Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 230

Thread: Conjunctions

  1. #181
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    192
    Solon, why doesn't the clock inside a glass bell jar become invisible or least harder to see when the air is pumped out of the jar, even when the quality of the vacuum is sufficient to prevent me from hearing the alarm?

    EDIT: Hey! Why not wire a photovoltaic cell and put in a bell jar and track the amount of electricity it generates while pumping the air out of the jar? Wouldn't this serve as a practical test of your claim, Solon?

    EDIT 2: You could even put the apparatus in a dark room with a lamp to keep the amount of light as constant throughout the experiments.
    Last edited by MartianMarvin; 2012-Feb-22 at 07:55 PM.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,389
    Quote Originally Posted by MartianMarvin View Post
    Solon, why doesn't the clock inside a glass bell jar become invisible or least harder to see when the air is pumped out of the jar, even when the quality of the vacuum is sufficient to prevent me from hearing the alarm?
    That experiment won't work, as the clock is lit by light from the outside which has already passed through air and it passes through air to get to your eye.
    His ATM claim isn't that light is invisible if it's passed through vacuum but only that it it has to pass through air (or an ionophere of any density down to that of the Moon).

    You have to put the lighting source and the camera in the vacuum chamber as well.
    And since he's apparently claiming it is starlight in particular that can't be seen, you'd have to put a star in the chamber.

    Or, to test another of his claims, put an x-ray source in the chamber and try to see if the clock is visible from the outside (this requires the experiment to happen in an unlit room) when the scattered x-rays "Compton downshifts and turns into transverse waves" upon hitting the air outside.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  3. #183
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    That experiment won't work, as the clock is lit by light from the outside which has already passed through air and it passes through air to get to your eye.
    His ATM claim isn't that light is invisible if it's passed through vacuum but only that it it has to pass through air (or an ionophere of any density down to that of the Moon).
    Ah, as you can see, I'm having difficulty following his claims. But for his claim to hold, would the clock appear different from a camera inside the jar to a camera outside the jar?

    EDIT: Also, I couldn't find where he said what was so special about starlight. If he means black body radiation, then we could achieve that by simply re-creating an incandescent light bulb of sorts. The camera inside the jar wouldn't detect any incandescence while the camera outside would (according his claim if i now understand it correctly).
    Last edited by MartianMarvin; 2012-Feb-22 at 08:36 PM. Reason: terminology, slight changes in the proposed experiment.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,334
    At this point, it's up to Solon. HE should be saying what he would expect in (for example) an evacuated chamber, or what he would expect to see under different conditions. For example, if you're on the ISS, are stars supposed to get brighter nearer the Earth's limb? When we see the Moon or a Near Earth asteroid viewed from Earth, are we supposed to be seeing visible light from them? Or is it something else? Is the sun supposedly emitting X-rays, and is the claim that all the objects in the solar system are reflecting x-rays that get shifted when they reach Earth's ionosphere? Or . . . ?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    That experiment won't work, as the clock is lit by light from the outside which has already passed through air and it passes through air to get to your eye.
    His ATM claim isn't that light is invisible if it's passed through vacuum but only that it it has to pass through air (or an ionophere of any density down to that of the Moon).
    Actually, along with his nonsense about "plane waves turning into transverse waves", he did claim transverse waves (and thus light) had "very short" range in vacuum. The visibility of an object in a vacuum is a valid test of this. Of course, x-rays are transverse waves too...a point he has yet to address.


