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 26th January 2020, 09:20 AM   #121
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
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.


Most trolls lack much in the way of creativity. A lot of them spend their time in a rut.
__________________
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, 12:49 PM   #122
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
You should also give the Mini-Hubble thread a look.
Thanks.

I very much like the idea of putting an amateur telescope into orbit, to be operated remotely by amateurs (and paid for by professionals who can't get time on other space telescopes?)! I wouldn't want to be on the "telescope time allocation committee" however, a very challenging job to choose from among the huge number of good proposals.
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 26th January 2020, 02:26 PM   #123
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof. ..
A totally ignorant statement, Solon. You have been presented with the definition of empirical evidence and the empirical evidence showing your deeply ignorant 9 year old claim was and still is wrong. When you come back you will get the same reply: 23 January 2020 Solon: Empirical evidence making a 9 year old () claim of no observed light from the Sun outside of Earth's atmosphere a fantasy.
Reality Check 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, 02:39 PM   #124
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
You should also give the Mini-Hubble thread a look.
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.

I very much like the idea of putting an amateur telescope into orbit, to be operated remotely by amateurs (and paid for by professionals who can't get time on other space telescopes?)! I wouldn't want to be on the "telescope time allocation committee" however, a very challenging job to choose from among the huge number of good proposals.
Over on CQ, Solon was huffing about how it was “not acceptable” that ISS EVA planners weren’t paying attention to his desire to have astronauts interrupt their activities to take pictures of the Sun or stars at zenith.
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 26th January 2020, 03:00 PM   #125
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Over on CQ, Solon was huffing about how it was “not acceptable” that ISS EVA planners weren’t paying attention to his desire to have astronauts interrupt their activities to take pictures of the Sun or stars at zenith.
Sounds like a fantasy that windows in the ISS do not exist and so astronauts have to take pictures on EVAs !
Cupola (ISS module)
Quote:
The Cupola is an ESA-built observatory module of the International Space Station (ISS). Its name derives from the Italian word cupola, which means "dome". Its seven windows are used to conduct experiments, dockings and observations of Earth. It was launched aboard Space Shuttle mission STS-130 on 8 February 2010 and attached to the Tranquility (Node 3) module. With the Cupola attached, ISS assembly reached 85 percent completion. The Cupola's central window has a diameter of 80 cm (31 in).[1]
How many windows are on the International Space Station?
Quote:
There are several windows throughout the ISS, including the Lab nadir window (WORF), the seven windows in the cupola, the window in the Japanese Kibo module, thirteen windows in the Russian Service Module, two in the Russian docking module, and a window in each Soyuz.
Includes images of astronauts using cameras at windows and looking thru windows.
Reality Check 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, 03:19 PM   #126
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,366
My favourite take on this is a simple experiment anyone can perform.

1. Take a photograph of the moon.

As a kid, I tried to take photographs of the moon, and they were always and over-exposed mess.

I asked my Dad for help, and he asked me what exposure settings I was using...

Night time settings of course.

He laughed and said: "You didn't think about this, try the settings on the film box for bright sunlight."

I felt like a complete idiot, of course, the moon is lit by the sun, and there are no clouds to get in the way...

These days, with digital cameras, that experiment is a lot quicker.

__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile 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, 03:38 PM   #127
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,187
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Over on CQ, Solon was huffing about how it was “not acceptable” that ISS EVA planners weren’t paying attention to his desire to have astronauts interrupt their activities to take pictures of the Sun or stars at zenith.
His research skills are nonexistent then.
This photo was released by NASA in May last year.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking 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, 03:49 PM   #128
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Over on CQ, Solon was huffing about how it was “not acceptable” that ISS EVA planners weren’t paying attention to his desire to have astronauts interrupt their activities to take pictures of the Sun or stars at zenith.
There are several remotely operated telescopes available to amateurs, some built and maintained by them (usually a club or group). Down here on the ground. These are, obviously, quite different from commercial cameras sold to “the general public”. However, as far as I know, none would be used to directly observe the Sun, at least not on purpose, and not without very likely being damaged. And no dedicated remote telescopes “for amateurs” exist for observing the Sun (yes, some amateurs do observe the Sun).

