| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Craig Fink
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
 |
|
Jim Oberg wrote:
| Quote: |
The picture is genuine, but because of an unusual feature of entry
lighting, it LOOKS bizarre.
The purple zig zag is the Columbia fireball bouncing around as the time
exposure is triggered.
As the camera settles down the zig-zagging object aligns itself with the
white sky track
that is the path of the fireballing shuttle. That is the 'strike' point --
an optical misinterpretation.
Here's the key: because the orbiter leaves a persistent milky-white trail,
that lingers for 30 seconds or more,
the continuous track across the field of view LOOKS like the path followed
by the fireball from one side
to the other of the frame.
But it's not. The white path that precedes the join-point of the purple
zig-zagger (which is the real
time-exposed image of the orbiter fireball) is the persistent trail that
is being laid by the fireball
during its transit, and it builds up to the recordable brightness only
after the camera has stabilized.
There IS a 'persistent trail' following the purple zig-zagger but because
it moves rapidly side-to-side
across the FOV, the exposure is never long enough to lay down a noticeable
track on the image.
Not until the camera is still, and the already existing persistent trail
is lingering across the
same swath of film, does the image emerge from background darkness and
become a visible trail.
It wasn't obvious, but anybody who has actually SEEN an orbiter entry
fireball cross their sky
will never forget the jaw-dropping awe of the golden spark and the milky
trail. And remembering those
visual effects, the jittering camera time exposure hypothesis becomes
obvious.
|
As many time exposure pictures can look a bit bizarre.
I remember when I saw the entry trail the first time in Houston, looking
around for the Orbiter, looking in the wrong part of the sky. Is that it,
no. That? no. Then all of a sudden looked in a different direction. It was
obvious, a very bright shining dot at the tip of long orange/red trail. By
the time the Orbiter had passed overhead, the trail stretched from horizon
to horizon. It was really something to see.
Conditions have to be right, you on the ground in the dark, the Orbiter
during entry in the sunshine. My understanding is that the trail is visible
because it reflects sunlight, like a cloud. The time I saw the trail it was
orange/red, like a cloud at sunset. The sunshine had passed through a lot
of atmosphere before illuminating the cloud. The Orbiter was very brightly
and glowing on it's own.
In the picture, the photographers finger moving as he pushes the button, one
direction, then releases, another direction, finally the camera settling
down, a smooth transition.
Night time exposure shots are fun, but if you want a good picture use a
tripod and the little remote control that came with the camera. I've got a
cool night shot where the flash froze the seen and the movement during the
4 second exposure created ghosts of people moving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dale Carlson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: Challenger - Sprite Picture - HELP !!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:23:18 +0200, André, PE1PQX
<pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote:
| Quote: |
Here in Holland we use the Celcius scale, I'm not familiar with the
Farenheid scale, I don't use it daily.
12 °C would be about 53.6 °F according to the formula °F = (°C × 1. +
32
36 °F would be about 0 °C according to the formula °C = (°F ? 32) ×
(5/9)
|
Not to nitpick, but 36-32 x (5/9) is more like 2.2°C :)
| Quote: |
I think I know why I thought it was 12 °C. The manufactureres
(Morton-Thiokol) of the SRB's said this is the minimum temerature the
SRB would work properly, without any dangerous problems.
|
Although I think Nasa had decided that 40°F was acceptable.
Dale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dale Carlson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Challenger - Sprite Picture - HELP !!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:22:43 -0700, I wrote:
I really should get over my fear of using all capital
letters on newsgroups and write it as "NASA" 
Like the FBI, and the CIA, and the BBC.
Dale
B.B. King, and Doris Day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
André, PE1PQX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: Challenger - Sprite Picture - HELP !!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Dale Carlson stelde de volgende uitleg voor :
| Quote: |
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:23:18 +0200, André, PE1PQX
pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote:
Here in Holland we use the Celcius scale, I'm not familiar with the
Farenheid scale, I don't use it daily.
12 °C would be about 53.6 °F according to the formula °F = (°C × 1. +
32
36 °F would be about 0 °C according to the formula °C = (°F ? 32) ×
(5/9)
Not to nitpick, but 36-32 x (5/9) is more like 2.2°C
I think I have to do my math again at school LOL. TNX (Again...)
