Free planetarium

 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 785
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

Conspiracy Theory Thread

26 Apr 2017 01:51

ZackG wrote:
Source of the post I have a bad feeling that this topic is going to turn into a political flamewar...

It won't because I won't allow it.  Anyone going to insults or raging is going to be taking a 7 day break from posting. 
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
User avatar
Mosfet
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 661
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Location: Italy

Conspiracy Theory Thread

26 Apr 2017 03:12

ZackG wrote:
Source of the post I have a bad feeling that this topic is going to turn into a political flamewar...

It won't.
Past night I stumbled upon a thread in another forum, and after reading 40 pages of posts I think I can tell you how it will be. It will be polite enough and crazy as a black hole, relentless and tireless. It will be also useless and an incredible waste of time, for the pattern is interesting for 10 pages or so, then becomes boring as it repeats, with little silly adaptations of the original claims which are foggy enough to justify anything, or not so clever repeated questions to avoid answers.

What he claim he want, a direct confirmation of his "theory" from the naked eye of Apollo astronauts, it will be nonetheless not enough for some reason even if some of those guys would be willing to waste their time with a private interview (which, if I remember correctly the other forum, he actually asked), being NASA tampering with evidence or shutting mouths, even if Buzz Aldrin in person should say "this is untrue and crazy at the same time". I'm sure many of us know how Buzz Aldrin used to respond to blatant falsities with more direct methods, though.

The real summary is, and I'm quoting from elsewhere, our friend is "not willing to accept" anything.

Now that I spent the time to write this small "look to the future" of this thread, and I'm pretty sure I covered the fundamentals, I will retire to never speak again on this matter.
"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so". Douglas N. Adams
My mods | My specs: Asus x555ub - cpu i5-6200u, ram 4gb, gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram | IRC freenode.net canale ##SpaceEngineITA
 
User avatar
GaryN
Observer
Observer
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: 18 Apr 2017

Conspiracy Theory Thread

26 Apr 2017 14:58

Watsisname wrote:
GaryN wrote:
Source of the post And yes, the ISS is orbiting withing the atmopsphere, much thinner up there, but sufficient if my theory is correct that when looking through that deep column of it towards the stars from the ISS, enough for the shorter, invisible light to be converted to visible

Justify your claim with a quantitative calculation.  

Specifically, calculate the column density of air molecules along a line of sight tangent to the ISS orbital path, and again for a line of sight radially outward from the ISS height.  Show your work.  You can take the ISS orbital altitude to be 404km, and you can use derived values of air density with altitude from observations of satellite decay rates.

Then present your mathematical model which relates column density to the conversion of light to different wavelengths.  Your model should be able to predict exactly what spectrum should result from a given initial spectrum as a function of column density.


GaryN wrote:
Source of the post I have not invented any new scientific process here, only applied known sciece to atmosoheric processes.

Please name exactly what principles of known science you are applying to exactly what atmospheric processes.

Very well put, that is exactly what must be done for a scientific model. and  I have been and still am locating and collecting data on electron, ion, atom, molecule and particle densities at increasing altitudes. Then the processes, beginning with gamma rays, that comprise the Atmospheric Light Transformer model. Attenuation, scattering, fluorescence, refraction, etc. The quantitave calculations will not be done by me, I'm an investigator, not a mathematician, and the models for complex atmospheres like Earths will also be complicated, as there are different processes going on at various elevations, and likely overlap of these processes. Simpler and thinner atmospheres will be simpler to model, and explains why they do not send cameras like HiRISE to planets/moons with little or no atmosphere, only IR or spectroscopic 'cameras', as with Mercury Messenger, which can not actually 'see' Mercury, it is much too dark, there is no Sunlight even so close to Mercury! 

 In my notebook though, I have amassed hundreds of clues that make no sense if if they are all to be taken into account, the most puzzling being the inconsistency of statements from the astronauts who have been in deep space, or had the opportunity to look away from Earth or the Moon when in orbit, from Armstrongs totally black space, to Mitchells "10 times brighter". How can those statements both be correct? NASA has never made any attempt to explain the discrepancy, and made no effort to do actual experiments which would provide the proof required to be able to close the case once and for all.

