ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th February 2020, 04:31 PM   #481
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,995
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
But you all know I will never accept the standard model of things unless the simple experiments can show the simplest of things
Sure. You are the living embodiment of the Cheese Shop Sketch and will provide thinner and ever thinner excuses why the evidence does not convince you.

But by all means carry on with your game because alongside your nonsense we get to learn some actual science.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 04:41 PM   #482
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Yeah, I know. But the level of self-own in this one is too much fun.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
OK. lets go back to some science.
You can’t go back to a place you never were.

You’ve never done any science in the threads you’ve started on this over the years, neither here nor on Bad Astronomy/Cosmoquest:
  • Your assertion that transverse EM waves are somehow replaced by plane waves ignores the fact that plane waves are a representation of EM waves from a distant source; they are not distinct physical phenomena. This invalidates the sole claim you’ve made consistently.
  • In other words, you don’t understand the physics you are trying to rewrite.
  • You can’t even define your underlying claimed principle. You just keep throwing out random sciency-sounding words one after the other: fluorescence. Compton scattering. “Downshifting”. Gamma rays. Pair production. You might as well throw in plate tectonics and anaphylaxis.
  • In other words, you don’t understand what you’re trying to replace real science with. Other people do all your work for you, but when they show you why you’re wrong, you don’t listen.
  • You refuse to consider the many, many observations falsifying your claims.
  • You keep contradicting yourself (you did it again in this post). But you refuse to address these contradictions.
  • You keep insisting on tests which have already been done, but you claim haven’t been - partly out of ignorance, partly out of deliberate refusal to acknowledge them.
  • You insist on other tests which are meaningless, or pointless, or both; and you keep adjusting what you claim you’ll accept based on what you think isn’t about to be done.
  • Realizing that nobody was impressed by your utter lack of a clue with regards to physics, you resorted to an appeal to outright magic.
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
If you want to go into deep space, you need to be able to navigate. What do you need for that? The Sun of course is the main reference point,
Ha ha ha no. You have no idea what you’re talking about, as usual.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
then if just going locally you could use the Moon or Earth, but going further out you need to be able to use the stars.
The Apollo astronauts used all three, examples of which were given to you after you claimed they didn’t. According to you, this was impossible; this also refuted your claim. You ignored, and then resorted to outright lying about it.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Sun sensor is the cheaper and simpler of the two devices, but how does it work?
It’s actually kind of refreshing for you to admit your ignorance up front.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
It [fusion]is an interesting theory but has no proof.
Simple denial won’t help you.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
It is an assumption that the spectra are from refracted light of the star. The light is generated in the planets atmosphere by the interaction of higher energy non-visible light with the matter in the atmosphere.
Nope. The solar spectrum has been observed from space for decades. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
No star emits visible light and you can not prove they do. Or that they are even stars.
Nope. Stars are observed to emit visible light. In fact, you claimed they emit visible light. You’re contradicting yourself, which is nothing unusual, but this is a spectacular self-own even for you.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Pretty obvious the Earth is only visible because of the intervening matter.
According to you, it’s completely impossible to see the Sun, let alone the Earth, from that distance and from that interplanetary region. You’re contradicting yourself again.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
But you all know I will never accept the standard model of things unless the simple experiments can show the simplest of things, some photos of the stars from the Lunar surface, or from any other airless body,
And you contradict yourself again. You really are spectacularly bad at keeping your stories straight, aren’t you? But that’s what happens when you have no idea what you’re talking about, refuse to consider you might be wrong, and refuse help from people who are trying to educate you.

You said we can see the Moon from up to about 50,000 miles away, and can see the Sun from the lunar surface, because it has an atmosphere (albeit a very tenuous one). Now you’re denying your own premise and your own claimed effect!

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
or from Mars even,
Same as with the Moon: you contradict yourself again, as Mars has an atmosphere, so according to you your magic conversion does happen there.

