Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64

Thread: Moon myths

  1. #1 Moon myths 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    PHOTOS: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths -- Busted

    July 16, 2009--Forty years after U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon, many conspiracy theorists still insist the Apollo 11 moon landing was an elaborate hoax. Examine the photographic evidence, and find out why experts say some of the most common claims simply don't hold water.


    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...res/index.html



    Regarding #7, about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Call me history's most irretrievable cynic, yet I simply cannot bring myself to accepting that man has been any further than in a reasonably low orbit around the home planet. I’m not sure if we are looking at a list of well organised urban myths, or a profound and wondrous deception, yet I thoroughly suspect that truth has little part to play in this scenario.

    There are far too many unsatisfactorily answered questions for my liking, for instance;

    1. As I understand it, the most powerful computer available in 1969 was less gifted than today's $10 digital watch; yet I doubt too many would be jumping at the opportunity to hand their entire future over to the computing power in a watch for a second, much less the duration of many weeks and the highly complicated manoeuvres required in such an inhospitable and unexplored environment - even for such a momentous event as we are led to believe.

    2. Remembering point 1 (above); given the supposed delay of a turn around transmission between the earth and moon (of around 2.5 seconds), with the added interval to consider the every next setting (given that it seems there were at mission control; at least 30 people at their respective control panels); how could it have been possible to tweak every minor adjustment of the module in perfect harmony and timing for the process to be so entirely uneventful - on it's first attempt no less? Amazing is one thing, yet miracles are entirely something else.

    3. How could the original high quality tapes of likely the most meritorious event in US advancement and history, mysteriously go missing - two years ago? hmmmmmmm

    4. As far as I can tell, no-one has offered any explanation as to how the men aboard the craft survived passing for days (on each leg), through the immense radiation levels contained within the Van Allen Belt.

    5.
    "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of the moon is something bigger than a house."
    We have been led to believe that the Hubble telescope is hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than the biggest 'on earth', and (apparently) was increased by up to 100 times during 2008, permitting
    Hubble to see 900 galaxies where its original instruments would have revealed only 10
    So for mine, it would be reasonable to expect the thing to readily locate, lying in perfect vision in the lunar dust; the missing button from Neil Armstrong’s fly – let alone the various lunar vehicles, flag etc.

    Additionally, I find it puzzling to say the least; that we were originally told that the Great Wall of China and the Great Pyramid at Giza, were the only two man-made structures that could be physically seen from the moon - presumably by the naked eye, yet this statement seems to have been withdrawn. hmmmmmmm.

    6. (Further to point 4.) No-one has satisfactorily explained how the lunar wandering astronauts, once outside the relative safety of their capsule - in their space suits, managed to avoid; due to the enormous levels of unfiltered solar radiation they would necessarily have been absorbing, expiration within minutes - like a couple of micro-waved potatoes in their jackets. Some have suggested they were fitted with an (invisible) air conditioning unit – until it was pointed out that with little (or no) exterior atmosphere, there could be little (or no) alleviating heat transference of which to speak.

    7. In accordance with being the cynic that A.R. undoubtedly is, I have to ask; Why on earth would the respective authorities be investing so much money at this time in order to bolster this historic occasion in our societal consciousness, as if it were amazingly significant to us today; even some 40 years after the event? Could it possibly be that there is a more significant yet less savoury undertaking afoot; from which it would be best; we avert our attention? After all, such underhand manoeuvres have from time to time, previously been adopted.

    Am I hearing whispers of 'conspiracy theory' right now? Well suffice to say; a theory is only a theory until it is a proven fact, and even if it never gets to that stage, the truth will always remain the truth - even in no-one accepts it. On the other hand, one may well ask; just who has more to lose if their version of 'truth' lacks acceptance - insignificant 'theorists' such as A.R, or NAASA and it's masters?

    With regards the above suggestion;
    about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.
    This is a new one - to a dyed-in-the-wool cynic at least! Therefore I have to ask; just how many unbelievable explanations - all seemingly delivered well after the event, are we going to be expected to navigate in relation to this obvious and significant discrepancy?