More interesting, or perhaps entertaining, is the creation of graphics, animations and videos to put up on Youtube, explaining what is going on out there, and why, from my perspective. Although science seems to be of low interest in these days of sensationalism, scandal and Idiocracy minded drivel, sites such as Youtube give an opportunity at least to present ideas that the tightly controlled mainstream media will never go near.
There are videos aplenty already from the Moon Hoaxers, such as this one:
Why are astronauts still lying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw
I fully believe they went to the Moon and back, and am not a "Flat Earther", which seems to be becoming the way mainstream sites are dealing with any questioning of accepted science, by labelling them all as such.
With my model, the inconsistencies in the astronauts statements are easily explained if what they observed depends where they were and which way they were looking at the time. Looking away from Earth, black. Looking towards Earth and through the upper atmosphere, stars. From deep space, it doesn't matter which way they were looking, its black, as was clearly stated in some of the Apollo transcripts.

I was looking at using Space Engine in some of the videos I plan, but I have been working with Celestia up to now, and I see it is being supported again, as I need to be able to record video of the views from the ISS at precise dates and times so I can show where the lines of sight from the ISS are. I have already been able to show the location of other spacecraft when images and video were made of certain events, and can show that they must have been looking through the atmosphere, just above the rim of the Earth. The only problem with Celestia is the difficulty, for me, of being able to update or roll back the ISS coordinates in order to cover both past and present orbital data so that my simulations are accurate.
I'll likely use 3DS Max too, as I can have far more control over cameras, lenses and lighting, and NASA has available many 3D model files to use in some, hopefully humorous, astronaut activity in space.
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 853
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Conspiracy Theory Thread

26 Apr 2017 21:44

You acknowledge that you are unable to demonstrate your claims with suitable rigor, and in fact, have yet to work out a model at all?  You are pushing your cart before the horse, except that your cart is full of bollocks and you have no horse.

I will allow you one more post to present your or a team-member's solutions to the questions I posed. Treat this as if it is your thesis defense before earning your degree.  I am a member of the committee reviewing your work.  Defend your thesis if you believe it deserves to be taken seriously.

I will also point out that I never pose a challenge requiring doing math to someone without working out the solutions myself first.  The column mass density of atmosphere along a line of sight radially outward from 400km alttiude is on the order of 10-7 grams per square centimeter.  Show how this result is obtained, then comment on what this implies for how your proposal (that visible sunlight is produced by a conversion of UV light in atmospheres) can be tested in the laboratory.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 11:22

ABOUT A SIMPLE CALCULATION AND EXPERIMENT YOU CAN DO


We asked for it


FastFourierTransform:
Source of the post show us your calculations please? It should be fairly easy, you just have to know the density profile of our atmosphere and integrate along the line of sight of your choice from the cupola, knowing only the ISS altitude and that earth is a sphere you should come up with the real amount of gas that covers the view


Watsisname:
Source of the post calculate the column density of air molecules along a line of sight tangent to the ISS orbital path, and again for a line of sight radially outward from the ISS height.  Show your work.  You can take the ISS orbital altitude to be 404km, and you can use derived values of air density with altitude from observations of satellite decay rates.


But this was all we got from you.


GaryN:
Source of the post The quantitave calculations will not be done by me, I'm an investigator, not a mathematician, and the models for complex atmospheres like Earths will also be complicated


My friend, As Watsisname I've also lost my time doing this calculation for you and what I get is very similar to Watsisname's result. I get around ~5x10^-8 g/cm^2, considering that the ISS orbits at 404 km of height, this observations about the density profile of the extendend atmosphere of Earth and your imposition that the line of sight is of 12º from the horizon at max because of the cupola viewing limitations (yes, I measured that angle from the draw you posted).



GaryN:
Source of the post I have already been able to show the location of other spacecraft when images and video were made of certain events, and can show that they must have been looking through the atmosphere, just above the rim of the Earth


That is for a line of sight from the ISS to the Sun. The closest point to Earth that this line of sight traverses is about 256 km above the surface (way higher than the altitude at witch we consider we are in the dark cold realms of space).

5x10^-8 g/cm^2
Compare that with the density of air here at sea level. We have 0.00123x10^-3 g/cm^3 of air density. So in order to reproduce the column of material that accumulates on the line of sight of the ISS to the Sun, here (at sea level on the surface of Earth), you just have to put some light source at 0.4 mm from your eyes.

Do you see how ridiculous it is? A column of air with a base area of 1 cm^2 from your eye extending just the length of an Acarus has so much gas in it as a column extending from the ISS to 150 million km in the direction of the Sun as viewed from a perfectly allowed direction from the cupola. (I hope my calculations are correct, because this has blown my mind also; air is trully compacted here on Earth).

