Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: Peter Webb on 2 Apr 2010 20:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:de90a384-d780-43dc-bc5a-9a9044bdae9b(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 2, 10:34 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1a248a27-5cb8-46ea-b22a-76ab5e6b87c6(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 2, 2:24 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > t. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > > > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > > > writing on the subject. > > > > ______________________________________ > > > Sure. And the observation that apples fall to the ground predates > > > Newton's > > > law of gravity. > > > > I note the rest of your post asks why Einstein said some particular > > > thing. > > > > While I feel I know SR and the Universal Law of Gravity quite well, I > > > don't > > > the history behind the theories well, much less the motivation behind > > > why > > > the people who contributed to their development said the many various > > > things > > > they did through the course of their lives. I am a physicist, not a > > > historian or psychologist. You can quote all the bits of Newton or > > > Einstein > > > writings you like, and ask me why they said those things, and the > > > answer > > > will be the same - I don't know. I simply don't know the history > > > behind > > > these, any more than I know the history behind the solution of a > > > quadratic > > > equation, or why the person who first solved the quadratic did so. > > > These > > > are > > > questions of history and psychology, not questions about science or > > > maths. > > > > Of course, if you have any questions concerning the scientific aspects > > > of > > > SR > > > or the Universal Law of Gravity, feel free to ask. But for historical > > > information about SR and Newton's law of gravity, I'm not the person > > > to > > > ask. > > > In the below post you are arguing against Einstein's > > relativity and in favour of Lorentz ether theory on > > a point that distinguishes them. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603a9f54c1e... > > > ___________________________________ > > > No, I'm not, you clearly don't understand what I said. Perhaps if you > > were > > to quote the bit that you think is me arguing in favour of Lorentz over > > SR, > > I could clear up your misunderstanding of my remarks? As it is, I have > > absolutely no idea how you could possibly have gained that impression. > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real > and apparent. Things really do get shorter, clocks > run slower, the travelling twin does return younger > and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot > barn. " > > That is the prediciton of Lorentz ether > theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > ______________________________ > But it is not an argument against SR (as you claimed) in any way, shape or > from. The predictions that apples fall to the ground is similarly > consistent > with lots of other possible laws of gravity (eg laws with force that > varies > with 1/r rather than 1/r^2), but the observation that apples fall tothe > ground is *not* an argument for a force that varies with 1/r over one with > a > force that varies as 1/r^2. > > Contrast with Einstin's statement: > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > _____________________________________ > How is this possibly in conflict with what I said, and how could what I > said > possibly be an argument against SR when what I said above is exactly what > is > predicted by SR? It seems you make no distinction between A) Moving the grocer closer to your house and B) Moving the mile-posts on the road to the grocer. ___________________________________ No, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have made no mention at all of grocer shops. If there is something that *I* have said which you don't understand, please feel free to ask about it. Meanwhile, you still haven't answered *my* question ... what have I said which is in conflict with SR, or supports Lorentz over SR ?
