An Astronomer`s perspective of the miracle of the sun

realitykeeper

This link give`s an astronomers perspective of the "miracle of the sun" in Fatima, on October 13th, 1917. It is well worth watching. The conclusion is that what happened was most likely a natural phenomenon. The phenomenon may have been caused by something (perhaps gasses) passing between the sun and the earth.

The lecture is fairly comprehensive but there is a question which remains unanswered: Is it a coincidence that the phenomenon happened at the same time and place that a "miracle" had supposedly been predicted. If we discount the claims of "apparitions" and "miracles" - is there another way that would explain how the kids might have known in advance that this phenomenon would happen?

Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYHvSQC8jZ0

Driveby Dogboy

if you stare at the sun long enough, i'm sure you'll see it dancing around the sky

realitykeeper

Driveby Dogboy wrote: »

if you stare at the sun long enough, i'm sure you'll see it dancing around the sky

Perhaps. Anyway, what do you think of the link. I think the general consensus is that some extraordinary natural phenomenon did actually happen. I am wondering if there would have been some way that this phenomenon might have been predictable by science and if so - is that what happened albeit on the pretense that it was foretold through an apparition.

mr lee

how can someone stare at d sun,try it for a split second and see d effects it has

realitykeeper

mr lee wrote: »

how can someone stare at d sun,try it for a split second and see d effects it has

I think we are getting sidetracked here. If you watch the link in the OP - the lecturer says the sun was reported to resemble a silver coin and it was not in anyway uncomfortable to look at it. One of the audience asked how many of the 70,000 were reported to have been blinded and there were none (although there were several reports of blind people being cured).

My own understanding is that a very unusual natural phenomenon did take place. This raises the very awkward question - how was it known that this would happen. Is there an almanac, or perhaps a local observatory in Portugal that might have made it possible to know about this in advance. Does science have an answer?

The link in the OP is worth watching to get the background story and the astronomer`s perspective.

King Mob

realitykeeper wrote: »

The phenomenon may have been caused by something (perhaps gasses) passing between the sun and the earth.

If this were the case then the event (or something like a gas cloud suddenly appearing in space) would have been seen from other places and observatories.

Also you would expect consistent reports of what was seen. Nor would it explain why the sun supposedly did not hurt or cured people.

It's rather a large leap to explain something that already has an adequate non-astronomical non-miraculous explanation.

mr lee

i think it was a case of people seeing what they want to see,its a bit like the moving statues we had here,
to me its just hearsay,is there a shred of credible evidence,like was said already,no observatorys seen it,surely a solar phenomenon would have seen around d world

realitykeeper

King Mob wrote: »

If this were the case then the event (or something like a gas cloud suddenly appearing in space) would have been seen from other places and observatories.

Perhaps, if it were far enough from the earth. There were witnesses within a few miles radius.

King Mob wrote: »

Also you would expect consistent reports of what was seen. Nor would it explain why the sun supposedly did not hurt or cured people.

The reports were surprisingly consistent (see the link). The weather conditions would explain why people were not hurt. The alleged cures are a different matter because the number of witnesses would have been small.

King Mob wrote: »

It's rather a large leap to explain something that already has an adequate non-astronomical non-miraculous explanation.

The speaker in the link just said it was caused by something between the sun and the earth. When asked what it might have been he just said he didn`t know and added that he did not want to be called a quack. The gas cloud was my own suggestion and I readily admit it could have been something else. That said, I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the link. The mass hallucination theory seems unlikely.

realitykeeper

mr lee wrote: »

i think it was a case of people seeing what they want to see,its a bit like the moving statues we had here,
to me its just hearsay,is there a shred of credible evidence,like was said already,no observatorys seen it,surely a solar phenomenon would have seen around d world

The witnesses included members of the liberal and skeptical press. The journalists were criticized for reporting what they saw but they reiterated their initial reports, insisting that what they reported was what they saw. Mass hallucination is one theory but it is probably not correct. Whatever happened was seen (or imagined) by the 70,000 and also by smaller groups and individuals within a few miles radius. The recorded statements tend to corroborate each other which makes the mass hallucination theory seem unlikely.

