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 4th February 2020, 06:18 AM   #281
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
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.
Their debate tactics appear to be geared more towards generating replies than actually advancing any sort of thesis.
__________________
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 06:33 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 4th February 2020, 06:30 AM   #282
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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?
Your experimental design is sloppy and frankly, bad for your eyes.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
do it till it hurts and you can not take it any more
I think you put that step in there just to try and inflict pain on strangers.

There are a LOT of factors your "experiment" doesn't take into account.
  • You're not controlling for light pollution.
  • Your experimental model makes no mention of cloud cover.
  • You should be specifying a specific number of lumens for a specific time period not a vague, "till it hurts," criteria.
  • There should be an objective test of the subjects' eyesight so results from multiple observers can be correlated.
  • Latitude, Longitude, date and time should all be noted as part of the observation.
  • You should be testing the same region of the sky each time, or testing comparable regions with similar numbers of stars that are expected to be visible to the naked eye.
  • The details on the tested regions should be recorded.
  • You're missing a control step where stars are counted under optimal night vision conditions.
I could go on, but you've already stopped reading, if you read this post at all.

You're also ignoring the fact that the impact of light pollution and poor lighting conditions on astronomical observations is not the vague, uncharted wilderness of "nobody has researched it," your lies and ostrich impression suggest.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.6175.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993IAPPP..53....1B

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astr...ent/l3_p8.html

https://astroedu.iau.org/en/activiti...-see-at-night/

Existing light pollution studies are a much better resource for evaluating your claims than the vague, "till it hurts" boondoggle you propose.
__________________
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 06:37 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 4th February 2020, 07:04 AM   #283
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
<snip nonsense>
You are utterly clueless about photography as well as anything else. The highest speed film I can recall using was 4000 in a traditional 35mm SLR. It had nothing to do with low light anything. Somehow, you have no idea why one might choose such a film stock because you appear to not know how anything works. Nor which film stock goes in what camera, nor why that might be so.

The RCA camera did not use film so that is a red herring.

Lunar surface photography film stock used 64 or 180 speed film mostly.

The simple fact is that given the cameras, using 2485 film to photograph the sun directly would result in a featureless overexposed white square. But you have no clue why that is either.
__________________
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 4th February 2020, 11:42 AM   #284
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,907
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Not the kind of equipment need for a blindingly brightly lunar surface is it?

Not unless you wanted to use a small aperture and a fast shutter speed to maximize depth of field and minimize precious shots being wasted to focusing errors, camera shake, or motion blur.

Or if you wanted to be able to photograph lunar features or other objects not in direct sunlight, which would be in deep shadow instead (due to the long-observed sharpness of lunar shadows that, as I mentioned before, makes the hypothesis of sunlight on the lunar surface being the result of fluorescence in the lunar atmosphere impossible) and illuminated only by earthlight, sunlight scattered from other lunar terrain, and/or artificial light used by the photographers.

But why would the Apollo mission planners want to do any of those things, right? I'm sure they must have had a one-hour photo booth, an infinite supply of film, a stadium's worth of floodlights, and ample amounts of time for re-shoots available on the moon, so why worry about film speed?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 4th February 2020 at 11:44 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2020, 12:46 PM   #285
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Well, here is a simple experiment we can do from Earth. ...
Missed this abysmally ignorant experiment from Solon. He does not know that Earth is not outer space and is even deluded about his delusions !
His delusion is that stars only emit gamma rays. He imagines that astronauts in cislunar orbit can never see any stars but here he is acknowledging that they see stars!

His "experiment" is the stupidity of blinding people, letting their vision recover and them seeing stars as normal on Earth. This is not what happens in an EVA in space. An astronaut may be in the sunlight that Solon says cannot exist ! They are blind to fainter objects such as stars because that is the way eyes work. If they use their dark visor, that will also cut out faint objects such as stars.
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 4th February 2020, 12:50 PM   #286
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
One thing that will not work on the Moon is the idea of using solar concentrators to melt the regolith and make bricks.
More ignorance of the existence of Google from Solon!
Solar 3D printing of lunar regolith
Quote:
Abstract
The authors demonstrated the feasibility of sintering lunar regolith layer-by-layer solely using concentrated sunlight. First trials using actual concentrated sunlight led to an inhomogeneous sintering of individual layers of lunar regolith simulant, due to the significant flux density variations caused by atmospheric fluctuations. Tests focusing Xenon light demonstrated however the concept with the manufacturing of the first solar 3D printed brick made of lunar regolith simulant.
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 4th February 2020, 01:06 PM   #287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
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
More lies from Solon.
Anyone who learns about the Moon knows that it reflects sunlight and emits some light, e.g. because it is heated by the Sun. When the Moon is eclipsed by Earth's shadow and not lit by the Sun we see Eclipsed Moon in Infrared

Photon Luminescence of the Moon. Sunlight absorbed by lunar regolith produces X-ray fluorescence used by Apollo astronauts to measure chemical composition. This conference presentation is on a similar fluorescence caused by comic rays.
Solon lies that this is to do with his Sun only emits gamma rays delusion.

