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 28th January 2020, 02:15 PM   #161
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Over on the Conjunctions thread, you were provided with numerous examples of astronauts seeing the Moon and stars during translunar coast - including from 100,000 miles away, immediately after you “calculated” this was impossible.

Here’s an example from the A17 debrief:
Originally Posted by Harrison Schmitt
It's not of major importance, but it's interesting that you were continually saying that it was hard to pick groups of stars and to identify groups of stars in the telescope when you could look out the window, as long as the Sun was on the other side of the spacecraft, and identify constellations with no problem.
Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong that you dishonestly pretend refutations and counterexamples don’t exist?
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, 02:16 PM   #162
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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:



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?
Star Cluster Westerlund 2 at the Heart of the Nebula Gum 29 taken by the Hubble telescope above the atmosphere in a vacuum. Is this empirical? y
Attached Images
File Type: jpg westerlund2-hst-4324x3240_print.jpg (122.9 KB, 12 views)

Last edited by Steve001; 28th January 2020 at 02:18 PM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2020, 02:35 PM   #163
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
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.
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed, and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?

Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope
skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/testbed-paves-way-for-amateur-space-telescope/#sthash.ctwAYxsY.dpuf

Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
drewexmachina.com/2014/04/16/vintage-micro-the-amateur-space-telescope/
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, 02:38 PM   #164
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down A small lie and fantasy that Apollo astronauts must see stars from cislunar space

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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.
29 January 2020 Solon: A small lie and fantasy that Apollo astronauts must see stars from cislunar space.
The small lie is a transcript of a few minutes from Apollo 16. There were multiple Apollo missions. They spent days in cislunar space. The delusion that stars cannot ne seen from space (they can by Hubble, etc.) needs nanlysis of all of the Apollo missions listing the times when stars could be seen and that no stars were ever seen.

If an astronaut is in sunlight the light will essentially blind their eyes for fainter objects such as stars.

29 January 2020 Solon: A "I am perfectly willing to accept this as empirical evidence, why does nobody else seem to want to?" lie .
We accept that this is empirical evidence that in 1 Apollo mission and 1 EVA, 1 astronaut could not see the stars. There is textbook biology and physics that give an explanation for this.
We have millions of images taken from spacecraft such as Hubble that show that stars are visible in space.

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.28 January 2020 Solon: Cites a 1949 crank with the obvious delusion that the Sun only emits gamma rays and the Sun, Moon and star cannot be seen from spacecraft.
Today that is an insane delusion because we have millions of images of the Sun, Moon and stars from space.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th January 2020 at 02:47 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 28th January 2020, 02:39 PM   #165
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes
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, 02:46 PM   #166
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,334
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.
Crowd Fund?
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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, 02:52 PM   #167
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Crowd Fund?
No prob. Can you guarantee to launch this nonsense into an orbit for which there is no solution?
__________________
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, 02:56 PM   #168
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,334
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
No prob. Can you guarantee to launch this nonsense into an orbit for which there is no solution?
If I attempt to calculate the launch path I can guarantee no solution!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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, 03:08 PM   #169
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed,
Funds. It is not everyone else's fault that you cannot count.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?
Because you make your criteria so impossibly narrow that no space telescopes exist at all. You merely attempt to define your crank-du-jour into existence by simple fiat.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope
skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/testbed-paves-way-for-amateur-space-telescope/#sthash.ctwAYxsY.dpuf
Does not support your crankery.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
drewexmachina.com/2014/04/16/vintage-micro-the-amateur-space-telescope/
]Does not support your crankery.

Frankly, you appear to have no interest in supporting your original claim. You likely have no clue what you claimed in the first place and have blithely wandered off into a miasma of other claims. That is a blatant gish gallop.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 28th January 2020 at 03:09 PM.
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, 03:14 PM   #170
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Funds. It is not everyone else's fault that you cannot count.

Because you make your criteria so impossibly narrow that no space telescopes exist at all. You merely attempt to define your crank-du-jour into existence by simple fiat.

Does not support your crankery.

Does not support your crankery.

