_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Unexpected patterns in historical astronomical observations
lschueller wrote 22 hours 14 min ago:
Would be interesting to know, what they've excluded as potential
explanations. Some things like lense effect, changes of light
wavelengths of such missing objects etc
Yizahi wrote 22 hours 17 min ago:
This belongs at r/ufos, not on a HN. To anyone who is new to this - one
scientist, Beatrice Villarroel, promotes a theory that old photoplates
from mid 20th century, show multiple UFOs because there were
discrepancies between two pictures taken 50 minutes apart. To prove
this, she makes analysis of several pairs of pictures where this is
indeed observed. So, she's right?
First of all, in every par she picks arbitrary a tiny fraction, like a
few percentages of an area of the plate, without any explanation why
the rest of the image is ignored. After looking at the full plates, one
can see that there not dozens of suspicious lights but literally
thousands of disappearing lights, uniformly spread out across the whole
plate, without any pattern or localization. So thousands of alien
saucers all across the Earth. You see where this is going? But it gets
worse.
Second - in all pairs of plates the lights change one way only. On the
first plate they are present and on the next plate 50 minutes later
they disappear. Not a single light out of thousands is breaking the
pattern and transitions from empty to light, no, all of them transition
from light to nothingness only.
And finally third - these thousands of UFOs on the first plate appear
because the first plate uses a brittle and unstable red pigment. I
can't quickly find out the source, but one guy did analysis and found
out the type of the emulsion used on the first plates in these sets in
that decade and said that it was indeed a fragile compound, which is
most likely the reason for these thousands of uniformly spread out
image defects.
tl;dr - ufologists as usually failed at basic reasoning, logic and
knowledge of history.
RajT88 wrote 20 hours 59 min ago:
> tl;dr - ufologists as usually failed at basic reasoning, logic and
knowledge of history.
That's being generous. Some of them know damn well that they are
looking at compression artifacts in pictures of Mars and not cities,
but they are trying to sell a book.
strenholme wrote 22 hours 1 min ago:
>I can't quickly find out the source
Took me too long, but hereâs one: [1] From that source:
âOld photographic plates are notoriously temperamental. Dust
specks, cosmic rays, emulsion scratches, and scanning artefacts can
all mimic stars. Villarroelâs team applied careful filters and
cross-checks, but some scientists argue the anomalies could still be
defects rather than cosmic revelations.â
Itâs not a real debunking â Rational Wiki (now down) was good at
debunking things like this which werenât notable enough to make the
Wikipedia â but itâs what Iâm able to find about the matter.
Iâm of course still skeptical â extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence â but I think a good debunking needs to be
posted online, with footnotes and references.
HTML [1]: https://thefreaky.net/dr-beatriz-villarroel-and-the-mystery-...
dylan604 wrote 20 hours 13 min ago:
Can you rule out or confirm the emulsion issue just from a print?
Would you not need access to the original negative?
Yizahi wrote 20 hours 55 min ago:
Finally found the post I was looking for: [1] In my opinion it's a
pretty damning conclusion. I would love to see some explanation
from the ufology crowd :)
HTML [1]: https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-clo...
strenholme wrote 15 hours 45 min ago:
Thank you. Also mirrored at: [1] To summarize:
⢠All of these anomalous points of light only appear on one
particular film emulsion, 103a-E (sensitive to red light)
⢠Said points of light do not appear with other emulsions used
at the same time (e.g. 103a-F or 103a-O)
⢠Each plate made with 103x-E emulsion has a lot of these
points of âlightâ all over them, which indicates there was an
issue with the emulsion.
Some other links: [2]
HTML [1]: https://archive.today/20250825091916/https://medium.com/...
HTML [2]: https://www.ufofeed.com/141549/some-serious-flaws-in-vil...
HTML [3]: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/transients-in-the-palom...
Yizahi wrote 21 hours 13 min ago:
That's not the post I'm trying to find, unfortunately. That one was
on substack I think, but I'm not sure by now.
As for good debunking - come on, it's supposedly thousands of
crafts, supposedly in the same orbit (because any other orbit
except for GEO would cause them to streak on the long exposure
photo), in a random formation all across the sky, supposedly
synchronously disappeared all at once, time synced to the
photoplate change on a random Earth observatory. Pfff, just typing
this out feels like a bad joke. Good proofs or even bad proofs need
to be provided first by the ufology community, not vice versa.
sxp wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
Note that their paper includes p-hacking so this is proto-science
rather than science. They didn't find data to match their hypothesis,
but they were able to find a hypothesis to match their data.