    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    There are far too many unsatisfactorily answered questions for my liking, for instance;
    There are many proofs that they were actually there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    1. As I understand it, the most powerful computer available in 1969 was less gifted than today's $10 digital watch; ...
    This is an argument a posteriori, i.e. at the time of the moon landing this was the top technology. With the same argument you could postpone any progress into the far future. You must consider, what this computer actually had to do. It was not much more than providing an accurate timing of several processes on board like igniting thrusters. In space, it is not so much about having state of the art technology (usually you don't) but more about having something that is reliable. Imagine, that the first space shuttles were still using magnetic core memory in their computers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    2. Remembering point 1 (above); given the time delay of a turn around radio transmission between the earth and moon (of around 2.5 seconds), with an added interval to consider the every next setting (given that it seems there were at mission control; at least 30 people at their respective control panels); how could it have been possible to tweak every minor adjustment of the module in perfect harmony and timing for the process to be so entirely uneventful - on it's first attempt no less? Amazing is one thing, yet miracles are entirely something else.
    Check lists. Not much came by surprise. Even today, every single step in such an endeavour is planned well in advance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    4. As far as I can tell, no-one has offered any explanation as to how the men aboard the craft survived passing for days (on each leg), through the immense radiation levels contained within the Van Allen Belt.
    Do you know the radiation level? In one of the latest anniversary broadcasts it was said that the level was not that high. The most intense part of that belt is quite small, and the astronauts only stayed there for a little while, not for the entire travel. The dose they received is apparently comparable to an hours lasting transatlantic flight by plane.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    5.
    "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of the moon is something bigger than a house."
    We have been led to believe that the Hubble telescope is hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than the biggest 'on earth', and (apparently) was increased by up to 100 times during 2008, permitting
    Hubble to see 900 galaxies where its original instruments would have revealed only 10
    So for mine, it would be reasonable to expect the thing to readily locate, lying in perfect vision in the lunar dust; the missing button from Neil Armstrong’s fly – let alone the various lunar vehicles, flag etc.
    No, it is impossible. The resolving power of an optical telescope is given by



    where is the angular resolution, is the wavelength of the observed light and is the diameter of the telescope main mirror. For the HST you get:

    arcseconds.

    At the distance of the moon (~380000 km) this is equivalent to items having a size of



    This means, the HST cannot resolve anything that is smaller than that size on the moon. Why do you think they are using probes to map the moon, if they could do it with earth bound or low orbit telescopes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Additionally, I find it puzzling to say the least; that we were originally told that the Great Wall of China and the Great Pyramid at Giza, were the only two man-made structures that could be physically seen from the moon - presumably by the naked eye, yet this statement seems to have been withdrawn. hmmmmmmm.
    Indeed. That's a myth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    6. (Further to point 4.) No-one has satisfactorily explained how the lunar wandering astronauts, once outside the relative safety of their capsule - in their space suits, managed to avoid; ...
    The suits were equipped with a cooling system. Have you noticed the large back packs? The suits are filled with elastic tubes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    7. In accordance with being the cynic that A.R. undoubtedly is, I have to ask; Why on earth would the respective authorities be investing so much money ...
    Political power. I was not about science or social awareness. The programme was also about having the most powerful rockets. It was the time of an arms race. And rockets were very important here. And if you can control space, you can also much better control the earth (from above or from the moon).
    about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.
    This is really a problem. Every telescope has to correct for the rotation of the earth in order to track an object. The movement of the moon around the earth introduces an additional velocity that needs to be corrected for. In order to do this, you have to follow a reference object that moves with the same speed like the object you want to observe. Now, the moon is big, in particular for powerful telescopes. I can imagine that it is difficult to track on something having a low brightness contrast like a crater on the moon's surface. Normally, one would use a bright star. But this is not an option for the moon, because the guiding cameras are aiming relatively close to the target of observation, and the stars are moving with a different relative speed than the moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    To add to a couple of points made by Dishmaster.

