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 30th January 2020, 10:33 PM   #241
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,782
The core of science is the falsifiable experiment: propose a hypotheses, then propose an experiment that will disprove it. If the experiment fails to disprove the hypothesis, it stands until such time as another experiment comes along that will.

The hypothesis here is that energy coming from the sun and all other stars is in a form (proposed by Solon to be either gamma radiation or plane waves, or both) that is invisible to the human eye. Upon contact with the atmosphere, the radiation is converted into both heat and light using a mechanism that is not fully explained. The mechanism may be similar to a fluorescent bulb, wherein ultraviolet radiation striking phosphors emits visible light.

However, explaining how the radiation from the sun is converted into heat and light is not the point here. The idea is to propose an experiment that can be run here on Earth that will disprove the conversion hypothesis.

Was such an experiment proposed on the BAUT/CQ forums? I don't know enough about the fundamental physics involved to propose a protocol.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain 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 31st January 2020, 06:03 AM   #242
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Experiments are operating continuously, all over the solar system, and out into near interstellar space, that falsify Solon’s claims. As do numerous observations already made, which he ignores.

The other problem is that Solon himself doesn’t know enough about the fundamental physics involved to make a coherent hypothesis, let alone propose a decent terrestrial experiment. We could propose one, perhaps, based on the claimed rate of falloff of visible EM waves in a vacuum. Solon has said this rate is “known”. Hey, Solon, what is that rate, exactly?
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 31st January 2020, 06:12 AM   #243
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Experiments are operating continuously, all over the solar system, and out into near interstellar space, that falsify Solon’s claims. As do numerous observations already made, which he ignores.

The other problem is that Solon himself doesn’t know enough about the fundamental physics involved to make a coherent hypothesis, let alone propose a decent terrestrial experiment. We could propose one, perhaps, based on the claimed rate of falloff of visible EM waves in a vacuum. Solon has said this rate is “known”. Hey, Solon, what is that rate, exactly?
You keep asking Solon that question and yet Solon keeps ignoring you. I wonder why. If it's as well known as Solon keeps claming, surely they could just link to a few papers on the topic.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/c...ce/emspec.html
__________________
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 31st January 2020, 06:40 AM   #244
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
The core of science is the falsifiable experiment
How a REAL scientist handles being wrong:

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Frances Arnold retracts paper

Quote:
Prof Arnold shared the award with George P Smith and Gregory Winter for their research on enzymes in 2018.

A subsequent paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams was published in the journal Science in May 2019.

It has been retracted because the results were not reproducible, and the authors found data missing from a lab notebook.

Reproduction is an essential part of validating scientific experiments. If an experiment is a success, one would expect to get the same results every time it was conducted.
__________________
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 31st January 2020, 07:55 AM   #245
hgus
Critical Thinker
 
hgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 345
If gamma-rays turns into visible light in the atmosphere, wouldn't Tjernobyl have been a huge light show?
hgus 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 31st January 2020, 08:08 AM   #246
Worm
Illuminator
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3,160
Various quotes are available where the Apollo 11 astronauts mention stars. Many of them are technical communications as noted above regarding alignment. However some are more routine. Such as:

Quote:
Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's—the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
http://apollo11.spacelog.org/02:23:5...og-line-259160
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm 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 31st January 2020, 09:10 AM   #247
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,626
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, I see lots of opinions but no scientific proof.
Indeed there is.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I'll check now and again to see if anyone comes up with anything remotely scientific.
You first.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 31st January 2020, 09:42 AM   #248
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
I think there are two, quite distinct, claims being made.

One is that the Sun is not visible in space, nor can it heat anything (I'm paraphrasing). And the OP asks for scientific, empirical evidence to the contrary.

The second is that the Sun emits gammas, not visible light (nor heat), which is turned into visible light (and heat) by the Earth's atmosphere (ditto).

The first is easy: numerous posts contain exactly directly relevant empirical, scientific evidence (or at least links to such). Well, mostly for visible light; for heat perhaps not so much (I'll discuss in more detail later).

The second is also easy, but few if any posts have addressed it yet. Perhaps the most obvious empirical evidence is that the Sun is a puny source of gammas, and is vastly outshone by GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts) (this statement is dependent on the gammas' wavelength/frequency/energy, so some caveats are in order). Yet down here on the surface of the Earth we see a bright (and hot) Sun, and no brilliant flashes of light, lasting ~seconds, from all over the sky. Yes, sources need to be cited. And the empirical nature of these sources needs to be made crystal clear.

The other aspect not yet well nailed down is what the OP actually means by "empirical" and "scientific".

(to be continued)
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 31st January 2020, 09:57 AM   #249
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Oh, by the way: here’s a nice series of images from the MARCO B cubesat as it approached Mars a little over a year ago. This was taken with an ”inexpensive commercial camera” and shows Mars from as far away as 350,000 miles. This is another set of images that according to Solon should be impossible, and thus refutes his claim: neither Mars nor the antenna should be visible in this image if his idea was correct.

Of course, his idea is gibberish from a physics standpoint, flatly at odds with observed reality, contradicts itself, would require a cartoonishly massive decades-long (and utterly pointless) worldwide conspiracy, and has been refuted by dozens and dozens of examples already, but this set of pictures from a frickin’ interplanetary cubesat is too cool.

Solon, this real world stuff is way more interesting and exciting than this muddled conspiracy “theory” you’ve been pushing. Why don’t you want to learn about it? What are you afraid of?
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 31st January 2020, 10:00 AM   #250
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by JeanTate
... Well, mostly for visible light; for heat perhaps not so much (I'll discuss in more detail later)...
I’ll take “thermal design of spacecraft” for $500, Alex.