From: Sue... on 2 Apr 2010 21:06 On Apr 2, 8:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:de90a384-d780-43dc-bc5a-9a9044bdae9b(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 2, 10:34 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:1a248a27-5cb8-46ea-b22a-76ab5e6b87c6(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 2, 2:24 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > t. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > > > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > > > > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > > > > writing on the subject. > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > Sure. And the observation that apples fall to the ground predates > > > > Newton's > > > > law of gravity. > > > > > I note the rest of your post asks why Einstein said some particular > > > > thing. > > > > > While I feel I know SR and the Universal Law of Gravity quite well, I > > > > don't > > > > the history behind the theories well, much less the motivation behind > > > > why > > > > the people who contributed to their development said the many various > > > > things > > > > they did through the course of their lives. I am a physicist, not a > > > > historian or psychologist. You can quote all the bits of Newton or > > > > Einstein > > > > writings you like, and ask me why they said those things, and the > > > > answer > > > > will be the same - I don't know. I simply don't know the history > > > > behind > > > > these, any more than I know the history behind the solution of a > > > > quadratic > > > > equation, or why the person who first solved the quadratic did so. > > > > These > > > > are > > > > questions of history and psychology, not questions about science or > > > > maths. > > > > > Of course, if you have any questions concerning the scientific aspects > > > > of > > > > SR > > > > or the Universal Law of Gravity, feel free to ask. But for historical > > > > information about SR and Newton's law of gravity, I'm not the person > > > > to > > > > ask. > > > > In the below post you are arguing against Einstein's > > > relativity and in favour of Lorentz ether theory on > > > a point that distinguishes them. > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603a9f54c1e.... > > > > ___________________________________ > > > > No, I'm not, you clearly don't understand what I said. Perhaps if you > > > were > > > to quote the bit that you think is me arguing in favour of Lorentz over > > > SR, > > > I could clear up your misunderstanding of my remarks? As it is, I have > > > absolutely no idea how you could possibly have gained that impression.. =========================== > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real > > and apparent. Things really do get shorter, clocks > > run slower, the travelling twin does return younger > > and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot > > barn. " > > > That is the prediciton of Lorentz ether > > theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > > ______________________________ > > But it is not an argument against SR (as you claimed) in any way, shape or > > from. The predictions that apples fall to the ground is similarly > > consistent > > with lots of other possible laws of gravity (eg laws with force that > > varies > > with 1/r rather than 1/r^2), but the observation that apples fall tothe > > ground is *not* an argument for a force that varies with 1/r over one with > > a > > force that varies as 1/r^2. ============================= > > Contrast with Einstin's statement: > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > _____________________________________ > > How is this possibly in conflict with what I said, and how could what I > > said > > possibly be an argument against SR when what I said above is exactly what > > is > > predicted by SR? ====================== > > It seems you make no distinction between > > A) Moving the grocer closer to your house > > and > > B) Moving the mile-posts on the road to the grocer. > > ___________________________________ > No, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have made no mention at all > of grocer shops. > > If there is something that *I* have said which you don't understand, please > feel free to ask about it. > > Meanwhile, you still haven't answered *my* question ... what have I said > which is in conflict with SR, or supports Lorentz over SR ? I have already done that once. I am not your proof reader. You have the grocery store example above and detailed description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory You can review your own posts better than i can if you want to improve your explanation about how relativiy has advantages over an ether theory. Happy hunting, Sue...