For any amateur facility Musk etc might launch or sponsor, the same dichotomy would surely apply: lots of interest in deep sky, planetary, etc observing, but little in observing the Sun. Not least because the sky is vast but the Sun small, and most of the dedicated “observe the Sun” space-based missions do an excellent job of making their data publicly available, for free.
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 26th January 2020, 06:48 PM   #129
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,924
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.

What does it matter what you see? Is there some aspect of scientific conduct that's dependent upon your approval somehow? Are you offering research grants, editing a journal, allocating budgets, supervising a department, teaching a course, advising a government?
__________________
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 26th January 2020, 07:04 PM   #130
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 25,124
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
My favourite take on this is a simple experiment anyone can perform.

1. Take a photograph of the moon.

As a kid, I tried to take photographs of the moon, and they were always and over-exposed mess.

I asked my Dad for help, and he asked me what exposure settings I was using...

Night time settings of course.

He laughed and said: "You didn't think about this, try the settings on the film box for bright sunlight."

I felt like a complete idiot, of course, the moon is lit by the sun, and there are no clouds to get in the way...

These days, with digital cameras, that experiment is a lot quicker.

See also: No stars, therefore Apollo Hoax! There were, of course, no stars because it was broad daylight.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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, 10:06 PM   #131
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon acknowledges pictures of planets, stars, etc., taken from the station but claims they are always close to the limb of the Earth and thus looking through the ionosphere. He says that a picture taken straight up (zenith) would only show blackness, as there’s not enough ionosphere over the station for the effect to happen.

No, I am not making this up.

Of course, if he was right, the station would be plunged into darkness every orbital noon, which manifestly does not happen. He didn’t acknowledge that. Nor, of course, would the solar cells on geosynchronous and sun-orbiting and interplanetary craft like Juno work. At all. He hasn’t acknowledged that. Nor would the Apollo astronauts have been able to see the Moon enroute, and would have been plunged into darkness after TLI. He’s done a lot of tap dancing about that, first claiming they didn’t use the sextant (numerous examples were promptly given), then saying it had “gratings” or “power optics” or “a vidicon”, (nope, nope, and nope); then claiming they couldn’t see the Moon until up close - until an example from 50,000 miles was given, at which point he “calculated” that was about the limit - and was given an example from 100,000 miles, which he ignored.

It’s actually worse than that. He kept throwing out random examples from aircraft while talking about the ionosphere, mixed in claims about the Shuttle windows having a ”grating” even though by his own claims this would be unnecessary, and otherwise keeps garbling his claims and contradicting himself in a frantic attempt to avoid acknowledging his mistakes - all while prattling about “science”.

This from a guy who thinks plane waves are a physical phenomenon distinct from transverse EM waves, rather than merely a representation of EM waves from a distant object - he literally does not understand his own premise, despite several people making patient attempts to educate him.

Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong?

Last edited by sts60; 26th January 2020 at 10:11 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 27th January 2020, 06:49 AM   #132
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong?
Sunk Cost. It takes a lot of character to admit you were wrong for ten years or more. Some people would rather spend the next 40 years being just as wrong than admit they were wrong for ten.

__________________
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 27th January 2020, 05:04 PM   #133
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Solon will just respond to any photos with some variation of "wavefront sensors" (Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensors, specifically...they're really just instruments used to characterize telescope optics, but he's endowed them with magical capabilities of detecting plane waves), "gratings" (he doesn't seem to have any idea what diffraction gratings actually do or what the world actually looks like through one, making his Shuttle/ISS window theories particularly hilarious), or just fall back to "that wasn't a real camera"...since obviously, it saw stars. He already knows with absolute certainty a real camera wouldn't be able to do that, so seeing stars is just evidence that the "wrong" instrument was used.
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 27th January 2020, 05:45 PM   #134
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
MRC_Hans
Quote:
What is your alternative claim? Where else does the heat we detect come from.
The answer goes back as far as Sir William Herschel, who first discovered the non-visible light that produced heat. He also said that he thought the light out side of Earths atmosphere would not be suited to the process of vision.
Here is an well penned article I thought from Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74