(There’s others, but that’ll do for a start.)
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 31st January 2020, 11:20 AM   #251
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,334
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Sorry, I drive on the right side of the road.
Potentially very bad taste.
__________________
"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 31st January 2020, 01:33 PM   #252
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I haven't insulted you at all. But I've asked you basic questions to try to understand your ideas better, and haven't gotten any response. I've also described to you the origins of the theory you cited, and how a lack of understanding of fusion led to this theory. Are you familiar with hydrogen fusion? Do you understand the standard model for how it powers the sun? Do you think the standard model of stellar fusion is wrong, and if so what do you think is the right model? I'm curious to know what you think about these aspects, because they're all relevant to your ideas.
Thanks for not insulting me Ziggurat!

Quote:
and haven't gotten any response.
Apologies

Quote:
I've also described to you the origins of the theory you cited, and how a lack of understanding of fusion led to this theory. Are you familiar with hydrogen fusion?
Absolutely, and fusion is occurring within the Sun, but it is not the primary source of energy.

Quote:
Do you think the standard model of stellar fusion is wrong, and if so what do you think is the right model?
I'll put forward my alternative as best I can, not saying it is complete or refined, but it uses no new science.

The alternative model has light as the primary source, gamma radiation at levels well beyond anything we can ever create, and well above the Schwinger limit by many orders of magnitude. The Sages called this primordial light Ohr Ha-Ganuz, “the Hidden Light of Creation", and I believe the ancient wise ones knew more than we give them credit for, but of course the 'hard' sciences will hear none of it. So, pair production is enabled, meaning that the Sun creates matter. We do not measure high levels of gamma radiation from the Sun as attenuation is occurring from the get-go, and only events occuring much closer to the surface are detected from our local space. And there must also be attenuation occuring between the Sun and Earth, the final stage occurring within Earths atmosphere.
With such high energies that the vacuum becomes a non-linear optical medium then optical rectification can be invoked to produce electrical charge separation and the electric fields that give rise to magnetic fields.
As the SAFIRE project so far has demonstrated this gives rise to double layers of very high potential and the formation of spherical magnetic shells capable of accumulating charge. The confinement of charge leads to the forcing together of the core produced sub-atomic units and ions up to iron at least will be created.
The source of the core Gamma radiation is most likely a sparking of the vacuum, not in a gravity produced electric field as the present models claim, but by optical rectification.
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/gravity_seesaw.pdf
The vacuum spark in my model occurs at the pinch point in an intergalactic flux tube, which is really just a larger scale version of what has been observed on the Sun.
Formation and dynamics of a solar eruptive flux tube
nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02616-8

Hope that will suffice for now.

To the issue of star visibility, the Apollo astronauts only ever saw stars when looking through the sextant, and if any of you would take the time to research how it worked you would find that it incorporated a star tracker and also used a high voltage photon multiplier. The view from the star tracker was merged with the optical path to the eyepiece, and the star tracker was detecting the Lyman Alpha line of hydrogen.

from A17:

“CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?”

“Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there.”

The first professional British astronaut [Tim Peake] said the most unexpected thing was "the blackness of space".
"We always talk about seeing the view of planet Earth and how beautiful it is and you come to expect that.
"But what people don't mention that much is when you look in the opposite direction and you see how dark space is.
"It is just the blackest black and that was a real surprise to me."

I got lots more quotes, none mention dark adaptation or dark visors.
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 31st January 2020, 01:50 PM   #253
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon, why won’t you answer my questions about the explicit counterexamples to, and contradictions within, your claims? Why don’t you answer the questions about the fantastic conspiracy that would be required?

Why are you so afraid to address this honestly?
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 31st January 2020, 02:01 PM   #254
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Thanks for not insulting me Ziggurat!



Apologies



Absolutely, and fusion is occurring within the Sun, but it is not the primary source of energy.



I'll put forward my alternative as best I can, not saying it is complete or refined, but it uses no new science.

The alternative model has light as the primary source, gamma radiation at levels well beyond anything we can ever create, and well above the Schwinger limit by many orders of magnitude. The Sages called this primordial light Ohr Ha-Ganuz, “the Hidden Light of Creation", and I believe the ancient wise ones knew more than we give them credit for, but of course the 'hard' sciences will hear none of it. So, pair production is enabled, meaning that the Sun creates matter. We do not measure high levels of gamma radiation from the Sun as attenuation is occurring from the get-go, and only events occuring much closer to the surface are detected from our local space. And there must also be attenuation occuring between the Sun and Earth, the final stage occurring within Earths atmosphere.
With such high energies that the vacuum becomes a non-linear optical medium then optical rectification can be invoked to produce electrical charge separation and the electric fields that give rise to magnetic fields.
As the SAFIRE project so far has demonstrated this gives rise to double layers of very high potential and the formation of spherical magnetic shells capable of accumulating charge. The confinement of charge leads to the forcing together of the core produced sub-atomic units and ions up to iron at least will be created.
The source of the core Gamma radiation is most likely a sparking of the vacuum, not in a gravity produced electric field as the present models claim, but by optical rectification.
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/gravity_seesaw.pdf
The vacuum spark in my model occurs at the pinch point in an intergalactic flux tube, which is really just a larger scale version of what has been observed on the Sun.
Formation and dynamics of a solar eruptive flux tube
nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02616-8

Hope that will suffice for now.

To the issue of star visibility, the Apollo astronauts only ever saw stars when looking through the sextant, and if any of you would take the time to research how it worked you would find that it incorporated a star tracker and also used a high voltage photon multiplier. The view from the star tracker was merged with the optical path to the eyepiece, and the star tracker was detecting the Lyman Alpha line of hydrogen.

from A17:

“CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?”

“Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there.”

The first professional British astronaut [Tim Peake] said the most unexpected thing was "the blackness of space".
"We always talk about seeing the view of planet Earth and how beautiful it is and you come to expect that.
"But what people don't mention that much is when you look in the opposite direction and you see how dark space is.
"It is just the blackest black and that was a real surprise to me."

I got lots more quotes, none mention dark adaptation or dark visors.
Here in this video interview with astronaut James Reilly describing seeing stars in space. Many of them showing color that we can't naked eye see from the Earth's surface.
Still awaiting for a response to post 126.

https://youtu.be/LaUCMzgidvs

Last edited by Steve001; 31st January 2020 at 02:02 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 31st January 2020, 02:23 PM   #255
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,088
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Thanks for not insulting me Ziggurat!