I think I know why I thought it was 12 °C. The manufactureres
(Morton-Thiokol) of the SRB's said this is the minimum temerature the
SRB would work properly, without any dangerous problems.
Although I think Nasa had decided that 40°F was acceptable.
Dale |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
James R. Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Challenger - Sprite Picture - HELP !!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
André wrote:
| Quote: |
Brian Thorn schreef :
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:10:27 +0200, André, PE1PQX
pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote:
The wheather was clear, and about 12 Deg C (as far as I can remember).
It was 36F deg.
Brian
Here in Holland we use the Celcius scale, I'm not familiar with the
Farenheid scale, I don't use it daily.
12 °C would be about 53.6 °F according to the formula °F = (°C × 1. + 32
36 °F would be about 0 °C according to the formula °C = (°F − 32) × (5/9)
I think I know why I thought it was 12 °C. The manufactureres
(Morton-Thiokol) of the SRB's said this is the minimum temerature the
SRB would work properly, without any dangerous problems.
André
You are close on you calculation, 32F = 0C |
--
Our website is http://myweb.cableone.net/okieman7 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Oberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
|
| Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dogfighting
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
|
Jim Oberg wrote:
| Quote: |
Dogfighting, you happy now?
Hi, no the picture linked in the thread is a poor one, the one I saw in |
the one-hour show I watched on TV yesterday about Sprites showed the
Space Shuttle clearly being hit by the Lightning. I think the picture
on this thread is not the original but a cheap copy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: Re: Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
|
"Dogfighting" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:462bac3d$0$16345$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
| Quote: |
Jim Oberg wrote:
Dogfighting, you happy now?
Hi, no the picture linked in the thread is a poor one, the one I saw in
the one-hour show I watched on TV yesterday about Sprites showed the Space
Shuttle clearly being hit by the Lightning. I think the picture on this
thread is not the original but a cheap copy.
|
Well given that Columbia wasn't hit by lightning, and even if it was, at the
altitude required to cause any damage, you're not going to get a clean shot.
My guess is either you're mistaken or the TV show was using some sort of
computer generated graphic.
Note, there's NO evidence the shuttle was hit by a Sprite or any other
upper-atmosphere phenonoman.
Moreover all the evidence is consistent with ice coming off the ET and
striking the wing, breaking the RCC..
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Oberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
|
That's the shot taken by the astronomer that was called the 'purple
lightning' view,
and I've given you my explanation (and that of the photographer, a
professional astronomer)
of why it was not lightning -- and you know the UFO nuts will promote,
distort, 'improve',
and fabricate 'data' to excite their gullible viewers. Such minds rarely
lurk long in this thread....
"Dogfighting" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:462bac3d$0$16345$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
| Quote: |
Jim Oberg wrote:
Dogfighting, you happy now?
Hi, no the picture linked in the thread is a poor one, the one I saw in
the one-hour show I watched on TV yesterday about Sprites showed the Space
Shuttle clearly being hit by the Lightning. I think the picture on this
thread is not the original but a cheap copy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
|
|
"Jim Oberg" <joberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:462a9067$0$17130$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
| Quote: |
The photograph is copyrighted by the owner, Dr. Peter Goldie, so it is not
supposed to be posted
on open-access sites. But it has been, from time to time, until the owner
tracks the site down
and discusses copyright violation with them.
|
Copyright?
Many people risked their rears to create the legal character
the internet has today. There seems to be this urban myth
that copyright law and cyberspace chat have anything to do
with each other when involving non commercial speakers.
Cyberspace speech has the highest level of first amendment
protection that exists. Unless money is involved then sharing
anything; opinions, pictures, books, articles etc in cyberspace
is fully protected speech. If I were to post to this ng. or my
unsponsored blog, the entire text of some copyrighted book,
article etc it would be no different than reading that book to
another person in the privacy of my living room. Or the sidewalk
in front of my house. Same goes for pics, as the court has
ruled that pictures are speech.
