Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:54 am**

Brendan Rose wrote:mmmm-I don't know what it is, but finding rings on jupiter may mean earth may have a thin layer for a ring. The moon has the crater impacts and some of the debris may be what makes are ring.

-just a thought-

post clearly should be moved. where are mods?

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... =3679#3679

Posted: **Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:26 am**

It's a laser.....lucky snap shot- that's all....experimental-- and not impossible to say the least.

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:05 pm**

to me....this looks like a metor that struck the water. like a kid throwing up a stone to create a little splash (cutting the devils throat). the metor would have been traveling at such a spead that this would have happened.

I hope my opinion helps

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:11 pm**

Who the hell is Wayne Pryde?

Posted: **Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:45 pm**

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:35 am**

you think so?

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:56 pm**

Don't be so juvenile. Your're not going to be the last post on this thread.

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:44 pm**

ealdric wrote:)

Insect . . . The guys at Skunk Works must be ROFL !

Not quite, but we will keep the insect idea in mind for our next test. Thanks for the tip!

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 6:33 am**

As a professional photographer for 25 years, who began as an amateur astronomer, the only bug I can detect is the one up the arse of all the posters on this topic!
Firstly, the added line indicating the shadow path, obliterates the most important evidence. The shadow disappears against the lighter parts of the image, ie.: over the water and the sky to the upper left. A meteor would be burning and therefore brighter than the background values.
There was no mention of a flash on the camera. It would have been utterly futile for clouds anyways, and would indicate the photographer had no clue about his mission. Everything was too far for anything but a 10,000 watt klieg light anyways!
If there was a flash, that just happened to capture an out-of-focus bug streaking across the foreground, there still would have been shading on a small 3D object, with the brightest spot nearest the center of the lens, and shadows as the light fell off at the edges. Here, the brightest area is on the side away from the lens axis.
The bug would also have to be flying exactly perpendicular to the optical axis for the shadow to be the same width across the frame. I would guess that the odds of capturing a bug producing this effect would be not much different than an asteroid!
I enlarged the most significant detail and increased the contrast in Photoshop, and it is obvious that there is light relected from the surrounding area and off the near sides of the adjacent lamp posts.
It was also reported that the light was indeed out the next day.
The halo away and to the right and below the light, indicates some asymmetry to the bursting light configuration, which would result from a support above and to the left, at 180 degrees, precisely where a shadow would be cast by the supporting structure.
Chalk up another one for Occam's razor.
Case closed.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:14 am**

Eyemagistus wrote:Chalk up another one for Occam's razor.
Case closed.

Interesting analogy, however I must remind you that if we followed Ockham's Razor all the time, we would never have evolved as a species nor continue to evolve. Science is, after all, the pursuit of truth. Six centuries ago everyone knew the Earth was flat. Simplest explanation. That's why we stay on the ground, right?

The law of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) is not science. It is a way for those, too scared to pursue and search for the truth, to hide behind, what would appear to be, the simplest explanation.

However, in this case, I am inclined to agree with you.

Regards,

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:48 pm**

I agree that six centurys ago, a flat earth was the simplest explanation that fit the known observed data. Even Tyco Brahe was stumped. Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, however, merely developed better observations and data, which then required an even simpler explanation. It only appears more complicated when one ignores the best data. You only insult them by implying they were too scared to pursue the truth. They paid a high price for it. Bruno paid with his life.
The greatest damage is done by those who initially default to magical thinking and jump to the most bizarre explanation imaginable with nothing more than conjecture to support it.
Evolution is doing just fine, thankyou. Many of the hyperbolic explanations for a simple exploding street lamp could just as well have come from Borneo shamans. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:35 am**

Newton's quantitative theory of gravitation, holding that the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, was exactly that. A theory.

Even Albert Einstein proposed a whole new concept of gravitation, 220 years later, involving the four-dimensional continuum of space-time which is curved by the presence of matter. In his general theory of relativity, he showed that a body undergoing uniform acceleration is indistinguishable from one that is stationary in a gravitational field.