Apologies



Absolutely, and fusion is occurring within the Sun, but it is not the primary source of energy.



I'll put forward my alternative as best I can, not saying it is complete or refined, but it uses no new science.

The alternative model has light as the primary source, gamma radiation at levels well beyond anything we can ever create, and well above the Schwinger limit by many orders of magnitude. The Sages called this primordial light Ohr Ha-Ganuz, “the Hidden Light of Creation", and I believe the ancient wise ones knew more than we give them credit for, but of course the 'hard' sciences will hear none of it. So, pair production is enabled, meaning that the Sun creates matter. We do not measure high levels of gamma radiation from the Sun as attenuation is occurring from the get-go, and only events occuring much closer to the surface are detected from our local space. And there must also be attenuation occuring between the Sun and Earth, the final stage occurring within Earths atmosphere.
With such high energies that the vacuum becomes a non-linear optical medium then optical rectification can be invoked to produce electrical charge separation and the electric fields that give rise to magnetic fields.
As the SAFIRE project so far has demonstrated this gives rise to double layers of very high potential and the formation of spherical magnetic shells capable of accumulating charge. The confinement of charge leads to the forcing together of the core produced sub-atomic units and ions up to iron at least will be created.
The source of the core Gamma radiation is most likely a sparking of the vacuum, not in a gravity produced electric field as the present models claim, but by optical rectification.
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/gravity_seesaw.pdf
The vacuum spark in my model occurs at the pinch point in an intergalactic flux tube, which is really just a larger scale version of what has been observed on the Sun.
Formation and dynamics of a solar eruptive flux tube
nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02616-8

Hope that will suffice for now.

To the issue of star visibility, the Apollo astronauts only ever saw stars when looking through the sextant, and if any of you would take the time to research how it worked you would find that it incorporated a star tracker and also used a high voltage photon multiplier. The view from the star tracker was merged with the optical path to the eyepiece, and the star tracker was detecting the Lyman Alpha line of hydrogen.

from A17:

“CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?”

“Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there.”

The first professional British astronaut [Tim Peake] said the most unexpected thing was "the blackness of space".
"We always talk about seeing the view of planet Earth and how beautiful it is and you come to expect that.
"But what people don't mention that much is when you look in the opposite direction and you see how dark space is.
"It is just the blackest black and that was a real surprise to me."

I got lots more quotes, none mention dark adaptation or dark visors.
Complete and utter gibberish. As I previously suggested, you would need an immense ignorance of science to believe any of that unscientific gibberish. It is nothing to do with science as understood by people who understand science. Lord knows where you got such a nutty idea! Probably from lurking around on Dunderdolts, I shouldn't wonder.

Hint #1: We know that the Sun is powered totally by fusion reactions. Long before we had neutrino detectors, clever people, who have actually studied science, worked out what the neutrino count should be were the Sun powered exclusively by fusion. Guess what? That is the number that has been seen by numerous detectors. It completely matches theory. We can even tell which sort of fusion is doing it, based on the neutrino energy spectrum.

Hint #2: If the Sun were emitting gamma at the ridiculous rate you suggest, we would not exist! This is another area where your complete ignorance of any relevant science is showing you up. You have been asked numerous times - what happens to the atmosphere when bombarded by gamma (or x-ray, for all I care) for 4.5 billion years? It ceases to exist rather quickly. Why do you think the people who hunt for exoplanets as a possible home for ET life, have a few problems with planets in the HZ of red dwarves? Because the stellar activity is going to irradiate the planet. It will tear away the atmosphere in short order, and anything not living underground, or underwater, is toast. Comprende? Any spaceships outside of what you naively believe to be Earth's protective atmosphere would also be toast. That does not happen. Which is a trivial falsification of your silly claims. Asteroids and comets reflect visible light. Comet tails are visible in visible light, from Earth and from space. Etc, etc, etc.
And astronauts have seen stars from space. Fact. Any claim to the contrary is a deliberate lie. As has been pointed out to you numerous times.
__________________
“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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 31st January 2020 at 02:29 PM.
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 31st January 2020, 02:32 PM   #256
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I think there are two, quite distinct, claims being made.

One is that the Sun is not visible in space, nor can it heat anything (I'm paraphrasing). And the OP asks for scientific, empirical evidence to the contrary.

The second is that the Sun emits gammas, not visible light (nor heat), which is turned into visible light (and heat) by the Earth's atmosphere (ditto).

The first is easy: numerous posts contain exactly directly relevant empirical, scientific evidence (or at least links to such). Well, mostly for visible light; for heat perhaps not so much (I'll discuss in more detail later).

The second is also easy, but few if any posts have addressed it yet. Perhaps the most obvious empirical evidence is that the Sun is a puny source of gammas, and is vastly outshone by GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts) (this statement is dependent on the gammas' wavelength/frequency/energy, so some caveats are in order). Yet down here on the surface of the Earth we see a bright (and hot) Sun, and no brilliant flashes of light, lasting ~seconds, from all over the sky. Yes, sources need to be cited. And the empirical nature of these sources needs to be made crystal clear.

The other aspect not yet well nailed down is what the OP actually means by "empirical" and "scientific".

(to be continued)
(continued)

One thing I forgot to mention: I am examining claims presented in this ISF thread only.

Here's the OP again:
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.
<snip>
Direct measurement of the Suns heat using the same type of equipment that we use from Earths surface, e.g. a pyrheliometer.
<snip>
Other than to clarify what "empirical evidence" means (post #158), the OP has not clarified or expanded on anything here1.

Yes, it's difficult to proceed with examining these claims in the absence of clarifiation. Especially quantitative clarification.

Not so much re "visible light" though: we can take this to mean something like "the part of the electromagnetic spectrum which a typical human's eye is sensitive to". And thus the relevant claim is easily refuted (and has been, in many posts here).