Frankly, you appear to have no interest in supporting your original claim. You likely have no clue what you claimed in the first place and have blithely wandered off into a miasma of other claims. That is a blatant gish gallop.
ETA: Of course, you will not read nor respond to anything posted. You will allow a week or so to elapse before the next crank post. No one here is in the snake oil market.
__________________
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, 03:22 PM   #171
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Question Looks like a bit of paranoia about Hubble and ignorance about space telescopes

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed, and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?
29 January 2019 Solon: Looks like a bit of paranoia about Hubble and ignorance about space telescopes.
If Hubble was the only space telescope, its millions of images of stars will still be images of stars from space. Is Hubble being funded by NASA an issue for you? It is not for most people.
There are dozens of space telescopes from many space capable nations. Hubble is not the first or last visible light space telescope. Gaia's second data release has "positions, parallaxes and proper motions for about 1.3 billion stars and positions of an additional 300 million stars in the magnitude range g = 3–20". Gaia does not fit a demand for images but had to detect those billions of stars making any fantasy of no stars visible in space into a delusion.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th January 2020 at 04:13 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 28th January 2020, 03:52 PM   #172
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Are you British? That was a British-grade level of understatement.
Sorry, I drive on the right side of the road.
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, 03:52 PM   #173
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?
You mean like India (Astrosat), Canada (MOST), the European Space Agency (several), Austria and Poland along with Canada (BRITE), and various other collaborations?

Just as you have many times before, you asserted something that is manifestly untrue and trivially disproven. What is your excuse this time?

And, more importantly - 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 28th January 2020, 04:15 PM   #174
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...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...
This is:
(a) completely disconnected fom what you have been spouting about light conversion in the ionosphere;
(b) immediately and obviously untrue to anyone who has ever stepped from shadow into sunshine; and
(c) contradicted by over half a century of spacecraft design and planetary science.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...For those who keep twisting my words when it comes to light travelling the vacuum..,
No one is twisting your words. Your problem is that we are paying attention to them, despite your rambling, self-contradictory Gish gallop.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...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.
This technical note has literally nothing at all to do with your claims.

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 28th January 2020, 04:20 PM   #175
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Thanks!

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
3.capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment [as in] empirical laws

<snip>
Here are some of the key parts of what you wrote in the OP:

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.
Then the data from many space probes which have studied the Sun will count as "empirical scientific evidence"1. Such as the data from STEREO.

Quote:
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.
Per your definition of empirical, data from any sufficiently well calibrated instrument would also be "acceptable proof", right?

I'm curious about this caveat though: "not low Earth orbit". Empirically, objects in stable low Earth orbit are "outside of Earths atmosphere" ... if they weren't, they wouldn't be in orbit. Can you clarify please?

Quote:
Direct measurement of the Suns heat using the same type of equipment that we use from Earths surface, e.g. a pyrheliometer.
And, just like for visible light, data from any sufficiently well calibrated instrument would also be "acceptable proof", right?

Quote:
Comments and observations on the appearance of the Sun from anyone who has been outside of low Earth orbit e.g. the Apollo astronauts.
I'm a bit puzzled by this ... how can "comments" be empirical?

1 Though, logically, we should also spend some time making sure we are on the same page re "scientific". Later.
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 28th January 2020, 04:43 PM   #176
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon claims that light doesn’t travel very far in a vacuum as ordinary EM transverse waves. He says it’s “plane waves” that propagate through vacuum over long distances. (He’s also said the rate of falloff is known, and has claimed to use this in at least one calculation, but refuses to say what it is despite repeated requests.)

Never mind that plane waves are merely a representation of ordinary transverse EM waves from a distant source, not a distinct physical phenomenon. Many people have explained this to him, but he refuses to acknowledge this.

Never mind that, contrary to his claims, visible light travels through a vacuum exactly the same way as IR, UV, X, and gamma waves.

Anyway, he claims the ionosphere is required to convert these “plane waves” back into visible light. (Except when he starts talking about the stratosphere, or something else altogether.) He’s said that if you look up (zenith) from the ISS, there’s not enough ionosphere to perform this conversion, so the sky would be black. (He says looking along the Earth’s limb provides enough ionosphere for this to happen, although he’s repeatedly asserted that there were no pictures of [insert object here] under this condition, only to be immediately shown such images.)

Except he also says that the much more tenuous lunar atmosphere does allow for this conversion. And, according to his claims, the station should be plunged into darkness near orbital noon, which manifestly does not happen.

He also says, due to some mysterious difference between a handheld camera and more advanced scientific instruments that allow only the latter to see in deep space, there are no “camera” images from deep space. Except that imagers like LORRI, which show just that, are simply space-rated cameras with fat telephoto lenses, exceeded in sensitivity by many amateur setups. He’s also studiously ignored this when it has been repeatedly pointed out to him.