His delusion is that the Sun only emits gamma rays so his next fantasies on "solar UV" are a lie.

LUNAR ELECTRIC FIELDS AND DUST: IMPLICATIONS FOR IN SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION. This is about the well know physics that the solar wind electrostatically charges the Lunar surface. The result is dust clinging to astronauts and equipment (As seen in the Apollo missions) which needs to be allowed for in missions.
Solon lies that this is to do with his Sun only emits gamma rays delusion.
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 4th February 2020, 01:17 PM   #288
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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?
The fact that they were able to look at the sun and describe it indicates that it was not that bright. Have you ever tried looking directly at the Sun? Maybe they were wearing an arc welders visor? And of course after looking at the Sun they certainly wouldn't be able to see the stars again until they were dark adapted would they?
There is a photo from the Apollo missions of an astronaut on the Moon looking at the Sun, his dark visor is not down and he is not even squinting. How bright could the Sun be?
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 4th February 2020, 01:21 PM   #289
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Heat and Light from the Sun

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The fact that they were able to look at the sun and describe it indicates that it was not that bright. Have you ever tried looking directly at the Sun? Maybe they were wearing an arc welders visor? And of course after looking at the Sun they certainly wouldn't be able to see the stars again until they were dark adapted would they?

There is a photo from the Apollo missions of an astronaut on the Moon looking at the Sun, his dark visor is not down and he is not even squinting. How bright could the Sun be?

Citation needed. Post a link to the photo you’re discussing.
__________________
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 4th February 2020, 01:56 PM   #290
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A lying "able to look at the sun [directly]" delusion

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The fact that they were able to look at the sun and describe it indicates that it was not that bright.
5 January 2020 Solon: A lying "able to look at the sun [directly]" delusion.
Solon lies because his delusion is that the Sun only emits gamma rays which may kill astronauts in space but is not seen by their eyes.

In the real world, it is not recommended to look directly at the Sun on the surface of the Earth with the shielding effect of the Earth's atmosphere. No one would tell astronauts to look directly at the brighter Sun from space or from the Moon where is no shielding from the Earth's atmosphere.

When astronauts are in space can they still be blinded by the sun? Do they have to avoid looking at it?
Quote:
Clayton C. Anderson, A NASA astronaut who lived and laughed in space for quite a while!
Absolutely we avoid looking into the sun... just like we do on Earth. As a matter of fact, we often wear sunglasses to shield our eyes during docking operations when an untimely appearance of the sun in our eyes could be quite detrimental. During spacewalks, the suit we wear has a golden helmet visor, specifically designed to protect our eyes from the brightness of the sun while we are working outside of the International Space Station. Remember too, that we are not looking through the Earth's atmosphere, we are flying above it which gives us a tad more brightness than you might experience on the planet. Most of the ISS windows are provided with UV shielding, further protecting us from the more harmful aspects of the sun's rays
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
There is a photo from the Apollo missions of an astronaut on the Moon looking at the Sun, his dark visor is not down and he is not even squinting.
5 January 2020 Solon: A probable lie of a photo of an Apollo astronaut looking into the Sun from the Moon with no visor without squinting.
No citation of the photo with no context is a strong hint of a lie.
The Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly had a center eyeshade, side eyeshades, a protective visor and a sun visor. On EVA the sun visor was down except for short periods, e.g. looking at equipment and taking photons of faces. We may have a fantasy about one of those photos.

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th February 2020 at 02:10 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 4th February 2020, 02:03 PM   #291
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,995
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The fact that they were able to look at the sun and describe it indicates that it was not that bright. Have you ever tried looking directly at the Sun? Maybe they were wearing an arc welders visor? And of course after looking at the Sun they certainly wouldn't be able to see the stars again until they were dark adapted would they?