About "heat (thermal infrared)": in principle this is easy to nail down, simply specify a wavelength (or frequency or energy) range. Or, in more detail, a SED (spectral energy distribution). And tying either to scientific, empirical evidence is straight-forward (if perhaps tedious). However, the OP has given us little to go on ... except for the reference to "pyrheliometer". These devices are designed to measure solar irradiance, and produce data as watts per square metre. Empirically, they are sensitive to the infrared (electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 700nm and 1mm), but also visible light, and UV.

That gives us a way to formally evaluate the OP's claim: empirically, what is the Sun's SED (or spectrum)? As measured "outside of any other planet or moons atmosphere". Off the top of my head, I do not know of any such observations; do you, dear reader?

1That's not entirely true; post #189 modifies "atmosphere", it becomes a quite idiosyncratic term.
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 31st January 2020, 03:24 PM   #257
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Absolutely, and fusion is occurring within the Sun, but it is not the primary source of energy.
Nope. Fusion is the only viable mechanism for the energy production of the Sun.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I'll put forward my alternative as best I can,...
Gibberish.

By the way, the Princeton note you cited? Not only does it not support your premise (at least the parts that can be parsed), its own author stated, ”I now feel that this note is bogus, as it violates conservation of energy.”

That’s the problem with Googling up science-sounding words without reading or understanding: you just paste them together, like a magpie putting bits of shiny magazine paper into its nest, without understanding what any of it means. At least the magpie gets a nest out of it; all you get is... gibberish.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
To the issue of star visibility, the Apollo astronauts only ever saw stars when looking through the sextant,
Flatly wrong, and as this has been pointed out to you many times, with examples, one must conclude you are deliberately lying.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
and if any of you would take the time to research how it worked you
I explained to you how it worked, over on CQ, years ago.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
you would find that it incorporated a star tracker and also used a high voltage photon multiplier.
Nope. There were no electronics, except for an illuminated reticle, in the Apollo telescope/sextant optical paths.. This was also explained to you before, so you are simply lying again.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The view from the star tracker was merged with the optical path to the eyepiece, and the star tracker was detecting the Lyman Alpha line of hydrogen.
Ludicrously wrong in multiple ways.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I got lots more quotes, none mention dark adaptation or dark visors.
Cherry-picking quotes which you believe help you is dishonest. Ignoring the many counterexamples repeatedly provided you is wretchedly dishonest.

Solon, why are you so afraid of learning something that you have resorted to deliberately lying?
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 31st January 2020, 04:30 PM   #258
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,710
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I'll put forward my alternative as best I can, not saying it is complete or refined, but it uses no new science.

The alternative model has light as the primary source, gamma radiation at levels well beyond anything we can ever create, and well above the Schwinger limit by many orders of magnitude.
That isn't an energy source. Gamma rays, like all light, contain energy. But you need energy to produce them. Where does the energy to produce them come from? You say it's not fusion, but there is no other known source of energy which can produce the required amounts. You would need fundamentally new physics to replace the fusion of the standard model. Do you understand how remarkable a claim that is? But it's worse than that: not only do you need this new mystery source, but you need to get rid of most of the fusion the standard model says should be taking place. How do you prevent all that fusion?

Quote:
The Sages called this primordial light Ohr Ha-Ganuz, “the Hidden Light of Creation", and I believe the ancient wise ones knew more than we give them credit for, but of course the 'hard' sciences will hear none of it.
Mythology consists of contradictory stories. Supposing that some of it did contain hidden wisdom, how can we tell which is which? How can we tell what's supposed to reveal scientific truths versus metaphorical insights? If we can't test it, then we can't know. And if we can test it, it becomes science.

Quote:
So, pair production is enabled, meaning that the Sun creates matter.
Pair production may be happening in the sun, but it doesn't produce energy. It absorbs energy. When those pairs annihilate, then it releases that energy. Energy is conserved during the whole process. That doesn't help with the problem of where the energy of the sun comes from.

Quote:
We do not measure high levels of gamma radiation from the Sun as attenuation is occurring from the get-go, and only events occuring much closer to the surface are detected from our local space.
So why doesn't the radiation which is attenuated not produce visible light at the surface of the sun?

Quote:
With such high energies that the vacuum becomes a non-linear optical medium then optical rectification can be invoked to produce electrical charge separation and the electric fields that give rise to magnetic fields.
I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean. There are a bunch of mathematical terms in here, but I don't see how they can fit together into any actual math.

Quote:
As the SAFIRE project so far has demonstrated this gives rise to double layers of very high potential and the formation of spherical magnetic shells capable of accumulating charge. The confinement of charge leads to the forcing together of the core produced sub-atomic units and ions up to iron at least will be created.
The source of the core Gamma radiation is most likely a sparking of the vacuum, not in a gravity produced electric field as the present models claim, but by optical rectification.
If by "present models" you mean the standard models, well, the standard models of stellar fusion are not driven by electric fields at all, gravity produced or not. They're driven by heat and pressure.

Quote:
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/gravity_seesaw.pdf
The vacuum spark in my model occurs at the pinch point in an intergalactic flux tube, which is really just a larger scale version of what has been observed on the Sun.
Formation and dynamics of a solar eruptive flux tube
nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02616-8
I'm not sure why you linked to that gravitational sparking paper, since the author states that they think it's wrong. I also don't see how it's related to your claim. In the electric field version of this problem, energy is conserved. It is not an energy source. The same would apply to magnetic fields.

Quote:
Hope that will suffice for now.
Thank you for responding, but I'm left with more questions than answers.

Let me see if I can take a slightly different approach to understand your position better. Let's leave aside the sun for a moment, and just talk about light and vacuums. Can visible light travel through a perfect vacuum? If not, how much matter is required in order to sustain light transmission?
__________________
"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 31st January 2020, 05:11 PM   #259
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
<snip>

That gives us a way to formally evaluate the OP's claim: empirically, what is the Sun's SED (or spectrum)? As measured "outside of any other planet or moons atmosphere". Off the top of my head, I do not know of any such observations; do you, dear reader?
<snip>
Didn’t take me long to find reports of what, empirically, the Sun’s SED (or spectrum) is, in the infrared, outside the Earth’s atmosphere. I’ll post links etc later.