    5. The "why can't the Hubble see the equipment left on the Moon?" argument has to be one of the silliest ones I've heard. As poined out, it does not have the resolution. Not only that but it is designed to look at faint objects, if you pointed it at the Moon, you'd overwelm the optics.
    But assume that it could be done. Would anyone who really believed that the Moon landings were fake accept that the images were real? So the argument boils down to: " You haven't provided a piece of evidence that we wouldn't accept even if you did provide it."

    7. We were in the middle of the Cold war and in a space race with the USSR. That Soviet Union wasn't above fudging the facts if they thought it would make the US look bad internationally. What do think they would have done if there there was any good reason to believe that the US did not go to the Moon. They would have been yelling it from the mountain tops. Thy did no such thing. They knew that we went there, and that they would just look foolish in trying to deny it.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Additionally, I find it puzzling to say the least; that we were originally told that the Great Wall of China and the Great Pyramid at Giza, were the only two man-made structures that could be physically seen from the moon - presumably by the naked eye, yet this statement seems to have been withdrawn. hmmmmmmm.
    Indeed. That's a myth.
    Ah yes - myths. What to believe, and what to not. Who is telling the truth and who is spinning more of the same old glorious crappola?

    Indeed it was a myth, as it must have been. Even so, I was there, I was old enough, and (if memory still serves me good) my powers of recall aint a-failing me yet. Indeed, I read with my eyes and heard with my ears; as scientists from NAASA made - this very statement. But now it must belong on the shelf entitled 'Real-bad-Dreamz', yet it is not the only one I still have to deal with.

    I also recall a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at our front door in 1975, and with concerned looks on their faces, explaining to my mother that the world was going to end in just six months. I remember her reading all about it in the tracts she purchased, and her horror and fears that she was going to miss out on seeing her children be married. Yet amazingly these days, whenever I mention this account to a JW, I am reliably informed - that's a myth!

    Myths it seems, came a little too easy during those times - and by all accounts; little has changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    6. (Further to point 4.) No-one has satisfactorily explained how the lunar wandering astronauts, once outside the relative safety of their capsule - in their space suits, managed to avoid; ...
    The suits were equipped with a cooling system. Have you noticed the large back packs? The suits are filled with elastic tubes.
    I'm amazed that anyone can accept that those backpacks, as big as they may have been; achieved the sheer impossible. It seems (amongst other things) they had to maintain a stable gaseous internal pressure in order to prevent Mr. Armstrong from blowing up like the Michelin Man, and a reliable air supply to maintain life and cognizance, the communications apparatus, pumps and other means all over the place in order to discharge by-products and wastes, protective layers galore for every possible threat and what would likely have been, numerous sizable power supplies.

    Atop of all this, in the highly unlikely scenario we had some room left over, we are led to accept another, indeed biggest power supply of all, constantly running an amazingly efficient yet incredibly miniature air conditioning unit and yet another pump, which not only managed to supply and circulate a stream of (presumably) cold water through a series of elastic tubing, but furthermore manage to do the unattainable; to somehow transfer the constantly generating internal heat to an exterior vacuum – a patently impossible task, given the lack of an external anything (to accept it).

    Or are we now to accept they also transported an external atmosphere pack full of portable air, or some other miraculous commodity which somehow accepted the extracted heat?

    Although, to be fair to Dishmaster; you didn’t actually explain that an air conditioning unit was included, so perhaps your suggestion is that the very capable Mr. Armstrong was withheld inside a layer of tubing containing stagnant water, which I would estimate, for it too would have been microwaving at the setting of ‘Are You Nutz?’, broiled his flesh in less than 3 minutes.

