Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD
-
Dean
streak in the sky
I suspect this is the shadow of a vapor trail of a plane above the clouds.
-
krob7418
A Strange Streak Imaged in Australia
It appears to me that it is only the shadow on the clouds of a vapor trail from a jet airplane. It appears too that the true vapor trail was left out of the picture deliberately and probably the alignment with the light colored cloud and the light on the dock were intentional too. The jet would have been flying to the right of the picture but parallel to the shadow.
-
ukuleledre
discussion lists
i won't bother you all again, i promise.
the vast majority of the people who post to this discussion, and presumably to others as well, don't bother to read what's already been posted. there's thirty pages of posts and you say "aha! it's a contrail shadow! why didn't anyone think of that?".
about a thousand people already did! it's not a damn contrail shadow!
the several lists discussing this photo are just loops, new people rehashing the same poorly thought out ideas that appeared just five or ten posts before.
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRGH!
READ THE POSTS!
the vast majority of the people who post to this discussion, and presumably to others as well, don't bother to read what's already been posted. there's thirty pages of posts and you say "aha! it's a contrail shadow! why didn't anyone think of that?".
about a thousand people already did! it's not a damn contrail shadow!
the several lists discussing this photo are just loops, new people rehashing the same poorly thought out ideas that appeared just five or ten posts before.
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRGH!
READ THE POSTS!
-
RicKK
strange streak
I'm going along with Bruck as to the shadow from the light pole and Smith from Canada with the burnout of the light bulb. So in affect the light bulb surged and blew out with a flash similar to a flash cube from a camera and since the dark sky backdrop caused the light pole to be cast as a shadow. Rixster
-
Rumbledog
It's the Sun (off to the right) reflecting off a plane (off to the left) onto the water. The "streak" is actually a beam, the "flash" is the Sun's reflection, and the "smoke" is the reflection of the plane's outline.
cjshm@hotmail.com
cjshm@hotmail.com
-
Guest
I like the insect theory because it fits the picture so well, but the straightness of the streak puts me off a bit. I adjusted contrast up and brightness down, then put this picture of a fly beside it...
Let’s assume it is a fly and that the fly is one centimetre long with a flight path orthogonal to the camera direction. Then it flies at least 47 cm in the 0.05 second exposure time, judging by the length of the streak relative to the fly. This is equivalent to a speed of 9.4 m/s or 34 km/hr (21 mph). A typical flight speed for a fly is actually more like 6-11 km/hr. If we were to work backwards, that would make the fly between 1.8 and 3.3 mm long – ie likely to be a fruit fly or similar.
The insect theory seems to be the only one that explains all aspects of the image, other than the image being a hoax. A contrail doesn't explain the flash and would have lingered in the after picture. A meteorite doesn't explain lack of ripples/lack of damage to light post. A burnt out bulb doesn't adequately explain the streak. Having said all that, it seems just too much of a coincidence that the bulb has been observed to have blown out. Occam's razor and all... If there is a blown globe, the flash was probably caused by the globe blowing.
All the speculation about time of day and aspect seems pretty pointless to me. The picture is of the iron ore wharf in Darwin Port so it should be easy to work out which way it is oriented by looking at a map.
http://www.nt.gov.au/dpa/port_darwin/port_ironore.html
http://www.lpe.nt.gov.au/airphoto/Ortho ... spcpgp.htm
http://www.northernterritory.visitorsbu ... darwin.gif
I would judge it to be facing south-southeast. This would put the sun to the left of the picture (southeast) if it was a morning photo and to the right of the picture (southwest) if it was an evening photo. It therefore appears that the news.com.au article is correct in claiming the picture to be an evening photo. Sunset in Darwin in November is at around 6:50 pm, which strangely enough is the time on Wayne’s photos (2004:11:22 18:52:52).
As for the person who keeps saying it is a yacht mast - what on earth is your justification for that? As you can see from the aerial photo above, it is a very unlikely place for a yacht.
Let’s assume it is a fly and that the fly is one centimetre long with a flight path orthogonal to the camera direction. Then it flies at least 47 cm in the 0.05 second exposure time, judging by the length of the streak relative to the fly. This is equivalent to a speed of 9.4 m/s or 34 km/hr (21 mph). A typical flight speed for a fly is actually more like 6-11 km/hr. If we were to work backwards, that would make the fly between 1.8 and 3.3 mm long – ie likely to be a fruit fly or similar.
The insect theory seems to be the only one that explains all aspects of the image, other than the image being a hoax. A contrail doesn't explain the flash and would have lingered in the after picture. A meteorite doesn't explain lack of ripples/lack of damage to light post. A burnt out bulb doesn't adequately explain the streak. Having said all that, it seems just too much of a coincidence that the bulb has been observed to have blown out. Occam's razor and all... If there is a blown globe, the flash was probably caused by the globe blowing.