There is a photo from the Apollo missions of an astronaut on the Moon looking at the Sun, his dark visor is not down and he is not even squinting. How bright could the Sun be?
Yes, as it happens, I occasionally looked at the sun when I was a kid. Later I was told it wasn't good for my eyes so I tend to avoid it now. I see you have no prediction of how dim the sun should look from the moon with its vanishing tenuous atmosphere, nor any evidence that it was dimmer than anyone expected.

This suggests to me a) your conjecture is false b) your explanation for its being light on the moon is risible and c) you know it.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2020, 02:29 PM   #292
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Missed a couple of lies about the Voskhod 2 mission which carried cosmonaut Leonov

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
.....The Sun was visible, but looked very strange.
5 January 2020 Solon: Missed a couple of lies about the Voskhod 2 mission which carried cosmonaut Leonov.
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."
Leonov saw stars and the Sun from orbit thus debunking Solon's delusion.
The lie quoted is that Leonov is not saying that the Sun "looked very strange". Leonov is saying that the Sun looked different from the surface as expected for a ball of plasma emitting visible and other light in space. That was a strange sight only seen by a handful of people.

Another lie of "different colours" from different altitudes when he gives no evidence of that. Leonov is obviously talking abut only the Voskhod 2 mission and the color difference between stars on the surface and in orbit.
N.B. There was a different Vostok 2 mission.

Alexei Leonov " became the first human to conduct a spacewalk, exiting the capsule during the Voskhod 2 mission for 12 minutes and 9 seconds. "

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th February 2020 at 02:31 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 4th February 2020, 06:58 PM   #293
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The fact that they were able to look at the sun and describe it indicates that it was not that bright. Have you ever tried looking directly at the Sun? Maybe they were wearing an arc welders visor? And of course after looking at the Sun they certainly wouldn't be able to see the stars again until they were dark adapted would they?
There is a photo from the Apollo missions of an astronaut on the Moon looking at the Sun, his dark visor is not down and he is not even squinting. How bright could the Sun be?
The Sun in space - whether in low Earth orbit, in cislunar space, or on the surface of the Moon - is observed to be a little brighter (about 15%) due to the lack of an intervening atmosphere. The appearance of the Sun is not appreciably affected by the presence or absence of an ionosphere. Those are facts, and do not depend upon your fantasy of a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and engineers spanning more than six decades. I work in this field, and unlike you I know what I’m talking about.

Waving your arms about “what the Sun looked like” to Apollo astronauts during translunar/trans-Earth cruise is irrelevant. According to your claims, neither the Sun, the Moon, nor any stars should have been visible at all while the astronauts were on their way to or from the Moon. When confronted with multiple instances of these objects being observed, you made up some nonsense about “power optics” (false), then “calculated” a limit for seeing the Moon of about 50,000 miles to match an example given to you. Well then confronted with an example from 100,000 miles away, you ran away and hid, never acknowledging it.

Now you’re waving your arms about the exact appearance of the Sun, contradicting yourself because it should not be visible at all according to your very own words. And you are still ignoring the many observations of the Moon and stars from a place from which you claimed they were not visible.

There’s plenty more, such as the other massive contradictions in your claims, but there’s a couple of things you could address - if you wanted to be honest. 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 4th February 2020, 07:30 PM   #294
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
...Well then confronted with an example from 100,000 miles away, you ran away and hid, never acknowledging it.
Solon is also running away from the example of observations of the Sun and stars taken millions of kilometers away from the Earth.
List of objects at Lagrangian points includes
  • Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO).
  • The Gaia second data release has positions of over 1.3 billion stars.
  • Herschel Space Observatory
The STEREO spacecraft could be on the other side of the Sun from Earth (300 million kilometres) or quite near and always saw the same old Sun!
Spitzer Space Telescope got 0.1 AU each year further from Earth over its 30 year lifetime.
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 4th February 2020, 09:27 PM   #295
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
Since the photographs taken on the moon were done by analog cameras and film at a time when exposure information was not embedded in an image, I don't know how to retrieve such information short of finding it in some obscure publication I have not yet seen, but surely the persons taking them had some notion of proper exposure, since they got good pictures. It should be pretty easy, if the exposure information were available, to determine whether the sunlight on the moon was dimmer than normal or brighter than normal.

In any case, one thing I notice in many of the images that are available is that, even though the exposures appear dark, the white of the space suits is very bright, and sometimes quite blown out. In other words, the sunlight on the white suits is so bright that in order to avoid complete washout, the rest of the scene must be drastically underexposed.