And, predictably,... you’re wrong again. Here is one of the “photos of the stars... from Mars” you just claimed didn’t exist.

Which reminds me: don’t you ever get tired of saying things which are so easily proven wrong?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
a photograph of the Sun from space taken through a solar filter,
You’re lying again; many examples have been provided to you. Why do you lie so much?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
or when the first tourists go around the Moon, their awestruck comments on the millions of stars,
With no atmospheric extinction whatsoever, the limiting apparent magnitude is such that the human eye could only discern on the order of 20,000 or so individual stars. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Again.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
or the feel of the heat from the Sun through the windows.
Apollo astronauts felt just that, and heating on the lunar surface has been directly measured, and spacecraft are routinely designed to deal with both direct and reflected infrared, as well as IR emitted by the warm Earth - design validated by decades of experience. By pretending all this hasn’t been pointed out to you (numerous times), you’re lying again. Why are you so afraid of learning anything that you have to lie to protect your beliefs?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Instead of proof I get insult and derision,
Only one person insulted you, and that post was properly moved to AAH.

You get derision not simply because you say manifestly stupid and untrue things, but because you actively refuse to learn anything from people trying to educate you. And then you lie about what you’ve been told, and spend so much more time desperately avoiding learning anything that you routinely contradict yourself in spectacular ways.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
but then Copernicus went through the same, but was eventually proven correct. Proof, small word, huge importance.
Copernicus, were he alive to see the scientific marvels navigating their way across the Solar System and out into interstellar space, would laugh at you. But, hey, I’d say that’s worth at least 20 points on the Crackpot Index!

By the way... just because I responded to you in this post, doesn’t mean you get to avoid being reminded you still haven’t answered my questions. I’ll add your latest self-contradictions and repost in response to your future trolling.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 06:45 PM   #483
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
But Copernicus! I always find it amusing how often people with crackpot ideas cite the success of others to back up their own failures. Yes, it's true that some scientific ideas have met with resistance before succeeding. But coelacanths don't make Bigfoot real, and the resistance of the church to Copernicus doesn't make sunlight invisible. Unicorns and tatzelwurms have not been made real by mountain gorillas, and skepticism about Copernicus has not brought the moonbats to life either. Success is not transmissible.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 07:06 PM   #484
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
I actually disagree with your last statement. Success is transmissible, but only if it finds a suitable host.

Part of Copernicus’ success is that Johannes Kepler came along. Part of Kepler’s success is that Isaac Newton came along. Part of Newton’s later success is that Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Robert Goddard came along. Part of their success is that the scientists and engineers and technicians and pilots who made Mercury and Gemini and Apollo and Luna and Venera and Voyager and, well, you get the idea, came along - and are still doing so.

Maxwell succeeded not because some numbskull who thought light waves couldn’t propagate in a vacuum came along (disclaimer: I do not accuse the OP of originating this stupid idea). He succeeded because Edison and Tesla and Hubble and all their successors came along. And, of course, he was right.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 9F4AF088-99C1-4CA3-AF98-0EB1FBBE75BC.jpg (48.8 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by sts60; 14th February 2020 at 07:20 PM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 07:11 PM   #485
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,274
I am reminded of a quote from the second Casino Royale film (1967):

The Detainer: You're crazy. You are absolutely crazy.
Jimmy Bond: People called Einstein crazy.
The Detainer: That's not true. No one ever called Einstein crazy.
Jimmy Bond: Well, they would have if he'd carried on like this.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 08:50 PM   #486
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Solon, I’m glad you finally accept the “standard model of things” after all this time.
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
But you all know I will never accept the standard model of things unless the simple experiments can show the simplest of things, some photos of the stars from the Lunar surface, or from any other airless body, or from Mars even,...
Here’s a photo from of stars from the surface of Mars.

