Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
sean6

Mystery as Nasa satellite captures UFO

76 posts in this topic

Now that's what we call sunbathing: Mystery as Nasa satellite captures UFO surfing the hellish surface of the sun

A strange object flying close to the sun looks unnervingly like a huge, metallic 'mothership' familiar from Hollywood blockbusters.

The picture was released by Nasa's sun-watching Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, known as SOHO - and has become an immediate cult hit on the internet.

UFO fan site News Gather said: ‘An unusually shaped, gigantic UFO was spotted on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and posted in a video on YouTube.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134916/The-Icarus-spacecraft-Mystery-Nasa-sun-watching-satellite-captures-UFO-surfing-hellish-surface-sun.html

what is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that object were real, it would be many times larger than our planet, and the reflection of the sun would make it visible, perhaps to the naked eye, or at the very least, to amateur astronomers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If that object were real, it would be many times larger than our planet, and the reflection of the sun would make it visible, perhaps to the naked eye, or at the very least, to amateur astronomers.

You got there before me...was just about to say "awaiting expert number 1 to tell us why it can't be what it appears to be"....so now everyone else

expert number 1 has spoken. Roll on experts 2,3,4 etc

Remember now everyone all that we know is all that's to be known about the universe...experts 2,3,4 etc will confirm this

Regarding size

Here's some perspective for us dumb people

http://www.kiroastro.com/writings/perspective

Edited by Bogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and another thing that gave it away as nothing? The fact that the "video" is nothing more than just another still like the picture is. I want to see a video of it there while the sun is in motion.. not a still. That way, when it's nothing more than the reflection it is, it will disappear.

Seems to be a slow news day again. :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and another thing that gave it away as nothing? The fact that the "video" is nothing more than just another still like the picture is. I want to see a video of it there while the sun is in motion.. not a still. That way, when it's nothing more than the reflection it is, it will disappear.

Seems to be a slow news day again. :sleepy:

Jeez you're right......how could those people have been so stupid ???? should've read some of your post first instead of watching the sun and it's movements and anomalies ...right ?, they would have learned how thick they're being.

They could've saved themselves all that trouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was to speculate......and I am, I'd say it a time lapsed photo or a series of stills taken in quick secession. As Cpl599 pointed out that sucher would be several times larger than Earth if it were really one big, hawkin' ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was to speculate......and I am, I'd say it a time lapsed photo or a series of stills taken in quick secession. As Cpl599 pointed out that sucher would be several times larger than Earth if it were really one big, hawkin' ship.

And bang on time Expert number 2 has arrived telling us why it can't be what it appears to be....guess nobody looked at the perspective link....As experience has thaught me here.....time to bow out before they start quoting stephen hawking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And bang on time Expert number 2 has arrived telling us why it can't be what it appears to be....guess nobody looked at the perspective link....As experience has thaught me here.....time to bow out before they start quoting stephen hawking

Expert?

I did take a look at the perspective link......I have no idea what it has to do with anything other than support what I and others have pointed out.

I take it you have a problem with hearing from a real expert like Hawking?

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And bang on time Expert number 2 has arrived telling us why it can't be what it appears to be....guess nobody looked at the perspective link....As experience has thaught me here.....time to bow out before they start quoting stephen hawking

dont stop now.... :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clearly the mother of all Berserkers come to get us. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take my speculation back. This is clearly an alien mother ship parked right next to the sun. The greys needed a tan. This explains everything! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert?

I did take a look at the perspective link......I have no idea what it has to do with anything other than support what I and others have pointed out.

I take it you have a problem with hearing from a real expert like Hawking?

Well i do have a problem with Hawking actually...Firstly amongst his peers he is not even rated in the top 10...like beckham his celebrity outweighs his ability, and then my point on perspectve was to show how small our sun is when compared to pollux,arcturus,aldebaran,antares and betelgeuse....

Am i flogging a dead horse here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i do have a problem with Hawking actually...Firstly amongst his peers he is not even rated in the top 10...like beckham his celebrity outweighs his ability, and then my point on perspectve was to show how small our sun is when compared to pollux,arcturus,aldebaran,antares and betelgeuse....

Am i flogging a dead horse here ?

Actually, I think the horse hadn't been born yet.

......ok, I'll bite, what does the size of our Sun relative to other stars in the universe have to do with a bad picture taken by a remotely controlled satellite?

Most guys who are at the top of their fields get bad reviews from people who are often jealous of them. Oh, and speaking of this mysterious poll you reference, you have a link I can verify that at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the horse hadn't been born yet.

......ok, I'll bite, what does the size of our Sun relative to other stars in the universe have to do with a bad picture taken by a remotely controlled satellite?

Most guys who are at the top of their fields get bad reviews from people who are often jealous of them. Oh, and speaking of this mysterious poll you reference, you have a link I can verify that at?

