Meet Steve , the Mysterious Glowing Light in the Canadian Sky

a reply to: notsure1

CGI

originally posted by: notsure1
Since we are in the Milky Way , how do we get such a good image of the Milky way like we are looking at it from outside the galaxy?

Because we are away from the galactic center, which is what what we are looking at in images like the ones shown in the OP, and our galaxy is very large.

a reply to: gortex
Well by all accounts as far as atmospheric light phenomenon are concerned I would have named it Bob, or Bubba, maybe even Billy Bob. Steve seems like to grand of a name for this one, but who knows maybe it will pick up in light showiness in latter years. Oh ya, for sure aurora borealis is totally much doper then Steve. But I am sure Steve will catch up one day.

I much prefer ball lighting over gassy sky's named Steve now a days anyways, but only really because they dont last as long and you can get on with your day quicker. But pretty sure both phenomenon will pick up eventually to were there much more prevalent.

a reply to: FireballStorm

Those are satellite flares, assuming we are looking at the same objects.

Look again closely...whatever the object was it originated from somewhere near the source, I live near a military base and I have seen flares, and scout's honor those two objects were not flares.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: FireballStorm

Those are satellite flares, assuming we are looking at the same objects.

Look again closely...whatever the object was it originated from somewhere near the source, I live near a military base and I have seen flares, and scout's honor those two objects were not flares.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't mean flares as in pyrotechnics. They are flaring satellites ie. the Sun is reflecting/glinting off a shiny part of the satellite. Since the angle between Sun, satellite, and camera is constantly changing, we see it start off dimly as it starts to catch, brightening to peak brightness when the angle becomes "ideal", then fading as correct angle is lost.

Note that the first satellite (moving more or less parallel to the horizon, and traveling from left to right) first becomes visible at the 26 second mark, not far the left edge of the frame, and about 3/4 of the way up the frame. It flares dimly, and quickly becomes invisible again, then reappears next to, but on the other side of Steve at the 29 second mark, and flares brightly this time.

At the 30 second mark the second satellite becomes visible in Steve close to the center of the frame, moving towards the top left of the frame, and proceeds to flare very brightly at it's peak, before disappearing off the left edge of the frame.

There's no doubt that these are satellites which are flaring. I often catch them when out with the cameras, under the stars, although I rarely bother to try and ID them these days. There are just so many, and junk on top of that too, they become quite annoying if you are trying to image natural objects/phenomena.

a reply to: gortex

Thanks for putting up this thread OP. I didn't realise at the time but I saw Steve for the first time late last year. At first I thought it was aurora - but then noticed the green uniform patterns underneath the white arc..

After watching and musing for a while with my partner - we both decided that it might be some sort of military of TPTB project..

A month later an avid night sky photographer friend came round and talked to us about Steve! So then we pieced 2+2 together..

Having done a little research on Steve - I am still super dubious as to its origins. I just don't see how NASA et al are asking the people for help with this. And somehow have never known about it??

My instinct tells me that Steve is man made and well, its all in the name... NASA - Never A Straight Answer.

Who knows.. Next time I see Steve I shall try and get pics, I saw Steve last night but was way too tired to go out, plus it was cold and I had work in the morning!

Will be following this thread. Ty OP...

originally posted by: gortex
I envy your luck mate , never had the opportunity to see an aurora even though on rare occasions they are visible from my neck of the woods they seem to coincide with cloud and rain.

I managed to spot an aurora back when I was stationed in Minot, North Dakota, of all places. That's a fairly low latitude, and at first I thought it was a fast-moving illuminated cloud of some kind. But nope.

Also, I got the impression of being able to hear it, which I couldn't figure out. It was a very high frequency hissing noise. There was no wind where I was. Puzzling.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

As our magnetosphere continues it's decline in strength I'm sure the Aurora's will only become more spectacular.

Probably not, since it is the magnetosphere which causes the aurora. The magnetosphere guides charged particles from the Sun toward the poles where it directs them downward toward the atmosphere. It is the interaction of those particles with the upper atmosphere which creates the light show. So, with a weakened magnetic field, aurora would be less spectacular, not more.

With a complete lack of magnetic field the particles would uniformly affect the entire day side of the atmosphere, creating a slight glow perhaps, but since it would be daytime, not very visible, never mind spectacular.

An interesting possibility however, is that during a geomagnetic reversal multiple magnetic poles may develop. So, no longer just the auroras borealis and australis, but the aurora Mediterrania, Americana, and Africanis as well?

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I think Steve is probably the beginning of the real surprises in store for these next few decades.

As our magnetosphere continues it's decline in strength I'm sure the Aurora's will only become more spectacular.

Only time will tell.

Answer this. I thought the magnetosphere is what keeps solar winds from stripping away our atmosphere. If the magnetic field weakens during a flip in the poles wouldn't that have drastic effects on our atmosphere? Serious question here looking for an informed answer.

Look at it this way, there have been many geomagnetic reversals, the most recent one about 700,000 years ago, our atmosphere is still here. But even if the magnetic field disappeared permanently Earth's gravitational field is strong enough to hold on to our atmosphere (though, over millions of years, its chemistry might well change). Look at Venus, no magnetic field but a very dense atmosphere.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: smurfy

I envy your luck mate , never had the opportunity to see an aurora even though on rare occasions they are visible from my neck of the woods they seem to coincide with cloud and rain.

Perhaps one day.

Good thread, thanks!

We are planning a trip to see the northern lights maybe end of the year but where to go to see them is the hard part.

Norway/finland/sweden, Canada or Alaska.

I hope I remember about Steve! lol.

Is he local or can he be seen all over?

a reply to: gortex

Hmmm does it need to be just greenish to be a Borealis?

Only times I have seen "lights" were the Aurora Australis aka Southern Lights when I lived in Tasmania, Australia.
Didn't see them that often but the ones I did see were white, red and purplish similar to the OP.

Is it really something new? Or do the southern lights tend to have different colour ranges and options to the northern ones? Maybe it's just the first time the 'citizen scientists' (lol) have seen or recorded them?
Like how Hurricanes are a northern thing and are just cyclones in reverse.

Dammit now I have to go google about atmospheric lights..... lol

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: gortex

Since we are in the Milky Way , how do we get such a good image of the Milky way like we are looking at it from outside the galaxy?

We are in one of the spiral arms of the Galaxy so we are sort of looking at it from the outside in.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I think Steve is probably the beginning of the real surprises in store for these next few decades.

As our magnetosphere continues it's decline in strength I'm sure the Aurora's will only become more spectacular.

Only time will tell.

Answer this. I thought the magnetosphere is what keeps solar winds from stripping away our atmosphere. If the magnetic field weakens during a flip in the poles wouldn't that have drastic effects on our atmosphere? Serious question here looking for an informed answer.

Look at it this way, there have been many geomagnetic reversals, the most recent one about 700,000 years ago, our atmosphere is still here. But even if the magnetic field disappeared permanently Earth's gravitational field is strong enough to hold on to our atmosphere (though, over millions of years, its chemistry might well change). Look at Venus, no magnetic field but a very dense atmosphere.

That being said, it could or most likely would result in an extension event though. Right?