From: Peter Webb on 2 Apr 2010 21:24 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:b72c5ffa-2865-4348-8d2b-cfe27336b5cd(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 2, 8:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:de90a384-d780-43dc-bc5a-9a9044bdae9b(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 2, 10:34 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:1a248a27-5cb8-46ea-b22a-76ab5e6b87c6(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 2, 2:24 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > t. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > > > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > > > > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > > > > writing on the subject. > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > Sure. And the observation that apples fall to the ground predates > > > > Newton's > > > > law of gravity. > > > > > I note the rest of your post asks why Einstein said some particular > > > > thing. > > > > > While I feel I know SR and the Universal Law of Gravity quite well, > > > > I > > > > don't > > > > the history behind the theories well, much less the motivation > > > > behind > > > > why > > > > the people who contributed to their development said the many > > > > various > > > > things > > > > they did through the course of their lives. I am a physicist, not a > > > > historian or psychologist. You can quote all the bits of Newton or > > > > Einstein > > > > writings you like, and ask me why they said those things, and the > > > > answer > > > > will be the same - I don't know. I simply don't know the history > > > > behind > > > > these, any more than I know the history behind the solution of a > > > > quadratic > > > > equation, or why the person who first solved the quadratic did so. > > > > These > > > > are > > > > questions of history and psychology, not questions about science or > > > > maths. > > > > > Of course, if you have any questions concerning the scientific > > > > aspects > > > > of > > > > SR > > > > or the Universal Law of Gravity, feel free to ask. But for > > > > historical > > > > information about SR and Newton's law of gravity, I'm not the person > > > > to > > > > ask. > > > > In the below post you are arguing against Einstein's > > > relativity and in favour of Lorentz ether theory on > > > a point that distinguishes them. > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603a9f54c1e... > > > > ___________________________________ > > > > No, I'm not, you clearly don't understand what I said. Perhaps if you > > > were > > > to quote the bit that you think is me arguing in favour of Lorentz > > > over > > > SR, > > > I could clear up your misunderstanding of my remarks? As it is, I have > > > absolutely no idea how you could possibly have gained that impression. =========================== > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real > > and apparent. Things really do get shorter, clocks > > run slower, the travelling twin does return younger > > and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot > > barn. " > > > That is the prediciton of Lorentz ether > > theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > > ______________________________ > > But it is not an argument against SR (as you claimed) in any way, shape > > or > > from. The predictions that apples fall to the ground is similarly > > consistent > > with lots of other possible laws of gravity (eg laws with force that > > varies > > with 1/r rather than 1/r^2), but the observation that apples fall tothe > > ground is *not* an argument for a force that varies with 1/r over one > > with > > a > > force that varies as 1/r^2. ============================= > > Contrast with Einstin's statement: > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > _____________________________________ > > How is this possibly in conflict with what I said, and how could what I > > said > > possibly be an argument against SR when what I said above is exactly > > what > > is > > predicted by SR? ====================== > > It seems you make no distinction between > > A) Moving the grocer closer to your house > > and > > B) Moving the mile-posts on the road to the grocer. > > ___________________________________ > No, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have made no mention at all > of grocer shops. > > If there is something that *I* have said which you don't understand, > please > feel free to ask about it. > > Meanwhile, you still haven't answered *my* question ... what have I said > which is in conflict with SR, or supports Lorentz over SR ? I have already done that once. ____________________________________ No you have not. I am not your proof reader. You have the grocery store example above and detailed description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory ________________________________ I said nothing at all about grocery stores. You are obviously confusing me withn somebody else. You can review your own posts better than i can if you want to improve your explanation about how relativiy has advantages over an ether theory. Happy hunting, Sue... ___________________________ What did I say which promoted Lorentz over SR, or was in cnflict with SR? (And for the 3rd time, I am not the poster who talked about grocery shops or mile markers on a road).