This is a common enough phenomenon with digital photography, in which overexposed highlights are completely lost while underexposed shadows can be recovered much more easily. It is the opposite with film photography - shadows are lost, and overexposed highlights more easily recovered. I would bet dollars to donuts that if the photographs ended up with highlights as blocked as some I've seen are, the contrast of the scenes was far beyond the capacity of even the best film to handle (and that capacity is high in good film). IN short, the sun on the suits was blindingly bright.
__________________
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 4th February 2020, 09:58 PM   #296
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Imagine wearing white suits on a very large asphalt expanse in mid-morning. Bump the incident sunlight up by about 15% or so. That’s very roughly what the lighting was like.

The difference, of course, is the lack of air to scatter the sunlight and diffuse the illumination. So you see a blue sky with a bright Sun in this scenario. On the Moon, you see a black sky with a somewhat brighter Sun. You don’t see stars because there’s always sunlight lighting up your field of view somewhere, and your eyes don’t have the requisite dynamic range to see sunlit things and stars at the same time. Hollywood always gets this wrong, due to ignorance or artistic effect.

At least one Apollo astronaut, I believe it was Ed Mitchell, took a couple of minutes to stand in the shade of the LM, arrange himself not to see any sunlit objects, and let his pupils dilate enough to see stars. But it was awkward, and pointless from a mission standpoint, and every minute represented eleventy thousand taxpayer dollars, so you can see why this was not something the crews did more than once or twice (IIRC). JayUtah is the resident expert on this.
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 5th February 2020, 12:54 PM   #297
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Not unless you wanted to use a small aperture and a fast shutter speed to maximize depth of field and minimize precious shots being wasted to focusing errors, camera shake, or motion blur.

Or if you wanted to be able to photograph lunar features or other objects not in direct sunlight, which would be in deep shadow instead (due to the long-observed sharpness of lunar shadows that, as I mentioned before, makes the hypothesis of sunlight on the lunar surface being the result of fluorescence in the lunar atmosphere impossible) and illuminated only by earthlight, sunlight scattered from other lunar terrain, and/or artificial light used by the photographers.

But why would the Apollo mission planners want to do any of those things, right? I'm sure they must have had a one-hour photo booth, an infinite supply of film, a stadium's worth of floodlights, and ample amounts of time for re-shoots available on the moon, so why worry about film speed?
Lighting conditions on the Moon were very difficult, no doubt, but with the film it is not really possible to judge the true illumination levels. They used some SO films which were Special Order for NASA so spectral response is unknown, plus we do not know exactly how they were processed, and could be 'pushed' at least 2 stops during processing, maybe 3 if they were to military spec.
The Vidicon cameras were strange things, but did have a high dynamic range. An ISO rating of 512,000 is listed for the civilian versions of the tubes they were using.
Looking at the images from the vidicon on the surface, the Metric camera in the lander, and photos taken from the surface you can see the tremendous difference in apparent illumination levels, so hard to guess, which is why I would have liked to see light meter readings, the newer digital cameras cameras with availability of the EXIF data should answer any uncertainty.
Another interesting experiment would be to send the latest low light level video cameras to orbit the Moon as no video cameras have been sent since the Apollo missions. I see on TV some low light level scenes where the camera has picked up some stars, so the same camera in lunar orbit should be able to do the same.
Lunar far side photos are a puzzle too. Up until the Israel Beresheet mission there had been very few photos, all of them in the near infrared. On this pace there are 2 undoctored images taken when the craft was on what should have been a fully illuminated far side.
discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/now-in-lunar-orbit-israels-beresheet-mission-preps-for-moon-landing
The Chinese lander and rover on the far side have taken some photos but again without camera/exposure data it is difficult to judge illumination levels.
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hWYi3vG2U547Nb1yTwXqsgKCDhaghL8j
Twitter images:
twitter.com/hashtag/change4
The camera used a Bayer filter but the images are far nicer if they are de-Bayered.
pbs.twimg.com/media/ENaha5mUEAA1QSd?format=jpg&name=small

I much more scientific photometric study of the Moon is required to get to true nature of Lunar lighting, but I am pretty sure if one was performed it would blow the presently accepted Solar Constant model out of the water. Maybe I could interest Elon Musk in the idea of putting a video camera in orbit around the Moon, maybe send it in one of his new pick-up trucks?

Last edited by Solon; 5th February 2020 at 12:59 PM.
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 5th February 2020, 01:32 PM   #298
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Everything you just said is an irrelevant diversion.