All the speculation about time of day and aspect seems pretty pointless to me. The picture is of the iron ore wharf in Darwin Port so it should be easy to work out which way it is oriented by looking at a map.
http://www.nt.gov.au/dpa/port_darwin/port_ironore.html
http://www.lpe.nt.gov.au/airphoto/Ortho ... spcpgp.htm
http://www.northernterritory.visitorsbu ... darwin.gif
I would judge it to be facing south-southeast. This would put the sun to the left of the picture (southeast) if it was a morning photo and to the right of the picture (southwest) if it was an evening photo. It therefore appears that the news.com.au article is correct in claiming the picture to be an evening photo. Sunset in Darwin in November is at around 6:50 pm, which strangely enough is the time on Wayne’s photos (2004:11:22 18:52:52).
As for the person who keeps saying it is a yacht mast - what on earth is your justification for that? As you can see from the aerial photo above, it is a very unlikely place for a yacht.
-
Guest
Re: Fast moving object
My objection to the bug is not based on the straight line, that makes sense to me. For me it's the lack of detail in the body, the brightness of the back end. I would think that there would be some body parts visible, not just the ethreal reflection of the light. If this is a bug, surely someone, somewhere has captured a similar picture. I'd like to see another picture to compare it too. Space junk or meteors may be uncommon, but everyone has a digital camera these days.Anonymous wrote:Why not? I would like some information on how a bug could not make this artifact, otherwise I won't be able to rule it out, and please don't say the bug can't leave a trail, because that has been addressed, and don't say the line wouldn't be straight, because that has also been addressed.Prometheus Bound wrote: I don't buy the bug, or the lamp exploding
I may not be easy, but can't we get an approximate size on the bug by using the shutter speed to determine the distance the black line encompases (using a reasonable speed for a bug), or the width of the black line as the body width for a distance comparison. Is there an entomologist in the house.
As far as the light exploding, My objection is based on the wisp (why on only one side?), the seeminly uniform thickness of the black line over such a distance, the lack of any description other than it didn't work when inspected, the idea that it happened when the light turned on for the night, yet in the none of the pictures can we see any of the other lights on. I think it's a good idea, but the wisp being roughly perpendicular to the black line suggests movement.
-
bobjameshk
apod 12/7/04
I don't know what the streak is. I don't think the light was exploding from lightning. I once saw a lightning bolt hit something in the distance as I was driving into Wichita, Kansas during a rain storm. The bolt came down from the sky, really bright. We could see that it hit something, because there was a large bright flash where the bolt hit. We supposed it was a power transformer, but never found out. An oil tank would have spouted lots of smoke, this didn't. I notice some clouds in the upper left of the APOD seem to have a curved streak around them, similar to the streak going to the light pole. Weird stuff!
-
DC
If leppy is 5km away, we should get him to go take a photo of the top of the light pole, to see if the configuration of the light and housing are such that it could possibly create the kind of light flare seen in the image.
I wish we could standardize terminology. I see nothing in the image which corresponds with smoke. I assume it is what I call the reflection. The image is too precise to be smoke, and it begins and ends at the upper and lower edges of the water.
I wish we could standardize terminology. I see nothing in the image which corresponds with smoke. I assume it is what I call the reflection. The image is too precise to be smoke, and it begins and ends at the upper and lower edges of the water.
-
hammerg
Incoming
This streak is very straight and definitive. It happend very fast & wind & air currents had no effect on it. A jet contrail is left at about 600 mph & air currents can immediately deflect its shape & distort it. The streak in the photo has more speed and energy than a contrail would.
If you examine the streak, it seems to grow darker from upper left to lower right - or my monitor needs a cleaning. But if it is getting darker then I'm thinking it's a meteor which is vaporizing the air around it & because it is accelerating, its burning is more intense as it approaches the suface & therefore the vaporized air looks darker as it streaks down.
Also the air near the top would have had time to cool in the time of the cameras exposure & so the streak is lighter or not seen at all. It's a meteor - is my vote.
If you examine the streak, it seems to grow darker from upper left to lower right - or my monitor needs a cleaning. But if it is getting darker then I'm thinking it's a meteor which is vaporizing the air around it & because it is accelerating, its burning is more intense as it approaches the suface & therefore the vaporized air looks darker as it streaks down.
Also the air near the top would have had time to cool in the time of the cameras exposure & so the streak is lighter or not seen at all. It's a meteor - is my vote.
-
Guest
-
Joe
-
Jose Suro
Quote "The insect theory seems to be the only one that explains all aspects of the image, other than the image being a hoax."
It is a good theory but it doesn't explain the great increase in brightness close to but not on the light post. I still like the idea of the smoke causing the reflection as mentioned in my post on page 27.
