APOD: Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from... (2011 Nov 14)

[APOD Robot]

Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from Iceland

Explanation: The longer you look at this image, the more you see. Perhaps your eye is first drawn to the picturesque waterfall called Skogarfoss visible on the image right. Just as prevalent, however, in this Icelandic visual extravaganza, is the colorful arc of light on the left. This chromatic bow is not a rainbow, since the water drops did not originate in rainfall nor are they reflecting light from the Sun. Rather, the drops have drifted off from the waterfall and are now illuminated by the nearly full Moon. High above are the faint green streaks of aurora. The scene, captured one night last month, also shows a beautiful starscape far in the background, including the Big Dipper, part of the constellation of the Great Bear (Ursa Major).

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[mactavish]

Don't pass up his home page. Stephane has some magnificent photos!
http://www.nuitsacrees.fr/

[jerrodbungle]

sunlight did produce that prism of color

[Ella]

Might this photo be flipped? The Dipper looks backwards.

[neufer]

sunlight did produce that prism of color

Might this photo be flipped? The Dipper looks backwards.

[K1NS]

If this is not a rainbow because it was not produced by rain, then what is the English word for the «arco iris», an arc in the sky displaying the spectrum of visible colors? I say, rain or not, sun or not, it's a bloody rainbow!

[Ann]

sunlight did produce that prism of color

That's right! Sunlight illuminated the Moon, and the light of the Moon, which is reflected sunlight, caused the Moonbow.

Although, admittedly, a Moonbow is not a prism of color.

Ann

[geckzilla]

Rainbow has come to have meanings other than simply a ... well, the literal rainbow. It's not entirely incorrect to call a waterfall rainbow a rainbow but if you want to argue it here I guess I won't stop you. I'm just saying most people will probably go on calling the phenomenon a rainbow and not mind the discrepancy.

[neufer]

[b][color=#0000FF]Local boy's great [s]feet[/s] feat in finding Þrasi Þórólfsson's chest[/color][/b]

---

<<Skógafoss (pronounced [ˈskou.aˌfɔs]) is a waterfall situated in the south of Iceland at the cliffs of the former coastline. After the coastline had receded seaward (it is now at a distance of about 5 kilometres from Skógar), the former sea cliffs remained, parallel to the coast over hundreds of kilometres, creating together with some mountains a clear border between the coastal lowlands and the Highlands of Iceland.

The Skógafoss is one of the biggest waterfalls in the country with a width of 25 metres and a drop of 60 m. Due to the amount of spray the waterfall consistently produces, a single or double rainbow is normally visible on sunny days. According to legend, the first Viking settler in the area, Þrasi Þórólfsson, buried a treasure in a cave behind the waterfall. A local boy found the chest years later, but was only able to grasp the ring on the side of the chest before it disappeared again.

At the eastern side of the waterfall, a hiking and trekking trail leads up to the pass Fimmvörðuháls between the glaciers Eyjafjallajökull and Mýrdalsjökull. It goes down to Þórsmörk on the other side and continues as the famous Laugavegur to Landmannalaugar.>>

[neufer]

Rainbow has come to have meanings other than simply a ... well, the literal rainbow. It's not entirely incorrect to call a waterfall rainbow a rainbow but if you want to argue it here I guess I won't stop you. I'm just saying most people will probably go on calling the phenomenon a rainbow and not mind the discrepancy.

• Dumbow Rambow Placebow [L., I shall please, fut. of placere to please.]

[Ann]

Might this photo be flipped? The Dipper looks backwards.

The Dipper looks okay to me.

Please note that the "orientation of the Dipper" changes over the year, as you can see from this illustration.


















Ann

[orin stepanek]

Moonbow of not; the picture is worthy of background quality. Two thumbs up!

[TNT]

sunlight did produce that prism of color

I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

[alphachap]

Rainbow has come to have meanings other than simply a ... well, the literal rainbow. It's not entirely incorrect to call a waterfall rainbow a rainbow but if you want to argue it here I guess I won't stop you. I'm just saying most people will probably go on calling the phenomenon a rainbow and not mind the discrepancy.

• Dumbow Rambow Placebow [L., I shall please, fut. of placere to please.]

Reminds me of a TV quiz show I saw some years ago.
The question was if someone could see an aurora borealis in Australia.
The contestant said no, but the answer was yes.
But then the contestant said there were absolutely no aurora borealis in Australia, only aurora australis. Still the official answer remained yes, and the contestant lost.

[neufer]

sunlight did produce that prism of color

That's right! Sunlight illuminated the Moon, and the light of the Moon, which is reflected sunlight, caused the Moonbow.