Quote:
Heat Of the Sun.—I have no doubt what I am about to write will meet with skepticism and be considered as a vagary of an untrained mind. Be it so, I have the satisfaction to know that the scientific world is no nearer a solution of the sun's heat, than a guess. I think there is sufficient merit in the theory I herewith advance, to at least bespeak some consideration of scholars who are deep in sidereal lore.
I am aware that mankind is slow to accept the unusual and does not take kindly to ideas unless promulgated by well known authority. Many writers are prone to cling to popular authorities for a long time without question. Scientists have many times found it necessary to revise accepted formulas. Many theories have been advanced to account for the heat of the sun. This little article may call forth discussion leading to a correct solution of this unsettled question.
It not Surprising that one feeling the warmth of the sun's rays should look upon it as a heated body. If so, we must consider that this heat must be radiated through a space of 93,000,000miles; we wonder how it is possible for any substance to endure a heat so intense that we can feel its influence so far away and itself not be dissipated. C. A Young asks, 'How is such heat maintained? How long has it lasted already? How long will it continue? Are there any signs of either increase or diminution—questions to which, in the present state of science, only vague and unsafactury replies are possible." Forest Ray Moulton, I believe quoting Mr. Young. says, "Many different theories have been proposed, two of which now chiefly occupy the field. One of them finds the chief source of solar heat in the impact of meteoric matter. the other, in the slow contraction of the sun. The temperature is far beyond that required to melt or vaporize any known terrestrial substance. Many methods have been used for obtaining the temperature Of the sun, but most of them have rested on physical principles, which are unsound." One writer suggests that the sun is of or contains a large proportion of radium. With all the theories, they so far do not try to get away from the idea of radiation from a hot body, The sun's rays are different from any heat or light rays, produced by combustion of any substance on earth—more diffusive. I notice that after discarding the idea of a superheated sun, they fall back on the compression theory to explain the wonderful warming of this great luminary and cling to the thought of direct heat radiation. The experimenter in the use of his intricate apparatus, for measuring solar heat, does not take into consideration the combined effect of light and air, which might be quite different were it possible to measure the heat above the air.
The effect of the light ray on the atmosphere must surely lead one astray as to the ray per se. He is simply measuring the combined action of light and air.
The nearer we approach a heated body on earth, the more we feel the heat; on the contrary the nearer we approach the Sun the cooler we find the atmosphere, as evidenced by the aviator's experience as he ascends, and the perpetual snow on the highest mountains. This should cause to wonder if the Sun is really hot. Then arises the question: If the sun is not hot, What then is the explanation of the heat we receive from that source?
Perhaps there is a satisfactory answer to this world-age question, one that will clear up this much mooted phenomenon. We are told that everything is in a sort of vibration, nothing stands absolutely still. Our brain receives knowledge of the world through vibrations impinging on our organs of sense. All life and growth is the result of vibration and circulation. The heat of the sun is no exception to this law.
The sun's rays coming from a distance of 93,000,000 miles, at the astonishing rate of 186,000 miles per second, every atom of atmosphere receives the impact of a tremendous blow, coming with inconceivable rapidity. This onslaught on every atom, or molecule of the atmosphere, causes friction and vibration sufficient, together With an electro—Chemical action, to account adequately for all the heat we receive from this great orb of day.
Einstein states that beams of light have mass and weight, are deflected from a straight line by gravitation. Hence, if the sun's rays are proven to have weight it is reasonable to assume that their impinging on the atmospheric body would cause agitation and Vibration to account for the heat we receive from the sun. I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct. The sun is not hot, but gives us heat by the action of its rays on the intimate structure of the atmospheric through the vibrations of its electrons.
E. A. Converse M.D.
2327 N. W. 26th Miami Fla., October 24, 1926.
"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.

In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter. Here is a newspaper article from the time:
newspapers.com/clip/6047586/the_indianapolis_star/
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track. Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.

The bulk of the heat we feel on Earth then is from certain atmospheric molecules that will emit thermal IR for up to 5 minutes when struck by a single UV photon.

Required reading then would include something like this pdf:
Interaction of light with matter.
home.uchicago.edu/~tokmakoff/TDQMS/Notes 4.1.-4.5.%20master.pdf

For those who keep twisting my words when it comes to light travelling the vacuum this document starting on page 18 is worth the read. NASA performed experiments and made observations, the way things are supposed to be done.
Volume V - Lighting Considerations by Charles D. Wheelright
hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7290Lighting.pdf

Edit: I see I can not post URLs so shortened them.
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 27th January 2020, 05:55 PM   #135
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
MRC_Hans


The answer goes back as far as Sir William Herschel, who first discovered the non-visible light that produced heat. He also said that he thought the light out side of Earths atmosphere would not be suited to the process of vision.
Here is an well penned article I thought from Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74



"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.