    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Or, to test another of his claims, put an x-ray source in the chamber and try to see if the clock is visible from the outside (this requires the experiment to happen in an unlit room) when the scattered x-rays "Compton downshifts and turns into transverse waves" upon hitting the air outside.
    It's really not clear what exactly he thinks, as he's made multiple contradictory claims. Some things he's said indicate he thinks the scattering of free electrons around the lunar surface, particles of dust, etc convert x-rays to visible light (explaining their visibility from spacecraft and to moonwalkers), but then he goes on about the x-rays from the moon being made visible by the ionosphere and even boundary layers deep in the atmosphere. The former would require x-rays to be converted to a visible spectrum consistent with illumination by black body visible light emissions by almost any interaction with matter (making x-rays as effective at illuminating objects as ordinary light), the latter would mean that dust and objects should be dark when viewed outside the atmosphere.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,638
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    That experiment won't work, as the clock is lit by light from the outside which has already passed through air and it passes through air to get to your eye.
    His ATM claim isn't that light is invisible if it's passed through vacuum but only that it it has to pass through air (or an ionophere of any density down to that of the Moon).

    You have to put the lighting source and the camera in the vacuum chamber as well.
    And since he's apparently claiming it is starlight in particular that can't be seen, you'd have to put a star in the chamber.

    Or, to test another of his claims, put an x-ray source in the chamber and try to see if the clock is visible from the outside (this requires the experiment to happen in an unlit room) when the scattered x-rays "Compton downshifts and turns into transverse waves" upon hitting the air outside.
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Actually, along with his nonsense about "plane waves turning into transverse waves", he did claim transverse waves (and thus light) had "very short" range in vacuum. The visibility of an object in a vacuum is a valid test of this. Of course, x-rays are transverse waves too...a point he has yet to address.
    I am more than a little confused as to exactly what he is claiming (thus my request to clarify).

    If it is some claim that visible light can not travel through vacuum, or can only travel a short distance, I have personal experience disproving that. I worked for many years with large (over meter diameter) vacuum furnaces. These furnaces had viewports. As the furnace heated up, it was quite easy to see the heaters glowing, and they would shift color, from deep red, through orange and yellow, to white, exactly as you would expect for a blackbody radiator. If we got the IR camera out (we had one) we could even see them at the lower temperatures when they only glowed in the infared.

    If he is also claiming that x-rays get shifted to visible light in air, I can also disprove that claim. I have worked, on and off over my career, with x-ray machines, and even when x-rays were being passed through air (as detected by a portable x-ray detector), I never saw any glow from them, nor from any object the x-rays hit.

    I didn't have to go to space to observe either of those things.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I didn't have to go to space to observe either of those things.
    Hence my dating the necessary conspiracy as being centuries old. And it must be big enough to include you and everyone else who has experience with x-rays.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    ...and even when x-rays were being passed through air (as detected by a portable x-ray detector), I never saw any glow from them, nor from any object the x-rays hit.
    Actually, for the sake of complete honesty (I just forgot, it is not a cover-up) I have to admit that this very last little bit is not true. I did see an object glow when x-rays hit it. In grad school, when we were aligning our x-ray diffractometer, we had a little plastic paddle with a bit of phosphorescent material stuck on the end of it (I don't remember the exact material, I think it was something like PbS or ZnSe). When the x-rays hit this material, it glowed green; we used it so we could actually find where the beam was.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I am more than a little confused as to exactly what he is claiming (thus my request to clarify).
    Same here. There's something about invisibility in space, but very vaguely defined with what I would think would be obvious evidence to the contrary rejected outright. So I don't know what it is he's rejecting.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Since he says that stars (and later throws in Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and other planets) outside the ionosphere, which "shifts" and "focuses" the invisible visible light, so -
    1. Things should look vastly different from Earth's ionosphere than from the Moon's ionosphere. But they don't. This sort of equivalence of effect of dissimilar actors is a very good indicator of a pseudoscience - in just the same way as Jupiter and Mercury have similar levels of influence in astrology.
    2. The appearance of the night sky - well, and of the Sun, and the Moon - should vary wildly as the ionosphere fluctuates in response to the Sun's moods. But it doesn't.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    I was wrong! I admit it! About the MGS MOC CCD chip anyway. I'd assumed it was the
    CCD 485, 3041, etc. It seems it may have been the 143a, but I haven't located the exact info yet.
    Thanks Jeff Root for your info. If it had been the 485, there would have been no excuse
    for returning images such as the Earth/Moon or Jupiter shots. However, in an effort to understand
    better, I'd like help in understanding the technical reasons for it not being able to do better.
    Is there a reasonably simple explanation? On a quick look, it doesn't look like MRO ever tried to
    see stars. Dang. I've looked at the sensor specs, but I need to spend more time on the application
    WRT astronomy. The "Handbook of CCD Astronomy" is a very informative publication for those who
    are not familiar with the principles, and there is a limited version available through Google Books.
    There is no way I can keep up with all the questions though, and at the moment I am preparing a paper to
    be presented to a number of acquaintances who do have the paper qualifications to make authoritative
    judgement on their validity. I do not do this lightly, as to prove myself a buffoon before friends is much more
    of a concern than doing so on this, or other forums.
    I'll get to answering some pending questions later today or in the morning, and then I may have to ask that the
    thread be suspended until I have sorted out all my documents and links and evidence (and my head! Hey, no snidey
    comments).
    Many of the comments here have actually raised more questions than they have answered so far, and some of them
    have indeed set me to thinking, and researching, so even if I do eventually have to retreat with my tail
    between my legs, it has not been a total waste of time. It is true that I have always had a vary active
    imagination, always asking questions, but as I saw on my calendar today the quote " Imagination is more important
    than knowledge.", I don't feel too bad about that. ;-)
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Feb-23 at 04:14 AM. Reason: Language