The experiment is simple: buy an UV light, a good one that does only emmit UV and not a bit of purple in the visible and put it just a centimeter away from you. If you are correct it should turn to visible light at that distance!!!! Also if you put that UV light closer than 0.4 mm from your eyes it should dissapear misteriously!!!
well, none of this would happen, because your hypothesis is not true at all.

Atmospheric density profile used:
Image

Cupola field of view derived from your own image:
Image



GaryN:
Source of the post  I have been and still am locating and collecting data on electron, ion, atom, molecule and particle densities at increasing altitudes. Then the processes, beginning with gamma rays, that comprise the Atmospheric Light Transformer model

By the way, electrons, gamma rays etc... exists in space, that's true but they are totally irrelevant for the calculation, those effects you are describing (even if they had something to do at all with optical properties of gases) are so puny that don't add anything to the numbers. You should have a more educated sense of the orders of magnitude involved.



GaryN:
Source of the post will also be complicated, as there are different processes going on at various elevations, and likely overlap of these processes

They are complex when you see them with a grotesque microscopic detail while embeded in a several orders of magnitude higher uniformity that totally make those effects puny fluctuations. Yeah, there are seasonal effects on the Exosphere, and also the density fluctuations due to solar wind variations, you can examine those because if you can notice 10 particles per cubic centimeter you can probably measure also a change in 2 or 3 particles in density. That's because you are in a mind bogling vacuum and any small fluctuations in density could be detected. But since you are grosly comparing densities that are billions of times larger with these you can be sure you don't need anything more to add to the calculation.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 12:39

ABOUT THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CHARACTER OF YOUR PROPOSAL

GaryN:
Source of the post And yes, the ISS is orbiting withing the atmopsphere, much thinner up there, but sufficient if my theory is correct that when looking through that deep column of it towards the stars from the ISS, enough for the shorter, invisible light to be converted to visible. I have not invented any new scientific process here, only applied known sciece to atmosoheric processes


GaryN:
Source of the post  as with Mercury Messenger, which can not actually 'see' Mercury, it is much too dark, there is no Sunlight even so close to Mercury!

First of all GaryN, you don't have a model (because you have no maths). Second, you don't have a theory (at least what in science we consider a theory), since you don't back your claims with a theoretical framework that can explain this atmospheric transformer mombojombo and don't have any observational evidence whatsoever. Third, I would say it's difficult even to know if you have an hypothesis, since those also need self-consistency at least in terms of logical reasoning, something I suspect you lack due to the way you pseudoskeptically doubt about an instrument but not abour a subjective, missinterpreted, non quantitative testimony.


It's very common in pseudoscientific thinking to make things unfalsifiable. That means changing the parameters of the proposed hypothesis as to be farther and farther from the reach of everyone. You see, when this happens in science we inmediatly drop in the trash that hypothesis. First of all because science is an analythical aproach to understand nature and nature is publicly avaiable. The public aspect of science is at the core of the scientific method. If an experiment can't be repeated or made in different conditions maybe it's because it does not show anything about nature. Second, because to make the evidence more and more distant from any enquirer, pseudoscience always tries to make more and more ad hoc assumptions, something that real science fights with the Occam's razor.

All of this has been broken in you posts (this points out to a pseudoscience defense). You still insist in the eye-witness acount of the apollo astronauts for some reason but the atmospheric transformer theory you are talking about is in fact a theoretical physics problem, not just a human-space-exploration issue.


GaryN:Source of the post Photos from the ISS taken while looking TOWARDS Earth are no proof that the Sun is visible from cislunar space.
GaryN:
Source of the post The only known view away from Earth from the US part of the ISS is from the node 2 Zenith porthole
GaryN:
Source of the post What is visible from the Russian or Japanese modules is not known, Zvezda has 16 windows, but you never hear about them, and nothing about astrophotography/astronomy from them
GaryN:
Source of the post Find me an image from any of thise so called visible light telescopes
GaryN:
Source of the post The Hipparcos instrument was not a regular camera connected to a telescope, and plus, you will not find any pretty photos from it
GaryN:
Source of the post I'll look more closely at your post when I get time, but the first thing I see as being off is from the images from SOHO, that first image in the second row. Why is the photosphere shown in yellow when NASA tells us the photosphere is white when viewed from space, and 4500Å is blue?