It was technically all inconclussive until we reached out and touched the stars in the mid 20th century, 3 to 5 centuries after the first theories of gravitation and round planetary bodies was conceived. Until we actually saw it for our own eyes we could not be certain of the truth. Some of those theories are still being studied. Einstein said that nothing could accelerate to the speed of light because it's mass would become infinite. There are still scientists trying to make speed of light travel possible regardless of Einstein's theory.

Point being, we must not supress the ideas of others based on our own beliefs. We must continue to look at all of the known facts and hypothetical observations no matter how contemptible. For if we don't, we're doomed to recession.

Please don't misjudge my discourse. I was not trying to insult anyone. I fully agree with your observations on this particular image and your theory is the most logical and well researched, in my honest opinion. However, I also feel that, just because we have our own opinion on something, doesn't mean we should not consider the possibilities and ideas of others. If we had thought that way, we never would have launched Sputnik and Explorer not to mention countless others. We wouldn't even be having this discussion through a box of micro chips and a phone/cable line.

Regards,

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:27 pm**

H. N. Stone wrote:Newton's quantitative theory of gravitation, holding that the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, was exactly that. A theory.

Which it still is today.

H. N. Stone wrote:Even Albert Einstein proposed a whole new concept of gravitation, 220 years later, involving the four-dimensional continuum of space-time which is curved by the presence of matter. In his general theory of relativity, he showed that a body undergoing uniform acceleration is indistinguishable from one that is stationary in a gravitational field.

It was technically all inconclussive until we reached out and touched the stars in the mid 20th century...

And it remains inconclusive to this day. Both Newton's and Einstein's theories were well supported by experimental evidence within a relatively short time after their formulations. But in fact, both remain theories, unproven and unprovable, and no amount of additional evidence in their support can change that.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:10 pm**

Cloudbait Wrote:

But in fact, both remain theories, unproven and unprovable, and no amount of additional evidence in their support can change that.

That works fine for me as a definition of a closed mind.

What color is the sky on the planet this post is on? Nobody from my planet has reached a star yet, that we know of. We have two space craft named Voyager 1 & 2 on the way, but their paths are determined by our Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We just used it to land probes on Mars and Titan, can you please tell us if it also works in your solar system? It would be big news and might save us lots of money on my planet.

This is the consequence of dropping basic science as a requirement for graduating high school in a technologically advanced nation. There is a fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a wild ass guess.
Intelligent Design does not meet the minimum requirement to be regarded as even a theory. It is a fairytale. (Oooh, it's sooo complicated, it must be magic!) Hey, don't forget the Pythagorean Theorem, it's just a theory too!

I have had experiences that I cannot explain using everything I know. There may indeed be UFO's and interdimensional jaywalkers. We just need better evidence. I once had three witnesses, but the only evidence we have is memory.
String theory still holds enough mystery to satisfy even the nuttiest crackpot, but it is still based on the simplest explanation of the best data.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:44 pm**

Eyemagistus wrote:
Cloudbait wrote:But in fact, both remain theories, unproven and unprovable, and no amount of additional evidence in their support can change that.
That works fine for me as a definition of a closed mind.

I don't understand. My comment simply follows from the basic meaning of "theory" as used by scientists. A theory is an idea or system of ideas proposed to explain some observation. It gains acceptance as more evidence supports it, and particularly if no evidence contradicts it. No theory can ever be proven, only disproven. That doesn't mean that we can't largely accept some as virtual facts, even though technically they are not. Certainly both Newton's and Einstein's theories fall into this category.

Eyemagistus wrote:We have two space craft named Voyager 1 & 2 on the way, but their paths are determined by our Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

It is called a "law" for historical reasons, but it is not. It is a theory, so well supported by evidence that we feel comfortable using it without question. But that isn't to say that it couldn't be proven wrong, somewhere or somewhen. Indeed, it is only an approximation, and there are conditions under which Newton's theory fails.

Eyemagistus wrote:This is the consequence of dropping basic science as a requirement for graduating high school in a technologically advanced nation. There is a fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a wild ass guess.

Of course there is. I'm a professional scientist, and I spend a few hours each week teaching science to K-8 students. Hopefully some of that will sink in.