Best,
Jose Suro
It is a good theory but it doesn't explain the great increase in brightness close to but not on the light post. I still like the idea of the smoke causing the reflection as mentioned in my post on page 27.
Best,
Jose Suro
-
Conspiracy Theorist
Super Dark Energy Laser
Here's my unlikely explanation... The US government has been working on dark energy lasers. They work like normal lasers, but instead of shooting light beams they shoot dark beams that also do damage and make things explode. What you're seeing is a test of the satellite-based dark energy laser.
Well, it is a nice picture... of whatever it is a picture of.
Well, it is a nice picture... of whatever it is a picture of.
-
ivar
Meteor
I don't buy the bug theory, theres too many flaws. Does anybody know if a meteor the size of a grain of sant would damage the pole, or would it simply vaporize at contact without damaging the lamp? It still seems a little unprobable that it would hit a lamppost, but then again nature is wierd.
-
Flareup
answer
okay, I am going to enlighten everyone reading this thread. The streak is connected to the bright transparent object. This can only be a spirit and its trail. This is shown in the documentary, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Therefore, all humanity is doomed since the invasion has begun. Happy Days. 
-
elzzup
APOD who dunnit?
The seaside photo provides an interesting optical illusion to say the least, but most certainingly seems to have wetted the appetites of this currently underchallenged X-files generation. It points vividly to the neverending quest for many to cull the paranormal from anything remotely out of the ordinary. While the image content is quite interesting and still remains to be fully evaluated, it already appears to have a profound and sustained effect on the unquenched human imagination. I applaud APOD editors for tapping into this vast cauldron of intellectual abyss, guiding us to reveal the soft underbelly of human cluelessness (yes, a real word).
Despite the many plausable offerings I've read on this BB, a reasonable explanation will never satisfy a percentage of this audience that seeks extraordinary answers. Even if someone were to recreate this effect in another unaltered photo, for a segment of the world population some levels of reality must remain unresolvable and cloaked in mystery. The "truth" is indeed out there, I only suggest that we try to avoid immeadiately searching the far side of the universe for it. It may be more interesting to imagine a wayward Klingon weapon, but being a third rock native I'd expect them to properly honor the established galactic treaties.
Despite the many plausable offerings I've read on this BB, a reasonable explanation will never satisfy a percentage of this audience that seeks extraordinary answers. Even if someone were to recreate this effect in another unaltered photo, for a segment of the world population some levels of reality must remain unresolvable and cloaked in mystery. The "truth" is indeed out there, I only suggest that we try to avoid immeadiately searching the far side of the universe for it. It may be more interesting to imagine a wayward Klingon weapon, but being a third rock native I'd expect them to properly honor the established galactic treaties.
-
Guest
Ahh but it does. Someone posted the suggestion many pages ago that the brightness was caused by the camera flash. Someone also posted some example pictures showing ethereal, bright insects. Many flies are iridescent too.Jose wrote:It is a good theory but it doesn't explain the great increase in brightness close to but not on the light post.
-
sondance
-
Jose Suro
Quote: "If leppy is 5km away, we should get him to go take a photo of the top of the light pole, to see if the configuration of the light and housing are such that it could possibly create the kind of light flare seen in the image. "
I did find an image on the net of what I think is the light post in question. you can see it here but you have to hit refresh on your browser to see it - my ISP is not good with images without a page <G>:
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin3.jpg
The rest of the images are in my post on page 27.
Best,
Jose Suro
I did find an image on the net of what I think is the light post in question. you can see it here but you have to hit refresh on your browser to see it - my ISP is not good with images without a page <G>:
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin3.jpg
The rest of the images are in my post on page 27.
Best,
Jose Suro
-
Peeker61
APOD - Dark streak across the sky
I saw a dark streak very much like this in the middle of a sunny day this past summer (2004), just west of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The streak lasted only a few seconds and my wife and I both witnessed it. It looked like it was at about a 45 degree angle and would have been several miles in length. I rolled down the window to get a closer look and within 10-15 seconds it was completely gone. I've never seen anything like this before and was completely astonished. I thought it might have been a meteor streak but could be wrong.
oneofakind61@shaw.ca
oneofakind61@shaw.ca
-
Guest
Basic logic...
Here's what I think I'm seeing:
It's a small, almost uniformly dense object entering the atmosphere and bursting in midair. Directionally, it's headed towards the camera. Positionally, it appears to burst on the same side of the wharf as the camera.
Here's why I think that:
1) It's not an insect. Regardless of when the flash went off, the dark trail is never as wide as the white puff around the lighted object. If it were an insect, you'd expect to see some parts of the trail being that wide as the insect flies.