You can see how when someone provided contrary evidence about your statements you choosed to ignore them or take your assumptions a bit further. All that matters to you is making your hypothesis unfalsifiable: if an image could have been taken by a visible light space-telescope you say that there are none, if we shou you there are, you say the cameras are weird, if we show you the contrary then you are suspicious about the color differentiation palette chossen to display the image, if the sun can be seen from many probes than you concentrate your efforts on manned missions, if we show you there are images of the sun from manned missions, you say the windows looks always in such a configuration that the light from the sun has to pass through the atmosphere (something that has been debunked in my previous post I think), if we show you that there are more windows in the ISS you say there are no images from them, if we tell you that the sun appears in other angles during space walks you don't seem to care, in the end you think that the ISS is not a secure place for your theory so you become obssesed with the idea that only apollo astronauts could proof you are wrong... and you continue like that, with an arrogant pseudoskepticism and an inmense disrespect for the people that is loosing their time in this nonsese to help you to come to a better conclusion.



GaryN:
Source of the post The only people who know what the view is like from Cislunar space are the Apollo astronauts, and Armstrong said quite clearly that it was black out there

This is like saying that only extremely circunstantial evidence can prove or disprove your "theory". Are you sure that only the testimony of apollo astronauts in cislunar space could demolish your thesis? Why your optical theory is so dependent on that specific mission, on the fact that people where on board, etc... why?
If your thesis is correct, then all of physicis would be shaken. The issue about the sun been different color or invisible far from earth is a colateral very non-impressive effect if you compare it with all the other issues it would create in physics. Only apollo astronauts in cislunar space? what about a non-manned spacecraft with a camera in the Kuiper Belt? what about experiments on earth in optics, and light-matter interaction? what about the soviet era? what we have to even care about the space-exploration part to disprove or prove your idea? there are plenty of ways of telling you are wrong but you only want to make us think that your idea magically is only noticed in cislunar space by human observers, so you can make the evidence far more subtle and distant. But this does not follow at all from your "atmospheric tranformer theory".


Lastly, I want to point out something funny. You state that UV light when passing through a gas becomes visible. You also state that the Sun does not emmit visible light. Do you realize that the second does not follow from the first one? Even if all that transformer bollocks of the UV light is true, what assumptions or observations support the second statement???? Why the sun should be dark from space?

By the way I want to notice also that you are telling us that this trasnformation of color happens in earth's atmosphere and in the moon's atmosphere (a gentle reminder that is an atmosphere in the way a star is a hot charcoal, by the way:Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation) as if both where even similar in composition, density, temperature, etc... the Sun looks the same in both bodies, how you explain that?. Your "theory" is independent from the composition of the gasses? It always work? If i'm close to Saturn I also see the Sun but if I'm near Mecury I can't?

By the way one more thing (I can't stop I know):
GaryN:
Source of the post as with Mercury Messenger, which can not actually 'see' Mercury, it is much too dark, there is no Sunlight even so close to Mercury!

Did you know that Mercury also has an atmosphere in the sense that the Moon does? It has even 3 times more pressure than the one of the Moon! Why then it's so dark? Well, I have an answer if you want to change opinion to make your idea stand a little more: the fact is that the surface of Mercury is very bright in visible wavelenghts and not thark at all, and this also aplies to the MESSENGER's camera. Who said that they have difficoulties collecting light from Mercury? Show us the source of that absurd statement please. Maybe you are confusing the albedo of the surface with the fact that visible light arrives at it (in fact under the same lightning contitions mercuty is on average darker than Earth (remember that earth has reflective deserts, clouds, and ice sheets that make the surface look not very dark), but in fact the Moon is darker and you don't have issues with that don't you?)
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 13:07

 ABOUT THE LACK OF IMAGES OF THE SUN IN CISLUNAR SPACE


GaryN:
Source of the post I claim the Sun nor anything else is visible from Cislunar space, from outside of the Earth or Lunar atmosphere, as it is an atmosphere that creates visible light. The only people who know what the view is like from Cislunar space are the Apollo astronauts

Image
Image
Image
Image

These images where was taken during the Trans Earth Coast (meaning cis-lunar space) period of the Apollo 15 mission. Original film magazine was labeled R, film type was S02485 (Very High Speed Black and White). 80mm lens, with a visible light camera. Your claim is debunked.
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 853
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 13:26

FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post The experiment is simple: buy an UV light, a good one that does only emmit UV and not a bit of purple in the visible and put it just a centimeter away from you. If you are correct it should turn to visible light at that distance!!!! Also if you put that UV light closer than 0.4 mm from your eyes it should dissapear misteriously!!!