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,539
    That quote misses quite a lot of context.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #193
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    " Imagination is more important
    than knowledge."
    With all respect due Albert Einstein without knowledge, imagination can not be developed.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I was wrong! I admit it! About the MGS MOC CCD chip anyway. I'd ASSumed it was the CCD 485, 3041, etc. It seems it may have been the 143a, but I haven't located the exact info yet. Thanks Jeff Root for your info.
    If it had been the 485, there would have been no excuse for returning images such as the Earth/Moon or Jupiter shots. However, in an effort to understand better, I'd like help in understanding the technical reasons for it not being able to do better. Is there a reasonably simple explanation?
    According to your ideas, it should not have been able to take any such images. Remember your remarks about no images outside the ionosphere? We do.

    On a quick look, it doesn't look like MRO ever tried to see stars. Dang.

    Wrong. That too me about 15 seconds of typing "Mars Reconaissance Orbiter star images" into Google, but I guess that's not very quick.

    I've looked at the sensor specs, but I need to spend more time on the application WRT astronomy.

    I can smell the goal post grease already. Look, Solon, you claimed visible light didn't travel through the vacuum. But here we are showing you images of stars in visible light taken from interplanetary space. Your claim is manifestly wrong, as well as unphysical and requiring a really vast conspiracy to sustain it. All this busywork about sighting angles and CCD specs will not rescue your notion.

    There is no way I can keep up with all the questions though, and at the moment I am preparing a paper to be presented to a number of acquaintances who do have the paper qualifications to make authoritative judgement on their validity. I do not do this lightly, as to prove myself a buffoon before friends is much more of a concern than doing so on this, or other forums.

    Your idea is fundamentally broken - your proposed mechanism makes no physical sense and doesn't even get the basic nature of light correct. There is no evidence for your claim. There is a ton of evidence against it. Your claim would require a truly enormous conspiracy of physicists, astronomers, and engineers to sustain it - one that would make pretty much every other conspiracy in history, real or fantasized, seem like two kids conspiring to get into the cookie jar before dinner. You have already disregarded explanations from people who are qualified to talk about this subject.

    But please understand no one thinks you're a buffoon for coming up with this idea. The only problem is if you cling to it after it's been disproven.

    I'll get to answering some pending questions later today or in the morning, and then I may have to ask that the thread be suspended until I have sorted out all my documents and links and evidence (and my head! Hey, no snidey comments).

    It's better to be right than quick.