> Follow-up secondary analyses were then conducted to examine in more
granular fashion the timing of the association between nuclear testing
and occurrence of transients. Table 2 summarizes the association
between occurrence of transients and different time windows relative to
nuclear testing, ranging from 2 days before a test until 2 days after a
test. The only association that reached statistical significance was
for the association in which transients occur 1 day after nuclear
testing.
aorist wrote 20 hours 11 min ago:
This specific analysis isnât p-hacking because although they
conduct multiple tests, they report all of them rather than just the
statistically significant ones.
They should however account for multiple testing. The Bonferroni
correction (which is conservative) would set the alpha level to
0.05/5=0.01, for which the 1 day after result is still (just)
statistically significant.
Not to say there couldnât be other problems.
astroflection wrote 21 hours 2 min ago:
Had to look this up:
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
CGMthrowaway wrote 21 hours 32 min ago:
I'm glad you called this out. p-hacking can be useful to generate
hypotheses, which ought to be then tested (rather than thinking the
p-hacked conclusions are just that)
mcswell wrote 22 hours 52 min ago:
Radioactive fallout?
apeconmyth wrote 23 hours 11 min ago:
After over a decade of knowing about it, I finally got a copy of
Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events by Persinger/Lafrenière last
week and was reading about this subject yesterday, but from a book
published in 1977. It's blowing my mind to see this here today, but the
ultimate source of me even knowing about the above book, Robert Anton
Wilson, would not be surprised at all!
AnimalMuppet wrote 23 hours 29 min ago:
My unsupported hypothesis: Gamma radiation from the blast was reaching
the film that was being used to take the astronomical observations.
For this to work, though, a few things would have to be true:
1. The film would have to be stored in bulk in a place that would be
(mostly) protected from gamma rays from the tests.
2. The film for that night's observations would have to already be not
with the rest of the film at the time of the test.
3. The observatory would have to be close enough to the location of
the test that the gamma rays would have a chance to reach it.
But maybe it doesn't have to be direct. Maybe it could be gamma rays
produced by the fallout, which drifts from the location of the test to
at or near the observatory.
Then you have to wonder why no more were observed after March 17, 1956.
A change in the character of the film? (Either a change in
manufacturing process, or a change in what kind of film was used?)
_alternator_ wrote 17 hours 2 min ago:
It occurs to me that the gamma ray hypothesis has a fairly easy
check. Light sources pass through the telescopeâs optics (typically
mirrors or occasionally lenses) which leads to a characteristic
âpoint spread functionâ for point sources like stars. If it were
an errant gamma ray exposure directly on the film, itâs extremely
unlikely to have the PSF of the standard light sources.
You can compute the PSF from known stars on the same image and run a
statistical test, but TBH just visually comparing the transient with
a few stars of similar brightness on the same image should put this
one to rest.
_alternator_ wrote 16 hours 33 min ago:
Following up on this, I eyeballed the images in this one: [1] The
brightest stars in all of the images have a clear 4-pointed
pattern. The brightest transients _do not_ show this pattern.
This is obviously not definitive, and the fainter stars are harder
to eyeball the PSF, but it does provide some evidence to support
the hypothesis that the brighter transients could be due to gamma
ray exposure of the film rather than flashes in the atmosphere or
space.
HTML [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/ae0af...
opwieurposiu wrote 23 hours 0 min ago:
[1] Kodak had this issue for sure.
HTML [1]: https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/nuclea...
rtkwe wrote 22 hours 23 min ago:
It's also just a permanent issue for sensitive instruments for
scientific experiments. The Cold War bomb testing spree
contaminated so much there's a whole demand for metals produced
before the first atomic test because of the increased presence of
fallout from the tests.
The issue is relegated to only the most sensitive equipment these
days but it's a funny little side issue for several years before
the test ban had been in place long enough to reduce the elevated
levels back to nearly background.
bigbuppo wrote 23 hours 10 min ago:
> "We also find a highly significant (â¼22Ï) deficit of POSS-I
transients within Earth's shadow when compared with the theoretical
hemispheric shadow coverage at 42,164 km altitude."
I'm not an statisastroscienticianist, so I have no idea what that
means, but maybe it's significant.
That being said, Kodak discovered nuclear testing was a thing before
the public for all the obvious reasons.