From: Ste on 2 Apr 2010 22:26 On 3 Apr, 01:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > Yes, but it involves no change in the frequency generated by the > >> > source. > > >> The frequency of the sound depends entirely on the reference frame in > >> which > >> it is measured. > > > No, the *received* frequency of sound depends on the reference frame. > > How can you measure a frequency without receiving it? What is this supposed > to mean? You could measure the emitted sound frequency, in this case, by using an electromagnetic (i.e. something like LADAR) measurement of the vibration of the source (and it is that vibration that we know to be the generator of the sound). In this way, we measure the frequency of the sound source, without receiving any sound. > > As a human receiver, one can change the *apparent* frequency by > > changing one's own circumstances (i.e. changing velocity relative to > > the source), and this *apparent* change does not involve any change in > > the generating mechanism of the source, and nor does it affect the > > frequency received at any other receiver. > > No the change in frequency is real, not apparent. It doesn't just "sound > like" a higher frequency, it rerally is a different frequency, as you can > verify with a microphone and oscilliscope. I know Peter. The same applies to non-human receivers also, there was really no significance to my use of the words "human receiver" except to allow me to structure the sentence off-the-cuff in the way that I did. > > At the nub of this is the fact that the audio source, if it is > > oscillating at say 500Hz a second, continues to do so *no matter what* > > its relative velocity (at least if we disregard relativistic effects > > at high velocities for now, for the simplicity of the argument which > > applies nevertheless). > > Yes. > > Similarly, an atomic clock travelling at 0.9c continues to tick at exactly > the same rate in its own inertial frame of reference. Lol. No no no. The sound source continues to oscillate at 500Hz according to *all* observers, no matter what speed they are travelling at. (For the sake of this argument, we are confining possible speeds to within the speed of sound). > >> Changing the relative speed of the train definitely changes the frequency > >> of > >> the sound. > > >> You can easily verify this yourself. > > > You clearly still don't understand the significance of my argument, > > which is that the *apparent* frequency, as measured by a receiver, can > > be affected by the receiver's *own* circumstances, as much as by an > > actual change of frequency at the source. > > That is correct, except that the effect is not just "apparent", it is real, > as can be easily verified by measuring it. > > A tone which is emitted in a moving trains reference frame at 100 Hz might > be measured in a stationary frame as being 120 Hz. This is as real as a tone > of 120 Hz directly emitted from a stationary train. There is not test which > can tell them about; none. You mean except a test that measures the oscillation of the sound source with light instead of sound? You lack imagination Peter. > > It is significant, to any > > scientific investigation or understanding, to establish what the > > *cause* is of the change of received frequency. > > Relative motion. We all know that already. Yes, but with sound it's easy to understand (in common sense mechanical terms) *why* relative motion causes Doppler shifting, and it's also clear (at least to me) that the effect is apparent, and does not involve a change in the frequency of the source. The problem with SR is I keep getting told that there *is* an actual change at the source. > >> >> > My question with SR remains the same: is it > >> >> > "real", or is it an apparent effect. > > >> >> Like the Doppler shift, it is both real and apparent. > > >> >> As I said already. > > >> > It is not "real" in the sense that it involves a change in the > >> > attributes of the source - it is "apparent" in the sense it involves a > >> > change in the relationship between the source and receiver. > > >> That is not what "apparent" vs "real" means, at least in common usage. > > > I concede in this particular analogy that the words are not entirely > > apt, but it is really a sideshow to the real question about "length > > contraction", where I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask "is the > > contraction real, or merely apparent". But if you prefer, I can phrase > > it as "is the contraction mechanical, or visual". > > Mechanical. It does not depend on visually observing objects. The twin who > stays at home ages faster; its not some optical illusion they have wrinkles > when the travelling twin does not. Every day SR is tested in particle > accelerators; AFAIK none of these depend upon "seeing" a particle being > emitted and "seeing" it smash into a target and then measuring the > difference in time of visual observations. They use mechanical processes - > eg interactions with physical matter - to measure times. Yes, but I'm still not sure this is true, not least because you either don't understand what I mean by the difference between "real" and "apparent", or at any rate you don't see the significance of the question. > >> The frequency of a sound generated by a moving train definitely does > >> really > >> change as its speed changes. Measure it for yourself if you don't believe > >> it. > > > The frequency generated doesn't change - an observer onboard could > > attest to that. > > The frequency in an inertial frame is constant. Same as lengths and times in > SR. > > > It is the frequency *received* that changes, depending > > on the circumstances of the observer. > > Yes. Frequency depends on the frame of reference in which it is measured. No, the *received* frequency depends on the relative velocity. The *source* frequency doesn't.