    Many of the comments here have actually raised more questions than they have answered so far, and some of them have indeed set me to thinking, and researching, so even if I do eventually have to retreat with my tail between my legs, it has not been a total waste of time. It is true that I have always had a vary active imagination, always asking questions, but as I saw on my calendar today the quote " Imagination is more important than knowledge.", I don't feel too bad about that. ;-)

    It's knowledge that takes you the places you imagine.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,437
    On a quick look, it doesn't look like MRO ever tried to see stars.
    So you are basically not reading the thread either? I gave links to MOC star images back in the thread, sts60 has re-presented one of them. The link I gave had calibration shots of the Southern Cross as well. As sts60 also said. 20s Googling using obvious keywords.

    The only reason more questions are raised than answered by this thread is because you have to come up with more questions to dismiss the answers you have been given. You asked if stars were visible in space. They are. There is a lot of evidence presented. Even if you found some line of logic that said one sensor didn't see them when you think it should have given your assumptions - you still have star trackers, SOHO, Mariner, Voyager, Apollo...

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    On a quick look, it doesn't look like MRO ever tried to
    see stars.
    Wrong.

    Google 'MRO Star Calibration'

    Top three hits - first two are stars seen via MRO's CTX camera. Third is from HiRISE

    http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/cruise/jewel_box.html



    MGS MOC images many astronomical targets from Mars Orbit -
    http://www.msss.com/msss_images/subject/earth_etc.html

    And just to put this out there - from deep space, Rosetta's OSIRIS camera imaged huge numbers of stars in our galaxy, and Mars, at the same time

    http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=40589


    What - exactly - is your claim. Please, may people have asked you to repeat it, and you've still not done so.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'll get to answering some pending questions later today or in the morning, and then I may have to ask that the
    thread be suspended until I have sorted out all my documents and links and evidence (and my head! Hey, no snidey
    comments).
    As best as I can tell, you have done nothing since post # 153 to answer any questions or to present any evidence. You not even clarified exactly what your claims are, as you were told to do.

    Lots of people are busy, yet they have managed to find the time to address everything you have brought up. Since this thread was moved to the CT forum, it is not for the purpose of you asking questions, it is for you to answer questions from everyone else and to present evidence of your ideas.

    If you want to spend your time writing papers for your friends, that's your business. But you are wasting everyone else's time here. You are getting a "Friendly Advice" infraction. If you do not start putting some work into this thread within the next 24 hours, you will be further infracted and this thread will be closed, whether you request it or not.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Solon, it takes a single "black swan" to overthrow a theory. You have been presented with countless flocks of swans of every conceivable color. This should make it impossible for you to cling on to these weird ideas.

    Before you spend/waste any more time, I would really like you to answer the one questions that you have been repeatedly asked by several people:

    Why would there be a massive conspiracy to cover up this interesting bit of physics?

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Solon, it takes a single "black swan" to overthrow a theory. You have been presented with countless flocks of swans of every conceivable color. This should make it impossible for you to cling on to these weird ideas.

    Before you spend/waste any more time, I would really like you to answer the one questions that you have been repeatedly asked by several people:

    Why would there be a massive conspiracy to cover up this interesting bit of physics?
    That's an interesting question, at least to me, in another way.

    Let's just assume, for a moment, that this idea was correct, and for some reason was not discovered until humans went into outer space, but when the first Russians and Americans went up, they suddenly couldn't see stars, for some reason. Why would NASA and the Soviets cover that up? There were plenty of other misconceptions about what life in space might be like. There were ideas that micro-gravity would mean the astronauts would get dizzy or disoriented or would not be able to swallow. None of those ideas were correct, and NASA openly showed that all of them were wrong. Why wouldn't they also announce this amazing discover?

    Now that the Chinese have independently reached orbit with manned flights, and the Indians and the Japanese have sent probes well beyond Earth orbit, why wouldn't they announce these findings?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'll get to answering some pending questions later today or in the morning, and then I may have to ask that the thread be suspended until I have sorted out all my documents and links and evidence...
    That's nice and all, but before you do that, could you please clarify what claim it is that you are making??