ThatDrGuy

Its far more likely that this is simply a large crowd of religious nut jobs feeding off each others hysteria. Look what those clowns in Mayo managed to see with only 6,000 : plenty of whom did need medical treatment.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=7886&Itemid=38

You don't need unusual astronomical phenomena to explain religious delusions...

King Mob

realitykeeper wrote: »

Perhaps, if it were far enough from the earth. There were witnesses within a few miles radius.

Yet, not a single astronomer anywhere on Earth saw anything out of the ordinary that day?

realitykeeper wrote: »

The reports were surprisingly consistent (see the link). The weather conditions would explain why people were not hurt. The alleged cures are a different matter because the number of witnesses would have been small.

The reports are not consistent. You said that some people describe a "silver coin" while others describe it as being multi coloured and dancing. This is inconsistent reporting.
This would not happen with an astronomical effect, but it would happen with a case of mass hysteria and bad reporting.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The speaker in the link just said it was caused by something between the sun and the earth. When asked what it might have been he just said he didn`t know and added that he did not want to be called a quack. The gas cloud was my own suggestion and I readily admit it could have been something else.

Then it's a rather poor theory then when if offers no explanation or no way to perhaps verify it.

realitykeeper wrote: »

That said, I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the link. The mass hallucination theory seems unlikely.

But that's not the alternative being proposed.
The most likely explanation is a combination of:

People deluding themselves.
People not understanding what happens when you stare at the Sun too long.
People not wanting to go against a fevered crowd.
Bad reporting at the time.
Bad fact checking of incorrect or unsupported claims.
And a bunch of other factors.

All of these are known to happen, could have been at play in this case and aren't ruled out.
While for the theory you are suggesting we must believe that a rare never before seen astronomical feature suddenly appeared between the earth and the sun for no reason, altered the image of the sun via unknown means over a very small area and in different ways for different people and could be photographed. It also somehow manages to evade all the astronomers and physicists of the day and vanishes without a trace.

So yea, the most likely theory is the one that requires the least amount of leaps and unknowns.

realitykeeper

King Mob wrote: »

Yet, not a single astronomer anywhere on Earth saw anything out of the ordinary that day?

... which would suggest the cause of the phenomenon was not sufficiently far from the earth to be seen by observatories elsewhere.

King Mob wrote: »

The reports are not consistent. You said that some people describe a "silver coin" while others describe it as being multi coloured and dancing. This is inconsistent reporting.

The reports are nothing if not consistent (the link verifies this.) The phenomenon followed a sequence of events from the silver coin to the multi coloured and dancing motion. This was followed by the sun appearing to plummet toward the earth, and the sudden drying effect on the sodden crowd and the ground. This sequence, and estimated duration of the various stages were consistent in the many, many eye witness reports. The skeptical press which was present, reported the phenomenon also. In fact these journalists were strongly criticized by their fellow liberals who had not attended because it had been assumed that nothing out of the ordinary was going to happen. Afterwards, the journalists who witnessed the phenomenon reiterated their report adamantly.

King Mob wrote: »

Then it's a rather poor theory then when if offers no explanation or no way to perhaps verify it.

It is understandable why the guy does not want to put his head on the block. You are right that there is no apparent or plausible explanation without highly improbable causes such as miracles, aliens or freak one time only conditions in or above the atmosphere. Dismissing the reports is certainly the most convenient answer. If we rely exclusively on probability while ignoring the empirical evidence then of course the most probable answer will be assumed as fact. However, when the empirical evidence is taken into account, an improbable explanation is more likely in this case. My gas cloud suggestion was in my view the most probable of the improbable explanations available when you discount miracles and aliens. Admittedly this still doesn`t explain how it had been predicted.

realitykeeper

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Its far more likely that this is simply a large crowd of religious nut jobs feeding off each others hysteria. Look what those clowns in Mayo managed to see with only 6,000 : plenty of whom did need medical treatment.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=7886&Itemid=38

You don't need unusual astronomical phenomena to explain religious delusions...

So are you saying the people who were interviewed lied and the reports based on years of follow up investigations are wrong? There seems to be a retrospective attempt to apply mass hysteria as an explanation but only because there is no other comfortable explanation. To accept mass hysteria as the cause, one must first dismiss all the evidence. This is probably why so many people believe it was a miracle.
This prompts the question, what explanations are there other than mass hysteria and other than a miracle.