    Furthermore, how would you suggest, with this mythical water jacket surrounding them, were they able to move with such consummate ease? Although I doubt this question even needs to be considered, given what appears to me; all the previous unanswerable issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    7. In accordance with being the cynic that A.R. undoubtedly is, I have to ask; Why on earth would the respective authorities be investing so much money ...
    Political power. I was not about science or social awareness. The programme was also about having the most powerful rockets. It was the time of an arms race. And rockets were very important here. And if you can control space, you can also much better control the earth (from above or from the moon).
    So it was about control huh? Of whom, would you suggest? For the only people I see being ‘controlled’ some forty years later, are the vast majority of us, who have forsaken their rights to ask questions, and rather place their undiscerning trust in (a series of) governmental authorities, as buttressed by diversions powered by an ever expanding mythology.

    Why not? Such a hierarchical system worked well for the (amongst others) ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, who all propagated an elaborate menu of mythical wonders to keep the population in a dazed stupor, while the masters went about their business unhindered. It is the same old story, with only the names of the protagonists being upgraded.

    As previously noted; A.R. is admittedly nothing, if not a hopeless cynic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.
    This is really a problem. Every telescope has to correct for the rotation of the earth in order to track an object. The movement of the moon around the earth introduces an additional velocity that needs to be corrected for. In order to do this, you have to follow a reference object that moves with the same speed like the object you want to observe. Now, the moon is big, in particular for powerful telescopes. I can imagine that it is difficult to track on something having a low brightness contrast like a crater on the moon's surface. Normally, one would use a bright star. But this is not an option for the moon, because the guiding cameras are aiming relatively close to the target of observation, and the stars are moving with a different relative speed than the moon.
    If my simplistic reading of the above is correct, you seem to be saying that one of the problems is the moon is amazingly – too close! Which I must say is another new one, for such an explanation would seem to be diametrically opposite to what we have until now been led to believe.

    Furthermore, would I be right in assuming from the above, that it is impossible to place an orbiting satellite with any disposition other than to stick rigidly above the same slice of real estate – thereby traveling at a necessarily slightly higher velocity and in the same direction as the land below it?

    If not, then it must be possible to ‘direct’ them, and perhaps even maintain a fixed position – for at least some interval, permitting the planet to revolve below – which to an overly cynical layman, would at least appear to solve your issue of correcting for the rotation of the earth.

    On the other hand; Janus noted;
    But assume that it could be done. Would anyone who really believed that the Moon landings were fake accept that the images were real? So the argument boils down to: " You haven't provided a piece of evidence that we wouldn't accept even if you did provide it."
    Which is an excellent observation, for if such photographic evidence emerged, I would still have grave doubts of it's authenticity for a multitude of reasons. Which for mine, is an extremely unfortunate observation; for such is now the level of cynicism that is to be demanded due to the consummate failing of those we have trusted to be worthy of same.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    How much time did they spend outside of the capsule?

    How much time did they spend in the sun?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    1. As I understand it, the most powerful computer available in 1969 was less gifted than today's $10 digital watch; yet I doubt too many would be jumping at the opportunity to hand their entire future over to the computing power in a watch for a second, much less the duration of many weeks and the highly complicated manoeuvres required in such an inhospitable and unexplored environment - even for such a momentous event as we are led to believe.
    You have to remember that engineers at that time had never been confronted with anything more powerful than a slide rule. If you've been trained to work with nothing, then being given something will empower you a great deal.

    One could similarly argue that there were no aircraft in WW2 by constructing a notion of aviation that requires all planes to have on board computers in order to function. Certainly they work better with computers.


    2. Remembering point 1 (above); given the supposed delay of a turn around transmission between the earth and moon (of around 2.5 seconds), with the added interval to consider the every next setting (given that it seems there were at mission control; at least 30 people at their respective control panels); how could it have been possible to tweak every minor adjustment of the module in perfect harmony and timing for the process to be so entirely uneventful - on it's first attempt no less? Amazing is one thing, yet miracles are entirely something else.
    Predictive physics. The Moon isn't a constantly changing object, so you can make predictions about the future of what you will encounter, and those predictions will bear out. You don't need up to date data.