I'm looking for the link now...i read it last week somewhere.I've been here long enough to know not to make statements without links i'll find it. Do i really have to explain to you that the perspective link is to show that from our point of view i.e subjective, the Sun is huuge but from an objective point of view our Sun is but a pinhead in the great scheme of things, the point i'm making is that we're looking at these things from our paradigm....man there was a time it was 50/50 here now they're all lookin on to see how you'll shoot me down :tu::no: ...so be it...i'm goin looking for that hawking link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm looking for the link now...i read it last week somewhere.I've been here long enough to know not to make statements without links i'll find it. Do i really have to explain to you that the perspective link is to show that from our point of view i.e subjective, the Sun is huuge but from an objective point of view our Sun is but a pinhead in the great scheme of things, the point i'm making is that we're looking at these things from our paradigm....man there was a time it was 50/50 here now they're all lookin on to see how you'll shoot me down :tu::no: ...so be it...i'm goin looking for that hawking link

Here's one for the worlds top ten physicists ever form scienceblogs...but not the one i was reading

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/greatest_physicists/

Another

http://listverse.com/2009/02/24/top-10-most-influential-scientists/

And another ...top ten scientists in physics and world sciences

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_10_sceintists_in_physics_and_world

top ten physics experiments

http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/top10.htm

And one more

http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/top10/top10.htm

Now i know that you can come back with links showing that in some opinions that SH is among the worlds top scientists (such is the net)but i hope that these links will show that in the grand scheme of things he's not reaaaly rated.......Check out forums where physicists speak to each other and you'll see there's a distinct lack of respect for his work..

Edited by Bogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely mistaken. Just as it isn't my job to educate anyone, I have no intentions of doing battle with you over trivial things like top ten lists. I would raise an eye brow when I see one is a list put together by a grad student............a peer? Really? Then the other two lists you posted contain people who aren't physicists, but are listed in accordance with their influence and contributions. Me thinks thou are trying a little too hard to impress me with your Google skills.

Hawking's biggest problem is he's afflicted with a terrible and degenerative disease and he isn't as articulate as many. Stuff happens in life, but it hasn't kept him down, you should be so strong.

Please, spare me the deeper meaning of the size of stars relative to ours, I fear the explanation will only serve to give me a headache. I believe the implication is that if they were from a bigger start the ship wouldn't appear to be so large.......or something like that. I'd simply reply that it really doesn't matter since we are here and can't bounce over to check on things, so it's a little like water under the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are completely mistaken. Just as it isn't my job to educate anyone, I have no intentions of doing battle with you over trivial things like top ten lists. I would raise an eye brow when I see one is a list put together by a grad student............a peer? Really? Then the other two lists you posted contain people who aren't physicists, but are listed in accordance with their influence and contributions. Me thinks thou are trying a little too hard to impress me with your Google skills.

Hawking's biggest problem is he's afflicted with a terrible and degenerative disease and he isn't as articulate as many. Stuff happens in life, but it hasn't kept him down, you should be so strong.

Please, spare me the deeper meaning of the size of stars relative to ours, I fear the explanation will only serve to give me a headache. I believe the implication is that if they were from a bigger start the ship wouldn't appear to be so large.......or something like that. I'd simply reply that it really doesn't matter since we are here and can't bounce over to check on things, so it's a little like water under the bridge.

First off i can assure you my google skills are very limited ,otherwise i would have been able to find the peer review on Hawking,if you get a headache from thinking of relative sizes of the sun to other stars and how it affects perspective well then ...nothing i can do about that, afraid i can't spare you from it because it's a fact that we gauge how big things are from our perspective on size.

As for Hawkings articulation ...it's fine if a little subjective...bear in mind this guys got a cynical axe to grind... i'm sure he feels cheated in life he wouldn't be human if he didn't....don't worry it's not your job to educate me , i think i've done a pretty decent job of that on my own...with a little help long the way....you see my problem is this , the post wasn't up but ten minutes when you jumped in and said it can't be so , whereas i'm saying it might be so !...so which of us lacks the education ?

EDIT : See i'm not saying that this is a Giant UFO near the sun, on the contrary i'm saying probably not but i'm also saying WTF do i know ? it might be. I'm not jumping in saying it's definitely not because !!!!

Edited by Bogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely mistaken. Just as it isn't my job to educate anyone, I have no intentions of doing battle with you over trivial things like top ten lists. I would raise an eye brow when I see one is a list put together by a grad student............a peer? Really? Then the other two lists you posted contain people who aren't physicists, but are listed in accordance with their influence and contributions. Me thinks thou are trying a little too hard to impress me with your Google skills.

Hawking's biggest problem is he's afflicted with a terrible and degenerative disease and he isn't as articulate as many. Stuff happens in life, but it hasn't kept him down, you should be so strong.

Please, spare me the deeper meaning of the size of stars relative to ours, I fear the explanation will only serve to give me a headache. I believe the implication is that if they were from a bigger start the ship wouldn't appear to be so large.......or something like that. I'd simply reply that it really doesn't matter since we are here and can't bounce over to check on things, so it's a little like water under the bridge.

Stephen Hawking not being in the top 10 among his peers is actually quoted in Hawkins Bio on The Science Channel or Discovery, I watched it again the other night. The top ten among physicist are actually relatively unknown folks from the physics world. Their fame is solely with their peers.