You’re welcome. I’m glad we were able to wean you off of your delusion, no matter how long it took. The real universe is so much more interesting than crackpot version, right?
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 03:57 AM   #487
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
OK. lets go back to some science. If you want to go into deep space, you need to be able to navigate. What do you need for that? The Sun of course is the main reference point, then if just going locally you could use the Moon or Earth, but going further out you need to be able to use the stars. The Sun sensor is the cheaper and simpler of the two devices, but how does it work?

halleyscomet


It is an interesting theory but has no proof.

Jack by the hedge 442



It is an assumption that the spectra are from refracted light of the star. The light is generated in the planets atmosphere by the interaction of higher energy non-visible light with the matter in the atmosphere. No star emits visible light and you can not prove they do. Or that they are even stars.

halleyscomet 449


Pretty obvious the Earth is only visible because of the intervening matter.

But you all know I will never accept the standard model of things unless the simple experiments can show the simplest of things, some photos of the stars from the Lunar surface, or from any other airless body, or from Mars even, a photograph of the Sun from space taken through a solar filter, or when the first tourists go around the Moon, their awestruck comments on the millions of stars, or the feel of the heat from the Sun through the windows.

Instead of proof I get insult and derision, but then Copernicus went through the same, but was eventually proven correct. Proof, small word, huge importance.
Please explain why all of the Apollo missions brought an actual sextant with them. How did it work?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 05:52 AM   #488
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, I’m glad you finally accept the “standard model of things” after all this time.

Here’s a photo from of stars from the surface of Mars.

You’re welcome. I’m glad we were able to wean you off of your delusion, no matter how long it took. The real universe is so much more interesting than crackpot version, right?
Not really. Consider how most of the populous prefers mystical, religious, contrarian beliefs and perspectives.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 05:55 AM   #489
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Please explain why all of the Apollo missions brought an actual sextant with them. How did it work?


Since Solon has gone on record claiming there’s an international conspiracy we can assume he thinks there was some sort of magical grating in the windows and visors that transmuted the gamma radiation capable of frying the astronauts and their equipment to a crisp into visible light.

Or Solon is trolling.

Which do you think is more likely?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 05:56 AM   #490
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, I’m glad you finally accept the “standard model of things” after all this time.

Here’s a photo from of stars from the surface of Mars.

You’re welcome. I’m glad we were able to wean you off of your delusion, no matter how long it took. The real universe is so much more interesting than crackpot version, right?
Solon: You didn't wean me; Mars has an atmosphere.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 05:57 AM   #491
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Since Solon has gone on record claiming there’s an international conspiracy we can assume he thinks there was some sort of magical grating in the windows and visors that transmuted the gamma radiation capable of frying the astronauts and their equipment to a crisp into visible light.

Or Solon is trolling.

Which do you think is more likely?
I am old and cynical. You really do not want my honest answer to that question.

It would break a lot of rules.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 09:03 AM   #492
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I am old and cynical. You really do not want my honest answer to that question.



It would break a lot of rules.


I think Solon is trolling. I do not believe they are sincere in their claims. I believe their bragging about the prospect of forcing this thread to be moved to the conspiracy theory section was a moment of breaking character.

My experience with Creationists, Homeopaths, and assorted religious zealots has taught me that people sincere in their beliefs do not flat out ignore vast amounts of evidence when it’s presented to them. We have not subjected Solon to a Gish Gallop. Solon has however ignored a lot of evidence. Creationists for example may not engage as sincerely as I would like. They often resort to a multitude of logical fallacies and straw man arguments. They do not however, by and large, pretend counter arguments simply do not exist.

I do not believe any of this constitutes a personal attack on Solon. We HAVE been addressing Solon’s claims, such as they are. Solon has responded by ignoring most of the examples offered and lying about the nature of the posts that have been made.