According to your own words, the barely-there lunar ionosphere performs the “conversion” necessary to see on the Moon, and in fact to see it from up to about 50,000 miles away*. So waving your arms about the exact appearance on the surface or in orbit is meaningless, since you’ve already said you can see the Sun and Moon from that region.

The Apollo astronauts saw the Moon, as well as the Sun and stars, from much farther away - which you claim is completely impossible. Why do you so diligently ignore that? Why are you so afraid that you run and hide from things refuting your claims?

*ETA: you claimed you “calculated” this value, which meant you had to use the rate of transverse EM wave falloff in a vacuum you said was “known”. What is it? Why won’t you answer that question? Why are you so frightened of providing a value you yourself claim to have used?

Last edited by sts60; 5th February 2020 at 01:38 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 5th February 2020, 05:05 PM   #299
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
Sure, we cannot know just what exposures were required on the moon, but someone knew, and I suspect that if the conditions had been unusually dim, someone over the last 50 years would have mentioned it.

If the film was specially ordered, it seems likely (of course we can't know for sure, can we?) that it was better than consumer film, not worse. Plain old Kodacolor had pretty decent dynamic range in 1969.

So we are left with the issue of extreme contrast. In many photos, the lunar landscape appears to be very dark while the space suits that are in a position to catch the sun are blown to bright white.
__________________
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 5th February 2020, 05:12 PM   #300
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Lighting conditions on the Moon were very difficult, no doubt, but with the film it is not really possible to judge the true illumination levels. They used some SO films which were Special Order for NASA so spectral response is unknown, plus we do not know exactly how they were processed, and could be 'pushed' at least 2 stops during processing, maybe 3 if they were to military spec.
The Vidicon cameras were strange things, but did have a high dynamic range. An ISO rating of 512,000 is listed for the civilian versions of the tubes they were using.
Looking at the images from the vidicon on the surface, the Metric camera in the lander, and photos taken from the surface you can see the tremendous difference in apparent illumination levels, so hard to guess, which is why I would have liked to see light meter readings, the newer digital cameras cameras with availability of the EXIF data should answer any uncertainty.
Another interesting experiment would be to send the latest low light level video cameras to orbit the Moon as no video cameras have been sent since the Apollo missions. I see on TV some low light level scenes where the camera has picked up some stars, so the same camera in lunar orbit should be able to do the same.
Lunar far side photos are a puzzle too. Up until the Israel Beresheet mission there had been very few photos, all of them in the near infrared. On this pace there are 2 undoctored images taken when the craft was on what should have been a fully illuminated far side.
discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/now-in-lunar-orbit-israels-beresheet-mission-preps-for-moon-landing
The Chinese lander and rover on the far side have taken some photos but again without camera/exposure data it is difficult to judge illumination levels.
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hWYi3vG2U547Nb1yTwXqsgKCDhaghL8j
Twitter images:
twitter.com/hashtag/change4
The camera used a Bayer filter but the images are far nicer if they are de-Bayered.
pbs.twimg.com/media/ENaha5mUEAA1QSd?format=jpg&name=small

I much more scientific photometric study of the Moon is required to get to true nature of Lunar lighting, but I am pretty sure if one was performed it would blow the presently accepted Solar Constant model out of the water. Maybe I could interest Elon Musk in the idea of putting a video camera in orbit around the Moon, maybe send it in one of his new pick-up trucks?
Still 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 6th February 2020, 06:08 AM   #301
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Lighting conditions on the Moon were very difficult, no doubt
Still awaiting a reply to post 162.
Solon, as a frame of reference, this is the post Steve001 is asking you to respond to:

Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
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?
If the image does not meet your criteria, why not?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2020, 09:13 AM   #302
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,065
Also, see the image in this article, and Solon's comments below it;

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/04...atch-27-march/
__________________
“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 6th February 2020, 09:47 AM   #303
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,207
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Also, see the image in this article, and Solon's comments below it;

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/04...atch-27-march/
It must have been very frustrating to see technical specifications demonstrating that the image and the hardware used to capture it refuted his claim that stars only emit gamma radiation. Perhaps there was a concentration of the luminous ether allowing the gamma radiation to become visible. LOL!
__________________
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 6th February 2020, 01:06 PM   #304
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Thumbs down Continues with irrelevant nonsense about the Moon

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Lighting conditions on the Moon were very difficult, ...
7 January 2020 Solon: Continues with irrelevant nonsense about the Moon ignoring the real world of images of the Sun and stars in visible light debunking his "they only emit gamma rays" delusion.His delusion includes that magic happens to convert gamma rays to visible light for cameras on the Moon so anything about cameras on the Moon is irrelevant.