So, unless the OP adds/clarifies/responds/etc the claims in the OP will soon have been thoroughly refuted.

And the OP’s claims about the Sun emitting gammas, converted to visible light and heat, etc - which, to be clear, were never linked to anything empirical - have also been refuted, empirically (or will, when I post links re the Sun’s gamma emission as measured outside the Earth’s atmosphere).
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2020, 05:11 PM   #260
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...Let me see if I can take a slightly different approach to understand your position better. Let's leave aside the sun for a moment, and just talk about light and vacuums. Can visible light travel through a perfect vacuum? If not, how much matter is required in order to sustain light transmission?
Don’t forget to ask Solon for the rate of falloff of visible light waves in a vacuum. Solon says it’s “known”, and claims to have made a calculation which would have required it, but has repeatedly ignored requests to say what it is.

Last edited by sts60; 31st January 2020 at 05:13 PM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2020, 08:25 AM   #261
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The Apollo 11 astronauts were instructed not to look at the Sun, and the window shades were to prevent them doing that and also to not allowing excess heat to enter the craft. Of course, the astronauts never even snuck a peek at the Sun during the many days in cislunar space, which means of course they could also never have seen the stars either.
All of that is comprehensively false.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Now for anyone who takes the time to actually read the transcripts you find these red neck space cowboys were actually darn right rude and crude, so to believe they did not even attempt to take a look is rather hard to believe.
Amusing. Clearly, you have not read the transcripts AT ALL.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
When they did the low light photography experiments thay would have to have removed one window shade to fasten the camera to the window bracket, and having been kept dark adapted the whole time, surely if the stars were visible they would have mentioned it? They were there to observe.
False. That is neither how cameras of eyes actually work.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
So they took no photos of the Sun from cislunar space. They took some from Earth orbit, and some from lunar orbit, the ones from lunar orbit being taken with the very high speed 2485 film and no solar filter. They never took any solar filters, what a shame.
lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS15/98/13399.jpg

So no photos of the Sun were attempted from cislunar space and the low light experiment photos showed nothing.
Why would they? It would have no scientific value.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
So regarding my original question regarding proof using the same instruments and methods as we use from Earth to measure the Suns heat and light, there is none.
False. Explain the requirement for the PTC roll.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
You all think I am stupid and I think you are all (well, mostly anyway) completely 'in the dark' when it comes to understanding absolutely anything about the instruments involved or even the difference between photography and spectroscopy. All that is on offer is insults, which the operators of this very cosmoquest-like forum seem to encourage.
Nope. You merely have no clue what you are spouting on about.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I'm quite content to wait until the next visitors to the Moon, armed with the latest cameras, video cameras, and other high tech gear (and some solar filters of course) give us some 4K video and of course, if they are there during the night, some magnificent photos of the stars. Can't wait.
You will wait, because what you want is pointless and would be an almost criminal waste of mission time and resources. The scary part is that you have no idea why that is.

ETA: Which orifice you extracted the "very high speed 2485 film" notion from is anyones guess, because that never happened either. And besides, such a high speed film would make solar photography even more difficult if not impossible. Of course, you don't know why that is either because you have no understanding of how cameras and film actually work.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 1st February 2020 at 08:39 AM.
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 1st February 2020, 09:00 AM   #262
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by abbadon
Amusing. Clearly, you have not read the transcripts AT ALL.
It’s even worse, because he has had several people read the transcripts for him, and present him numerous specific examples. So he is simply deliberately lying about it.

Solon, why are you so terrified about being proven wrong on an Internet forum about a bit of physics that you have to resort to deliberately lying? It’s not like you’re fooling anyone. Is this some sort of religious thing?
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 1st February 2020, 11:19 AM   #263
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
It’s even worse, because he has had several people read the transcripts for him, and present him numerous specific examples. So he is simply deliberately lying about it.

Solon, why are you so terrified about being proven wrong on an Internet forum about a bit of physics that you have to resort to deliberately lying? It’s not like you’re fooling anyone. Is this some sort of religious thing?
It's likely for this reason. From my topic in the sub forum Social Issues.
Quote:
think they do it because they really want to understand the universe and they have very noble albeit grandiose motivations trying to do what us regular physicists are also trying to do... And I think what distinguishes them from physicists who can make a useful contribution is that they don't want to be somebody whose epitaph says they tightened the screws on a particle accelerator that made a great experiment, they want to be is Einstein. And most of us can't be Einstein."
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 1st February 2020, 11:34 AM   #264
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,257
Being as always a scientifically barely-literate bumpkin and thus ignoring the esoteric physics of waves and rays, I am led to wonder, assuming that our original poster is not subscribing to the conspiracy theory that lunar exploration never occurred, but that men did in fact walk on the moon, and that the photographs taken were, in fact, taken....what cast the shadows?
__________________
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 1st February 2020, 12:07 PM   #265
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Oh, but you see, the lunar ionosphere converts the light so astronauts can see at the surface. Even though it’s barely there (the lunar atmosphere masses about one or two dozen tons total). It also turns out it allows astronauts to see the moon from orbit.

Coincidentally, after an example of astronaut observation from 50,000 miles away was given, Solon “calculated“ that the barely-there-air allowed them to see the moon from just that far away.

Oddly enough, after that limit was established, Solon refused to reply to an observation from 100,000 miles away.

We see the Moon from Earth because the X-ray plane waves are “downshifted” in Earth’s ionosphere. Except when there’s something going on in the stratosphere, or even in the troposphere - Solon mixes them all up.

Of course, actually observing the Moon in X-ray, you know, with real X-ray instruments in space, clearly show the Moon doesn’t look anywhere near as bright or similar in appearance to what we see. Solon’s has had this pointed out to him, but for some reason he ignored that.