My point in all of this is to propose a change of direction in HOW we respond to Solon. We need to accept that Solon is not arguing in good faith and that evidence that blasts their claims to atoms will be ignored. Solon’s trolling however is proving a fun starting point for real information. I’ve learned a lot from the people shredding Solon’s claims. Please, when you respond in this thread, remember that Solon is a foil to suggest avenues of research, not a real participant.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 09:15 AM   #493
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Please explain why all of the Apollo missions brought an actual sextant with them. How did it work?
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Since Solon has gone on record claiming there’s an international conspiracy we can assume he thinks there was some sort of magical grating in the windows and visors that transmuted the gamma radiation capable of frying the astronauts and their equipment to a crisp into visible light....
First Solon said they didn’t use the sextant, which was just astoundingly wrong. When multiple examples were provided, he than started talking about “vidicons” and “power optics” - which was also completely wrong.*

He also claimed they couldn’t see the Sun, Moon, and stars out the windows. Then he changed that to oh, they could see things from lunar orbit (a claim he just contradicted, by the way). When an example from 50,000 miles away was given, he quickly “calculated” that was “about the limit”. When an example from 100,000 miles away was given, he hid under the covers and has been doing so ever since.

His approach since then has devolved into a mishmash of irrelevancies and simple lies about the whole thing, with an extra layer of increasingly silly trolling (“you can’t prove stars are stars!” “The Sun doesn’t emit light!”).

Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Or Solon is trolling.

Which do you think is more likely?
I think he actually believes this drivel, but is frustrated at getting no traction with people who actually know what they’re talking about, so he’s resorted to trolling. It shows he’s Fighting The Good Fight against those meanies who refuse to accept The Revealed Truth just because he can’t form a coherent argument and every claim he makes is proven wrong, but it takes a lot less effort to just post some random crap once a day.

Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Solon: You didn't wean me; Mars has an atmosphere.
Well, as I pointed out, Solon contradicted himself again when he threw in Mars. First he said that if he’s right, you can see things from Mars because it has an atmosphere. Now he says that if he’s right, you can’t see things from Mars. So I’m just accepting his new condition; he said he’d believe the “standard model” if he was shown pictures of the stars from Mars. I showed him, so by his own words he must now believe that light pretty much works the way all those scientists and engineers and have been saying for decades.

I’m glad we were able to clear that up for you, Solon.


*He also claimed that the Shuttle windows had some sort of “grating” to make star is visible, which is - you guessed it! - completely wrong. I thought it was pretty funny, since I’ve been on the flight decks of various orbiters and looked through those windows.

Last edited by sts60; 15th February 2020 at 10:05 AM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 09:29 AM   #494
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by hallleyscomet
... Solon’s trolling however is proving a fun starting point for real information...
I learned how the Mars Mastcam on Curiosity works. (That’s the one that took the pictures of stars and planets from the surface of Mars I recently linked.). A very versatile instrument; it’s basically a pair of digital cameras, one with an f/8 focal length ratio and one with an f/10 focal length ratio. It can take pictures in visible and infrared, but uses a clear IR-rejection filter for its beautiful visible-light images:
Quote:
Each Mastcam uses a Bayer Pattern Filter CCD to obtain natural color pictures of a quality just like that of consumer digital cameras. This provides nearly true color views—that is, similar to what the human eye would see on Mars.

Last edited by sts60; 15th February 2020 at 11:22 AM. Reason: See halleyscomet post
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 10:52 AM   #495
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post

I learned how the Mars Mastcam on Curiosity works. (That’s the one that took the pictures of stars and planets from the surface of Mars I recently linked.). A very versatile instrument; it’s basically a pair of digital cameras, one with an f/8 focal length and one with an f/10 focal length. It can take pictures in visible and infrared, but uses a clear IR-rejection filter for its beautiful visible-light images:
Small quibble: those are the apertures of the two lenses. They do have different focal lengths too, of 100 and 34 mm. Just figure to throw that in in case some literalist comes around to try to discredit the evidence.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 11:23 AM   #496
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Dunno why I said “length” instead of “ratio”. Fixed. Thanks.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 11:26 AM   #497
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Solon: You didn't wean me; Mars has an atmosphere.
You beat me to it. Let's see now, no photos of the stars from the moon which has next to no atmosphere, pathetic photo of the stars from Mars which has a very thin atmosphere, an lovely pictures of the stars from Earth which has a much denser and more diverse atmosphere. No, of course there couldn't be any kind of correlation could there.

