Talk:Fata Morgana (mirage)

message: Ok, is "Fata Morgana" the singular or plural form, and what's the other form?  This article seems to shift back and forth as to whether it's singular or plural, and it's very disconcerting.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should always be "Fata Morgana".--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And the article does not in fact "shift back and forth" from the singular to the plural. Every example is in the singular except where it is rendered as "Fata Morgana mirages" as the plural form. I can't see a problem. Invertzoo (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the confusion is that the article has been so inconsistent between treating Fata Morgana (quite romantically) as a proper noun (thus lacking any article in the singular), and using it as a common noun (as the name of a phenomenon). I've tried to make this more consistent. Wareh (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Is there a link to be made to Green flash? JMcC (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the "See also" list. Invertzoo (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Green flash

message: The Smithsonian Institution has gone on record stating that they believe that a Fata Morgana prevented the lookouts on the RMS Titanic from seeing the iceberg in time to avoid a collison, and also prevented the nearby SS Californian from realizing the ship on the horizon was the RMS Titanic and that it was sinking and sailing to their assistance, (although the crew on the SS Californian did see the Titanic's distress rockets and did not send a morse code message asking for a explanation for the rockets being fired into the night sky).
Shouldn't the article on the Fata Morgana include a paragraph about the RMS Titanic with a reference to the Smithsonian Institution's findings.204.80.58.133 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RMS Titanic and the Fata Morgana

message: The first picture of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)#/media/File:Fata_Morgana_Example.jpg) does not seem to be a superior mirrror, but a simple mirror. It should be therefore removed unless it can be better explained. This article in fact missed a simple cartoon explaining the difference between both. Gaianauta (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The image shows a simple inferior mirage (as the reflection is below the actual boat), not a fata morgana. The image that is now in second place ("A Fata Morgana as seen off the coast of Manhattan Beach, California on 9 March 2014)" shows a superior mirage and therefore could be a slightly better candidate for the article, although it does not seem to show more than one reflection, not multiple ones as would be the case in a proper fata morgana. Drabkikker (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a fata morgana

message: No one has thought of using this term as a binomial, have they? Booger-mike (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other possible uses 

message: Hello. I have just added to Commons three photos of FM mirages at/near Budle Bay, Northumberland, England on 16 April 2021. I think they show it quite well and although taken at the extreme setting of my lens they do depict it quite clearly. (300mm on MFT camera - similar to 600mm in old money!) I sometimes slightly hate the thing of people pushing their own work so I will first try leaving it to others to see if anyone thinks they are useful. Here they are, if I get the layout right:
  
Any use? Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I am lost with the layout hereif you can improve it so we can still see the previews but they don't just go off in a long stream down the RH side, please do so! Thanks DBaK (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think these are not complex enough to count as Fata Morgana. They appear to be just Superior Mirages. Invertzoo (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much  for the response! As you will have rapidly realized I am a bit out of my depth with this, but is the stacked nature not visible in the "dune-clouds" which seem to have an upper and lower half that are reflections of each other, and indeed in the little black "tower" part of which seems to be a top and bottom of the same image glued together? Sorry, it seems mean to drag you here then argue with you, but I thought they met the criteria because there were visible horizontal lines of symmetry with  V-down- and ^-up-facing versions both sides? But, yes, I do not absolutely know what I am on about! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see what you are saying but still, I don't know if the mirages are complex and multiple-layered enough to count as Fata Morgana. As the article says, "A Fata Morgana may be described as a very complex superior mirage with more than three distorted erect and inverted images." Maybe you can find someone else to ask about this. Invertzoo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  I think that some of the images currently being used in the article are also not complex and multiple-layered enough. Invertzoo (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some new photos, any use here? 

message: I'm surprised the Cornwall image is still in here, since it has been thoroughly de-bunked. It is in fact a much simpler false horizon.  Also surprisingly the BBC haven't removed their claims to this being to a Fata Morgana.  
It's usually straightforward to recognise the difference. Fata Morgana images are heavily distorted due to the varying refractive index both spatially and temporally, whilst objects on false horizons show a much clearer, intact images. See also Cambridge Skeptics.  Unless someone can suggest why it shouldn't be removed I will delete the Cornwall section.--Andromedean (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: – agreed that it is not even claimed to be one at the cited news story, doesn't match the criteria given here: isn't one. Thanks DBaK (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall Image not a Fata Morgana

message: In the text and the schematic diagram, it discussed that a FM mirage is caused by multiple REFRACTIONS. Accepting that, then, the image(s) will always be UPRIGHT. Whereas in a more "common" mirage, caused by total internal REFLECTION, the image is INVERTED (upside down). Thus, the container ship mirage, in which there SEEMS to be inversion, is not a FM, neither is the 19th century ship, which is entirely inverted. In fact on re-reading the explanation, it is not completely clear whether a FM is refraction-only inside the supposed "required" duct, or whether internal reflection is involved. So maybe a bit more clarity of explanation is required. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:F5FD:783C:E20F:2C2E (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between text and pics. 

message: So over ice or cold ground, you're going to have cold (more dense) air on the bottom and not so cold (less dense) above. In this case, the superior mirage is caused by refraction and is thus upright and there is not doubt that this is a Fata Morgana.
But...
Over hot ground, you're going to have cooler air (and thus denser) air above hotter (and thus less dense) air. Under those circumstances, a superior mirage is caused by total internal reflection at the boundary and is inverted (upside down). This APPEARS to be the cause of the pic of the 19th century ship. So if the mirage is superior but inverted, is that still a Fata Morgana? 2001:8003:E40F:9601:F5FD:783C:E20F:2C2E (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further confusion.