From: Ste on 2 Apr 2010 22:31
On 3 Apr, 01:34, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1731685b-72c2-42d2-8f33-ca477d13affc(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Apr, 16:05, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:aa6d8cc5-8343-40fb-b960-2693aa6ff4d0(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > On 2 Apr, 02:02, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> > And just to move to an easier analogy, I don't care how much you > > >> >> > can > > >> >> > accurately quantify something like acoustic Doppler shifting with > > >> >> > an > > >> >> > equation, my question would be this: is the Doppler shift a > > >> >> > product > > >> >> > of > > >> >> > the change of interaction between source and receiver, or is the > > >> >> > source "really" changing frequency by some unknown mechanism? The > > >> >> > answer, of course, is that the Doppler effect is apparent - there > > >> >> > is > > >> >> > nothing inherent about the source that needs to change in order to > > >> >> > explain the phenomenon. > > > >> >> The Doppler shift is real. Frequencies really do change. > > > >> > Yes, but it involves no change in the frequency generated by the > > >> > source. > > > >> The frequency of the sound depends entirely on the reference frame in > > >> which > > >> it is measured. > > > > No, the *received* frequency of sound depends on the reference frame. > > > As a human receiver, one can change the *apparent* frequency by > > > changing one's own circumstances (i.e. changing velocity relative to > > > the source), and this *apparent* change does not involve any change in > > > the generating mechanism of the source, and nor does it affect the > > > frequency received at any other receiver. > > > > At the nub of this is the fact that the audio source, if it is > > > oscillating at say 500Hz a second, continues to do so *no matter what* > > > its relative velocity (at least if we disregard relativistic effects > > > at high velocities for now, for the simplicity of the argument which > > > applies nevertheless). > > > >> Changing the relative speed of the train definitely changes the > > >> frequency > > >> of > > >> the sound. > > > >> You can easily verify this yourself. > > > > You clearly still don't understand the significance of my argument, > > > which is that the *apparent* frequency, as measured by a receiver, can > > > be affected by the receiver's *own* circumstances, as much as by an > > > actual change of frequency at the source. It is significant, to any > > > scientific investigation or understanding, to establish what the > > > *cause* is of the change of received frequency. > > > >> >> > My question with SR remains the same: is it > > >> >> > "real", or is it an apparent effect. > > > >> >> Like the Doppler shift, it is both real and apparent. > > > >> >> As I said already. > > > >> > It is not "real" in the sense that it involves a change in the > > >> > attributes of the source - it is "apparent" in the sense it involves > > >> > a > > >> > change in the relationship between the source and receiver. > > > >> That is not what "apparent" vs "real" means, at least in common usage. > > > > I concede in this particular analogy that the words are not entirely > > > apt, but it is really a sideshow to the real question about "length > > > contraction", where I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask "is the > > > contraction real, or merely apparent". But if you prefer, I can phrase > > > it as "is the contraction mechanical, or visual". > > > >> The frequency of a sound generated by a moving train definitely does > > >> really > > >> change as its speed changes. Measure it for yourself if you don't > > >> believe > > >> it. > > > > The frequency generated doesn't change - an observer onboard could > > > attest to that. It is the frequency *received* that changes, depending > > > on the circumstances of the observer. > > > >> Of course, the frequency that you measure is a function of the > > >> reference > > >> frame in which you measure it. In this respect, the "frequency" of a > > >> sound > > >> is not a precisely defined concept. The normal use is that the > > >> frequency > > >> is > > >> tacitly assumed to be that which is measured at rest. Same as length in > > >> SR. > > >> When you want to compare frequencies in two different reference frames, > > >> this > > >> definition breaks down as there are two different possible base frames > > >> for > > >> measurement, and you have to be specific about which reference frame > > >> you > > >> are > > >> measuring frequency in. Same, again, as for length in SR. > > > > You know, I could explain this same point to a child by saying "the > > > frequency measured depends upon your speed relative the source". > > > It is not just 'apparent'. The frequency REALLY IS DIFFERENT for each > > observer. > > Then consider another example. I give three people a photographic > filter each, all different colours, and they hold it front of their > eyes. I ask them to look at the sky, and they each comment that the > sky has changed colour. I now ask them "has the sky really changed > colour?". Now how would you interpret my question, and how would you > answer that question? > > _____________________________________ > > I would ask whether you are referring to the color as seen through a filter > or not seen through a filter. Your question is ambiguous. <rolls eyes> Then let me ask you another question. Look around you now. Do you see a lot of men in white coats? Or perhaps let me adapt the original question further. You are looking at the sky on a television monitor, by way of a camera pointed at the sky. I then use special effects to add a UFO to the video feed to the monitor, so that it appears to be in the sky. Now, is the UFO really in the sky, or is it merely apparent? |