sts60, the Apollo sextant saw what the star tracker was detecting, the stars from lunar orbit photos were from the camera attached to the sextant eye piece, there was a special bracket for that. The technical details of the whole GNC system are available, but guess you never even look at anything that could possibly conflict of your own set-in-stone view of reality.
Solon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 11:35 AM   #498
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
You beat me to it. Let's see now, no photos of the stars from the moon which has next to no atmosphere, pathetic photo of the stars from Mars which has a very thin atmosphere, an lovely pictures of the stars from Earth which has a much denser and more diverse atmosphere. No, of course there couldn't be any kind of correlation could there.
Here's one of many photos of stars from the Hubble telescope. Got a rational excuse why this does not meet your stipulation for empirical evidence? I'm not surprised you acknowledged this post but ignored the other. I suspect you'll ignore this one too now.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg heic1920a.jpg (68.3 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by Steve001; 15th February 2020 at 12:32 PM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 12:21 PM   #499
Deadie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
You beat me to it. Let's see now, no photos of the stars from the moon which has next to no atmosphere, pathetic photo of the stars from Mars which has a very thin atmosphere, an lovely pictures of the stars from Earth which has a much denser and more diverse atmosphere. No, of course there couldn't be any kind of correlation could there.
Suppose there was a correlation with atmospheric pressure and elemental constituency with perceived visible light. This then, should be able to be easily modeled. Why have you not done this?

We need the math, and you are failing to provide for some reason.
Deadie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 12:34 PM   #500
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,995
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The technical details of the whole GNC system are available...
… But you decided it would be fun to just make up some crap about it and pretend that the user was looking through their eyepiece at some kind of TV screen instead of through an actual telescope at the stars.

Having spent a short time browsing I now know more than I did about how the sextant system worked, so that's good. And I confirmed, as if confirmation were needed, that Solon's making up lies about it.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 01:50 PM   #501
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
You beat me to it. Let's see now, no photos of the stars from the moon
The stars were photographed in ultraviolet, which propagates the same way through vacuum as does visible light. Venus was identified in at least one visible light photo. The Sun and Earth were photographed from the surface. At least one Apollo astronaut managed to isolate himself briefly from all sources of reflected sunlight and visually observed stars.

But please, cite your relevant mission planning experience that would have made visible light star photography a priority for a lunar mission. I’ll wait.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
which has next to no atmosphere,
You’re contradicting yourself again. You’ve already said the ultratenuous lunar atmosphere was sufficient to convert light from the Sun and stars to account for the daylit lunar surface and the star observations from the vicinity of the Moon, as well as enabling astronauts to see the Moon from up to “about” 50,000 miles away. Now you’re saying they couldn’t see stars from the surface because the lunar atmosphere was insufficient - a flat contradiction of your own claims.

You are really very bad at keeping your stories straight. Don’t you ever get embarrassed at how often your assertions crash headlong into each other? If it was me, I would think, “Hey! I’m contradicting myself! Maybe I should stop and think about my claims, because clearly I don’t understand this as well as I thought!” Why don’t you ever do that? What are you afraid of?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
pathetic photo of the stars from Mars which has a very thin atmosphere,
You said you wouldn’t accept the “standard model” until you saw a picture of stars from the surface of Mars. I showed you a picture of stars from the surface of Mars. Now you won’t live up to your own words. So were you lying, or were you simply unable to state your own thoughts coherently?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
an lovely pictures of the stars from Earth which has a much denser and more diverse atmosphere. No, of course there couldn't be any kind of correlation could there.
You’re contradicting yourself again. You said the conversion occurred in the ionosphere, not in the thick unionized atmosphere. In any case, Mars’ atmosphere is much thicker than that of the Moon, which you said was sufficient to see stars from orbit. Except, of course, when you contradicted yourself and said it wasn't.