This is precisely the experimental test I was building up to. :)  The column of atmosphere above the ISS altitude is equivalent to passing through less than a millimeter of air at sea level.  His proposed mechanism would be trivially easy to demonstrate in the lab or even at home with a UV source.

FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post By the way, electrons, gamma rays etc... exists in space, that's true but they are totally irrelevant for the calculation, those effects you are describing (even if they had something to do at all with optical properties of gases) are so puny that don't add anything to the numbers.

Free electrons can change the wavelength of photons through Compton scattering, but the change in wavelength is greatest for backward scattering (magnitude is proportional to 1-cosθ), which contradicts his claim of a forward scattering effect converting a UV beam to a visible beam still propagating forwards.  The effect is too weak to do anything important to a UV spectrum anyway -- the fractional change in wavelength for a UV photon is very small (Δλ/λmax ~ 10-5 for a 300nm photon, which would change it to 300.003nm).  

To obtain a green photon from a UV photon by this process would require that it undergo tens of thousands of consecutive 180° scatterings before reaching the surface.  This is, of course, absurd.  For even one photon to be scattered this many times, all the other photons would have been scattered completely in all directions, and instead of seeing the Sun in the sky we would see a diffuse glow from every direction.  The atmosphere would be literally opaque with electrons.

So, yeah, electrons cannot explain his proposal.  The more important effect of free electrons in the atmosphere is in the propagation of radio frequencies.

FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post These images where was taken during the Trans Earth Coast (meaning cis-lunar space) period of the Apollo 15 mission. 

Nice! :) I knew some Apollo missions made observations of the solar corona and zodiacal light, but never saw these images.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 14:00

[size=175]MORE IMAGES OF THE SUN AND THE STARS FROM APOLLO
[/size]

[center]Image

Image taken during the Apollo 17 mission on the Trans-Earth Coast (TEC). Originalfilm magazine was labeled V V. Film type was 2485 Very High Speed Black and White (VHBW),ASA 6000,55mm lens. You can see the Sun light entering the module. You can Also see astronaut Schmitt.

[/center]


Image

Apollo 17 Commander Eugene A. Cernan and Command Module Pilot Ronald E. Evans inside the Command Module. Image taken during the Apollo 17 mission on the Trans-Earth Coast (TEC). You can see the sun brightly shinning inside the module.


Image

High oblique view of the Command Service Module (CSM) taken from the Lunar Module (LM) while in lunar orbit during the Apollo 12 mission. Original film magazine was labeled V,film type was HCEX (SO-168 - Ektachrome EF,high-speed color reversal,ASA 160) taken with an 80mm lens. You can see how the sun flares inside the optics of the camera quite clearly (the lunar module was aproaching from below the command module so no line of sight with the Moo anywhere). By the way, what is shining in the command module? oh yeah it's the sun one more time.



Image
Image
Image

[color=#ffffff]This series of images were taken by the Apollo 12 astronauts from Lunar orbit (far away from any "atmosphere"). The slim crescent is the Earth and [color=#c0392b]the Sun apears in the field of view frame by frame more and more clearly. [/color]
[/color]

Image
Image
Image
The same but from Apollo 15



Image
From where does this bright reflection over the command module of Apollo 13 comes? oh yeah, from teh Sun!!! By the way this is in the middle of cislunar-space






[center]And now a series of images taken in the middle of nowhere in cislunar space from the Apollo 14 command module. They want to image the crescent of Earth and the crescent of the moon so they are trying hard to not get the sun in the middle of the image saturating the view. But the sun makes clear flares and reflections all over the place (window, camera etc...):
Image
Image
THE MOON AND THE SUN

Image
Image
Image
THE EARTH AND THE SUN

[/center]
Image
A similar view of the Moon and the Sun but this time from Apollo 12
What is so bright over there???? Why is the crescent always pointing toward the flares? Oh yeah I almost forgot: THE SUN!!!