Yizahi wrote 20 hours 41 min ago:
The problem with that impressive 100500Ï figure, is that she
refuses to provide code which she supposedly used to supposedly
prove that Earth shadow has some influence on these dots on the
images made from photo plates. I.e. this 22Ï figure is a "pinky
promise" level "science".
_alternator_ wrote 22 hours 44 min ago:
The earths shadow effect lowered the transients by about 33%, which
does provide evidence for physical reflection accounting for 1/3rd
of the effect. To my mind, gamma ray-like exposure on the film is
an extremely plausible explanation for the other 66%.
jandrewrogers wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
That wouldn't explain why the effect only disappears for parts of the
sky within Earth's shadow.
Yizahi wrote 4 hours 43 min ago:
Dots doesn't disappear from Earth's shadow, there are just little
bit less of them statistically. And she can't explain that in her
paper at all, if those are supposedly objects and not plate
defects, then why are they in a place, where objects shouldn't
appear.
Also, assuming her hypothesis is correct and she didn't made
factual mistakes - to be presented as dots and not streaks, all of
these thousands of objects should be in a tiny narrow band in GEO
spread out all across the orbit envelope. Where did they disappear
in between 50 minutes from red plate to blue plate? And then this
somehow repeated every single time in that particular order? An
alien armada sitting precisely in a single orbit and then vanishes
on a cue from a some lone observatory on Earth, when technician
changes plates there? Then again appears all strictly in GEO, then
again disappears in 50 minutes after?
Doesn't it look absurd to you?
RajT88 wrote 23 hours 38 min ago:
I didn't realize it, but I saw something about this over the weekend.
The article cites the same papers that the author claims were rejected
on ARXIV:
HTML [1]: https://ovniologia.com.br/2025/10/astrophysicist-dr-beatriz-vi...
crystaln wrote 23 hours 40 min ago:
A widespread theory among et believers is that nuclear explosions bring
the attention of et intelligence around the universe as a sign of
sufficiently advanced life to investigate, and that aliens are here to
make sure we develop without self-destructing and join the
intergalactic world peacefully.
cryptonector wrote 23 hours 22 min ago:
In reality other advanced civilizations elsewhere and elsewhen in our
galaxy are as constrained by the speed of light as we are, thus they
can't come here as we can't go there.
GloamingNiblets wrote 22 hours 10 min ago:
Isn't this ruling out outlier observations given our model, rather
than evaluating our model given outlier observations?
anomaloustho wrote 22 hours 21 min ago:
Isaac Arthur has put it in a way that resonated with me. If you
live in a universe that has FTL, itâs scarier in a lot ways. It
means the really dangerous bad guys in the other galaxy can reach
you. If you live in a world without FTL, it makes things happen
really slowly and over generations. Thatâs not as fun and
exciting, but it also severely limits the amount of bad guys that
can get to you.
And any bad guy that can even reach you basically means youâre
already dead if they so choose.
analog31 wrote 21 hours 9 min ago:
FTL means the bad guys have already reached you.
King-Aaron wrote 14 hours 57 min ago:
There is also some folks that suggest that they are already
here. Including an awful lot of high profile people within the
defence sectors.
cryptonector wrote 18 hours 44 min ago:
It means you see nothing interesting then a shockwave and here
they are.
analog31 wrote 16 hours 25 min ago:
And here they were, because FTL travel implies eliminating
the distinction between "before" and "after."
cryptonector wrote 15 hours 26 min ago:
Not really:
HTML [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jIplX6Wjw&pp=ygU...
analog31 wrote 11 hours 13 min ago:
Admittedly, I'm in the awkward position of being an old
industrial physicist, so on the one hand I'd need an
explanation with a bit more substance, but on the other,
it would probably be over my head. The most I was able to
get from the video is that maybe quantum gravity will
crack the problem.
arethuza wrote 22 hours 16 min ago:
Doesn't FTL also imply time travel - which probably isn't a good
thing?
lawlessone wrote 18 hours 25 min ago:
I think wormholes and warp sort of get around it by having the
FTL traveler moving slower that light in their pocket/hole
through space.
cryptonector wrote 15 hours 27 min ago:
SPOILER ALERT: Wormholes and warp drives will not work,
cannot work, are not physically possible (even though they
are "solutions" to the EFE), would not be feasible even if
remotely physically possible.
cryptonector wrote 20 hours 12 min ago:
Not really. But it does imply weird things. Sabine
Hossenfelder did a video on this.
jansan wrote 22 hours 53 min ago:
Is Anyone here educated enough to tell if quantum entanglement
could (hypothetically) be used to transmit information faster than
light?
lawlessone wrote 18 hours 2 min ago:
my poor understanding of it is that it's like a split tally
stick. [1] So what if you put each half of split tally stick in a
box hidden from view then move them a light year apart and then
open your box? You immediately know what's on other stick but you
can't change it anyway.
and also the act of viewing the stick destroys it.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick#Split_tally
cryptonector wrote 22 hours 9 min ago:
Quantum entanglement cannot transmit information. Full stop.
Let alone FTL.
When you measure an entangled particle that tells you, the
observer, the corresponding characteristic of the other particle
in the pair, but it will tell no one who has access to the other
particle anything at all about what you wanted to say.
This is like transmitting information from you to you about a
faraway thing (instantaneously! "FTL", but read on), but it's
not useful because what you want to transmit information from you
to someone else far away rather than from you to you.
anomaloustho wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
No, because you can only randomly measure the state of your
particle and therefore the remote particle. (then lose the
entanglement) But you canât put the particle into a state.
rtkwe wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
As far as anyone can tell you can't use it transmit information.
Their states are mirrored but you can't modify the state of on of
the pairs to change the state of the other, that just breaks the
entanglement. So all you really have are two particles that
happen to be in the same random state at any given time.
I don't think you can even tell given only one of the particles
in a pair if it is still entangled so you couldn't even
destructively send small amounts of information either. It's a
neat work around for semihard scifi but the universe is
stubbornly resistant to any pathways for anything including
information travelling faster than the speed of light.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
namanyayg wrote 22 hours 40 min ago:
All of human knowledge and observation so far points to the fact
that we can't break the light barrier
Teever wrote 22 hours 55 min ago:
That doesn't stop hypothetical automated sentinel probes that alien
races have seeded the galaxy with as a surveillance net from
picking up the atomic blasts and investigating.
Yizahi wrote 19 hours 52 min ago:
To send and then slow a device of meaningful size across ten or
hundreds of light years would require an enormous amount of
energy, like truly incomprehensible amount. Then a civilization
would need to produce them in millions and send to every single
rock in the galaxy sector, because nuclear fission blasts are
undetectable outside of star system. And then these robots need
to function for billions of years continuously without any
failure, because who knows which rock and at which time may
develop sentient life. And when detection fission decay, such a
robot must produce an enormous amount of power, to send a
coherent optical signal over the tens of light years of distance.
Meaning it has a gigantic power generator and equally impressive
emitter. Which means even more mass has to be accelerated and
then decelerated initially. And his sentient robot has to stare
at a rock for billions of years without degrading electronically
and without going insane.
And all that galaxy construction level effort for what? To learn
hundreds or thousands of years late, that at rock number 123ABCD
a fission has happened? And do what exactly with that useful
information? Send extermination fleet? Or a robot with flowers,
to pay respects?
People for some reason refuse to comprehend just how hard is it
to send a speck of dust over light years of distance, let alone
anything meaningful which won't break down in the process.
cryptonector wrote 18 hours 37 min ago:
The reason to do this is not to prevent other civilizations
from destroying themselves but to colonize the galaxy. It
would still require all that you said (fantastical technology
and enormous amounts of time) and then some.
And since the amount of time we're talking about is so large --
larger than the amount of time the beings that create these
robotic probes can possibly continue to be alive -- that the
only way it could work is if those beings accept robots as
acceptable replacements for themselves, or if the probes carry
embryos and can terraform planets and raise those embryos to
adults and bootstrap a civilization.
Plenty of sci-fi has been written along these likes, like
Ursula K Leguin's books, where human-ish beings on any given
planet (e.g., Winter) turn out to be sent there from other
planets to bootstrap a civilization and they have no memory of
it. Or Pushing Ice, by Alastair Reynolds, where there is a
robotic probe thing going on, but rather than continue the
originating species [redacted to avoid spoilers].
Yizahi wrote 17 hours 31 min ago:
We just went from absurdly insanely hard task, to a task I'd
guess a thousand times harder. A communicator and observer
probe is almost impossible enough, but to additionally
preserve biological tissue for thousands of years in space is
even harder than sending pure robot. And then terraforming
part is just orders of magnitude harder than that.
Communicator probe would be a few thousand tons maybe and
packing maybe a few megawatts of onboard power. Lets be
generous and give them a thousand times more - a few
gigawatts, provided they are magic aliens and stuff. What can
you terraform on a few gigawatts? Raise a temperature in a
ten meter circle by one degree? Produce a few cubic meters of
something from atmosphere? To terraform one would need a
giant fleet of giant vessels, all fine tuned for some
processes, and then they will work for millennia to change
planet a tiny bit. We would notice that kind of operation in
the Solar system.
I love LeGuin, Reynolds, and other, sci-fi is practically 90%
of what I'm reading. But come on, the whole interstellar
stuff is always predicated on very very optimistic
assumptions and eventually magic.
cryptonector wrote 15 hours 25 min ago:
Sure, ok, but what would a communicator probe accomplish?
It could not communicate back to the origin -- the origin
would be long gone. It could only communicate with the
civilizations it finds, but to what end?
If any civilization were to build such a thing they would
make it perpetuate themselves.
estimator7292 wrote 23 hours 15 min ago:
That's our best guess anyway. My bet is that superluminal travel
will be possible once we resolve quantum gravity and break all of
Einstein's rules.
At least that's what I tell myself. Hard to appreciate the majesty
of the universe if we're forever locked into a single star system.
TrainedMonkey wrote 22 hours 33 min ago:
It would be really cool if that was true, but I would estimate
the odds of quantum gravity enabling superluminal travel or comms
as low. Occam's razor and all that.
RajT88 wrote 23 hours 9 min ago:
None of this is falsifiable. It requires understandings of
physics we don't have, and we have no way of knowing which
hare-brained theories today are correct and useful in the future.
That goes as well for how aliens light-years away can detect
nuclear explosions and show up within days to check it out.
itsanaccount wrote 18 hours 32 min ago:
"they" dont detect it light years away. from what has been
published in the public domain, like in the congressional
hearings, there are machines that have been here possibly a
very long time. think at least 500 years. theres no indication
the "they" behind those machines have ever made contact, or are
on this planet, or are even still in existence. but there is
something mechanical here that was not made by us.
as far as I know, the very few publicly identified records of
speeds we have suggest a really big power source and the
probable manipulation of fields we cannot yet (mass/gravity),
but nothing breaking the speed of light.
so many people make leaps beyond the evidence we have and then
declare them not plausible.
cryptonector wrote 15 hours 24 min ago:
All the UFO talk is a distraction. You're welcome.
RajT88 wrote 18 hours 22 min ago:
Having read what's in the public domain from the hearings,
I'm having trouble squaring these two things:
> there are machines that have been here possibly a very long
time. think at least 500 years. theres no indication the
"they" behind those machines have ever made contact, or are
on this planet, or are even still in existence. but there is
something mechanical here that was not made by us.
> so many people make leaps beyond the evidence we have and
then declare them not plausible.
Why isn't the first one exactly what you're complaining about
in the second statement? Have I missed something?
dvh wrote 23 hours 45 min ago:
Do you really think it's ok to put trendline in Fig.2 ?
scellus wrote 22 hours 34 min ago:
No. In general the statistics look a bit amateurish, which is normal
for a scientific paper. I'd actually like reanalyze the data, just
out of curiosity. (Those p-values and other things can still be on
the right ballpark even if the models and analyses are not top notch.
I'm not exactly doubting them, and the results are interesting even
without any correlation to UAP sightings or nukes.)
myth_drannon wrote 23 hours 50 min ago:
Weren't Nazis sending rockets into space by 1945? Soviets and
Americans, probably as well. So why is it unexpected to have objects in
orbit?
mannyv wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
Iron Sky is just a movie...as far as we can tell.
mcswell wrote 22 hours 53 min ago:
None of those rockets attained anything like orbital speed.
lutusp wrote 23 hours 33 min ago:
> Weren't Nazis sending rockets into space by 1945? Soviets and
Americans, probably as well.
No to all, without reservation. The German V-2 didn't go into orbit,
and the US and USSR weren't active in large missile activity at all,
until long post-war.
michaelsbradley wrote 22 hours 39 min ago:
Unless by the early 1950s the US and possibly others were launching
objects into orbit, and their doing so has been a closely guarded
secret even until now. The nuclear tests would have offered natural
PR cover.
If we rule out ETs for the sake of argument, and if these werenât
atmospheric effects or artifacts from the nuclear tests themselves,
then small objects were in orbit at the time and either they were
launched from Earth or the planet happened to be crossing paths
with them.
TheBlight wrote 23 hours 45 min ago:
Try reading the article. You might enjoy it and it will answer your
question.
myth_drannon wrote 23 hours 5 min ago:
Beyond the date of the first artificial satellite, there is nothing
in the article that mentions space debris.
cluckindan wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm just spitballing here, but could the objects in orbit be parts of
the bomb casing? One would assume them to be tumbling and flashing
either periodically or in a specific pattern corresponding to their
rotation. Or maybe producing a short flash on re-entry.
Spitballing even further, could the objects be explained by a nuclear
fireball pushing a mass of atmospheric humidity high enough to form a
solid sheet of ice in orbit?
keepamovin wrote 1 day ago:
These things are i think around 400,000km out in space so no.
titzer wrote 1 day ago:
The bomb casing from a successful nuclear detonation would be
entirely atomized and instantly vaporized. The exponential runaway of
an atomic chain reaction produces so much radiation (read: light,
heat, X-rays, and even gamma rays) in the first nanoseconds that
literally every chemical bond is ripped apart, plus so many
fast-moving neutrons that many nuclei (even not of the initial
fissile material) are either fissioned themselves or altered to
radioactive isotopes. Because so much EMR is produced so fast, there
literally isn't even time for matter to be physically accelerated
away before being absolutely soaked in EM. It's possible that some
other matter in the vicinity might be intact and blasted away, but
anything within the fireball radius of ~100m is absolute toast.
niwtsol wrote 1 day ago:
Thank you for this detailed explanation. Given the above, I find it
absolutely wild that the closest survivor of Hiroshima was only
170m away (granted he was in a concrete basement). In my head, I
always pictured a large area completely obliterated as you
described.
"Eiso Nomura (1898-1982) miraculously survived the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima, despite the fact that the explosion occurred in the
air right above him.On August 6, 1945, Mr. Nomura was in the
basement of the Fuel Hall (now, the Rest House in Peace Memorial
Park), about 170 meters southwest of the hypocenter."
mohaine wrote 22 hours 37 min ago:
He was 170m away from the location the bomb exploded over, not
170m away from the explosion.
That said, the bomb only exploded at roughly 600m in altitude so
still pretty close.
Syzygies wrote 23 hours 53 min ago:
There is no single accepted definition of "fireball" like the
Kármán line where outer space begins, and even that is just a
convention.
The "artificial sun" created at Hiroshima, the early-stage plasma
fireball at 1 ms, is estimated to have been 5 to 10 meters
across.
VonGuard wrote 1 day ago:
Furthering the original question: the myth says Plumbbob launched
a manhole cover into orbit, but the truth is slightly less than
that, and it wasn't really a manhole cover.
Still, this is what happens when you use a nuclear bonb as a
detonating charge at the bottom of a tube...
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob
kakacik wrote 20 hours 52 min ago:
900kg steel cap is a bit more than manhole :)
And it was most probably vaporized, either by blast itself or
by rapid compression of air. They estimated if it actually
started flying it would have 6x Earth escape velocity (cca
240,000 kmh), no way to survive flight through 100km of
atmosphere before reaching semi-vacuum
Qem wrote 11 hours 57 min ago:
> no way to survive flight through 100km of atmosphere before
reaching semi-vacuum
There is a question on stackexchange with one great answer
about this. It probably didn't last a kilometer:
HTML [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/488151/c...
rindalir wrote 1 day ago:
Was wondering about that but then came across this passage in the
paper:
â The last date on which a transient was observed within a nuclear
testing window in this dataset was March 17, 1956, despite there
being an additional 38 above-ground nuclear tests in the subsequent
13 months of the study period.â I would expect to see artifacts of
the tests themselves continue under that hypothesis. Of course this
raises a whole bunch of other questionsâ¦
SubiculumCode wrote 1 day ago:
Fascinating.
"The second paper, published in Publications of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific (PASP), specifically looks for signs of possible
extraterrestrial artifacts in orbit around Earth, before the first
human satellite launch in 1957. The researchers looked, among other
things, for instances where multiple flashes of light were along a line
or in a narrow bandâsomething that indicates reflections from flat,
reflective objects in motion. Two interesting examples were identified,
one of which occurred on July 27, 1952, the same night as the notable
sightings of UAP in Washington, D.C."
Info about July 27, 1952 UFO/UAP sighting in DC:
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incide...
mikkupikku wrote 22 hours 46 min ago:
I get Battle of Los Angeles vibes from this, tbqh.
DIR <- back to front page