As for the "UFO" in question, Why wouldnt SOHO put this out themselves or give it to a large media source if they believed they had something there intead of giving it to DailyMail or some one of that nature? And why is this image not posted on the SOHO website...anywhere...that I could find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, allow me to let you re-read what I originally posted:

If I was to speculate......and I am, I'd say it a time lapsed photo or a series of stills taken in quick secession. As Cpl599 pointed out that sucher would be several times larger than Earth if it were really one big, hawkin' ship.

You see all I did was point out a second, simpler and not likely possibility. Hey, you want to cling to the notion of giant aliens are Sun bathing around our little and very insignificant star then by all means do so. It actually took me less time than ten minutes to see what it was, hell there was a more stunning anomaly reported a couple months ago. Damn shame you missed it because it showed what looked like a cloaked alien ship being hit by a plasma burst from the Sun with their shield raised. My guess is you'd have wet your pants had you seen it. Oh, it was giant as well.

I'll see if I can locate it again and post it up here, but now I must head off to work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i feel the"Hawking is king " argument has been put up to me so i feel i must counter....here's a quote from the BBC Horizon website with link....it seems that when he's challenged he takes umbridge and doesn't respect his peers enough to counter...so for all of you that bow to Hawking...think on

Link ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/hawking_prog_summary.shtml

Since that meeting the 'information paradox' has become one of the most fundamental and most difficult problems in physics. Arguments effectively boiled down into two camps. On the one side were Susskind and those who believed that Hawking was wrong: information could not be lost. On the other were Hawking and those who believed that physics would have to be rewritten to take into account the uncertainty about information that Hawking had uncovered.

For 20 years arguments raged. Neither side was willing to admit defeat. Until a paper emerged by a brilliant young Argentinean mathematician known as Juan Maldacena. It claimed to be a rigorous mathematical explanation of what happened to information in black holes. It showed that information was not lost. Hawking, it seemed, was on the losing side. But he was not convinced.

Hawking set to work with a young research student, Christophe Galfard, to try to pick apart the Maldacena paper. They thought they could use the same mathematical techniques employed by Maldacena to prove that information was in fact lost. But after two years they still could not prove their thesis.

Solving the paradox

Then disaster struck. Hawking was taken ill with pneumonia and rushed to hospital. Doctors feared for his life. He was kept in hospital for over three months. But whilst others fussed over his health, Hawking was thinking. Finally, on what many feared might be his death bed, he thought he'd come across what had eluded him for the past 30 years – a solution to the information paradox.

Once again Hawking defied the doctors' dire predictions and was soon back at work, working on a new proof for the information paradox. Then in July 2004, at one of the most prestigious conferences in physics, Hawking made a dramatic announcement. He claimed to have solved the information paradox. But to the surprise of many in the audience he was not at the conference to defend his long held belief that information was lost in black holes, instead he claimed that he could now prove the opposite.

Hawking presented the outline of a proof that he hoped would at last solve the problem that he had posed almost 30 years earlier. But despite the bold claims, some physicists remain unconvinced. Over a year has passed since the conference and he has still not presented a fully worked mathematical proof to back up his ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bed now...am working in India at the moment...thanks for the entertainment,nothing else to do here

Edited by Bogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, allow me to let you re-read what I originally posted:

You see all I did was point out a second, simpler and not likely possibility. Hey, you want to cling to the notion of giant aliens are Sun bathing around our little and very insignificant star then by all means do so. It actually took me less time than ten minutes to see what it was, hell there was a more stunning anomaly reported a couple months ago. Damn shame you missed it because it showed what looked like a cloaked alien ship being hit by a plasma burst from the Sun with their shield raised. My guess is you'd have wet your pants had you seen it. Oh, it was giant as well.

I'll see if I can locate it again and post it up here, but now I must head off to work.

I saw it but wasn't impressed really...but as i said WTF do i know.....but now i know where to come for all the answers ....thank you for enlightening us all with your infinite knowledge of all that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're stopping me from going to bed now...it's 43 degrees here today so my brain is fried ....from our tiny sun

A little advice keninsc ...as soon as you start saying stuff like you'd have wet your pants...you immediately lose credibility, i've been trying to counter your arguments without resorting to ...(as my nan used to say without her false teeth) Bullshish , i've been on here since 2004 (i think) now and i learned that way back....let others decide

Edited by Bogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven hawkins has worked on a load of theories

He is responcible for The First and Second Laws of Black Hole Mechanics, this led to Hawking Radiation.

He's also proved a series of singularity theorems with Penrose which show that given general relativity, it's inevitable that singularities will form in space-time, hence showing that black holes aren't a strange quirk of relativity but a natural solution.

Hawkins, Gibbons, Perry and someone i don't remember are responcilbe for the Positive Energy Theorem in assymptotically Anti-deSitter space-time.

Himself and penrose are fairly prolific too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Bogeyman is just looking for an internet flame exchange. No problem, there are plenty here who will oblige you, however I have little interest in such things.

Contact me via PM when you're ready to have a civil discussion.

:hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.