    4. As far as I can tell, no-one has offered any explanation as to how the men aboard the craft survived passing for days (on each leg), through the immense radiation levels contained within the Van Allen Belt.
    The human body can take a lot more radiation than people let on, especially if it's only for a fairly short amount of time. In cases like Chernobyl the people who got sick actually had to consume or inhale contaminated particles. Just the radiation itself won't do that to you, unless you get quite a lot of it.

    5.
    "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of the moon is something bigger than a house."
    We have been led to believe that the Hubble telescope is hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than the biggest 'on earth', and (apparently) was increased by up to 100 times during 2008, permitting
    Hubble to see 900 galaxies where its original instruments would have revealed only 10
    So for mine, it would be reasonable to expect the thing to readily locate, lying in perfect vision in the lunar dust; the missing button from Neil Armstrong’s fly – let alone the various lunar vehicles, flag etc.
    It's all about the angles. The object you want to see is about 380,000 km away. The lunar rover was 3 meters long by 2.3 meters wide.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover

    So, taking the arcsin of 3/380,000,000 we get 0.000000452 degrees. That's how wide an area of the sky the lunar rover sweeps out. We're talking about less than a millionth of a degree of your viewing area as you look at the sky.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    6. (Further to point 4.) No-one has satisfactorily explained how the lunar wandering astronauts, once outside the relative safety of their capsule - in their space suits, managed to avoid; ...
    The suits were equipped with a cooling system. Have you noticed the large back packs? The suits are filled with elastic tubes.
    To elaborate on this, the specific means by which the suit cooled the astronauts was that the heat was conducted to a small amount of water, and then the suit expelled the water.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...lation_Garment


    7. In accordance with being the cynic that A.R. undoubtedly is, I have to ask; Why on earth would the respective authorities be investing so much money at this time in order to bolster this historic occasion in our societal consciousness, as if it were amazingly significant to us today; even some 40 years after the event? Could it possibly be that there is a more significant yet less savoury undertaking afoot; from which it would be best; we avert our attention? After all, such underhand manoeuvres have from time to time, previously been adopted.
    Simple answer? They want to take another run at it.

    People lost interest in Moon exploration in the 70's, so it's hard to get funding to go back up. Right now, it's an economic necessity, because the Iraq war didn't create as many jobs as people were hoping for, and isn't exactly popular. The USA needs another unifying pursuit.

    With regards the above suggestion;
    about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.
    This is a new one - to a dyed-in-the-wool cynic at least! Therefore I have to ask; just how many unbelievable explanations - all seemingly delivered well after the event, are we going to be expected to navigate in relation to this obvious and significant discrepancy?
    Well, you've got to be accurate within less than 1/2 a millionth of a degree.

    I'm sure it's technologically feasible, but you'd have to design a telescope from the ground up with precise motion speeds in mind, and who's going to do that? It requires different engineering than observing distant galaxies does. They don't move across the sky at speeds that are hard to adjust for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    How much time did they spend outside of the capsule?

    How much time did they spend in the sun?
    About 2.5 hrs for Apollo 11. But that is not a real issue. The amount of Sunlight striking the Moon's surface per square meter is only about 30% more than that which strikes the Surface of the Earth. (the 30% reduction being due to attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere) So while the surface of the Moon can reach quite high temps during its day, this is mainly because the Lunar "day" is 28 days long, and the surface is in direct sunlight for 19 of those. If you note the shadows from the Apollo 11 landing, they are quite long, this is becasue the landing was made in early local morning, before the Sun could heat the surface too much.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    If my simplistic reading of the above is correct, you seem to be saying that one of the problems is the moon is amazingly – too close! Which I must say is another new one, for such an explanation would seem to be diametrically opposite to what we have until now been led to believe.
    No, that's a misinterpretation. The problem is that you need a high contrast reference object for the guiding cameras, which are usually bright stars. These cameras have a much faster readout than the scientific cameras, because the guiding system needs to react very quickly. But this means that they are also much less sensitive than the scientific cameras. A bright spot on the lunar surface is just not prominent enough on the equally bright lunar surface to get and maintain a fix. Stars are not an option for the moon, because they do not have the same angular velocity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Furthermore, would I be right in assuming from the above, that it is impossible to place an orbiting satellite with any disposition other than to stick rigidly above the same slice of real estate – thereby traveling at a necessarily slightly higher velocity and in the same direction as the land below it?
    I don't understand what you are trying to say. But the velocity of any object being on an orbit around a planet is governed by the Keplerian laws. In principle, you need an equilibrium between the gravitational force and the centrifugal force. The farther an object is away, the smaller is its velocity. The only stable orbit around earth keeping a satellite seemingly at rest above it is the geostationary orbit, roughly 36000 km away. This is, where all the TV satellites are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    How much time did they spend outside of the capsule?