Also, of course, Solon’s claims about the lunar atmosphere contradict his own claims about Earth’s ionosphere. This has been pointed out to him a lot, but for some reason he just... can’t... bring himself to address that. But then, he does have a lot of experience ignoring things that don’t support his fantasy.

Solon, why are you so scared to face up to your own claims? Is this some sort of religious thing with you?

Last edited by sts60; 1st February 2020 at 12:10 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 2nd February 2020, 06:47 AM   #266
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
We’ve all seen this pattern before.

Someone comes in claiming to believe something absurd.

They don’t engage and don’t answer objections with integrity.

They ignore damning evidence that blasts their claims to atoms while smugly demanding “evidence” that is often not even related to the underlying principals of their claims.

Their posting pattern ends up being more in line with needling people whenever the thread peters off than with trying to actually engage with other forum members.

I have seen no evidence of Solon engaging here in good faith. I have however seen multiple examples of them ignoring contradictory evidence and outright lying. I’ve also been presented with evidence of them having conducted themselves the exact same way on another forum.

I do not know if Solon is a troll, but I now have ample evidence to call them out as a habitual and demonstrable liar.
__________________
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 2nd February 2020, 07:08 AM   #267
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,559
The chances of Solon ever accepting he is wrong, one way or the other, I'd consider near zero.
But threads like these are interesting for learning nice new tidbits of science and astronautics in this case.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2020, 10:36 AM   #268
marting
Graduate Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by hgus View Post
If gamma-rays turns into visible light in the atmosphere, wouldn't Tjernobyl have been a huge light show?
Must not have been "plane gamma rays"
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting 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 2nd February 2020, 02:36 PM   #269
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down The debunked "Sun only emits gamma rays" nonsense, new blind belief in cranks. etc.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...
3 February 2020 Solon: The debunked "Sun only emits gamma rays" nonsense, new blind belief in cranks (SAFIRE), ancient wisdom idiocy, flux tube delusions, Apollo lies, etc.

Apollo PGNCS (optical telescopes, not ultraviolet Lyman-alpha line)

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.
That is millions of images of the Sun in visible light which makes the Sun only emitting gamma rays into a delusion.

3 February 2020 Solon: Empirical evidence making only gammas rays from stars into a delusion: Over a billion stars detected by Gaia !

3 February 2020 Solon: Empirical evidence making only gamma rays from the Sun and stars into a delusion, e.g. spacecraft powered by solar panels and using star trackers.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Why do spacecraft designed to cope with normal radiation still work when bombarded with gamma radiation sometimes for decades?
ETA: How do spacecraft navigate when they use star trackers detecting the positions of stars in visible light? He may argue that magic happens around comets and even asteroids but what about New Horizons and other spacecraft navigating between planets?
How do solar panels on the ISS and other spacecraft work when the Sun only emits gamma rays?
What about the spacecraft testing light sails (LightSail 2 Spacecraft Successfully Demonstrates Flight by Light) when gamma rays should pass straight thru the sails?
Why are astronauts that have done EVA still alive?
Why are the ISS astronauts (3 months in a gamma ray rich environment) not poisoned by gamma radiation?
Why do gamma observatories in space not see a gamma ray only emitting Sun with the required intensity?
Why does the Earth have an atmosphere after over 4 billion years of ionizing gamma radiation?
29 January 2020 Solon: This may be the 1949 delusion of Horace Winfield Webster as described on a rather insane web page (unfortunately his complete fantasy is not readily available).
29 January 2020 Solon: A small lie and fantasy that Apollo astronauts must see stars from cislunar space.
29 January 2019 Solon: Looks like a bit of paranoia about Hubble and ignorance about space telescopes.
29 January 2019 Solon: Links to material irrelevant to the "Heat and Light from the Sun" delusion.
30 January 2020 Solon: Idiotic demand on camera requirements, paranoia about NASA, idiocy about the Earth's exosphere, ignorance about space telescope constructions and costs.
31 January 2020 Solon: Obsessive fantasies and delusions about Apollo missions, etc.

We already have an enormous thread on the electric comet and Sun dogma from the Thunderbolts cult.
The SAFIRE project is actually insane because it denies textbook stellar physic that is taught in first year astronomy courses. Simply put: Stars are stable because there is a balance between thermal pressure and gravitational weight. A bit of commonsense says that temperature and pressure must increase with depth to hold up the increasing weight of the mass above that depth. Knowledge of thermodynamics gives that stars have to be internally heats (hotter at the core than the surface). A common Astronomy 101 exercise is use physics to calculate the temperature and pressure profile of stars. That leads to the millions of degrees and high density/pressure at the core of stars that must fuse hydrogen according to textbook nuclear physics. We confirm that for the Sun by
  • Detecting the neutrino flux from all of that fusion.
  • Detecting the neutrinos from the specific fusion reaction in the Sun.
  • Not detecting the gamma rays from the fusion (they are converted to a wide spectrum of light on their way out of the Sun).
A small bit of SAFIRE stupidity is that it is no longer a scientific experiment - it is now a deluded "cold fusion" company claiming that that their plasma ball transmutes elements.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd February 2020 at 03:06 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 2nd February 2020, 04:27 PM   #270
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...word salad nonsense...
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/gravity_seesaw.pdf
What Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum really says to anyone who can read English, Solon.
Quote:
Gravitational “Sparking” of the Vacuum
Kirk T. McDonald
Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (May 4, 2018; updated May 6, 2018)
I now feel that this note is bogus, as the supposed “sparking” violates conservation of energy.
This is a note written by Kirk T. McDonald in May, 2018 who then says it is wrong in May, 2018.

The physics that you could not understand is that there are no gamma rays in the PDF!
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 2nd February 2020, 04:35 PM   #271
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...The vacuum spark in my model occurs at the pinch point in an intergalactic flux tube, which is really just a larger scale version of what has been observed on the Sun.
A "vacuum spark" lie when his referenced vacuum "sparking" is a "bogus" (according to the author) calculation for massive particle, not flux tubes.