If someone takes that material and makes money off
of it somehow, things are different. But once ...anything legal
has found it's way to cyberspace, any non commericial speaker
can repost it as they please, in full or in part. About the only
exception are the absurd rulings on sharing music, but that's a
short lived fluke in the law created by massive amounts
of lobbyist bribes.
The Supreme Court decision in Reno v ACLU is clear that cyberspace
chit-chat is not publishing, but speech. Copyright law doesn't
apply, the First Amendment decides.
RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
...."Because those findings provide the underpinnings for the legal
issues, we begin with a summary of the undisputed facts."
The Internet
"From the publishers' point of view, it constitutes a vast platform
from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of
millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person
or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can "publish"
information. Publishers include government agencies, educational
institutions, commercial entities, advocacy groups, and individuals.
(9) Publishers may either make their material available to the entire pool
of Internet users, or confine access to a selected group, such as those
willing to pay for the privilege."
"This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes
not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video,
and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through
the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a
town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any
soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups,
the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found,
"the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." 929 F. Supp.,
at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide
no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should
be applied to this medium."
"Judge Dalzell's review of "the special attributes of Internet
communication" disclosed by the evidence convinced him that the First
Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate the content of protected
speech on the Internet. Id., at 867. His opinion explained at length why he
believed the Act would abridge significant protected speech, particularly by
noncommercial speakers, while "[p]erversely, commercial pornographers
would remain relatively unaffected." Id., at 879. He construed our cases as
requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of
mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet—as "the
most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883—is
entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.(30)"
http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html
This was one of the most world-changing decisions the Supreme Court
has ever made. As it essentially promises to spread First Amendment
rights to much of the world. And one dedicated newsgroup spent a couple of
years trolling this decision into being by taking internet speech to it's
very limit
and daring all comers to silence them. I witnessed it.
And if anyone doesn't like it, that's too damn bad.
The future of this planet depends on a free and
uncensored internet.
s
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
OM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: Re: Dogfighting, you happy now? |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:38:57 -0400, Dogfucking<none@none.com> trolled:
| Quote: |
Hi, no the picture linked in the thread is a poor one, the one I saw in
the one-hour show I watched on TV yesterday about Sprites showed the
Space Shuttle clearly being hit by the Lightning. I think the picture
on this thread is not the original but a cheap copy.
|
....You know, if it posts like a troll, and it smells like a troll,
then it *must* be a troll.
<PLONK>
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dogfighting
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
|
|
Jonathan wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jim Oberg" <joberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:462a9067$0$17130$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
The photograph is copyrighted by the owner, Dr. Peter Goldie, so it is not
supposed to be posted
on open-access sites. But it has been, from time to time, until the owner
tracks the site down
and discusses copyright violation with them.
Copyright?
Many people risked their rears to create the legal character
the internet has today. There seems to be this urban myth
that copyright law and cyberspace chat have anything to do
with each other when involving non commercial speakers.
Cyberspace speech has the highest level of first amendment
protection that exists.
|
Typical American, the Internet is just a little bit bigger than one
country with 300 million people and their laws, the planet has
approximately 6.5 billion people and is governed by International law.
Oh...but as in Iraq the USofA doesn't have to oh-bide by International
law now does it -:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Oberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
|
|
killfile................
sorry i wasted my time...
"Dogfighting" <none@none.com> wrote blather |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
|
|
"Dogfighting" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:462c815b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
| Quote: |
Jonathan wrote:
"Jim Oberg" <joberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:462a9067$0$17130$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
The photograph is copyrighted by the owner, Dr. Peter Goldie, so it is
not
supposed to be posted
on open-access sites. But it has been, from time to time, until the
owner
tracks the site down
and discusses copyright violation with them.
Copyright?
Many people risked their rears to create the legal character
the internet has today. There seems to be this urban myth
that copyright law and cyberspace chat have anything to do
with each other when involving non commercial speakers.
Cyberspace speech has the highest level of first amendment
protection that exists.
Typical American, the Internet is just a little bit bigger than one
country with 300 million people and their laws, the planet has
approximately 6.5 billion people and is governed by International law.
Oh...but as in Iraq the USofA doesn't have to oh-bide by International
law now does it -
|
No, we generally make international law.