You really are extremely bad at keeping your stories straight, aren’t you?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
sts60, the Apollo sextant saw what the star tracker was detecting, the stars from lunar orbit photos were from the camera attached to the sextant eye piece, there was a special bracket for that. The technical details of the whole GNC system are available,
Bwahaha! I read up on the optical guidance systems years ago, back when you were babbling about vidicons and “power optics” and I tried to educate you.

It’s irrelevant anyway; according to you, star photography from the vicinity of the Moon is both possible and impossible. That’s because you have literally no idea what you’re talking about, so you routinely contradict yourself in such embarrassing fashion.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
but guess you never even look at anything that could possibly conflict of your own set-in-stone view of reality.
Ham-fisted projection noted, with much amusement. You sound like Trump (“No puppet! You’re the puppet!”)

Your problem, Solon, is not that I don’t look at things, but that I do look at your claims, very carefully. That’s why I’ve so often noticed you make claims that are manifestly untrue, and that you contradict yourself - a lot.

But speaking of things that “could possibly conflict of [sic]your own set-in-stone view of reality“, how about answering these questions? You know, the ones you’ve been running away from for years? Didn’t you say you wanted to do science? Here’s your chance!

1. You said that ~50,000 miles away was the limit for seeing the moon from cislunar space. But you were given examples from much further away. Why haven’t you acknowledged them? Why, in fact, do you keep repeating your lie that the Apollo astronauts couldn’t see the Sun, Moon, and stars from cislunar space?

2. You said the rate of falloff for visible light in a vacuum was “known“. What is that rate?

3. According to you, you can’t see the sun near zenith from the ISS. This contradicts your claim that you can see the sun from the surface of the moon, as there is much less ionosphere above the moon then is above the space station. What does this contradiction say about your idea?

4. According to your claims, the ISS would be plunged into darkness near every orbital noon. Yet this is observed not to happen. Please explain why this is so, even though your claims predict the opposite.

5. Please explain, in your own words, exactly how the airtight, world-girdling conspiracy required to cover up this idea of yours has been maintained over the past six decades.

6. Why are geosynchronous and interplanetary spacecraft designed with solar panels, while according to you this would not work? Why are spacecraft in fact not designed or operated according to your notion of how things work?

7. Why have you not yet grasped that plane waves are merely a representation of transverse waves from a distant source, not a distinct physical phenomenon? This has been explained to you dozens of times.

8. Why do you keep asserting that other people here don’t understand how spacecraft instruments work, when you keep making rather elementary errors and other people keep correcting you?

Last edited by sts60; 15th February 2020 at 01:51 PM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 03:09 PM   #502
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,703
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
guess you never even look at anything that could possibly conflict of your own set-in-stone view of reality.
You keep making this accusation, Solon, but it's not going to get you anywhere when you seem to be doing the same thing. I've pointed out multiple errors you have made, but none of them ever cause you to rethink anything. I've asked multiple questions about basic aspects of your belief, but you never answer them.

I have been polite, but I will not be infinitely patient.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 04:09 PM   #503
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Solon, you said you wouldn’t believe in the “standard model” until you were shown a photograph of stars from the surface of Mars. You were shown just that. Why did you lie? Or did you just forget that according to you, such images are possible?

What do you think your numerous self-contradictions say about your ideas?

What do you think your numerous evasions and lies about the evidence already presented to you say about your honesty?

Last edited by sts60; 15th February 2020 at 04:13 PM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 06:23 PM   #504
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,907
And by the way, Solon, if you think that passage from Spalding is really a revelation from Ascended Master Jesus, how can you justify contradicting it and changing it around? Do you have knowledge superior to Jesus? (And if so, why can't other people have knowledge superior to yours?)
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2020, 09:47 PM   #505
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Solon, why do those of us who actually design, build, and operate spacecraft for a living do so in ways that reflect actual physics, rather than your version (well, versions - you can’t really keep your stories straight)? Our vehicles simply wouldn’t work according to your beliefs, yet they do. Why does that tell you?
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 09:10 AM   #506
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
I just ran across this little bit. Do you think this is far enough from earth's atmosphere?

https://boingboing.net/2020/02/14/ca...ue-dot-im.html
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 09:33 AM   #507
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I just ran across this little bit. Do you think this is far enough from earth's atmosphere?

https://boingboing.net/2020/02/14/ca...ue-dot-im.html
Ninja'd (by halleycomet).

Solon's response?

"Pretty obvious the Earth is only visible because of the intervening matter." (post #470).

I think that is in the running for the "priceless!" award.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 09:37 AM   #508
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Ninja'd (by halleycomet).

Solon's response?

"Pretty obvious the Earth is only visible because of the intervening matter." (post #470).

I think that is in the running for the "priceless!" award.
Missed that. I should have known better.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 09:44 AM   #509
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
I want to reiterate that Solon is claiming that the Moon has enough of an atmosphere to magically convert gamma radiation from distant stars into visible light but Mars does not.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:01 AM   #510
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I just ran across this little bit. Do you think this is far enough from earth's atmosphere?

https://boingboing.net/2020/02/14/ca...ue-dot-im.html
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Ninja'd (by halleycomet).

Solon's response?

"Pretty obvious the Earth is only visible because of the intervening matter." (post #470).

I think that is in the running for the "priceless!" award.
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Missed that. I should have known better.
According to Solon, this image was impossible.
Now, also according to Solon, this image was possible.

Solon contradicts himself like this all the time because (1) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, and (2) he’s so terrified of questioning his own views that he has to deny any evidence to the contrary. Since he gets so many things wrong, that means he keeps running headlong into himself.

The funny thing is, by saying there’s enough “intervening matter” in any old reach of the solar system, he’s now contradicted all of his claims that things should be invisible! If there’s enough to see dim, tiny Earth from deep interplanetary space, there’s enough to see distant objects from anywhere - like the Moon and stars from cislunar space.

This one is a pretty spectacular faceplant on Solon’s part. He’s definitely upped his self-own game. I envision him pressing the AUTOPWN “ENABLE” and “ARM” buttons before posting.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:27 AM   #511
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, you said you wouldn’t believe in the “standard model” until you were shown a photograph of stars from the surface of Mars. You were shown just that. Why did you lie? Or did you just forget that according to you, such images are possible?

What do you think your numerous self-contradictions say about your ideas?

What do you think your numerous evasions and lies about the evidence already presented to you say about your honesty?
Do you think your eyes would have seen those stars from the Martian surface? Where are the exposure settings for the image?

Here's a question you self proclaimed experts might be able to help me with: How far away from a planet do you have to be so that it looks like a star?
Solon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:28 AM   #512
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,907
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
According to Solon, this image was impossible.
Now, also according to Solon, this image was possible.

Solon contradicts himself like this all the time because (1) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, and (2) he’s so terrified of questioning his own views that he has to deny any evidence to the contrary. Since he gets so many things wrong, that means he keeps running headlong into himself.

The funny thing is, by saying there’s enough “intervening matter” in any old reach of the solar system, he’s now contradicted all of his claims that things should be invisible! If there’s enough to see dim, tiny Earth from deep interplanetary space, there’s enough to see distant objects from anywhere - like the Moon and stars from cislunar space.

This one is a pretty spectacular faceplant on Solon’s part. He’s definitely upped his self-own game. I envision him pressing the AUTOPWN “ENABLE” and “ARM” buttons before posting.

Good point. The sun's corona is "intervening matter" between the sun and anywhere else in the universe. The Earth's atmosphere is "intervening matter" between the earth's surface and anywhere else in the universe. The Moon's thin atmosphere is "intervening matter" between the moon's surface and anywhere else in the universe. So the sun, the Moon, and the Earth would be visible from orbital, interplanetary, and interstellar space, even if Solon's speculations were correct.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:41 AM   #513
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
sts60

Quote:
At least one Apollo astronaut managed to isolate himself briefly from all sources of reflected sunlight and visually observed stars.
Which one(s) and where do I find their statements?
Solon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:52 AM   #514
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Do you think your eyes would have seen those stars from the Martian surface? Where are the exposure settings for the image?

Here's a question you self proclaimed experts might be able to help me with: How far away from a planet do you have to be so that it looks like a star?
First: You indicated you would accept a photograph of stars from the surface of Mars as support for the “standard model”. I provided such a photograph, and you rejected it. Why did you lie?
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:00 AM   #515
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Second: why are you rejecting a photograph of the stars that according to your own words should be visible from the surface of Mars? You are contradicting yourself again.

Third: what do you think your numerous self-contradictions say about your understanding of your own ideas?
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:03 AM   #516
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
See, Solon, if you want to engage rather than troll, I’ll be happy to help you. But first you need to actually take responsibility for your claims and their consequences, rather than Gish-gallop away from them.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 12:56 PM   #517
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Do you think your eyes would have seen those stars from the Martian surface?

No, because in the Martian atmosphere I’d be dead due to the low air pressure.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Here's a question you self proclaimed experts might be able to help me with: How far away from a planet do you have to be so that it looks like a star?

That’s easy. The modern word “Planet” is derived from an Ancient Greek word meaning a “wanderer.” For a good hunk of human history planets were believed to be wandering stars. A common name for Venus has been “Morning Star.” That means all the planets in the solar system visible to the naked eye are close enough to look like stars.

It’s amazing how easily stumped you are by trivially researched questions.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 01:47 PM   #518
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
According to Solon, this image was impossible.
Now, also according to Solon, this image was possible.

Solon contradicts himself like this all the time because (1) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about, and (2) he’s so terrified of questioning his own views that he has to deny any evidence to the contrary. Since he gets so many things wrong, that means he keeps running headlong into himself.

The funny thing is, by saying there’s enough “intervening matter” in any old reach of the solar system, he’s now contradicted all of his claims that things should be invisible! If there’s enough to see dim, tiny Earth from deep interplanetary space, there’s enough to see distant objects from anywhere - like the Moon and stars from cislunar space.

This one is a pretty spectacular faceplant on Solon’s part. He’s definitely upped his self-own game. I envision him pressing the AUTOPWN “ENABLE” and “ARM” buttons before posting.
If you restrict yourself to only what Solon has posted here (in this part of the ISF), it's rather ironic.

Consider the very first words in the first post (by Solon) in this thread (my bold):

"I am searching for empirical scientific evidence that the Sun emits any heat (thermal infrared) or visible light when observed from outside of Earths atmosphere or outside of any other planet or moons atmosphere."
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 01:59 PM   #519
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
It appears rhat Solon has found rhe perfect position: that you can't see light anywhere in the universe except everywhere that you are.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 03:12 PM   #520
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,995
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
No, because in the Martian atmosphere I’d be dead due to the low air pressure.




That’s easy. The modern word “Planet” is derived from an Ancient Greek word meaning a “wanderer.” For a good hunk of human history planets were believed to be wandering stars. A common name for Venus has been “Morning Star.” That means all the planets in the solar system visible to the naked eye are close enough to look like stars.

It’s amazing how easily stumped you are by trivially researched questions.
The question Solon asked was how far away you need to be, not how close. I suppose the answer to that is just far enough that you can't resolve any features with the naked eye, so you can't see anything to differentiate it from stars. I had wondered if it also had to be dim enough that you couldn't discern it's colour but of course Mars and Betelgeuse are both visibly red, so that's a non-issue.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.