    Thanks.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    That quote* misses quite a lot of context.
    *Einstein quote about imagination being more important than knowledge

    Sorry for a slight topic derail, but would you happen to have a link to that quote in its proper context? I've always suspected it was being used in a manner quite different from what Einstein originally meant, but trying to search for it has lead nowhere. All I get are links to the partial quote everywhere.

    Thanks, and back to our originally scheduled discussion.

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    OK, the goalposts are now set firm. No images through the Earths atmosphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    From a shadowed location, they should be able to look away from the Earth and have no problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ...the lack of any astronomy or astro-photography from any orbital missions, around Earth or the Moon, (at visible wavelengths, with a regular camera) has to make me wonder why
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    To be more specific then, I'd like to see images of some stars, or planets, or even THE SUN, with a digital camera (of course, you will need a filter to look at the Sun) in a direction more or less perpendicular to the Earth surface.
    Let's put all these criteria next to each other, and see what we can see - keeping in mind that Solon also said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    The stars are only visible within the ionosphere....
    So we will indulge him and not use any pictures from space stations or the Shuttle.

    Here is astronomy from interplanetary space, between Earth and Mars: Mars Observer images Alpha Centauri, Jupiter, and Mars from a great distance.

    Here is astronomy from Mars orbit, specifically "looking away" from the planet: Mars Global Surveyor images Deimos.

    Here's some more astronomy, from deep space: Kepler images stars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    With the altitude of the ISS, they are than losing 300-400 km of the electron column that we view through from Earth. That's a lot less length for Compton shifting, which I think may be responsible for the visibility of stars, to occur. By looking sideways through the ionosphere, you are increasing the electron column depth.
    If your proposed "mechanism" is correct, stars should appear radically different as viewed from lunar orbit (with its puny "ionosphere") and Earth orbit, which they don't. They should also appear radically different from Earth orbit looking towards the zenith and looking closer to the Earth's limb. But they don't, not until you start actually looking into the atmosphere proper and get ordinary optical extinction. Your "mechanism" fails both those tests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Those shots serve to reinforce my belief. The stars are only visible within the ionosphere....
    Directly refuted by astronaut observations cited here from Apollo 11, here from Apollo 15.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    According to NASA, the sextant was never used to view the stars, to much glowing ice/dust followed the missions all the way to the moon, they couldn't tell what was what.
    Directly refuted here (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 17) and here (Apollo 13). (Yes, even on Apollo 13, they were able to peform star sights during the return cruise.)

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    How about our very own "Grand Tour" of images taken far outside the ionosphere, and thus according to Solon's idea cannot exist?

    Mercury from about 200,000 km (Mariner 10).

    Venus from about 2.7 million km (Galileo).

    Earth from Apollo 8 and from Apollo 10 (185,000 km) and Clementine (lunar orbit) and Galileo (2.7 million km) and NEAR (256,000 km) and Mars Odyssey (3.6 million km) and MESSENGER (183 million km).

    The Moon from ~63,000 km (Luna 3) and from 400,000 km (Galileo).

    Mars from Mars Climate Orbiter (4.5 million km) and Viking 1

    Asteroids Dactyl from 4,000 km (Galileo) and Gaspra from 16,000 km (Galileo)

    Jupiter from 5.7 milllion km (Voyager 1)
    and from 12 million km (Voyager 2).

    Saturn from 106 million km (Voyager 1) and .

    Voyager 1 photographs Uranus from 7 million km and moon Obreron from 670,000 km.
    Voyager 2 images Neptune's rings from 200,000 km. Ooh, look! Stars!

    Neptune from 6 million km (Voyager 2).

    Pluto from four billion kilometers (Hubble Space Telescope). Of course, you said you won't accept images from within the ionosphere, except you said you'd accept images pointing away from Earth. But New Horizons will be able to image Pluto in a few years.