A "Up until the Israel Beresheet mission [in 2019]there had been very few photos, all of them in the near infrared" lie about the lunar far side.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter started to map the Moon in 2009 and till is taking images with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera in white light with visible and infrared filters for the wide angle camera.
Photo Shows Far Side of Moon Like Never Before from 2011 (a mosaic of thousands of images) !
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 6th February 2020, 01:20 PM   #305
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Also, see the image in this article, and Solon's comments below it;

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/04...atch-27-march/
Some deep ignorance in those comments by Solon.
  • "no filters, how are we to know what wavelengths are being detected,".
    No filters means the NAVCAM detects all wavelengths of light that it can ! This is often called "white light" in astronomy and is common in images taken of stars and the Sun.
  • "Not knowing what we are actually seeing is very frustrating" when we (not him though) know that we see reflected sunlight from comets because the light is similar to the directly detected sunlight.
    Whatever body is emitting the light is made up of mostly H and He which is not a comet!
  • "The data sheet says 200-1100nm, so UV and IR" and visible light.
    The sensitivity curve of the CCD makes the range more 300-900 nm (visible light is 400–700 nm). This is Solon acknowledging that Rosetta detected visible sunlight reflected from Comet 67P and stars!
    Comet 67P/C-G in Rosetta's navigation camera
    Quote:
    This image shows a star field with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at the centre. It was taken by Rosetta's navigation camera (NAVCAM) on 3 June 2014. The NAVCAM has a 5-degree field of view and takes 1024 × 1024 12-bit per pixel images.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th February 2020 at 01:24 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 6th February 2020, 01:46 PM   #306
Solon
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
It must have been very frustrating to see technical specifications demonstrating that the image and the hardware used to capture it refuted his claim that stars only emit gamma radiation. Perhaps there was a concentration of the luminous ether allowing the gamma radiation to become visible. LOL!
Quote:
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?
Hubble sees what your eyes could not for one thing, and it's not to to with wavelength, it's about coherency of light. Nobody knows what light actually is, the top experts admit it. We understand its behaviour in many ways, enough that we can do some pretty amazing things with it, but like gravity, magnetism and charge, we do not know what light really is.
The empirical method calls for independently verifiable experiments, but as a regular telescope and camera have not even been allowed into LEO let alone deep space then we can not independently verify that the stars are visible (at visible wavelengths) by any othe device than Hubble.
For the Atmospheric Light Transformer model to be tested it would also be required to know Hubbles orientation. Hubble is still in LEO, so if it is looking at an angle through the atmosphere then the line of sight to the target is still though thousands of miles of sparse but still present matter of some form or other.
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 6th February 2020, 02:02 PM   #307
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,065
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Hubble sees what your eyes could not for one thing, and it's not to to with wavelength, it's about coherency of light. Nobody knows what light actually is, the top experts admit it. We understand its behaviour in many ways, enough that we can do some pretty amazing things with it, but like gravity, magnetism and charge, we do not know what light really is.
The empirical method calls for independently verifiable experiments, but as a regular telescope and camera have not even been allowed into LEO let alone deep space then we can not independently verify that the stars are visible (at visible wavelengths) by any othe device than Hubble.
For the Atmospheric Light Transformer model to be tested it would also be required to know Hubbles orientation. Hubble is still in LEO, so if it is looking at an angle through the atmosphere then the line of sight to the target is still though thousands of miles of sparse but still present matter of some form or other.
Here's me thinking denial was a river in Egypt! Rosetta was at 3 AU! And took countless images from NAVCAM and OSIRIS in visible light. The star tracker used visible light. It saw stars! Grow up, for heaven's sake.
__________________
“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 6th February 2020, 02:16 PM   #308
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
5 January 2020 Solon: A lying "able to look at the sun [directly]" delusion.
It's not quite a lie. Apollo astronauts were frequently harassed for not using their visors by the ground team. There are even photographs. Nevertheless, Solon's presentation of it is at best dishonest. The astronauts were not there to look at the sun. Their mission was to examine the moon. Staring at the sun from space (or the moon) is indeed more dangerous from space than from Earth. But not by much. That is why the transcripts from apollo have many examples of instructions from the ground to "close your visor". Of course, this is simple. The astronauts were looking at the ground before their feet not the sky over their head. But we have already established that Solon has not read the transcripts, so how would one expect anything else?.
__________________
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 6th February 2020, 02:32 PM   #309
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Irrelevant lies about Hubble and light. Usual deluded demands