Eyemagistus wrote: Hey, don't forget the Pythagorean Theorem, it's just a theory too!

No, it isn't. It is a theorem, which is rigorously provable within the context of the underlying axioms- which are not themselves provable.

Posted: **Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:58 am**

True enough. There are special conditions under which classical gravity theory breaks down, but this is not one of them.
There are also special conditions when 2+2 equals something other than 4, and no one can prove that consciousness exists at all!

I'm just waiting for better evidence than a snapshot of an exploding street lamp to turn the world inside out. Time to change the bait.

I'm bugging out. This rabbit hole does have an exit.

Posted: **Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:01 pm**

Would THIS be a possibility?

The high intensity flash from the bulbs explosion created a strobe/flash effect. The streak you see is the shadow of the pole created from the center point of the flash in relation to the angle of the flash to pole proximity. The dark backdrop & ambient low light created the effect of a long shadow that gets less pronounced as it progresses further from the area of instigation.

If this had happened at night, and this was the only pole lit, you would have seen the entire area light up with the exception of the plane "shadowed/shielded" by the pole. It would also have been a longer, more pronounced area since other ambient lights would not effect shadowing or light dispersment.

MJD

Posted: **Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:24 am**

MJD wrote:Would THIS be a possibility?

In a word, NO!

If such a flash had occured, all other items would have cast slight though noticeable shadows on items further afield.

This photo has been thoroughly analyzed here and no such change has been noted in the ambient light intensity from the before and after images.

Posted: **Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:13 pm**

removed.

-Dan

^^^so, it looks like we actally had a visit of moderator here. wonder what have scared him off.

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:24 pm**

I don't know if this has already been covered. If it has, please forgive me, but there's no way I'm reading through 140-something pages of posts,

But... am I the only person to have spotted the problems with the timestamps on the photos?

The 'before' picture was taken at 18:53, and the 'during' and 'after' pictures at 18:52.

Maybe our photographer just mislabelled the files, maybe something more sinister.

Samir

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:26 pm**

H. N. Stone wrote:
Eyemagistus wrote:Chalk up another one for Occam's razor.
Case closed.

Interesting analogy, however I must remind you that if we followed Ockham's Razor all the time, we would never have evolved as a species nor continue to evolve. Science is, after all, the pursuit of truth. Six centuries ago everyone knew the Earth was flat. Simplest explanation. That's why we stay on the ground, right?

The law of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) is not science. It is a way for those, too scared to pursue and search for the truth, to hide behind, what would appear to be, the simplest explanation.

However, in this case, I am inclined to agree with you.

Regards,

You should read Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
You might see why your simplifications are in error.

Posted: **Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:56 pm**

I wanted to add an experience I had, because this is the first instance I have seen that was anything close to what I saw. If anyone can explain it, please do.
I was flying from Florida to Boston. It was late in the day, maybe half hour before sunset. Out the East window, there was a clear, fairly sharp and persistent shadow on/near the ground below, running north-south, and remained for as long as we looked at it, which was at least 20 minutes. No, no pictures, sorry, so it's just my word. At times it was also visible in the clouds below, but was more, to my mind, in the air! It was visible through the window as far North and as far South as we could see, scrunching up against the window, so I doubt it was our own contrail. It was at times more distinct than others, but was not conforming to the shape of the land below, just a straight dark line. It was a long time ago, maybe 1998 or 9, in the Winter. Only one other person saw it, and we didn't ask anyone to confirm it.
Thanks,

Posted: **Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:32 pm**

Is it time to lock this thread? There hasn't been a substantive contribution in quite a while.

It's a bug.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:43 am**

ruidh wrote:Is it time to lock this thread?

Many people were saying this for a long time...

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:50 pm**

Good idea.

Starship Asterisk*

Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

Re: A Strange Streak Imaged in Australia

A Strange Streak

Strange Streak

Wayne Pryde

Last Post

Re: What If

Lamp poster's bug

Re: Lamp poster's bug

simplest truth

Re: simplest truth

Re: simplest truth

Simplest truth

Re: Simplest truth

Simple truth

Re: Lamp poster's bug