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 28th January 2020, 06:00 PM   #177
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed, and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?

Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope
skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/testbed-paves-way-for-amateur-space-telescope/#sthash.ctwAYxsY.dpuf

Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
drewexmachina.com/2014/04/16/vintage-micro-the-amateur-space-telescope/
Awaiting a reply to post 162.
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, 07:05 PM   #178
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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.
29 January 2019 Solon: Links to material irrelevant to the "Heat and Light from the Sun" delusion.
The delusion looks like (but is incoherent and subject to his whims)
  • The Sun only emits gamma rays.
  • We only detect visible light from the Sun on Earth.
  • No light form the Sun (or Moon or stars) has ever been detected in space.
The reality is
  • The properties of the Sun such as measured temperature from the ground and space means that it emits light over a wide range of the spectrum.
  • We detect more than just the visible spectrum.
    Solar observatories on Earth detect light ranging from the far infrared to ultraviolet. More importantly we observe spectral lines which give us the composition of the body that emitted the spectrum. The light was emitted from a body made of 73.46% H and 24.85% He. This is not the Earth's atmosphere!
  • We have spacecraft that have detected billions of stars and taken millions of images of the Sun, Moon and stars.
Interaction of Light with Matter is chemistry notes about spectroscopy (i.e. what shows us sunlight is not produced by Earth's atmosphere !).
Irrelevant to your delusions.

Volume V - Lighting Considerations by Charles D. Wheelright is about the lighting system for Apollo, e.g. so that controls are easily readable.
Irrelevant to your delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th January 2020 at 07:11 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 28th January 2020, 10:22 PM   #179
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,257
I note in that Volume V cited by Solon, the following:

Quote:
Sunshafting.- The effect of sunlight entering the windows presents a problem. At first, it may seem reasonable to use the sunlight for illumination. However, further analysis reveals that sunshafting through the windows is not desirable. Sunlight is nearly parallel, similar to a spotlight. Consequently, whatever is illuminated by sun*light within the crew compartment will be illuminated to the point that everything else will be nearly silhouetted. As the spacecraft turns, the position of the illuminated spot will move, perhaps into the face of the astronaut. Dark adaptation, which is necessary in several tasks, would be impossible. Also, the heat energy introduced into the space*craft by the sunlight would have to be dissipated. Therefore, it was decided that, under normal conditions, sunlight would be eliminated completely from the crew compartment. The elimination of sunlight was accomplished by the use of opaque window shades.
In keeping with our correspondent's preference for 19th century evidence, perhaps the window shades were like the night blinds on an antarctic ship - to keep the light seeking lunarians from flying into the windows at night?
__________________
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 29th January 2020, 04:31 AM   #180
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
If the sun and stars only emitted gamma rays, then we might expect those space telescopes which detect gamma rays to have recorded their unexpectedly dazzling brightness in that part of the spectrum.

I'm going to venture a guess that this has not been the case and eagerly await Solon's conjecture on why this particular dog did not bark in the night.
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 29th January 2020, 06:28 AM   #181
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed, and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?
Are you intentionally lying or just speculating without having done any research?

Do you often present your vague, unchecked opinions as "facts" or was this an anomaly?

If you are intentionally lying, why? What do you hope to achieve by lying to people about easily checked claims?

Note to moderators: I am not accusing Solon of lying yet. I am merely inquiring about the nature of his misinformation. Specifically, I seek to learn if it is intentional or not. His further conduct in the thread will determine if I accuse him of deliberately lying.
__________________
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; 29th January 2020 at 06:32 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 29th January 2020, 07:52 AM   #182
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,839
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Amateur Space Telescopes have never been deployed, and why is it that no other space capable nation has its own space telescope?

Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope
skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/testbed-paves-way-for-amateur-space-telescope/#sthash.ctwAYxsY.dpuf

Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
drewexmachina.com/2014/04/16/vintage-micro-the-amateur-space-telescope/
I am not sure if you are:

a) a person who being willfully ignorant of basic facts,
b) or if you are a person who is liar about basic facts,
c) or if you are a person who is some combination of being both ignorant and a liar.

