?) Object (planet or brown dwarf), which is about the size of about 3 planets Jupiter, coming into our solar system regularly, and current sphere with few exceptions, virtually netkne.



It is an object that suggested the pictogram of the circles in the grain in Avebury, 22.7.2008? (see our article, one of the last icons showing the status of planets in December 2012, when according to the solar system full simmer comet / meteorite / radiation)



Or is the double of our Sun (see, for example, the Sun article has a double, he probably ovliňuje Earth from 26.9.2005)?

What is your view? Vote in our poll!

To the Babylonians, Nibiru was the celestial body or region sometimes associated with the god Marduk. The word is Akkadian and the meaning is uncertain. Because of this, the hypothetical planet Nibiru is sometimes also referred to as Marduk. Sitchin hypothesizes it as a planet in a highly elliptic orbit around the Sun, with a perihelion passage some 3,600 years ago and assumed orbital period of about 3,750 years; he also claims it was the home of a technologically advanced human-like alien race, the Anunnaki, who apparently visited Earth in search of gold. These beings eventually created humanity by genetically crossing theselves with primates, and thus became the first gods.

Beginning in 1995, websites such as ZetaTalk have identified Nibiru or "Planet X" as a large brown dwarf currently within our planetary system, soon to pass relatively close to Earth. Sitchin disagrees with the timing of passage.

[neufer]

The western part of Gdańsk Bay is formed
by the shallow waters of the Bay of Puck.

---------------------------------
. A Midsummer Night's Dream – Act 5, Scene 1
.
PUCK: And we fairies, that do run
. By the triple Hecate's team,
. From the presence of the sun,
. Following darkness like a dream,
. Now are frolic: not a mouse
. Shall disturb this hallow'd house:
. I am sent with broom before,
. To sweep the dust behind the door.


---------------------------------

<<Puck is a mythological fairy or mischievous nature sprite.
The Old English puca is a kind of half-tamed woodland sprite,
leading folk astray with echoes and lights in nighttime woodlands.

Goethe used Puck in the first half of Faust,
in a scene entitled "A Walpurgis Night Dream",
where he played off of the spirit Ariel from The Tempest.

Puck's trademark laugh in the early ballads is "Ho ho ho." In modern mythology, the "merry old elf" who works with magical swiftness unseen in the night, who can "descry each thing that's done beneath the moone", whom we propitiate with a glass of milk, lest he put lumps of coal in the stockings we hang by the hob with care, and whose trademark laugh is "Ho ho ho"—is Santa Claus.>>

---------------------------------

[RJN]

Triple sunrises:

I have sent email to the photographer asking if there were any windows between the camera and the sunrise. I was given an autoreply that they will be away until August 18. When I get a response, hopefully shortly after that date, I will discuss it here. Until then, I think this discussion has been impressive in several ways but has now progressed far enough. Therefore, I am locking this discussion until I receive a reply.

- RJN

[RJN]

Asterisks,

Given the email below and the discussion on this thread, I now believe the consensus arrived here to be correct: that the multiple images of the Sun were caused by internal reflections off of intervening panes of glass. Of course this cannot be proven completely, but it seems to me a simple and plausible solution. Even so, I am opening up discussion again for a few days. Please be kind to the photographer for her earnest image submission and honest responses.

- RJN

*******************

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your response and all the interesting information it contained. The idea also occurred to me that if any other object had a double image, it might be too dim to perceive.
I was amazed, and flattered by the discussion the pictures sparked. I keep walking with a big Cheshire Cat grin =).
I would be honoured if you would use any of my pictures in a future venture.

Noemi

P.S. Unfortunately I don't know how to post my response on the discussion page, could you please do that for me?


********************

Hi Noemi,

Thank you for your candid responses. When my automated camera network took pictures of the night sky, the Moon would frequently be in the frame. The moonlight was usually so bright that many strange internal reflections of the moon -- reflections that took place inside the camera -- would appear in the images. We knew this because as the Earth rotated, the Moon changed positions, and all of the "secondary images", some of them streaks, moved right with it.

Then the question came up -- why is it that all of the secondary images occur only for the moon? There are many stars in the frames, as well as trees on the horizon. Shouldn't they, too, show secondary images? We came to understand that they do. Everything in the frame shows secondary images. Everything in the frame not only has one image but many. The reason that the moon's secondary images stood out was because the moon was by far the brightest object in the frame. Therefore, its shadow images were much brighter than the rest, making them visible.