Here you have a series of images of an eclipse during Apollo 12. I know that these ones show the sun "near" Earth atmosphere and you gonna say thats the reason it shows visible light (even if the other images have shown the contrary). What I find interesting here is another thing related to your "theory":
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Can you see it? After the eclipse the sun is getting farther from Earth in the view, and intead of diminishing the brightness (because the "atmospheric transformer" is getting behind) as your thseis suggest its increasing enourmosuly, as atmospheric absorption and optics say!!! More visible the less atmosphere there is!! isn't that amazing?

Here you have some other eclipse observations of that mission
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 14:11

THE SUN AND STARS IN VISIBLE LIGHT FROM NON-APOLLO MISSIONS


Image
An image of the Sun taken by the Voyager 1 the 14th February 1990 (there are pale blue dot images superimposed on it)



Many many interplanetary spacecrafts track their position and orientation with visible-light cameras pointed to the stars. Or to make surveys while the yfly through the void. For example the New Horizons took this image with LORRI a few days ago of a stellar field in visible light:

Image

New Horizons is hundreds of millions of kilometers away from any object or atmospheric gas. How is it posible to see visible light stars in visible light if we are so far from Earth? Do you really still think that the only possible evidence could come from Apollo eye-witness acounts?
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 14:27

Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post His proposed mechanism would be trivially easy to demonstrate in the lab or even at home with a UV source.

:) Yeah, I find that quite hillarious. And still his claims are based on far far way space and things that no-one will never be able to know if not the Apollo astronauts. They are special, nature has decided to present itself only to a few. :P

Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post Free electrons can change the wavelength of photons through Compton scattering, but the change in wavelength is greatest for backward scattering (magnitude is proportional to 1-cosθ), which contradicts his claim of a forward scattering effect converting a UV beam to a visible beam still propagating forwards.  The effect is too weak to do anything important to a UV spectrum anyway -- the fractional change in wavelength for a UV photon is very small (Δλ/λmax ~ 10-5 for a 300nm photon, which would change it to 300.003nm)

That's very interesting Watsisname  :)
I didn't realized that.


One thing that perturbs me the most is this thing about the eye-witnessing. All the apollo trasnmissions are trasncripted and publicly avaiable. If some astronaut said that the sun was not visible I would like to know where he said that, a quote from the public archives obviously. Missreading and misplacing events seems to be well fitted with the pseudocientific behaviour GaryN has exhibited.

If an astronaut said ITS VERY BRIGHT OMG!!! maybe he was refering to the sun, if the other said it's so dark!!! maybe it was refering to the sky. The conspiratard video that was posted is also exactly like that: look at this astronaut saying that it was dark because the sun washed the view, but hey how if there is no atmospheric scattering!!!? well maybe because the eye is also a camera and adapts to bright conditions at to make stars invisible in the same field of view? It's ridiculous. If you rely in witness acounts then at least listen to them, interpret them correctly, put them in their context (what was dark? what was shinny?), there is no need to throw away physics just because you think that they contradicted themselves in a pair of sentences.

Lastly, I want to say sorry if I posted to much things but I was getting quite nervous. I feel bad about education in the world ultimatly. So pardon me if I have sounded rude to someone. In my opinion if one is capable of getting inside a scientific debate it should also be capable of getting some roasting. I respect you GaryN as a person, but I totally disrespect the way you have come with your idea. Sorry if saying that this looked a ignorant to me was offensive for you. I appreciate the effort and all the curiosity I think you showed. Now I'm going to retire from this crazy fight :D
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 853
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 14:49

FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post That's very interesting Watsisname 
I didn't realized that.

Yeah, Compton scattering is pretty neat and important in a number of astrophysical situations.  You can think of it as the photons and electrons colliding and rebounding off each other like billiard balls, exchanging energy and momentum in the process.  Photons and electrons have both particle and wave-like properties, and this demonstrates the particle-side of both of them. :)

FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post One thing that perturbs me the most is this thing about the eye-witnessing. All the apollo trasnmissions are trasncripted and publicly avaiable. If some astronaut said that the sun was not visible I would like to know where he said that, a quote from the public archives obviously. Missreading and misplacing events seems to be well fitted with the pseudocientific behaviour GaryN has exhibited.

They do this because it's the only way they can make themselves sound compelling to a lay person.  You can spend pages and pages discussing the minutia of what someone said or did and what that might mean and conspiracy this and conspiracy that, and that's what they thrive on.  Where they fail completely is when trying to support their claims with the rigor of math, physics, and experiment.  That's why it's best to force them to engage this way.  The scientific method is powerful -- it is the best way humans have ever devised for separating fact from fiction.  If they are unable to pass the challenge then you can toss their claims away as rubbish.
 
User avatar
GaryN
Observer
Observer
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: 18 Apr 2017

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 19:57

Whatsisname:

I will allow you one more post to present your or a team-member's solutions to the questions I posed.



Well this will likely be my last post then, which is a shame, especially considering all the work FFT has put in, and the other responders too. Much interesting stuff, and I am always eager to learn, and where neccessary, adjust my thinking. What I would ask though is if the statements of some astronauts, particularly the Apollo astronuts, does not raise doubts about just what is visible out there?
From the A 16 cislunar EVA transcripts I find:

219 00 33 Mattingly (EVA): It is that, all right. I don't even see any stars.
219 33 44 Duke (onboard): Okay. Can you see the sunsight?
219 33 46 Young (onboard): On this - on this event timer, Charlie, I got 04:16. Is that right?
219 33 50 Duke (onboard): That thing ain't working. No. Can you see the sunsight, Ken?
219 33 57 Mattingly (EVA): No, sir.
219 36 48 Mattingly (EVA): You get a good look at the Earth, Charlie?
219 36 49 Duke (onboard): Oh, yeah. And I spun around and looked at the Moon, too. The thing that impresses me, though, is how black it is, Ken. Yeah, is it black!
219 37 05 Mattingly (EVA): I'm really surprised I don't see any stars.
219 37 07 Young (onboard): Charlie's only said 25 times it's black out there.
219 37 11 Duke (onboard): What?
219 37 12 Young (onboard): You've only said that 25 times. (Laughter)
219 37 14 Duke (onboard): (Garble) see (garble) (laughter).
219 37 15 Young (onboard): It really must be black out there! (Laughter)
219 37 17 Duke (onboard): It's really black! (Laughter)


And from A17:

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

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


The astronauts spent extended periods of total blackout while in cislunar space in order to perform low light photography experiments, yet none mentioned the brilliance of the stars, spotting any of the planets, or describing the appearance of the Sun. The images of the solar eclipse (FFT), yes, I would say the light is created from solar radiation interacting with the matter around the Sun, not from scattered visible Sunlight, and mostly from the nanometer size silica grains, maybe a contribution from sodium, seeing as they were using such a high speed film.
Image
And also with the big ugly bright Sun you say was taken on approach to the Moon, the Sun would have been at their backs on approach, the lunar nearside being fully lit, though I am not sure of their exact trajectory, though most graphics show a generally front-on approach.
Image

With the creation of the light on Earth, the electron density needs to be considered, though for forward scattering, which must be in operation to produce a central beam, then I think it is bound electrons that are the more important.
Electron density with altitude.
Image
As a (maybe) interesting aside, the ISS orbits where it does I think because the electrical 'ground' on the ISS is floating, and will be at the plasma potential of its altitude. Lots of electrons there. 

I'll end this for now, though I too have been spending a lot of time putting together replies to address mainly FFTs images, and it would be very interesting to me to get into more techicalities, but as with my experience at Cosmo Quest (as Solon) it is me against many, and it would take much more free time than I have available just now. I will be retiring soon though, yipee!, so if the thread is allowed to continue, will plug away at responding to all the points raised so far, when I can.  Thanks all for your time.
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 853
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Conspiracy Theory Thread

27 Apr 2017 21:13

GaryN wrote:
Source of the post What I would ask though is if the statements of some astronauts, particularly the Apollo astronuts, does not raise doubts about just what is visible out there?

None whatsoever. :)  

And by your own admission, you are unable to justify your doubt or your claims, and your hypothesis has been found to demonstrably false.  You refuse to engage with rigor when it was asked, and you refuse to adjust your thinking when it was necessary.  You respond to evidence you cannot account for by either ignoring it, moving the goalposts, or declaring you or someone else will figure it out and explain it later.  So you are quite right that this was your last post.  You cannot justify why you are pushing your cart of bollocks around here, and therefore I will have you push it somewhere else.
 
User avatar
Xoran
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 378
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Conspiracy Theory Thread

02 May 2017 06:51

This may be a bit off-topic, but it is about conspiracy theories so who cares:
Space is too big to understand, so do not try to understand.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A-L-E-X and 2 guests