Formation and dynamics of a solar eruptive flux tube
Quote:
Abstract
Solar eruptions are well-known drivers of extreme space weather, which can greatly disturb the Earth’s magnetosphere and ionosphere. The triggering process and initial dynamics of these eruptions are still an area of intense study. Here we perform a magnetohydrodynamic simulation taking into account the observed photospheric magnetic field to reveal the dynamics of a solar eruption in a real magnetic environment. In our simulation, we confirmed that tether-cutting reconnection occurring locally above the polarity inversion line creates a twisted flux tube, which is lifted into a toroidal unstable area where it loses equilibrium, destroying the force-free state, and driving the eruption. Consequently, a more highly twisted flux tube is built up during this initial phase, which can be further accelerated even when it returns to a stable area. We suggest that a nonlinear positive feedback process between the flux tube evolution and reconnection is the key to ensure this extra acceleration.
An ignorant delusion that galaxies are stars! Stars such as the Sun have flux tubes in that paper because they are balls of plasma with a changing magnetic field undergoing eruptions.
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 2nd February 2020, 08:55 PM   #272
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,067
Solon, can you please confirm that you believe sunlight does not exist outside the atmosphere of planets and moons?
Little 10 Toes 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 3rd February 2020, 08:12 PM   #273
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 35
Lukraak_Sisser
Quote:
The chances of Solon ever accepting he is wrong, one way or the other, I'd consider near zero.
Correct, not without what I consider to be valid evidence.

Quote:
But threads like these are interesting for learning nice new tidbits of science and astronautics in this case.
That's the spirit! Here's a selection of tidbits you might find interesting then.

Critical thinking is required, and when there are conflicting statements from astronauts about the visibility of the stars then surely one should wonder why. I don't believe the Apollo astronauts lied about this, particularly with the cislunar space EVA missions. They were not dark adapted is one excuse, their dark visors another. Well, here is a simple experiment we can do from Earth. On a starry night go out and shine a very bright light in your eyes, do it till it hurts and you can not take it any more. Then look up and count how many seconds it is until you begin to see the stars again, and how long till you can see most of them. Then go out and put on your darkest sunglasses and look at the stars. How many can you see?

This site is very much like cosmoquest, mostly the same members too, and they are only skeptical about things which do not conform to the mainstream view, but a true skeptic would also be looking at the validity of mainstream claims especially if the evidence to support those claims does no exist or is not consistent, as with the astronauts saying the stars are visible or not. This is a very simple matter to determine by proper testing, why has it not been done?

Another example of inconsistency would be from the Vostok 2 mission.

Quote:
"We had been accustomed to see stars as blue; but we there saw them as of pure gold—they seemed to have been scattered on black velvet by a careless hand.
Leonov: They looked really bright, in fact almost red like pure gold.
...and the Sun looked different—it had no halo and seemed to be welded into black velvet. It was a strange sight."
Vostok 2 reached a higher altitude than previously, so the density and composition of the atmosphere they were looking through would be different, which is why they saw them as different colours. The Sun was visible, but looked very strange. What do NASA astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun from orbit? How did the Sun look from cislunar space?

The Russians also noted some interesting facts from the lunar surface. The lunar sky is surprisingly bright, so maybe they couldn't see the stars because they were washed out?
The measurements of sky brightness on Lunokhod-2
researchgate.net/publication/248081808_The_measurements_of_sky_brightness_on_Lu nokhod-2

We mostly believe that the Moon only reflects Sunlight, but in fact the surface does produce light:
Photon Luminescence of the Moon
ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090010345

The heat of the Lunar surface similarly is not the result of heat from the Sun, but from electron orbital transition heating due to the interaction of solar UV and up radiation with the material on the surface of the Moon, or Mercury, or a spacecraft. The lunar surface is affected by UV and up ionising solar radiation, which produces the electric charge on the surface.

LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS AND DUST: IMPLICATIONS FOR IN SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION.
lpi.usra.edu/meetings/roundtable2006/pdf/halekas.pdf

One thing that will not work on the Moon is the idea of using solar concentrators to melt the regolith and make bricks. There is so little heat from the Sun on the lunar surface that they will never even try this experiment, and direct measurements of the Suns heat on the lunar surface using the pyrheliometer have not been performed.
Neither has the brightness of the lunar surface been directly measured, but from NASAs own information it is much duller than we would think, as is shown by the fact that the video cameras they used required permission from the D.O.D. to be able to use the very low light level vidicons required to get usable video images.
Quote:
"Early in the Apollo program NASA became aware of a special low-light television imaging tube that Westinghouse had developed for the Department of Defense."
hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat7.pdf

Similarly the 2485 very high speed film was needed, the film being used by the military for night time surveillance photography, and was also sensitive into the near IR. Not the kind of equipment need for a blindingly brightly lunar surface is it? I recently had a reply from A NASA employee who told me he did not have actual illumination figures for the lunar surface, but the Apollo 8 video camera was designed to see in very low light, though not as low as the later version the D.O.D approved use of.

RCA TV CAMERA ON APOLLO 8 ORBITS ARMCHAIR VIEWERS AROUND THE MOON
honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_8/RCA-Apollo-8-Camera.pdf

It can be seen that the sensitivity is 0.1 to 30 ft.candles. An overcast day on Earth is around 100 ft.candles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-candle
So another question then is how could we possibly see the Moon in a patch of bright blue sky when the blue sky has a value of 30,000 ft.candles or more and the Moons surface only 30 ft.candles and so far away?

At least if my notions are so wild then I am not alone, and may even get a space telescope named after me.