In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter. Here is a newspaper article from the time:
newspapers.com/clip/6047586/the_indianapolis_star/
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track. Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.

The bulk of the heat we feel on Earth then is from certain atmospheric molecules that will emit thermal IR for up to 5 minutes when struck by a single UV photon.

Required reading then would include something like this pdf:
Interaction of light with matter.
home.uchicago.edu/~tokmakoff/TDQMS/Notes 4.1.-4.5.%20master.pdf

For those who keep twisting my words when it comes to light travelling the vacuum this document starting on page 18 is worth the read. NASA performed experiments and made observations, the way things are supposed to be done.
Volume V - Lighting Considerations by Charles D. Wheelright
hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7290Lighting.pdf

Edit: I see I can not post URLs so shortened them.


You need a minimum post count before the forum software will let you post links. Engage in the discussion and soon your ability to post links will be granted.

That said, the fact that your big evidence is an idiot’s letter to the editor from 1949 does not bode well for your argument. The fact that this was your big reveal is frankly pathetic. It’s like citing an 1890’s article to argue that heavier than air flight isn’t possible.
__________________
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 27th January 2020, 06:01 PM   #136
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Bump.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
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?
I really would like an answer, Solon.

What I am asking is pretty fundamental ... if we do not know what you mean by the key term “empirical”, how is a rational, meaningful discussion possible?
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 27th January 2020, 08:49 PM   #137
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Exclamation A fantasy of no observed light from the Sun outside of Earth's atmosphere

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...
Irrelevant quote from 1926 when you have your own debunked fantasies about light from the Sun. The idiocy of newspaper reports about deluded cranks (Horace Winfield Webster said astronauts will not be able to see the Sun, etc and they can). Go looking for Horace Winfield Webster and find an insane web page that says that there are no images taken away from Earth!

23 January 2020 Solon: Empirical evidence making a 9 year old () claim of no observed light from the Sun outside of Earth's atmosphere a fantasy.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th January 2020 at 08:56 PM.
Reality Check 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 27th January 2020, 11:24 PM   #138
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
"It not Surprising"
Yeah. Well written my butt. Or anyone's butt. You are a mere shuffle away from proposing an aether.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 12:44 AM   #139
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,604
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!
Agreed.

Therefore I believe nothing you have said because it is all just wishful thinking completely devoid of any evidence.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro 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 28th January 2020, 02:27 AM   #140
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,744
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.
The effect of the Sun's rays on the atmosphere has generated a lot of interest in recent years: Just check on all the literature on global warming.

Quote:
In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter.
There is not much mention of the solar neutrinos in that article. This is probably because in 1949, there was little understanding of how the Sun works, compared to today. The ideas of mr Webster have fallen by the wayside, probably even before they were written.

Quote:
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track.
Why do you believe this? The huge amount of knowledge that we have about the Sun today clearly shows that he was on the wrong track.

Quote:
Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.
Why is that puzzling? When you consider that his only known contribution to science was a dud, it is not surprising that he has not left a mark.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 28th January 2020, 04:36 AM   #141
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
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.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11745.jpg

This is a photograph of the sun, taken on the moon, with a conventional film camera. I assume you know such photos exist.

Since the moon has no atmosphere capable of absorbing measurable quantities of radiation, if this photo does not fully satisfy your search for evidence please explain why not.
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 28th January 2020, 05:46 AM   #142
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11745.jpg

This is a photograph of the sun, taken on the moon, with a conventional film camera. I assume you know such photos exist.

Since the moon has no atmosphere capable of absorbing measurable quantities of radiation, if this photo does not fully satisfy your search for evidence please explain why not.
Prove it's the Sun and not a big movie light on a movie stage. I sure the only empirical evidence acceptable to Solon would require putting him on a rocket and launching it.
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 28th January 2020, 06:00 AM   #143
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
You need a minimum post count before the forum software will let you post links. Engage in the discussion and soon your ability to post links will be granted.

That said, the fact that your big evidence is an idiot’s letter to the editor from 1949 does not bode well for your argument. The fact that this was your big reveal is frankly pathetic. It’s like citing an 1890’s article to argue that heavier than air flight isn’t possible.
It says something about the state of Solon's scientific literacy that he cites a magazine letter written in 1926 by a medical doctor who was ignorant of nuclear fusion (already proposed to be the source of the sun's heat in 1920 by Eddington), black body radiation, thermodynamics, relativity (light is massless), or even of Maxwell's equations, which had accurately described the nature and behavior of light more than a half-century earlier.

Solon, science has progressed just a little bit over the last century.
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 28th January 2020, 06:33 AM   #144
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter. Here is a newspaper article from the time:
newspapers.com/clip/6047586/the_indianapolis_star/
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track. Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Why is that puzzling? When you consider that his only known contribution to science was a dud, it is not surprising that he has not left a mark.
I took the liberty of rehosting the image on imgur so we could hotlink it:



I put the image through OCR and cleaned it up a bit. This is the 1943 claim Solon is basing his thesis on:

Quote:
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR
Space Ships May Lose Sigh t Of Sun, Moon After Takeoff
By HOWARD W. BLAKESLEE
New York, Feb. 17, 1943 Under a new theory of light, the space ship starting for the moon won't be able to see it after leaving the earth's atmosphere.

Stranger still, the ship no longer will be able to we the sun. This theory says that visible light If not emitted by the sun. The sun's rays are something that turns Into light In the atmosphere.

These rays are invisible even after being reflected from the moon, And remain so until they enter the air.

THE AUTHOR of the theory is Horace Winfield Webster, Detroit. He is a research physicist nnd astronomer, graduated In 1907 from Johns Hopkins, where he
majored In geology.

The rays from the sun he mays Are gamma radiation, which Is the shortest wave length form of light. Gamma ravs are identical with X-Rays and are equally
Invisible to lhe eye.

Gamma rays come only from the nuclei, or cores, of atoms. No other sort of light rays are emitted by these atomic centers. All the other rays from nuclei
are made of small particles.

Webster rays this gamma ray from atomic cores is the only kind of light whose source is known with certainty, and he assumes that It Is the source of visible light.

WHEN GAMMA RAYS pass through certain substances it is a proven fact that they change their wave lengths. Webster says that In his theory this known change proves that In the earth's atmosphere these rays Will he altered, becoming longer until they are the wave length that is visible to human eyes. It Is an accepted fact of science that the only difference between gamma rays and visible light is length Of the waves

The space ship navigator, under Webster's theory, could see the moon by using a fluoroscopic screen to change the gamma rays Into visible light. He could see the sun in the same manner.

But If this theory Is right, space ship travelers will have to lie shielded with plenty of lead. Otherwise the gamma rays In space will kill them.
Let's break this down, shall we?

A Geologist cooked up a "theory" of light that he appears to have never published in a scientific journal. In it he argues that the sun only emits gamma rays, which he asserts are identical to X-Rays. (They are not)

He further asserts that visible light is the result of the atmosphere altering the wavelength of the gamma rays.

He finally concedes that if his theory were right space travelers would need heavy lead shielding to avoid being killed by gamma radiation from the sun.

Gee, I wonder why an unpublished theory whose every stated underlying premise has been proven to be wrong never left a lasting mark on science...
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 06:43 AM   #145
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Solon, science has progressed just a little bit over the last century.
Are you British? That was a British-grade level of understatement.

Solon's claims have to literally ignore pretty much everything science has learned about light and nuclear reactions since the time of Edison. He chooses to address the fundamentally broken nature of his claims by demanding increasingly specific counter-evidence to a vague and largely tangential claim to a theory that is a steaming mound of nonsense.

You can't even legitimately BUILD to the claim that Sunlight isn't visible in space using Solon's suppositions, let alone demand proof of that final claim.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 06:57 AM   #146
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.
You're not finding the evidence you seek because you're not looking at the right parts of the theories. You're seeking very specific evidence about an end-point claim. The reality is that all the assumptions that went into claming that solar light would not be visible in space have been debunked. The end point you seek cannot be reached. You are trying to view the city from the 50th floor of a skyscraper that collapsed because it's foundations gave way.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 07:17 AM   #147
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Prove it's the Sun and not a big movie light on a movie stage. I sure the only empirical evidence acceptable to Solon would require putting him on a rocket and launching it.
I look forward to Solon's own explanation (if it's to be forthcoming) because so far as I can see he doesn't think it's impossible to send stuff into space. Nor that there's some conspiracy to pretend he's wrong about sunlight, he just thinks science is mistaken about it and there's really no sunlight in space, just x-rays or gamma rays.

So I'm genuinely puzzled about why he clings to one speculative pre-spaceflight conjecture which was demonstrated to be wrong right at the start of space exploration and has stayed wrong for decades since. Things astronauts don't say: "How strange: suddenly I can't see anything".
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 28th January 2020, 07:37 AM   #148
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,107
Solon, do you believe Planck's law is wrong?
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 28th January 2020, 08:07 AM   #149
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,839
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
MRC_Hans


The answer goes back as far as Sir William Herschel, who first discovered the non-visible light that produced heat. He also said that he thought the light out side of Earths atmosphere would not be suited to the process of vision.
Here is an well penned article I thought from Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74



"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.

In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter. Here is a newspaper article from the time:
newspapers.com/clip/6047586/the_indianapolis_star/
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track. Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.

The bulk of the heat we feel on Earth then is from certain atmospheric molecules that will emit thermal IR for up to 5 minutes when struck by a single UV photon.

Required reading then would include something like this pdf:
Interaction of light with matter.
home.uchicago.edu/~tokmakoff/TDQMS/Notes 4.1.-4.5.%20master.pdf

For those who keep twisting my words when it comes to light travelling the vacuum this document starting on page 18 is worth the read. NASA performed experiments and made observations, the way things are supposed to be done.
Volume V - Lighting Considerations by Charles D. Wheelright
hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7290Lighting.pdf

Edit: I see I can not post URLs so shortened them.
Solon:

To put it politely, your scientific skills are quite poor indeed.

If you still have that absurd idea that light cannot be transmitted through a vacuum, then just look at the sun, the moon, any planet, or any star because all of that light you are seeing was transmitted through the vacuum of space.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 08:27 AM   #150
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
I think a more fundamental problem with the original conjecture is that it claims the sun feels warm to us because it makes the sky hot.

We can trivially disprove that notion by standing in the cool of a shadow while maintaining a view of most of the sky, versus standing in a warming beam of direct sunlight with no view of most of the sky.

(And as for visible light, well it's even easier to see exactly which direction almost all that light is coming from.)
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 28th January 2020, 10:53 AM   #151
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon, please address the numerous questions and refutations already put to you before throwing out 70+ year old claptrap.

Also, please answer this question: Why are you so afraid of being wrong?

Why do you ignore the explanations of your numerous mistakes; the evidence (you claim didn’t exist) repeatedly provided to you; the multiple contradictions in your claims?

Why are you so afraid of being wrong? No one here would laugh at you for admitting a mistake. On the contrary, you would be applauded for actually doing something... scientific.
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 28th January 2020, 11:43 AM   #152
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,710
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The answer goes back as far as Sir William Herschel, who first discovered the non-visible light that produced heat. He also said that he thought the light out side of Earths atmosphere would not be suited to the process of vision.
Here is an well penned article I thought from Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74

Quote:
Heat Of the Sun.—I have no doubt what I am about to write will meet with skepticism and be considered as a vagary of an untrained mind. Be it so, I have the satisfaction to know that the scientific world is no nearer a solution of the sun's heat, than a guess.
In the early 1900's, the energy source of the sun was indeed a huge mystery. Scientists knew if couldn't be chemical combustion, and it couldn't be gravitational compression, since neither mechanism produces nearly enough energy to keep the sun going for as long as we know it's been going. But although this problem may have inspired Herschel, he doesn't actually have a solution to it.

But we know what the solution is now. It's nuclear fusion. The idea was first published in 1926, but Herschel likely didn't know about it, and it wasn't until 1939 that a specific fusion pathway was understood. So Herschel's ignorance of fusion is completely understandable, and in the absence of knowledge about fusion, the mystery of the sun's energy is indeed baffling and can understandably lead to pretty wild speculation.

Quote:
In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter.
That's correct. Nuclear fusion produces gamma rays, and those gamma rays are converted to lower frequencies by interacting with matter. But this doesn't happen at the surface of the sun. Stellar fusion occurs deep in the interior of the sun, and there's far, far more gas between the interior and the surface than there is in Earth's atmosphere. In fact, there's more matter between the stellar interior where fusion occurs and the surface than there is total mass on earth. The conversion takes place long before light ever reaches the surface of the sun.
__________________
"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 28th January 2020, 12:03 PM   #153
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,257
How vacuous does a vacuum have to be in order to eliminate light? Does a partial vacuum dim it? If not, why not? It seems trivially possible to put a camera inside an evacuated chamber and fire it. For control, let the air into the same chamber and fire it again. Check the exposure level.

Of course this experiment is littered with poorly anchored goal posts, and seems far too simple, but it has the advantage that it could be done without launching the observer 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 28th January 2020, 12:08 PM   #154
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
<snip for brevity>
Alas, mere facts are irrelevant. The established MO is to appear, lob a random hand grenade and read no responses. A ban happens and a new venue must be sought in order to repeat the very same cycle. And here we all are at the very start of the current one. We are merely the site-du-jour.

Your facts, while accurate, laudable and what have you, will gain you no traction at all. This has all happened before and this will all happen again. Keep that powder dry for a protagonist that actually engages.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 12:36 PM   #155
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
How vacuous does a vacuum have to be in order to eliminate light? Does a partial vacuum dim it? If not, why not? It seems trivially possible to put a camera inside an evacuated chamber and fire it. For control, let the air into the same chamber and fire it again. Check the exposure level.

Of course this experiment is littered with poorly anchored goal posts, and seems far too simple, but it has the advantage that it could be done without launching the observer into space.
We could certainly design such an experiment, since Solon has claimed that the attenuation rate of EM/transverse waves in a vacuum is known.

So what is it, Solon? Let’s do some science!
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 28th January 2020, 12:51 PM   #156
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,839
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In the early 1900's, the energy source of the sun was indeed a huge mystery. Scientists knew if couldn't be chemical combustion, and it couldn't be gravitational compression, since neither mechanism produces nearly enough energy to keep the sun going for as long as we know it's been going. But although this problem may have inspired Herschel, he doesn't actually have a solution to it.

But we know what the solution is now. It's nuclear fusion. The idea was first published in 1926, but Herschel likely didn't know about it, and it wasn't until 1939 that a specific fusion pathway was understood. So Herschel's ignorance of fusion is completely understandable, and in the absence of knowledge about fusion, the mystery of the sun's energy is indeed baffling and can understandably lead to pretty wild speculation.



That's correct. Nuclear fusion produces gamma rays, and those gamma rays are converted to lower frequencies by interacting with matter. But this doesn't happen at the surface of the sun. Stellar fusion occurs deep in the interior of the sun, and there's far, far more gas between the interior and the surface than there is in Earth's atmosphere. In fact, there's more matter between the stellar interior where fusion occurs and the surface than there is total mass on earth. The conversion takes place long before light ever reaches the surface of the sun.
Thanks much for the good posting 'Ziggurat'.

Hopefully, these clearly stated and important facts will make a good impression on 'Solon'.
__________________
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 28th January 2020, 01:19 PM   #157
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,553
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
MRC_Hans


The answer goes back as far as Sir William Herschel, who first discovered the non-visible light that produced heat. He also said that he thought the light out side of Earths atmosphere would not be suited to the process of vision.
Here is an well penned article I thought from Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74



"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct."
The investigations still have not been done, or if they have I have found no results.
The last sentence is false. Such investigations have indeed been done. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe

Quote:
In 1949 Horrace Winfield Webster put forward the most likely model. Light from the Sun starts out as gamma radiation and is transformed by interaction of such light with matter. Here is a newspaper article from the time:
newspapers.com/clip/6047586/the_indianapolis_star/
Although I don't believe the fluoroscope would work either, he was on the right track. Puzzling about Winfield Webster is that although I found his graduating class information, there is nothing else to be found of this man in academia, science, industry, business, nothing until his recorded arrival at the port of Victoria, Canada, in 1978 and his obituary in the late 80s.

The bulk of the heat we feel on Earth then is from certain atmospheric molecules that will emit thermal IR for up to 5 minutes when struck by a single UV photon.
What are those "certain atmospheric molecules"? Where would they get the energy to do that?

Also, there is a specific problem with that thesis: Both visible light and heat can easily be shown to come from the direction of the Sun. If it was a secondary emission from the atmosphere, it would be diffuse.

You are in search of a solution which would be in search of a problem.