In your frames, the Sun is very much brighter than anything else in the frame. It may be that everything in the frame also has a shadow image -- including the ship. But the shadow image of the ship is so dim that it is likely imperceptible. The Sun, by contrast, is over one million times brighter than the ship, so that its shadow images are also a million times brighter. This makes them visible.

Still, in my opinion, you have come up with an amazing and photogenic example of a relatively common phenomenon -- unexpected reflections. The beauty and novelty of your image remains. Although discovering a new phenomenon would have been interesting in its own right, your image is still spectacular.

In my opinion, your image also highlighted a relatively new variation of human collective intelligence. APOD is not only a picture web site -- its readership define perhaps the most collectively intelligent group of sky enthusiasts in history in terms of identifying sky phenomena. The debate that took place over your image -- and several other images as well -- was amazing. In my opinion, this power intelligence engine zeroed in on the right answer. And your image has helped measure and calibrate this intelligence. In the future, I hope to write a paper about the powerful collective intelligence that APOD has become, and I hope to use your image --- given your permission -- as one example.

- RJN

**********************

Hello RJN,

One of the questions raised during the discussion was: "Were the pictures taken through a window?"
I think they were, though I don't think that explains the triple image, please read on. When I took the pictures, I was very sleepy (it was 4:30 am). Basically, I took the first picture, and kept taking more pictures because I noticed the multiple image. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that the images seemed to be coming together with each subsequent shot. Only 52 seconds elapsed between the 2nd (more clear) picture (taken at 4:30:38)
http://apod.nasa.gov/image/0908/IMG_9804.JPG
and the 4th picture (at 4:31:30)
http://apod.nasa.gov/image/0908/IMG_9810.JPG
Here is the more interesting question for me: what caused the 3 images to come together? Even if the triple image was caused by a window (which by the way is double glazed), all the images would have been taken through the same window, so why isn't the image separation consistent. I wish I had been more awake to appreciate what I was seeing and kept taking pictures until only one Sun could be seen. Having noticed the trend, I just assumed that this is what would eventually happen.
Another question: why is the image separation occurring only for the Sun, but not for the ship, which was right next to the Sun? Could the triple image of the Sun, be caused by layers of atmosphere of different density? The Sun was "behind" these layers while the ship was mostly "in front", separated from me by only a few kilometres. As the Sun moved behind different parts of these layers the image separation decreased, while the ship did not significantly move through the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, I cannot go back to the same location to see another Sunrise, since I live in Hamilton, Ontario, about 8,000 km away from Gdansk. Next time I am there, I will be sure to observe every Sunrise I can.

Sincerely Noemi and Barry Diacon

[geckzilla]

Noemi, I think the reflections began to merge because of the change in focal length and/or the position of the camera moving toward the window. I bet if you'd decreased the focal length or stepped farther from the window to take a subsequent photo, the reflections would have diverged.

[bystander]

IMHO, now that we know the window was double-paned, any change in the camera position with respect to the window would potentially cause the "reflected suns" to change due to the "non-optical quality" of window glazing.

[Hangar#8]

Noemi: Would you please take another picture of the sun at the next sunrise and show us the result? Thanks.

[Chris Peterson]

Noemi, I think the reflections began to merge because of the change in focal length and/or the position of the camera moving toward the window. I bet if you'd decreased the focal length or stepped farther from the window to take a subsequent photo, the reflections would have diverged.

Changing the focal length would not change the relative distance between the reflected images, and neither would changing the distance from the camera to the window. But moving just a tiny bit laterally between exposures (pretty impossible to avoid with hand held shots) almost certainly would change the distance between the images, or even which side of the Sun the reflected images appear on. This point was made (both theoretically and experimentally) earlier in this discussion.

In fact, the behavior as described is exactly what would be expected from double-paned windows, and simply adds to the likelihood that this is the explanation for the effect.

[geckzilla]

Ok, I wasn't sure about the focal length, but I thought it might be a factor since the focal length changes a lot in the photos. I was only sure about moving around.

[bystander]

Noemi: Would you please take another picture of the sun at the next sunrise and show us the result? Thanks.

...
Hello RJN,
...
Unfortunately, I cannot go back to the same location to see another Sunrise, since I live in Hamilton, Ontario, about 8,000 km away from Gdansk. Next time I am there, I will be sure to observe every Sunrise I can.

Sincerely Noemi and Barry Diacon

[TheSciencePundit]

Noemi,

Thank you for the wonderful photographs. I enjoyed both the pictures and the ensuing discussion here on this board.