Funny, his words are different then your interpretation ( http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm): To me he is saying they are "not convincing". Excuse the weird font, I pasted from his site.
However, ray tracings using them are not convincing. .. They would require different simulation approaches and such models have an uncomfortable degree of arbitrariness. However, a credible explanation is needed both for these pillars and to some extent also for elliptical halos themselves. On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe, why not? These days we can film while watching the final image. > Besides, he says there were 2 pictures known. So, we also could also > consider that he did not see while not watching with his eyes first. As for > the physicist, it seems that while not reproducing exactly, it was good > enough. There must be something missing, but it is a small correction, by > comparing the simulation and the picture. > > > 2014-04-29 17:57 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>: > > Are you saying the camera lense created the phenom and that the >> photographer did not see it with his own eyes first? >> >> The physicist is even saying he cannot recreate the scene with his >> optical halo program using flattened pyramidal crystals >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> And also aligned with the photographer... >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally >>>> aligned with our solar brane. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, >>>>> which is not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> [email protected] >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] >