William Herschel
Quote:
In this case, radiant heat will at least partly, if not chiefly, consist, if I may be permitted the expression, of invisible light; that is to say, of rays coming from the sun, that have such a momentum as to be unfit for vision. And admitting, as is highly probable, that the organs of sight are only adapted to receive impressions from particles of a certain momentum, it explains why the maximum of illumination should be in the middle of the refrangible rays; as those which have greater or less momenta are likely to become equally unfit for the impression of sight.
The Habitable Sun - One of Herschel, William's Stranger Ideas
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981JRASC..75...46K

RecoveringYuppy
Quote:
Now why don't you accept this next link as empirical evidence?
Huh? The 2485 was an extremely sensitive film that they needed for lunar surface photography under Earthshine conditions and for the corona, which is not blindingly bright. That such a sensitive film with long exposures showed nothing is not right, lets repeat the experiment with independent observers, another requirement of empirical science.

sts60
Quote:
from the MARCO B cubesat as it approached Mars
Doesn't look red to me, like from the Mars Web Cam.
twitter.com/esamarswebcam/status/1224475031998271489
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 3rd February 2020, 08:20 PM   #274
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,088
^^^^Yep, more more salad and avoidance of a tonne of evidence that says he is wrong. Not to mention the scientific impossibility of the Sun emitting Gamma continuously, and the effects it would have on our atmosphere. Pure denial from somebody who seems to be a complete stranger to science.
__________________
“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 3rd February 2020, 08:52 PM   #275
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Thumbs down Astronaut lie and idoicy, irerelvant and outdated sceince, more camera irrelevancy

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...
More irrelevant nonsense and delusions. Solon, as before:
3 February 2020 Solon: The debunked "Sun only emits gamma rays" nonsense, new blind belief in cranks (SAFIRE), ancient wisdom idiocy, flux tube delusions, Apollo lies, etc.

4 February 2020 Solon: "conflicting statements from astronauts about the visibility of the stars" lie, stupidity of quoting an astronaut seeing stars from orbit!, more irrelevant science, "solar concentrators" stupidity (they concentrate heat!), more camera and film irrelevancy, more outdated theory.
It is physics and biology that makes stars visible or not. The real ignorance is that all it takes is 1 astronaut to see 1 star or the Sun from orbit or the Moon to debunk your fantasy and that is the case.
A delusion that gamma rays interacting with the atmosphere magically make stars different colors according to height. The (4th?) astronaut to orbit in Vostok 2 saw stars and the Sun with his eyes with the colors as expected for light, not gamma rays killing him !
Some of Herschel's ideas were wrong (the Sun is not a planet and so may be inhabited) but the quote is valid science. We have eyes evolved to see in the visible spectrum because there is no advantage for us to see outside of that range. Other animals have evolved to see infrared (snakes) and ultraviolet (bees I think).

The idea that the Sun and stars only emit gamma rays has sill been shown to be a complete delusion by millions of images of the Sun and stars in visible light throughout the Solar System.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd February 2020 at 09:22 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 3rd February 2020, 10:19 PM   #276
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,399
Solon, you’re lying again about the Apollo astronauts. According to you, they would not have been able to see the sun, moon, or stars from cislunar space. Examples have been given to you repeatedly, but you keep ignoring them and pretending they don’t exist.

You also keep refusing to address the numerous contradictions arising directly from your claims. That is lying by omission.

Finally, you keep throwing out things you Google but don’t understand, while refusing to address the elementary misconceptions at the core of your claims. That, too, is lying by omission.

Why are you so afraid of learning anything that you resort to lying? Is this some sort of religious deal with you?
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2020, 02:35 AM   #277
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,744
Interesting that Solon gladly uses arguments against him in his argumentation: The Vostok 2 Cosmonauts were able to see stars, although according to Solon, they should not - or at least the stars would be much dimmer than on Earth, because there was much less atmosphere to convert the gamma radiation to light.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 4th February 2020, 03:45 AM   #278
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
The Sun was visible, but looked very strange.
Exactly as they described; it was strange to see the sun against a black background. That is of course exactly what they would have expected to see but it was a novel experience.

I note that they were able to see the sun, and they don't remark on its being any dimmer than expected. Does your conjecture predict that the sun should have been visible from where they were or not? Does it predict that the sun should have appeared dimmer? If so, by how much?
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 4th February 2020, 03:59 AM   #279
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
Solon, if someone bumped into you and apologised saying they didn't see you, would you then feel compelled to spend years asking the internet why experiments had not been done to determine the conditions under which you become invisible?
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 4th February 2020, 06:06 AM   #280
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,210
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Critical thinking is required, and when there are conflicting statements from astronauts about the visibility of the stars then surely one should wonder why.
So far all the examples you've given have been easily explained without invoking a brain-dead fantasy about ionizing radiation bombarding the atmosphere that was cooked up by a geologist whose main claim to fame was being the dumbest geologist in history who wasn't also a known Young-Earth Creationist.

Your entire thesis is the equivalent of trying to explain common optical illusions by ejaculating, "CHEMTRAILS!" and citing alchemists as your primary sources.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
This site is very much like cosmoquest
Not really. Cosmoquest bans people who spout garbage without providing any evidence to support their claims. This forum lets people engaging in such disingenuous exchanges keep posting. Lying, deception, and refusing to support your claims with evidence are all permitted, so long as you're polite about it and don't engage in personal insults.


Originally Posted by Solon View Post
a true skeptic would also be looking at the validity of mainstream claims especially if the evidence to support those claims does no exist or is not consistent, as with the astronauts saying the stars are visible or not. This is a very simple matter to determine by proper testing, why has it not been done?
It has been done. All your examples have been addressed. It turns out most your "examples" are the direct result of you misrepresenting the observations that were reported. The fact that you claim your examples have not been addressed is proof you are a liar.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Solon, if someone bumped into you and apologised saying they didn't see you, would you then feel compelled to spend years asking the internet why experiments had not been done to determine the conditions under which you become invisible?
Based upon their extant post history I'd say yes, that's exactly what they'd do. It would also be consistent for them to claim massive bombardments of gamma radiation were responsible and then ignore all observations that the amount of radiation they're claming is involved would have ionized the surrounding atmosphere and reduced them to a charred lump of smoldering goo.
__________________
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; 4th February 2020 at 06:16 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
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 02:23 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.