- We have long since established that the entire electromagnetic spectrum can traverse virtually unlimited expanses of vacuum without any attenuation other than what comes from the square rule. Thus, we can detect individual and distinct spectra from even immensely distant objects in the universe.

If that emission was to somehow be a secondary emission from Earth's atmosphere, it would seem identical from all radiation sources outside Earth. This is far from the case.

... Etc.

In conclusion, I would suggest that if you are actually interested in pursuing science, you start by actually studying science.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 28th January 2020, 01:59 PM   #158
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Bump.


I really would like an answer, Solon.

What I am asking is pretty fundamental ... if we do not know what you mean by the key term “empirical”, how is a rational, meaningful discussion possible?
3.capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment [as in] empirical laws

With the Apollo astronauts for example, both observation and experiment were performed from cislunar space and the conclusion was that the stars were not visible.

Transcript from A16:

Quote:
“219 00 33 Mattingly (EVA): It is that, all right. I don't even see any stars.

219 33 44 Duke (onboard): Okay. Can you see the sunsight?

219 33 46 Young (onboard): On this - on this event timer, Charlie, I got 04:16. Is that right?

219 33 50 Duke (onboard): That thing ain't working. No. Can you see the sunsight, Ken?

219 33 57 Mattingly (EVA): No, sir.

219 36 48 Mattingly (EVA): You get a good look at the Earth, Charlie?

219 36 49 Duke (onboard): Oh, yeah. And I spun around and looked at the Moon, too. The thing that impresses me, though, is how black it is, Ken. Yeah, is it black!

219 37 05 Mattingly (EVA): I'm really surprised I don't see any stars.

219 37 07 Young (onboard): Charlie's only said 25 times it's black out there.

219 37 11 Duke (onboard): What?

219 37 12 Young (onboard): You've only said that 25 times. (Laughter)

219 37 14 Duke (onboard): (Garble) see (garble) (laughter).

219 37 15 Young (onboard): It really must be black out there! (Laughter)

219 37 17 Duke (onboard): It's really black! (Laughter)”
The low light photography was an attempt to photograph the Gum nebula but the images showed nothing. They use the very high speed 2485 film with up to 3 minutes of exposure.

lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?125

I am perfectly willing to accept this as empirical evidence, why does nobody else seem to want to?
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 28th January 2020, 02:08 PM   #159
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?125

I am perfectly willing to accept this as empirical evidence, why does nobody else seem to want to?
We do. Here's your link made clickable:

http://lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo.../magazine/?125

Now why don't you accept this next link as empirical evidence?

http://lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo.../magazine/?124
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 28th January 2020, 02:11 PM   #160
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Gee, I wonder why an unpublished theory whose every stated underlying premise has been proven to be wrong never left a lasting mark on science...
Part of what makes the web site mentioning Horace Winfield Webster insane is firstly that it lies about his delusions. As the newspaper says , any spacecraft will not be able to see the Sun, Moon or stars. The web site author has a delusion of only astronauts only looking directly away from the Earth as if the Earth's atmosphere covers half the sky! But any image of the limb of the Earth shows the atmosphere is a thin layer.
The first insanity is that we have spacecraft taking millions of images of the Sun, Moon and stars ! Ditto for Mercury, ice moons, asteroids, comets (no atmosphere to do the authors stupidity of converting gamma rays into visible light).
The next insanity is an image of the Earth and the Sun from the ISS (presumably taken by an astronaut) on the web page with the 2 well separated. The Sun is shinning light directly into the camera with no intervening atmosphere .
The next insanity is an image of the Sun from the Moon. Once again, light directly from the Sun into the camera through the vacuum of space and above the Moon's surface. A delusion about lunar dust doing the same as Earth's atmosphere.
The next insanity is his lie that SOHO or SDO do not take images in the visible spectrum. SDO does. But his delusion is a Sun only emitting gamma rays. No solar observatory in space should be able to take any images except in gamma rays !
A delusion that pyrheliometers are the only way to measure solar irradiance and it is not measured in space. All modern TSI satellite instruments employ active cavity electrical substitution radiometry.
Gets his "science" from video by an Eric Dollard, an electrical engineer. A Nikola Tesla worshiper and modern physics crank with videos about his delusions that the Sun and stars cannot be seen from space (ISS, Hubble!), etc. and total gibberish about the Sun.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th January 2020 at 02:41 PM.
Reality Check 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 03:02 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.