In any case, you have done an excellent job of making yourself look quite nonsensical.
__________________
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 29th January 2020, 08:12 AM   #183
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,088
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
Indeed. Otherwise our gamma ray images of the Sun from whatever distance, in space, or on Earth, would be ablaze with gamma. They aren't. And there is bugger all to convert the gamma to visible along the way from solar surface to Earth. More to the point, what the hell did the idiot who proposed this think all that gamma impacting our atmosphere would do to it? And any putative lifeforms below? The chap was clearly insane and/or scientifically illiterate.

This is most definitely in the realms of EU non-science. Reminds me of the idiot Don Scott's claim for the neutrinos we detected, back in the day when there was still a 'deficit'; it was due to fusion in a non-existent double layer in the chromosphere! Same problem as above - all that gamma would kill us. Dumb ideas from people who haven't got a scooby about any relevant science. 'Twas ever thus with the EU loons.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 29th January 2020, 08:20 AM   #184
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Post

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Dumb ideas from people who haven't got a scooby about any relevant science. 'Twas ever thus with the EU loons.
Horrace Winfield Webster was a geologist. He is apparently best known for absolute ******** about nuclear fusion and optics. If that was the mark he left, I doubt he was a very good geologist.
__________________
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 29th January 2020, 09:05 AM   #185
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,088
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Horrace Winfield Webster was a geologist. He is apparently best known for absolute ******** about nuclear fusion and optics. If that was the mark he left, I doubt he was a very good geologist.
Precisely. And Don Scott was an electrical engineer. I might let him rewire my flat, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near an institution teaching physics in general, and astrophysics in particular!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 29th January 2020, 09:40 AM   #186
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon, over on CQ you stated:
Originally Posted by Solon
Lets just put this nonsense that transverse waves do not travel through a vacuum to rest.
I stated clearly that they do not travel far, reread my post. Far is a relative term, but the distance at which they will be too weak to detect, without some very sensitive sensors, and some on-chip electron amplification, is known.
EM radiation that travels billions of light years can only be travelling as a plane wave
It is the fall of rate( of transverse) which we have to consider, and that rate is known...
1. What is that rate, exactly?

2. Why do you keep saying transverse waves and plane waves are distinct physical phenomena? As has been explained many times to you, plane waves are merely a representation of transverse waves from a distant source.

3. Why are you so afraid of being wrong?

Last edited by sts60; 29th January 2020 at 09:43 AM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2020, 09:49 AM   #187
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Solon, over on CQ you stated:


1. What is that rate, exactly?

2. Why do you keep saying transverse waves and plane waves are distinct physical phenomena? As has been explained many times to you, plane waves are merely a representation of transverse waves from a distant source.

3. Why are you so afraid of being wrong?
Perhaps it is a secret.

Maybe a better question about the claimed "fall rate of transverse waves" is that if, as Solon claimed, the rate is known, by whom is it known?
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 29th January 2020, 10:00 AM   #188
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Well, after being shown an example of an observation from 50,000 miles away from the Moon, he ”calculated” that was ”about the limit” (or words to that effect). So he apparently knows. I’ve asked him before what it is, and he hasn’t answered, so i’m asking again.

By the way, after saying 50,000 miles was the limit to see the Moon, he was given a sighting from 100,000 miles away. Oddly, he never acknowledged that.

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 29th January 2020, 01:23 PM   #189
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
Jean Tate:
Quote:
Then the data from many space probes which have studied the Sun will count as "empirical scientific evidence"1. Such as the data from STEREO.
Excepting that these instruments are NOT camaeras that see what your eyes would see if you were where the instruments are located. It seems there is no technical understanding at all amongst the skeptics here of how these instruments function, and surely a skeptic MUST have an understanding in order to be able to venture any opinions whatsoever.

Quote:
Per your definition of empirical, data from any sufficiently well calibrated instrument would also be "acceptable proof", right?
An unmodified, off the shelf, Bayer filtered digital camera with a solar filter and appropriate exposure settings, along with the cameras full EXIF data. No spectral devices that require the use of sub-pixel interferometry, Fourier transforms, artistic license, or the other many 'tricks' that NASA in particular uses to make us think that a trip to space will allow us to see the heavens clearer than we would from Earth. How many astronauts, highly trained observers with the very best of eyesight, saying it is totally black out there do you need to hear before you would consider they may be correct?

Quote:
I'm curious about this caveat though: "not low Earth orbit". Empirically, objects in stable low Earth orbit are "outside of Earths atmosphere" ... if they weren't, they wouldn't be in orbit. Can you clarify please?
The density of the atmosphere is important to the conversion of shorter wavelengths of solar radiation to the longer ones. The nature of the matter is important as the interaction of the radiation with matter will have different results depending on the form of matter. Is it electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, particles? Earths exosphere goes out beyond the Moon, so even in cislunar space it is not a total, completely empty vacuum, but for the purposes of visible light photography then cislunar space is acceptable for my experiments.

Quote:
I'm a bit puzzled by this ... how can "comments" be empirical?
If the people who perform the observations don't comment on them there would be no science at all would there?

sts60
Quote:
Solon, why are you so afraid of being wrong?
Not afraid at all, many scientists have been shown to be wrong about some of their theories, it's part of the learning process. The experiments to prove me wrong are so cheap and simple and conclusive if you have access to space, yet have not been performed, and I am very skeptical indeed because of this lack of these most basic experiments.
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 29th January 2020, 01:30 PM   #190
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Excepting that these instruments are NOT camaeras that see what your eyes would see if you were where the instruments are located.
That's irrelevant and you know it. You are making up a false distinction not supported by your underlying claims.

The question, according to your own claims, is if the cameras are taking in gamma rays and recording them as visible light instead. They are not. This means the images from those cameras provide reliable refutations of your cockamamie and scientifically illiterate whargarble.
__________________
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 29th January 2020, 01:34 PM   #191
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?
Based upon his posts here I think he knows full well he's wrong, he just prefers to play the role of someone who believes outright drivel and nonsense either for entertainment or to prove some sort of obtuse and personal "point."
__________________
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 29th January 2020, 01:54 PM   #192
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Excepting that these instruments are NOT camaeras that see what your eyes would see if you were where the instruments are located.
Neither are the cameras you claim you would accept as proof. Their sensitivities, dynamic response, and color response differ from human eyes. You are contradicting yourself (again).

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
It seems there is no technical understanding at all amongst the skeptics here of how these instruments function, and surely a skeptic MUST have an understanding in order to be able to venture any opinions whatsoever.
You still believe that plane waves are a distinct physical phenomenon from transverse waves. You’ve repeatedly made wrong claims about specific topics that were immediately countered with examples. You’ve proven yourself profoundly ignorant on the history, design, and operation of spacecraft. You have no room to lecture anyone about “understanding”.

Even though I’ve operated a meter-class telescope and have a degree in space physics and over a quarter-century in the space field, though, I don’t need you to apologize; I’m amused rather than offended. I would just like you to learn something. But you can’t learn if you are afraid to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
An unmodified, off the shelf, Bayer filtered digital camera with a solar filter and appropriate exposure settings, along with the cameras full EXIF data. No spectral devices that require the use of sub-pixel interferometry, Fourier transforms, artistic license, or the other many 'tricks' that NASA in particular uses to make us think that a trip to space will allow us to see the heavens clearer than we would from Earth.
First, you are in no position to insist on what instrument is or is not suitable for astronomical imaging.

More importantly, though, numerous examples of imagers that do not use “ sub-pixel interferometry, Fourier transforms, artistic license, or the other many 'tricks'” have been provided to you. For example, the LORRI imager, which is just a megapixel camera with a fat telephoto lens. You simply refuse to acknowledge them, or move the goalposts again.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
How many astronauts, highly trained observers with the very best of eyesight, saying it is totally black out there do you need to hear before you would consider they may be correct?
How many astronauts who have reported that you can see stars and planets from cislunar space as you going to ignore?

Remember when you said that about 50,000 miles was the limit for seeing the Moon? Remember when I immediately provided an example of a sighting from about 100,000 miles away? What is your excuse for ignoring that?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The density of the atmosphere is important to the conversion of shorter wavelengths of solar radiation to the longer ones. The nature of the matter is important as the interaction of the radiation with matter will have different results depending on the form of matter. Is it electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, particles?
You’re wandering around in circles again. You explicitly said previously that visible light “conversion” occurred in the ionosphere. Now you’re mixing things up with the neutral atmosphere again. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and it shows.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Earths exosphere goes out beyond the Moon, so even in cislunar space it is not a total, completely empty vacuum, but for the purposes of visible light photography then cislunar space is acceptable for my experiments.
Observations from Apollo astronauts in cislunar space directly refute your claim. When this was first pointed out to you, you made a halfhearted wave at Apollo conspiracy theories. Now you’re back to simply ignoring them.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Not afraid at all, many scientists have been shown to be wrong about some of their theories, it's part of the learning process.
You’re not afraid; you’re terrified. You keep running away from your mistakes rather than deal with them. You’re no scientist. You haven’t learned a thing. Worse, though, you refuse to learn from people who actually know what they’re talking about. That’s all on you.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The experiments to prove me wrong are so cheap and simple and conclusive if you have access to space, yet have not been performed, and I am very skeptical indeed because of this lack of these most basic experiments.
You said the rate of falloff of transverse EM waves was known. What is it?

Last edited by sts60; 29th January 2020 at 02:01 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 29th January 2020, 01:57 PM   #193
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Oh, yes: according to your claims, the space station should be plunged into darkness near every orbital noon. Yet this manifestly does not happen. When will you acknowledge this error? More importantly, how will you revise your... “theory” to account for this?

Last edited by sts60; 29th January 2020 at 02:14 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 29th January 2020, 02:05 PM   #194
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Oh, I almost forgot: you claimed that the portion of the ionosphere above the ISS is insufficient for light conversion, while the lunar atmosphere is - even though there is much more ionosphere above the ISS than there is above any point on the Moon. You are contradicting yourself (again).

Are you wrong about the ISS? Or the Moon? Or both? (Spoiler alert: it’s the last one.)
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 29th January 2020, 02:10 PM   #195
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Finally, you like to tout your Colombo-like sensibilities so here’s one for you: “oh, just one more thing” – you’ve repeatedly claimed that images of such-and-such an object from such-and-such a platform didn’t exist, only to be quickly proven wrong by examples that were easy to find. Has this ever, even once, made you ask yourself if you were justified in assuming that all those astronomers and physicists and space engineers and astronauts were part of a massive conspiracy to cover up The Awful Truth? Because that conspiracy is an essential consequence of your premise.
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 29th January 2020, 04:52 PM   #196
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down An idiotic and ignorant requirement that cameras see what eyes see

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Excepting that these instruments are NOT camaeras that see what your eyes would see if you were where the instruments are located....
30 January 2020 Solon: An idiotic and ignorant requirement that cameras see what eyes see.
Cameras are not biological. They do not duplicate eyes. What they do is what debunks your delusions - take millions of images of the Sun, Moon and stars in visible light from space and Gaia has detected over a billion stars using visible light.
What is totally idiotic is that Apollo astronauts, astronauts on the ISS, etc. have seen the Sun, Moon and stars with their eyes !

30 January 2020 Solon: Followed by deluded requirements for images by cameras and paranoia about NASA.

30 January 2020 Solon: Idiocy about the Earth's exosphere.
Some "goes out beyond the Moon" ignorance. The scientific upper boundary is halfway to the Moon. However in a sense the Earth's atmosphere extends much further - there is probably a molecule or two outside of the Solar System !
A delusion that the almost vacuum of the exosphere affects visibility when he states that density of the atmosphere is a factor!

30 January 2020 Solon: A deluded "The experiments to prove me wrong are so cheap and simple and conclusive if you have access to space, yet have not been performed" lie.
The millions of images of the Sun, Moon and stars in visible light from space and Gaia's billion stars using visible light prove him wrong. Experiments in space are relatively expensive and rarely simple. If it were an ISS experiment then cheap and simple is possible because the infrastructure exists.

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.
And now you are just digging deeper into a pit of ignorance and delusion:
29 January 2020 Solon: A small lie and fantasy that Apollo astronauts must see stars from cislunar space.
29 January 2020 Solon: A "I am perfectly willing to accept this as empirical evidence, why does nobody else seem to want to?" lie.
29 January 2020 Solon: Looks like a bit of paranoia about Hubble and ignorance about space telescopes.
29 January 2020 Solon: Links to material irrelevant to the "Heat and Light from the Sun" delusion.

You are ignoring the real world where the solar spectrum has absorption spectral lines in it showing it passed through an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium The Earth's atmosphere only has trace amounts of H and He.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th January 2020 at 06:46 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 29th January 2020, 05:30 PM   #197
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,894
I always find it extremely telling which posts someone responds to, and which ones they ignore.