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Hubble sees what your eyes could not for one thing, and it's not to to with wavelength, it's about coherency of light. ...
7 January 2020 Solon: Irrelevant lies about Hubble and light. Usual deluded demands.
Hubble Space Telescope sees visible light just as our eyes see it ("four main instruments observe in the ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum."). The ultraviolet and near infrared regions are seen because that and visible light is what stars and gas emit. Eyes do not see ultraviolet and near infrared regions because they are not physically able to see them !

We have centuries of empirical evidence about light which tell us what light is and how it acts. Solon being totally in denial of that and lying about "top experts" debunks his own delusions . If he does not know whet light is, then he cannot say what happens when gamma rays do anything!

His persistent delusion that Hubble is he only space telescope and there are not many independently verifiable experiments of the detection of visible light from the Sun and stars.

His persistent delusion that a independently verifiable experiment is launching instruments used on the surface of Earth into orbit where they are destroyed by the launch or vacuum or just do not work !

A bit of "the Atmospheric Light Transformer model" insanity because his ignorant fantasies are not a scientific model and whatever he imagines are not scientific predictions.

An ignorant delusion that the orientation of Hubble is not known and so it may be looking through the atmosphere. Hubble is a deep space telescope that never points at the Earth.
Can Hubble Space Telescope observe Earth?
Quote:
If the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) could observe Earth from its orbit 570 kilometers (350 miles) above Earth’s surface, it would in theory be able to see objects as small as 0.3 meters (30 centimeters). But it’s not possible to turn the telescope in an Earth-observing direction. Here’s why.

First, the brightness of Earth would damage the instruments aboard the telescope.

Second, HST would have to look down through the atmosphere, which would blur the images and make the actual resolution or sharpness of the Earth images worse than theory suggests.

Finally, the HST orbits the Earth at a speed (27,000 kilometers per hour or 17,000 miles per hour). Its speed in orbit above Earth is so fast that any image it took would be blurred by the motion.
The first point is why Hubble is not pointed even close to the Earth.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th February 2020 at 02:36 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 6th February 2020, 02:38 PM   #310
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Hubble sees what your eyes could not for one thing,
Squid eyes see more that human eyes. Snd lack the human blind spot, being better evolved. Why you think the faulty human apparatus is the pinnacle of anything much is mysterious.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
and it's not to to with wavelength,
Unsupported assertion.
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
it's about coherency of light.
Unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Nobody knows what light actually is, the top experts admit it. We understand its behaviour in many ways, enough that we can do some pretty amazing things with it, but like gravity, magnetism and charge, we do not know what light really is.
Sorry, but that has never really worked for any claimant to anything ever. It is unlikely to work for you.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
The empirical method calls for independently verifiable experiments,
Perhaps, but not exclusively. Evidence is required. You have none.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
but as a regular telescope and camera have not even been allowed into LEO let alone deep space then we can not independently verify that the stars are visible (at visible wavelengths) by any othe device than Hubble.
Will you ever tire of this lie?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
For the Atmospheric Light Transformer model to be tested it would also be required to know Hubbles orientation.
We do. If you were remotely bothered, you could look it up like anyone else.

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
Hubble is still in LEO, so if it is looking at an angle through the atmosphere then the line of sight to the target is still though thousands of miles of sparse but still present matter of some form or other.
Well, just as well it doesn't even remotely do that, is it not. See the problem is that you claim no cameras outside the atmosphere. You claim lunar cameras were within the atmosphere of the moon. But somehow you pretend that all the other missions don't exist or are faked. That is absurd as an idea.

There is no rule that forbids any member proposing an absurd idea. But nobody is required to fall for any absurd idea.
__________________
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 6th February 2020, 03:38 PM   #311
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...The empirical method calls for independently verifiable experiments, but as a regular telescope and camera have not even been allowed into LEO let alone deep space then we can not independently verify that the stars are visible (at visible wavelengths) by any othe device than Hubble.
Patently false, and pointed out to you many times. Why are you so afraid of being wrong that you have to lie?