    How much time did they spend in the sun?
    About 2.5 hrs for Apollo 11. But that is not a real issue. The amount of Sunlight striking the Moon's surface per square meter is only about 30% more than that which strikes the Surface of the Earth. (the 30% reduction being due to attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere) So while the surface of the Moon can reach quite high temps during its day, this is mainly because the Lunar "day" is 28 days long, and the surface is in direct sunlight for 19 of those. If you note the shadows from the Apollo 11 landing, they are quite long, this is becasue the landing was made in early local morning, before the Sun could heat the surface too much.
    Well what can I say?

    If anyone accepts that 1000km of atmosphere, incuding an enormous volume of suspended water and the ozone layer, plus the added protection some believe the Van Allen Belt offers, only reduces the transmitted radiation by a ridiculously moderate 30%, then I am, to say the least - lost!

    Furthermore, if anyone accepts that a 'small amount of water' can possibly compensate for the unfettered radiation into an entirely shut off environment, which is at the same time; generating much heat from within, can possibly be sufficient, I have to admit to being even more hopelessly lost.

    Yet what would a reject know? I guess it is all over to what/who we personally choose to believe/accept.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Well what can I say?

    If anyone accepts that 1000km of atmosphere, incuding an enormous volume of suspended water and the ozone layer, plus the added protection some believe the Van Allen Belt offers, only reduces the transmitted radiation by a ridiculously moderate 30%, then I am, to say the least - lost!
    1000 km? Where did you pull that figure from? 99.99997% of the Earth's atmosphere is below 100 km of altitude, and it's pretty thin at that altitude. In fact, if the Earth's atmosphere was of uniform sea level density, it would be less than 8 km thick.

    You seem to be basing your objections on some wildly inaccurate ideas of what is actually involved.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Furthermore, if anyone accepts that a 'small amount of water' can possibly compensate for the unfettered radiation into an entirely shut off environment, which is at the same time; generating much heat from within, can possibly be sufficient, I have to admit to being even more hopelessly lost.
    Please note that similar space suits have been used already for a while during space walks. The problem of insolation was not new during the moon programme.


    Alexei Leonov, Voskhod 2
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...spacewalk.html


    Ed White, Gemini 4


    David Scott, Apollo 9
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took pictures of the Apollo landing sites from Lunar orbit. You can even see the tracks left by the LRVs in a couple of them. Not that I imagine this evidence would be considered satisfactory to a Moon landing denier.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I find it very strange indeed that someone as (overly) well spoken as Apopohis Reject could dismiss something like the moon walk on nothing more than poor understanding of physics and the technology involved, while rather resigning to basing his opinions on vague remeberings, facts pulled from thin air and general personal incredulity. Bad form dude.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Well what can I say?

    If anyone accepts that 1000km of atmosphere, incuding an enormous volume of suspended water and the ozone layer, plus the added protection some believe the Van Allen Belt offers, only reduces the transmitted radiation by a ridiculously moderate 30%, then I am, to say the least - lost!
    1000 km? Where did you pull that figure from? 99.99997% of the Earth's atmosphere is below 100 km of altitude, and it's pretty thin at that altitude. In fact, if the Earth's atmosphere was of uniform sea level density, it would be less than 8 km thick.