2) To support the space object (whether man-made or natural):
It's not unheard of (pun intended) for meteors to explode in midair. This is caused by uneven heating of the object and/or pockets of differing density being exposed as the object burns through the atmosphere. Thus that can't be ruled out. If meteor experts say it's not a meteor, I would venture to guess that it's one of the tens of thousands of pieces of space debris that circles the planet. That debris will almost always re-enter the atmosphere. Some of it is even highly heat resistant and capable of withstanding re-entry.
3) To support the directional part:
Many people have noted that the trail doesn't appear to change width. That can happen if the trail started further away from the viewer and ended closer (perspective tricks). Also, the larger 'ring' puff appears to be angled so that you aren't just seeing the side, but rather you see part of the face. Thus it can be concluded that the object isn't moving entirely side to side, but there is some amount of far-to-near motion.
4) To support the positional part:
The bright flash appears to obscure part of what the photographer has said is a ship mast. Additionally, the ring puff likewise obscures part of the mast, though much lower on the mast. Lastly, in watching the animations that some kind soul made, it appears that there is a reflection of the ring puff in the water right near the shore directly below the puff. That might be a pure artifact of the photo but it looks convincing.
5) To support the density part:
The reason I think it's not completely uniform in density is the fact that it appears to have burst to generate the ring puff. The ball puff ahead of the flash appears to be a second (or simply secondary) shockwave. In order to do that, it would have to have a change in density (a change in heat-resistance would also be a change in density).
6) Why the trail is so short lived that 15 seconds later it's gone?
The object isn't highly flamable. The object simply heats up and sheds a little material. It doesn't generate a flaming trail because there isn't enough material sublimating or boiling off the object so you see a lightly smoky trail and/or simply a compression wave.
I'm not an astronomer or a professional photographer, but these are my observations simply based on the pictures and some rudimentary knowledge of meteors, perspective, and time-lapse photos.
It's a small, almost uniformly dense object entering the atmosphere and bursting in midair. Directionally, it's headed towards the camera. Positionally, it appears to burst on the same side of the wharf as the camera.
Here's why I think that:
1) It's not an insect. Regardless of when the flash went off, the dark trail is never as wide as the white puff around the lighted object. If it were an insect, you'd expect to see some parts of the trail being that wide as the insect flies.
2) To support the space object (whether man-made or natural):
It's not unheard of (pun intended) for meteors to explode in midair. This is caused by uneven heating of the object and/or pockets of differing density being exposed as the object burns through the atmosphere. Thus that can't be ruled out. If meteor experts say it's not a meteor, I would venture to guess that it's one of the tens of thousands of pieces of space debris that circles the planet. That debris will almost always re-enter the atmosphere. Some of it is even highly heat resistant and capable of withstanding re-entry.
3) To support the directional part:
Many people have noted that the trail doesn't appear to change width. That can happen if the trail started further away from the viewer and ended closer (perspective tricks). Also, the larger 'ring' puff appears to be angled so that you aren't just seeing the side, but rather you see part of the face. Thus it can be concluded that the object isn't moving entirely side to side, but there is some amount of far-to-near motion.
4) To support the positional part:
The bright flash appears to obscure part of what the photographer has said is a ship mast. Additionally, the ring puff likewise obscures part of the mast, though much lower on the mast. Lastly, in watching the animations that some kind soul made, it appears that there is a reflection of the ring puff in the water right near the shore directly below the puff. That might be a pure artifact of the photo but it looks convincing.
5) To support the density part:
The reason I think it's not completely uniform in density is the fact that it appears to have burst to generate the ring puff. The ball puff ahead of the flash appears to be a second (or simply secondary) shockwave. In order to do that, it would have to have a change in density (a change in heat-resistance would also be a change in density).
6) Why the trail is so short lived that 15 seconds later it's gone?
The object isn't highly flamable. The object simply heats up and sheds a little material. It doesn't generate a flaming trail because there isn't enough material sublimating or boiling off the object so you see a lightly smoky trail and/or simply a compression wave.
I'm not an astronomer or a professional photographer, but these are my observations simply based on the pictures and some rudimentary knowledge of meteors, perspective, and time-lapse photos.
-
Stef
Light polarizer
Hi there, I'm currently studying in software engineering and I got all these courses that relate to becoming an engineer such as wave physics. Recently I just learned about light polarizers wich eliminates light depending on the orientation of its electrical field.
Did the photographer use a polarizer maybe to get rid of the light reflected on the water? If so, there was probably a scratch in the polarizer and maybe even a hole where a part of the natural light reflected off the water might have come through.
Did the photographer use a polarizer maybe to get rid of the light reflected on the water? If so, there was probably a scratch in the polarizer and maybe even a hole where a part of the natural light reflected off the water might have come through.
-
Joe