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    It is so easy to find, and there are so many images taken from beyond LEO - that I simply can't believe that's what Solon is claiming is impossible. It's just too far fetched, too easily refutable to be a genuinely held belief.

    Solon - really - is that what you think?

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    It is so easy to find, and there are so many images taken from beyond LEO - that I simply can't believe that's what Solon is claiming is impossible. It's just too far fetched, too easily refutable to be a genuinely held belief.

    Solon - really - is that what you think?
    A related question is: Solon -- what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? If there is nothing that would ever do so, then simply say so, and we can stop wasting our time.

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,539
    Quote Originally Posted by FramerDave View Post
    *Einstein quote about imagination being more important than knowledge

    Sorry for a slight topic derail, but would you happen to have a link to that quote in its proper context? I've always suspected it was being used in a manner quite different from what Einstein originally meant, but trying to search for it has lead nowhere. All I get are links to the partial quote everywhere.

    Thanks, and back to our originally scheduled discussion.
    I'm afraid I do not, but merely putting it in the context of Einstein's life ought to be sufficient. After all, we are talking about a man did do a lot of study and a lot of research. Clearly, it's not as though he thought the knowledge was unimportant. It's just that he also thought it was important to expand on what was already known, to see where knowledge could take you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    A related question is: Solon -- what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? If there is nothing that would ever do so, then simply say so, and we can stop wasting our time.
    He's said. I think the question is, what can we provide that will change his mind? Because we cannot send him into orbit or get NASA to put things on the duty roster at ISS.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  27. #207
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,049
    I put it in a similar context with Edison's 99% persperation. Yes, the hard work is most important, but without that 1% inspiration, you go nowhere.

    Same with Einstein. Imagination is most important to expand knowledge, but without the knowledge you go nowhere.

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    ' Solon'.. From the rambling manor of your last post. YOU have issues.. unresolved.

    You have failed to show or explain by what science we can not see what we obviously can.

    ANY confusion is yours. Looking across those images you have posted you have failed to understand perspective..

    In fact your understanding of a great deal of astronomy seems a little thin...

    You must understand that here in THIS FORUM

    You are talking with some people who have worked and have first hand experience.

    and not unreasonably, will be prone to get a little 'tichy' when TOLD they can not see stars...


    Quote;" This picture of a crescent-shaped Earth and Moon -- the first of its kind ever taken by a spacecraft --
    was recorded Sept. 18, 1977, by NASA's Voyager 1 when it was 7.25 million miles (11.66 million kilometers) from Earth.
    The Moon is at the top of the picture and beyond the Earth as viewed by Voyager. Image Credit: NASA... " end quote.

    and I have been able to post it just for you.. V.. down a post...

    That little Photo talked of above is the first of many... I pulled that from the "Earthsky" site, this mornings postings..

    Notice that in the void between the Earth and Moon there appear to be some points of LIGHT...

    What do you think they might be ? I suggest you go to that 'Earthsky' web address and have a look...

    and from your own words... " Do some science...." because without it. You are starting to look foolish.

    Ranting on about some sort of cover up and photo fiddle.. NONSENSE.
    Last edited by astromark; 2012-Feb-23 at 07:20 PM. Reason: added photo point. V

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Because we cannot send him into orbit
    I know. It's a shame, isn't it.

  30. #210
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	voyager_earth_moon.jpeg 
Views:	177 
Size:	38.0 KB 
ID:	16330

    was the image in question... can you see that ?

Similar Threads

  1. One Night, Dozens of Triple Conjunctions
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-26, 10:40 PM
  2. JEN (questions about Sirius and planet conjunctions)
    By Jeanny514 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-03, 02:24 AM
  3. Earth-Venus Inferior Conjunctions
    By leokor in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-10, 11:09 PM
  4. Mercury as Morning Star with many Conjunctions
    By Centaur in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-29, 03:19 AM
  5. Inferior Conjunctions of Venus with Earth
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-15, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: