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 23rd January 2020, 01:55 PM   #81
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,319
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
but of course a true skeptic would need to do their own research and not believe what someone else tells them!

Sweet Jebus! How do you manage to cross the street? You'd need to do extensive experiments as to how the "walk" sign emits light, study automotive engineering to determine how much force a Toyota will impart when it hits your body, then repeat all of that research for Nisans, Kias, Fords, and Chevys, then you'd have to do microscopic analysis of the components of the pavement, then you'd have to do large scale research as to the pavement's elasticity in various weather situations, then you'd need to go to medical school to determine how the vestibular system works, then you'd have to test the vestibular system on random subjects, then you'd have to take small forays out into the road foot by foot. And maybe then you'll be able to get to froyo shop.

It appears that the only thing that will satisfy you is if you build your own rocket and, upon reaching your desired altitude, stick your head out the window.

Any other observation is going to be indirect. You're not being skeptical, you're being unreasonable.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 23rd January 2020, 02:51 PM   #82
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,533
What a bizarre delusion. How, and indeed why, does anyone ever come up with such nonsense in the first place?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 23rd January 2020, 03:04 PM   #83
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
What a bizarre delusion. How, and indeed why, does anyone ever come up with such nonsense in the first place?
Another question is, if the image we see of the Sun is formed in the ionosphere, why donít we get a constantly-changing funhouse mirror version of the Sun in response to the always-changing ionosphere? Or, as Pope130 pointed out, why is ďfluorescenceĒ supposed to produce any image at all in a mass of plasma or air?

I donít know how you come up with ďsuch nonsenseĒ. But you have to studiously avoid such questions if you want to keep it up.
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 23rd January 2020, 06:12 PM   #84
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, why are you so determined to cling to your beliefs that you ignore evidence and contradict yourself? Whatís the point?
And such a specifically bizarre belief. The rest of the world isn't clinging desperately to the belief that light can propagate through a vacuum because their world view is somehow dependent on this being so...they simply observe it to be obviously so. This was in fact somewhat of a surprise, but eventually scientists accepted it.

If Solon's delusion had any basis in reality, it'd be a weird fact journalists write about to boost the word count of articles about space, not the subject of a worldwide coverup dating back to the first experiments with mercury in glass tubes. (Who exactly was responsible for going around and making sure that the "vacuum" in all the barometers was suitably contaminated so light could propagate through it, and silencing anyone who built their own and noticed that the space above the mercury was black?)
cjameshuff 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 23rd January 2020, 06:32 PM   #85
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
"The Parker solar probe does not carry a conventional camera and solar filter." ignorance: WISPR. No mention of filters but that does not stop WISPR observing light from the Sun outside of Earths atmosphere. We already have images of the solar corona.
Oh, that's a nice one. His claim is that visible light can't travel through vacuum, and so the stars are not visible outside Earth's atmosphere/magnetosphere/wherever he's moved the goalposts. WISPR's first image, taken after a month's travel away from Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...ight_image.png

I think I can see one or two stars there. Going by JPL Horizons, it was about 0.19 AU away from Earth at that time, about 70 times as far as the moon ever gets.

Of course, he'll just wave his hands about gratings or magic wavefront sensors...WISPR surely isn't a "normal camera", since it can see stars.
cjameshuff 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 23rd January 2020, 07:16 PM   #86
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,703
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Oh, that's a nice one. His claim is that visible light can't travel through vacuum
I wonder how he would rationalize this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's film of dropping a feather and a bowling ball inside a giant multi-story vacuum chamber. If light can't travel through a vacuum, you wouldn't be able to film this, it would be pitch black.
__________________
"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 23rd January 2020, 11:04 PM   #87
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
If you read the Conjunctions thread on Cosmoquest, youíll see how desperately Solon had to run away from his own claims. For example, he confidently wondered rhetorically why Apollo astronauts couldnít see stars from space; then, after being confronted with numerous examples of just that, he had to start bringing up Apollo hoax conspiracies to discredit his own claim. Itís like watching Lindsey Graham being confronted with his own views about impeachment from 20 years ago.
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 24th January 2020, 11:08 AM   #88
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
If you read the Conjunctions thread on Cosmoquest, youíll see how desperately Solon had to run away from his own claims. For example, he confidently wondered rhetorically why Apollo astronauts couldnít see stars from space; then, after being confronted with numerous examples of just that, he had to start bringing up Apollo hoax conspiracies to discredit his own claim. Itís like watching Lindsey Graham being confronted with his own views about impeachment from 20 years ago.
What did Solon do to get them banned on Cosmoquest?
__________________
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 24th January 2020, 11:51 AM   #89
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Cosmoquest is very strict about supporting your claims, answering questions, and acknowledging answers. Solon received warnings for not doing this, and was finally banned after yet another fringe reset.

Here, he can string it out as long as he likes.
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 24th January 2020, 12:12 PM   #90
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I wonder how he would rationalize this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It's film of dropping a feather and a bowling ball inside a giant multi-story vacuum chamber. If light can't travel through a vacuum, you wouldn't be able to film this, it would be pitch black.
Thanks much. That is some good data to refute his absurd idea that light cannot be propagated in a vacuum.

However, I just had another thought ...

A conventional incandescent light bulb transmits it light production through a vacuum quite well as does the light and energy that is produced by vacuum tubes.

So according to the fine logic of 'Solon', then conventional light bulbs do not work and vacuum tubes do not work because of the vacuum issue.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 24th January 2020, 12:35 PM   #91
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,791
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
A conventional incandescent light bulb transmits it light production through a vacuum quite well as does the light and energy that is produced by vacuum tubes.

Not sure if solon is coming back but anticipating he might object that modern light bulbs don't use a vacuum, they use an inert gas. However there were plenty a century ago that used a vacuum, so your point is valid.
RecoveringYuppy 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 24th January 2020, 12:37 PM   #92
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Not sure if solon is coming back but anticipating he might object that modern light bulbs don't use a vacuum, they use an inert gas. However there were plenty a century ago that used a vacuum, so your point is valid.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by kmortis; 28th January 2020 at 05:20 AM.
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 24th January 2020, 12:45 PM   #93
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,106
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Not sure if solon is coming back but anticipating he might object that modern light bulbs don't use a vacuum, they use an inert gas. However there were plenty a century ago that used a vacuum, so your point is valid.
How about just a plain old glass vacuum jar? You can see through it to what's behind it. Does he propose that the visible light gets converted to something else as it passes the glass on one side and converted back on the other side?
phunk 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 24th January 2020, 12:47 PM   #94
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,791
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
How about just a plain old glass vacuum jar? You can see through it to what's behind it. Does he propose that the visible light gets converted to something else as it passes the glass on one side and converted back on the other side?
That's a good example too. Ziggurat provided a great example along those lines since his example actually provides evidence of the vacuum.
RecoveringYuppy 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 24th January 2020, 01:17 PM   #95
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
So yes, it is my belief that it is the interaction of the non-visible shorter wavelength solar emission with matter that creates visible wavelength light, which is a well known and empirically supported science.
Why then, can we see the soda in the vacuum chamber in this video?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Are you claiming that visible light cannot go through a vacuum? If not, then what's the point of imagining a convoluted and unproven process by which a giant unshielded fusion reactor hanging in space DOESN'T emit visible light?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 24th January 2020 at 01:21 PM.
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 24th January 2020, 01:56 PM   #96
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Oh, the Sun emits plenty of light. It just doesnít go very far as transverse waves*, not enough to be seen without the ionosphere in the way. (Except when it does if Solon needs it to. He did this several times on CQ.). Yet relatively insensitive star trackers and other imagers can see starlight from light years away in a vacuum, because of some arbitrary distinctions Solon draws to ignore evidence refuting his latest version.

*Solon insists that light waves are only propagate as ďplane wavesĒ in a vacuum, even though plane waves are merely a representation of transverse waves from a distant source - they are not two distinct physical phenomena. Oh, and the claimed attenuation of transverse EM waves is something he steadfastly refuses to quantify. And somehow visible light is a distinct form of EM energy from UV, or IR, or X-rays - the propagation rules are different for each.

Still, itís not the manifest absurdity of the premise. Whatís really striking are the knots he has to tie himself into to avoid acknowledging all the answers and evidence, while claiming he is just following up the leads Columbo-style.

The other thing that gets me is the sheer pointlessness of his claim. For some reason, rather than the fame and Nobel Prizes that would have been handed out like Halloween candy when this phenomenon was discovered, early scientists and engineers instead mandated a world-wide coverup that would monotonically multiply to include every spacefaring nation and business entity, every university, every independent experimenter with a bell jar, every 2nd-year physics student, forever... and for what? Thereís no point to a conspiracy that would make every other conspiracy, real or imagined, look like two kids conspiring to raid the cookie jar before dinner.
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 24th January 2020, 02:29 PM   #97
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
If you read the Conjunctions thread on Cosmoquest, youíll see how desperately Solon had to run away from his own claims. For example, he confidently wondered rhetorically why Apollo astronauts couldnít see stars from space; then, after being confronted with numerous examples of just that, he had to start bringing up Apollo hoax conspiracies to discredit his own claim. Itís like watching Lindsey Graham being confronted with his own views about impeachment from 20 years ago.
That CQ thread is ... gobsmaking!

From a purely textual analysis perspective, "empirical evidence" is used in a highly idiosyncratic way, to mean something like "whatever I choose to say it is, and I wholeheartedly reserve the right to change my mind whenever I want to (without giving any reasons)".
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 24th January 2020, 03:24 PM   #98
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That CQ thread is ... gobsmaking!
You should also give the Mini-Hubble thread a look.
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 24th January 2020, 04:10 PM   #99
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
I'd actually forgotten he'd gotten banned, he'd been pretty good at running off before that could happen.


Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
A conventional incandescent light bulb transmits it light production through a vacuum quite well as does the light and energy that is produced by vacuum tubes.

So according to the fine logic of 'Solon', then conventional light bulbs do not work and vacuum tubes do not work because of the vacuum issue.
Ah, but heated filaments are used in vacuum tubes because they emit electrons, which then cause Compton scattering!

Oh wait, incandescent bulbs are frequently filled with low pressure inert gases like nitrogen or argon. Clearly this is evidence that the vacuum is opaque, the fill gas is just a dastardly scheme to hide this fact.
cjameshuff 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 24th January 2020, 05:03 PM   #100
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Oh, the Sun emits plenty of light. It just doesnít go very far as transverse waves*, not enough to be seen without the ionosphere in the way. (Except when it does if Solon needs it to. He did this several times on CQ.). Yet relatively insensitive star trackers and other imagers can see starlight from light years away in a vacuum, because of some arbitrary distinctions Solon draws to ignore evidence refuting his latest version.
He actually claims star trackers use visible light because it's weak, which works because of "electron amplification". Their computers wouldn't be able to process IR or UV (which apparently can travel through the vacuum just fine, being fundamentally different from visible light), it'd be too much info. The brighter a point of light is, the more processing power it takes to track, right?

He clearly hasn't the foggiest idea of how any of the technology involved works...or how basic science works, for that matter. All these scientific and technical terms are just magic incantations to him. The degree of scientific and technological illiteracy on display makes me wonder how he can successfully operate a computer.
cjameshuff 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 24th January 2020, 06:53 PM   #101
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 25,077
I live in western Washington state. What is this "sun" of which you speak?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 24th January 2020, 11:05 PM   #102
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,557
It's an interesting pattern to see in all the hoax science threads that they all assume some vast all-encompassing conspiracy to suppress the 'truth', be that the electric universe of Sol88, the dark flow of Bjarne, the whatever phillippeb8 and pittsburgjoe claim to have found etc.
But there is never an explanation as to WHY there would be such a conspiracy beyond 'they get taxpayer money' and it completely ignores the fact that paying for the conspiracy to hold would cost several magnitudes more money than all research grants of the whole world combined.

Then again, I guess abandoning basic logic is what is needed to start these theories in the first place.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 25th January 2020, 07:08 AM   #103
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
It's an interesting pattern to see in all the hoax science threads that they all assume some vast all-encompassing conspiracy to suppress the 'truth', be that the electric universe of Sol88, the dark flow of Bjarne, the whatever phillippeb8 and pittsburgjoe claim to have found etc.
But there is never an explanation as to WHY there would be such a conspiracy beyond 'they get taxpayer money' and it completely ignores the fact that paying for the conspiracy to hold would cost several magnitudes more money than all research grants of the whole world combined.

Then again, I guess abandoning basic logic is what is needed to start these theories in the first place.
The closest he's gotten to explaining this is that if you couldn't see the stars in space, there'd be no interest in going to space (since the only reason anyone would go into space is to look at stars?). I have a hard time seeing how this motivated Torricelli in 1643, or why it'd be preferable to build and operate spacecraft and stations in such a way that they can never see stars, or how it's consistent with the mainstream position that stars usually aren't visible...not because of some deep secrets of optics that are kept hidden from the masses, but because eyes adjusted for bright sunlight or indoor lighting can't see stars.
cjameshuff 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 25th January 2020, 01:45 PM   #104
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
Hippocrates

I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.
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 25th January 2020, 01:57 PM   #105
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
Hippocrates

I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.
Since you’re all about the science, why don’t you tell us the attenuation rate for EM waves in a vacuum? You know, the transverse waves you said didn’t propagate very far? Over on CQ, you said it was known. So what is it?
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 25th January 2020, 02:14 PM   #106
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
While we’re at it, let’s also hear your scientific explanation as to why the ISS is brightly lit by the sun at orbital noon, even though according to you this should be impossible.
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 25th January 2020, 02:15 PM   #107
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Or why are you said the lunar ionosphere allows visibility of celestial objects, even though it is more tenuous than the ionosphere above the ISS, which you said would not permit such visibility.
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 25th January 2020, 02:23 PM   #108
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Or why the LORRI imager aboard Pluto New Horizons, which is just a megapixel camera with a fat telephoto lens, can see stars and planets from interplanetary space? According to your claims, that isn’t possible, but you were provided with examples. What’s your scientific explanation? I did some system engineering support for PNH’s power supply, so I’m interested in your scientific explanation.
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 25th January 2020, 02:25 PM   #109
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Oh yes, remember when you said the Apollo crews couldn’t see the Moon past about 50,000 miles of distance? And you were immediately presented with an observation from 100,000 miles away? What’s your scientific rationale for ignoring that?
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 25th January 2020, 02:28 PM   #110
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Heat and Light from the Sun

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
Hippocrates

I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.


Well played. That was an excellent **** post. You kept the thread going just when it was losing steam. You didnít answer ANY of the questions asked of you and you contributed nothing of value to the discussion.


Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I doubt he's coming back unless the thread slows down and he needs the ego boost of us talking about him.


Just saying, I called it. The only purpose his post could possible serve was to inspire a fresh round of replies. Iím now going to predict that he will NEVER come up with a testable hypothesis. I predict he will NEVER make a concrete statement regarding what heís claiming. I also predict that any evidence anyone offers that contradicts his few claims or that meets his stated criteria will be ignored unless he can find a way to move the goal posts and claim that piece of evidence isnít perfect.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 25th January 2020 at 02:33 PM.
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 25th January 2020, 02:34 PM   #111
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Oh yes, remember when you said the Apollo crews couldnít see the Moon past about 50,000 miles of distance? And you were immediately presented with an observation from 100,000 miles away? Whatís your scientific rationale for ignoring that?


Why, to ignore your post about it of course!
__________________
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 25th January 2020, 02:44 PM   #112
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
That CQ thread is ... gobsmaking!

From a purely textual analysis perspective, "empirical evidence" is used in a highly idiosyncratic way, to mean something like "whatever I choose to say it is, and I wholeheartedly reserve the right to change my mind whenever I want to (without giving any reasons)".
My memory of these things is pretty short, but didn't we recently have another person claiming that rockets can't fly in space, whose idea of empirical evidence was similar? As I recall, it resulted in no evidence being acceptable unless we all got together and paid to shoot him into space.
__________________
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 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 25th January 2020, 02:45 PM   #113
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
My memory of these things is pretty short, but didn't we recently have another person claiming that rockets can't fly in space, whose idea of empirical evidence was similar? As I recall, it resulted in no evidence being acceptable unless we all got together and paid to shoot him into space.


You are correct.
__________________
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 25th January 2020, 03:15 PM   #114
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
Hippocrates

I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.
You do not know what you are talking about.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 25th January 2020, 03:36 PM   #115
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
Hippocrates

I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.
Let's see now ...

... here's a post of mine:
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Originally Posted by Solon
Thanks for the many opinions expressed in the preceeding posts, but I see nothing that can be classed as empirical evidence. I'm sure you all know the definition of such.
<snip>
Hmm ...

The online Mirriam-Webster dictionary gives these are definitions of "empirical":

1. originating in or based on observation or experience [as in] empirical data
2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory [as in] an empirical basis for the theory
3. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment [as in] empirical laws
4. of or relating to empiricism

When you use the term "empirical evidence", which of these four meanings of "empirical" do you use?
And here's an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I call troll, as usual.
Looks like Dr.Sid nailed it!
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 25th January 2020, 04:00 PM   #116
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Well played. That was an excellent **** post. You kept the thread going just when it was losing steam. You didnít answer ANY of the questions asked of you and you contributed nothing of value to the discussion.






Just saying, I called it. The only purpose his post could possible serve was to inspire a fresh round of replies. Iím now going to predict that he will NEVER come up with a testable hypothesis. I predict he will NEVER make a concrete statement regarding what heís claiming. I also predict that any evidence anyone offers that contradicts his few claims or that meets his stated criteria will be ignored unless he can find a way to move the goal posts and claim that piece of evidence isnít perfect.
In case of fire troll, break glass stop feeding.
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 25th January 2020, 04:26 PM   #117
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,547
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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.
Acceptable proof would include a photograph of the Sun from clear space (not low Earth orbit) taken with the same type of equipment and exposure settings that we would use when photographing the Sun from Earths surface. e.g. film or digital camera and neutral density filter.
Direct measurement of the Suns heat using the same type of equipment that we use from Earths surface, e.g. a pyrheliometer.
Comments and observations on the appearance of the Sun from anyone who has been outside of low Earth orbit e.g. the Apollo astronauts.

Thank you.
What is your alternative claim? Where else does the heat we detect come from.

Thank you,

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 25th January 2020, 04:41 PM   #118
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Solon, I think, actually believes his stuff. Heís just afraid to do the one thing absolutely essential to science: consider that he might be wrong. So when the exact evidence he asks for is shown to him, he either ignores it or makes up some other arbitrary reason to exclude it.

Solon, geosynchronous satellites get their power from the Sun. According to you, this is impossible.

We design lunar and deep-space craft to account for solar heating. According to you, this would be unnecessary, but it is standard design.

Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong?
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 25th January 2020, 08:35 PM   #119
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong?

Iíve known narcissists who were so far gone they were literally incapable of even imagining they might be wrong. Suggesting they might be wrong was an absurdity on par with suggesting the Moon really IS made of green cheese, and youíve met the cow the milk came from.
__________________
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 26th January 2020, 07:50 AM   #120
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
He's been so consistent over the years that I don't think he's pretending...I can't believe someone pretending to believe something this crazy would be able to resist at least tinkering with or expanding the "story" over time. He's completely stuck, his ideas and ways of thinking about them haven't changed in 10 years. He only gets creative when it comes to twisting facts around (or outright inventing new ones) to support his ideas.
cjameshuff 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 11:01 PM.
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.