It speaks so eloquently of how aware they are of the shortcomings of their arguments than anything they actually say.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 29th January 2020, 06:30 PM   #198
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Well, I think he’s afraid to admit it to himself, so he can’t bring himself to confront these blatant gaps and self-contradictions. But I’m no pshrink; it’s just my guess.
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 29th January 2020, 06:57 PM   #199
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Sunset Timelapse from the International Space Station is one of many observations of sunrise and sunset from the ISS.
The delusion of the Sun only emitting gamma rays does not fry the ISS and its astronauts when it is far from Earth's atmosphere.
Sunlight is visible when hitting the camera directly from the Sun.
Some sunlight is visible indirectly from reflections.
When the Sun shines through Earth's atmosphere there is no change until a reddening at the last moment.
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 29th January 2020, 07:35 PM   #200
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Thanks!

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Jean Tate:
Quote:
Then the data from many space probes which have studied the Sun will count as "empirical scientific evidence"1. Such as the data from STEREO.
Excepting that these instruments are NOT camaeras that see what your eyes would see if you were where the instruments are located.
That is true.

But why does that matter?

After all, to again quote from your OP (my hilite):

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.

We are agreed that "empirical" means "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment".

Perhaps you could explain: how is the data from STEREO not empirical?

Quote:
It seems there is no technical understanding at all amongst the skeptics here of how these instruments function, and surely a skeptic MUST have an understanding in order to be able to venture any opinions whatsoever.
While I am not very familiar with how the instruments on STEREO function, I do know a fair bit about how to take, and analyze, visible light images of astronomical objects (other than the Sun), taken by cameras alone, cameras attached to telescopes, etc. Whether those telescopes are on the ground, high in the air (e.g. suspended from a balloon), or in space.

From what I've read of other ISF members' posts, here, I have formed the impression that there are quite a few with greater technical understanding than I have of how various instruments etc flown on space missions/probes function.

And to some extent this is moot ... most missions like STEREO publish very detailed technical specifications, including calibrations done before launch (while I can't say "always", with certainty, almost all such calibrations include testing in vacuum chambers).

Quote:
Quote:
Per your definition of empirical, data from any sufficiently well calibrated instrument would also be "acceptable proof", right?
An unmodified, off the shelf, Bayer filtered digital camera with a solar filter and appropriate exposure settings, along with the cameras full EXIF data. No spectral devices that require the use of sub-pixel interferometry, Fourier transforms, artistic license, or the other many 'tricks' that NASA in particular uses to make us think that a trip to space will allow us to see the heavens clearer than we would from Earth.
Huh?

Perhaps you could explain?

In all the space-based astronomy missions/probes I am aware of (and have direct experience with), calibration is taken extremely seriously. And few, if any, do much processing of the raw data. Certainly "Fourier transforms" would be done only after the raw data is carefully downloaded and stored (I am unaware of "sub-pixel interferometry" being used for any visible light astronomy; perhaps you could provide a reference?).

Re "artistic license": the images you often see in press releases and similar often have been processed involving this. However, no astronomer would ever use this in images for papers, images based on empirical data taken from a space-based instrument or facility.

But maybe you know of some such?

Quote:
How many astronauts, highly trained observers with the very best of eyesight, saying it is totally black out there do you need to hear before you would consider they may be correct?
Hmm ...

It has been known, and empirically proven, that human eyesight is prone to "optical illusions".

And these days it is trivially easy to show - empirically - that unaided human eyes are not very sensitive to faint light (a pair of binoculars, a dark sky, etc).

But more important: an astronomer can report what they saw, but I (or you) cannot independently verify that.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm curious about this caveat though: "not low Earth orbit". Empirically, objects in stable low Earth orbit are "outside of Earths atmosphere" ... if they weren't, they wouldn't be in orbit. Can you clarify please?
The density of the atmosphere is important to the conversion of shorter wavelengths of solar radiation to the longer ones. The nature of the matter is important as the interaction of the radiation with matter will have different results depending on the form of matter. Is it electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, particles?
That may all be true.

However, by definition, it is not empirical.

Or at least, it cannot be empirical unless and until it is backed up by a great deal of empirical observation or experiment.

Quote:
Earths exosphere goes out beyond the Moon, so even in cislunar space it is not a total, completely empty vacuum, but for the purposes of visible light photography then cislunar space is acceptable for my experiments.
Again, the fundamental basis of our discussion is "empirical".

What is the empirical basis for your statements, may I ask?

Quote:
If the people who perform the observations don't comment on them there would be no science at all would there?
<snip>
Thanks.

This requires that we first make sure we are on the same page re "science" and "scientific"; I'll get to that later. So for now I'll simply acknowledge your question.
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
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 02:46 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.