III. The International Context -- A three-legged stool: WTO, WIPO,
and national legislation. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
The United States put the basic framework for modern intellectual
property protection into place by the aggressive use of trade policy.
Beginning in the early 1980s the United States Trade
Representative began to make intellectual property protection
of U.S. copyrights, patents and trademarks a major goal in
trade negotiations with other countries, particularly those
in the developing world. Initially the efforts took place on a
bi-lateral basis with individual countries, but in the 1990s
intellectual property became a central feature of multilateral
trade negotiations involving NAFTA and GATT. In 1994, the
successful Uruguay round led to the WTO treaty containing
the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property)
agreement. Under TRIPS all countries must have effective
systems of patent, trademark and copyright law protection
and enforcement. The World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Historically, the principal
forum for setting minimum international norms for the
protection of intellectual property has been the
World Intellectual Property Organization,
http://www.iipi.org/speeches/MonteCarlo092099.pdf
World Intellectual Property Organization
"Copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner
of the rights in an original work that he has created.
It comprises two main sets of rights: the economic
rights and the moral rights."
"The economic rights are the rights of reproduction,
broadcasting, public performance, adaptation,
translation, public recitation, public display, distribution,
and so on. The moral rights include the author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of his work that might be prejudicial to his honor or
reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/collective_mngt.html
Copyright law does not apply unless one is making
money off it, or preventing the author from making
money. Internet chat is not public speech, it is
private speech. Show me where copyright law
applies to private speech anywhere!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dogfighting
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: straight skinny |
|
|
Jonathan wrote:
| Quote: |
"Dogfighting" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:462c815b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jonathan wrote:
"Jim Oberg" <joberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:462a9067$0$17130$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
The photograph is copyrighted by the owner, Dr. Peter Goldie, so it is
not
supposed to be posted
on open-access sites. But it has been, from time to time, until the
owner
tracks the site down
and discusses copyright violation with them.
Copyright?
Many people risked their rears to create the legal character
the internet has today. There seems to be this urban myth
that copyright law and cyberspace chat have anything to do
with each other when involving non commercial speakers.
Cyberspace speech has the highest level of first amendment
protection that exists.
Typical American, the Internet is just a little bit bigger than one
country with 300 million people and their laws, the planet has
approximately 6.5 billion people and is governed by International law.
Oh...but as in Iraq the USofA doesn't have to oh-bide by International
law now does it -:)
No, we generally make international law.
|
Fascinating that you conveniently deleted the link I provided that
proves your argument incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law
Please read it! Remember, the centre of the Universe is not the USofA !
| Quote: |
III. The International Context -- A three-legged stool: WTO, WIPO,
and national legislation. The World Trade Organization (WTO)
The United States put the basic framework for modern intellectual
property protection into place by the aggressive use of trade policy.
Beginning in the early 1980s the United States Trade
Representative began to make intellectual property protection
of U.S. copyrights, patents and trademarks a major goal in
trade negotiations with other countries, particularly those
in the developing world. Initially the efforts took place on a
bi-lateral basis with individual countries, but in the 1990s
intellectual property became a central feature of multilateral
trade negotiations involving NAFTA and GATT. In 1994, the
successful Uruguay round led to the WTO treaty containing
the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property)
agreement. Under TRIPS all countries must have effective
systems of patent, trademark and copyright law protection
and enforcement. The World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Historically, the principal
forum for setting minimum international norms for the
protection of intellectual property has been the
World Intellectual Property Organization,
http://www.iipi.org/speeches/MonteCarlo092099.pdf
World Intellectual Property Organization
"Copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner
of the rights in an original work that he has created.
It comprises two main sets of rights: the economic
rights and the moral rights."
"The economic rights are the rights of reproduction,
broadcasting, public performance, adaptation,
translation, public recitation, public display, distribution,
and so on. The moral rights include the author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of his work that might be prejudicial to his honor or
reputation."
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/collective_mngt.html
Copyright law does not apply unless one is making
money off it, or preventing the author from making
money. Internet chat is not public speech, it is
private speech. Show me where copyright law
applies to private speech anywhere!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