Although, admittedly, a Moonbow is not a prism of color.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

<<A moonbow (also known as a lunar rainbow, white rainbow, lunar bow or space rainbow) is a rainbow produced by light reflected off the surface of the moon rather than from direct sunlight. It is difficult for the human eye to discern colors in a moonbow because the light is usually too faint to excite the cone color receptors in human eyes. As a result, they often appear to be white. Moonbows have been mentioned at least since Aristotle, in his Meteorology, circa 350 BC, and in 1847; and the term moonbow was used by Nick Whelan who sighted one of the first documented moonbows in Eastern Utah.>>

[Larsinkima]

This would have been even more spectacular in a stereo photograph.

[NoelC]

This photo really has it all! Hats off to Stephane for planning and executing a shot of such a spectacular bit of scenery. Thank you!

-Noel

[jojo]

unless their are two suns or two Moons on this earth
this is a fake images please see notes
their are other mistakes in this image
this is to just name the most obvious

APOD: Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from... (2011 Nov 14)


See my mobile me page

http://gallery.me.com/artist17#100914 for diagram and indications of photoshop manipulation

[neufer]

This would have been even more spectacular in a stereo photograph.

The problem with a stereo photograph is that the 'rainbow' doesn't move.

Hence the 'rainbow' would appear to be in the distant background.

[Chris Peterson]

unless their are two suns or two Moons on this earth
this is a fake images please see notes
their are other mistakes in this image
this is to just name the most obvious

Your analysis is extremely unsophisticated. And unconvincing (not least because there was no Sun in the sky when the image was made).

[Donnageddon]

unless their are two suns or two Moons on this earth
this is a fake images please see notes
their are other mistakes in this image
this is to just name the most obvious

Your analysis is extremely unsophisticated. And unconvincing (not least because there was no Sun in the sky when the image was made).

No, thanks to jojo's painstaking analysis with large arrows, I am now totally convinced this photo was taken on a planet in a different solar system with either two suns or two moons.

[jojo]

jojo wrote:
unless their are two suns or two Moons on this earth
this is a fake images please see notes
their are other mistakes in this image
this is to just name the most obvious

Your analysis is extremely unsophisticated. And unconvincing (not least because there was no Sun in the sky when the image was made).
Chris
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman

Jojo:
My analysis of the"moon waterfall moon bowl and Aurora" This is a fake.

You stated that there was no sun in the sky, ( where you their), then there must've been a reason that their would be shadows located on the right and the left of the picture indicating by arrows, See( http://gallery.me.com/artist17#100914 ) that there were 2 sources of light. Either there were 2 suns casting shadows in 2 different directions or there were 2 moons casting shadows equal to the brilliance of the sun in 2 directions see the right side of the picture and the left side of the picture.
The waterfall is blurred which happens when you extend the exposure beyond a minute and it has a shadow on the left which is caused by the sun on the right-hand side of the picture. Indicating that the main light source came from the right side of the picture. This would indicate that the sunlight was coming from the right. But then how do you explain the shadows underneath the rock ledges and the rest of the mountain they come from all different sides. Also how do you explain that there are no shadows on the green grass which appeared to have been taken when the Sun was at its zenith.

I have been a artist painter and photographer for 35 years any artist could tell you that there are only one single light source and that this casts a shadow that is one third or less than the brilliance on the brightest side of the object. So this is a fake as a matter fact as of right poor fake I've also been working with Photoshop since it 1st came out and this is an example of poor Photoshop skills and poor analysis.
I know its very hard to admit when you have been duped but this one was easy

[jojo]

APOD: Waterfall, Moonbow, and Aurora from... (2011 Nov 14)



P.S.
and the stars in the sky did not move during this long exposure with no sun, so you mean the earth stood still for several minutes.?
Their is a bridge i would like to sell you its located in Brooklyn NY

[Chris Peterson]

and the stars in the sky did not move during this long exposure with no sun, so you mean the earth stood still for several minutes.?

How much would you expect the stars to move in an exposure lasting only a few seconds? More than the angle subtended by a pixel? Do you know how to calculate this?

Of course, while there is nothing about this image that points strongly to it being a composite, what if it is? What if Photoshop was used to combine several images made at different exposures? That is commonly done to capture in an image something otherwise visible only to the eye. There is nothing wrong with such processing at all.

[geckzilla]

I think it's just a wide angle shot. It's very easy to get seemingly nonsensical lighting going on with those. That, and night exposures always mess with one's head.