http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex-20070815.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira

The simple answer is that it is a star.

Stars, like ours, emit radiation as a result of nuclear fusion. As it moves through space, the radiation creates a bow, where that radiation interacts with hydrogen. My guess is the hydrogen is excited to a higher energy state. When it decays, it emits the ultraviolet light that is whipped around the star in the shape of a tail.

You can't treat Mira with the same math and logic as a comet, because it produces its own energy.

A comet is usually much 'slower' than this because they are at a huge distance from Earth and can sometimes be seen for days. Maybe it's the Shuttle reentering. How does that look?

A comet or anything else flying past at a distance would have roughly the same tail the whole time since it's not created by our atmosphere, this starts with a small and faint tail which grows more distinct over time. That seems more like either the airplane theory someone proposed or maybe a rocket booster or other debris might which another suggested. Though I don't see why a booster would burn the whole way down rather than flame out like it should.

Or it could be some clown reflecting an image off of glass for the camera or something similar. Hard to say.

How about fake? Comets aren't on fire, it's too slow (damn near stationary) to be anything else, it's not a gas burn, (straight tail) and it sure as hell ain't a plane. It's just a fake. That's all.

I'd have to chime in that this is a comet. I've seen them look exactly like this. The only other object I've ever seen look anything like this is a satellite de-orbiting.

I would think it's a comet flying past Earth at quite a distance. Those are like large ice balls that produce a tail projected in a line away from the sun. So unlike a meteor which leaves a smoke filled path in it's wake, it doesn't appear to be streaking across the sky. Of course, it'd be lovely if there was some expert analysis on this.

But, seriously... people aren't still taking these sorts of vids as being UFO sightings, eh? I mean, really? UFO's and alien Area 52 conspiracies are not the answer to everything we can't immediately identify. The amount of such footage that has been debunked in the past has gotta make you take a second guess at such things.

I'm with schmawy, I'd say a plane is the best bet. It looks firey, but I think that's because the whole video is tinted orange. It moves too much for a comet and way too slow for a meteorite.

vomit comet.

I'm a long way from fluent but I can pick out a few words here and there, if they know what it is for sure I missed it. Suggestions of meteor and comet were common enough along with some rather odd guesses such as the Space Shuttle (I doubt it) to maybe Superman, which is more likely than the Shuttle I'd think. I doubt meteor and comet as well, too slow.

Maybe someone better with the language can pick up more.

...

What can I say? I mean, you yourself have just denounced logic. That makes argument impossible by definition. Feel free to believe whatever you want, just do your best to not indoctrinate your children, or like, shape public policy that affects the real world, which actually does function on logic.

I guess my only question is this: why God and not Allah? Why not Zeus or Thor? With so many Gods to choose from, are you CERTAIN that yours is correct? How certain are you? Certain enough to try and spread your view of God to others? Certain enough to teach it to innocent children?

Anyway, sorry if I seem combatative, I really don't have any beef with you, and I know some very nice people with deep religious convictions. I don't happen to share these convictions, and that's fine. That's called living in an open society. Far be it from me to try and deny your belief that your neighbor is from another planet, or that your imaginary friend created the universe and loves you very much. But if you want to convince me that these things are true, an ancient book of tribal mythos won't help you. Especially not the bible, which has some very VERY nasty anecdotes in it indeed.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

Advice? Oh! Thank-you so much! I'll certainly give it some consideration just as soon as I can get this tuning fork to move that little comet out of the way. It's blocking my view of Neptune.

This is the "Satan" sequence from The Adventures of Mark Twain (1985), directed by Will Vinton. (Remember the California Rasins? Same dude.)

From IMDB's plot summary:

Based on elements from the stories of Mark Twain, this feature-length Claymation fantasy follows the adventures of Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher, and Huck Finn as they stowaway aboard the interplanetary balloon of Mark Twain. Twain, disgusted with the Human Race, is intent upon finding Halley's Comet and crashing into it, achieving his "destiny." It's up to Tom, Becky, and Huck to convince him hat his judgement is wrong, and that he still has much to offer humanity that might make a difference. Their efforts aren't just charitable; if they fail, they will share Twain's fate. Along the way, they use a magical time portal to get a detailed overview of the Twain philosophy, observing the "historical" events that inspired his works.

SilentPoet is correct. They usually fail when trying to guess abstract notions. Even basic astronomy stuff. Failed to guess "a comet" one time I was "interrogated" by a friend. That was an older model though.

By a "historical interpretation of genesis" I mean an assertion that Genesis more or less represents history, perhaps imperfectly, as opposed to the idea that Genesis is a creation myth with little or no historical accuracy.

The sources cited by your wikipedia link are:
1.) An unsourced (dead link) vague generalization by an archbishop, which doesn't amount to an assertion that a non-historical interpretation of Genesis was ever common or tolerated before the 1700s.

2.) Several other articles with cherry picked quotes of early church figures supporting various historical interpretations of Genesis. Many of them just quarreled with the meanings of "day" and "light", e.g., "A day of the lord is 1000 years".

That's unconvincing. If the author of Genesis meant a thousand years instead of "the evening and the morning of the x-th day", he should have written a thousand years. And he'd still be very wrong. Christians who believed that Genesis was non-historic were a very small minority until the 1700s

Here's a list of people who've been burned at the stake (or threatened) for contradicting a historical interpretation of Genesis:

"In 1749, the distinguished French scholar Comte de Buffon proposed that the 6 days of creation may have been 6 long epochs of time and that the Earth's surface had been shaped and reshaped by processes still going on. The Church took great exception to this and threatened Buffon to recant and publicly accept the Old Testament age of 6000 years. No doubt remembering the fate of Galileo (who lived most of his life under house arrest for proposing the Earth went around the Sun,) and Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for proposing the same theory and adding that he believed there was life elsewhere in the universe, Buffon complied." - http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/6-97/earth.age.html

"In Les époques de la nature (1778) Buffon discussed the origins of the solar system, speculating that the planets had been created by comets colliding with the sun (see Passing star hypothesis). He also suggested that the age of the earth was much greater than the 4,004 years b.c. proclaimed by Archbishop James Ussher of the church. Based on the cooling rate of iron, he calculated that the age of the earth was 75,000 years. For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned. Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon

"A French scholar, Bernard Palissy who lived from 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589. A bad time for scientific inquiry. " - http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm

"Another was Thomas Burnet, a member of the English clergy, who lived from 1635-1715. He had written a book around 1681 supporting the idea of a worldwide flood, but in 1692, he wrote another book in which he questioned the existence of Adam and Eve, and that ended his career."

Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Before the 1500s, almost no one, perhaps no one, understood enough to have any good reason to say that the earth was older than 6,000 to 12,000 years, and most Christians accepted Genesis as a historical account by default. Christians back then believed in Adam and Eve because their alternative was that Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic "original sin" by a non-existent individual. Modern genetic evidence proves that we are not the inbred descendants of only two homo sapiens.

I ought to fix that wikipedia article.