Originally Posted by Solon View Post
For the Atmospheric Light Transformer model to be tested it would also be required to know Hubbles orientation. Hubble is still in LEO, so if it is looking at an angle through the atmosphere then the line of sight to the target is still though thousands of miles of sparse but still present matter of some form or other.
According to you, light conversion cannot occur through the amount of ionosphere above the Hubble, yet does occur through the much smaller amount of atmosphere above the Moon. You contradict yourself, and have been asked to explain this contradiction, but have deliberately avoided doing so. Why are you so terrified of addressing this?

Also, your “model” uses an attenuation rate you said is “known”, even claiming to have provided a visibility calculation requiring it.

What is that rate?
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 6th February 2020, 03:50 PM   #312
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,234
Hold on, did Solon just assert that ultraviolet and infrared are not light? That the meaning of the word "light" is defined as "what our eyes see?" I have a sneaking suspicion that there's something wrong there.
__________________
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 6th February 2020, 03:53 PM   #313
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,390
By the way, have y’all noticed Solon’s latest example of Solon’s contradicting himself?

(Paraphrasing)
“Hubble doesn’t look away from Earth [ed.: Nope] so it uses a lot of ionosphere to see things.”
“Pictures from Hubble don’t count because it can see things we can’t.”

In other words, Solon demands proof of Hubble looking away from Earth (which he could find himself, if he wasn’t so frightened and lazy), but according to him Hubble doesn’t need the ionosphere anyway to see things. He does this a lot, flip-flopping between contradictory claims.

I used to think this was mainly due to him simply not thinking at all about his claims, but as this has been pointed out to him many times over several years, I now believe this is a deliberate tactic to obfuscate his claims and keep his interlocutors chasing in circles. This is supported by multiple other instances of dishonesty in his posting history.

Solon, why are you so petrified by the idea of being wrong that you resort to lying like this? Is it 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 6th February 2020, 04:16 PM   #314
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
By the way, have y’all noticed Solon’s latest example of Solon’s contradicting himself?
Yes. But I thought it might be an uninteinional error.

Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
(Paraphrasing)
“Hubble doesn’t look away from Earth [ed.: Nope] so it uses a lot of ionosphere to see things.”
That was such a spectacularly idiotic proposal that I thought "some mistake, surely", given Hubble intentionally points anywhere but the earth.


Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
“Pictures from Hubble don’t count because it can see things we can’t.”
Sure it can see things we can't. Along with everything we can. The mere fact that Hubble has more range, both distance and spectrum that our eyes do is irrelevant. Solon does not grok this, anymore than the mere fact that plenty of creatures have better eyes than any human RIGHT ON THIS VERY PLANET.
__________________
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 6th February 2020, 04:25 PM   #315
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,791
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That was such a spectacularly idiotic proposal that I thought "some mistake, surely", given Hubble intentionally points anywhere but the earth.

You mean it never takes a good picture of Earth? It points at Earth quite frequently to calibrate.
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 6th February 2020, 05:06 PM   #316
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
...but as a regular telescope and camera have not even been allowed into LEO let alone deep space...
To show how deluded his lie is:
List of cameras on ISS is at least 17 cameras in LEO !
Celestron Telescope Soars to International Space Station
List of space telescopes is basically terrestrial telescopes hardened for space. That includes a couple of telescopes 1.5 million kilometers away from Earth and the STERO telescopes that got to 300 million kilometers away from Earth !

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th February 2020 at 05:07 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 6th February 2020, 05:18 PM   #317
Tanalia
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
...
Hubble is a deep space telescope that never points at the Earth.
Can Hubble Space Telescope observe Earth?
Quote:
...
First, the brightness of Earth would damage the instruments aboard the telescope. ...
The first point is why Hubble is not pointed even close to the Earth.

This isn't actually true, as it is routinely pointed at Earth for calibration:
Bad Astronomy: if hubble was pointed at earth... has a basic description and a link toward the technical docs.

It is true, however, that it can't resolve any useful pictures of the surface.
Tanalia 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 6th February 2020, 05:52 PM   #318
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Solon, as a frame of reference, this is the post Steve001 is asking you to respond to:



If the image does not meet your criteria, why not?
I have no doubt he has seen it. He avoiding answering because it meets his criteria
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 6th February 2020, 05:58 PM   #319
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,065
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Hold on, did Solon just assert that ultraviolet and infrared are not light? That the meaning of the word "light" is defined as "what our eyes see?" I have a sneaking suspicion that there's something wrong there.
Well spotted!
__________________
“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 6th February 2020, 07:23 PM   #320
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
NASA Astronaut Jessica Meir Took a Space Selfie, Capturing her Reflection in the Space Station
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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