    You seem to be basing your objections on some wildly inaccurate ideas of what is actually involved.
    Notwithstanding accusations such as 'bad form' in lieu of decent investigation; being flung around like an Animal House 'food fight', I would have thought that if my expectations are 'wildly innacurate', perhaps people such as NAASA could be a little more forthcoming on what they actually know - as long as it's in their interests to do so, I guess.

    For instance, on this NAASA website http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstud...ftoff_atm.html, it seems to be portrayed that the troposphere reaches a little more than 100km - to around 6 times that in fact, and as I would understand it; there is more above that level, even though it seems to become quite a transitional region.

    I was in fact including the upper layer, I believe termed the 'exosphere', which it seems varying accounts would have reach as high as 1000km. No apologies about that - so far. On the other hand, I have no doubts that you are better informed than the sources I have been reading (even though some appear to emanate from NASSA itself), so I am more than happy to bow to your appreciable superiority.

    Now, where might I look for evidence on those 'wildly innacurate ideas' again? Or perhaps Kalster might further illumine me on my 'poor form'? Or could it be that some of the elitist 'scientists' among us, would more closely resemble a bunch of educated sheep?

    I would have thought that when we witness comets, space shuttles and such become destroyed upon entering the atmosphere, it would have been way higher than your 8km. So are you suggesting that the upper atmosphere that seemingly isn't, can destroy such solid matter in a few seconds, but we cannot count it as existing?

    Even so, I would regard your 100km, or even 8km to be more than sufficient to cast serious doubt over your previous figure of 30% attenuation (assuming such was more than a 'vague remembering'), especially considering the ozone layer, and particularly the voluminous suspended water that necessarily needs to be negotiated by those tiny particles/energy of light.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Deleted - duplicate posting
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Furthermore, if anyone accepts that a 'small amount of water' can possibly compensate for the unfettered radiation into an entirely shut off environment, which is at the same time; generating much heat from within, can possibly be sufficient, I have to admit to being even more hopelessly lost.
    Please note that similar space suits have been used already for a while during space walks. The problem of insolation was not new during the moon programme.


    Alexei Leonov, Voskhod 2
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...spacewalk.html


    Ed White, Gemini 4


    David Scott, Apollo 9
    Have you not noticed the dissimilarities with the supposed 'moon landing'? Such as;

    1. All these incidents involved the astronaut enjoying a substantial tether/connection with the space module - providing for his every requirement.
    2. All are in a relatively low orbit around the earth.
    3. For all we know, this work may well have been accomplished without any direct sunlight/radiation whatsoever, but rather with illumination as provided by a couple of car headlights picked up for a couple of bucks from the dude at the local gas station, on the way to the launch pad.

    Truly, it all presents as an infinitely different scenario.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I find it very strange indeed that someone as (overly) well spoken as Apopohis Reject could dismiss something like the moon walk on nothing more than poor understanding of physics and the technology involved, while rather resigning to basing his opinions on vague remeberings, facts pulled from thin air and general personal incredulity. Bad form dude.
    I'm afraid I don't fully recognise your three criteria of conceited judgement over my (perhaps erroneous) reasoning.

    Believe me, my isotopic dude friend; it would be far easier for me to; along with everyone else - 'believe'! Again, it would be WAY simpler and infinitely less painful to simplistically accept that which I am instructed to trust, by it seems experts such as yourself. After all, such would require little more effort of my given grey cells, than to point the finger and verbalise - 'he says so'!

    If that be the results by your calculations of; 'bad form', then surely we must be using different slide rules.

    **Just thought a fellow dude might also appreciate the irony.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took pictures of the Apollo landing sites from Lunar orbit. You can even see the tracks left by the LRVs in a couple of them. Not that I imagine this evidence would be considered satisfactory to a Moon landing denier.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
    Landing sites you say? Ok, let's just assume for a minute or two of healthy scientific investigation; that these photos are in fact of the lunar surface...........

    1. I fail to see anything at all, that might come close to resembling a substantial area of fine dust particles, as disturbed by a couple of hefty blasts of rocket propulsion.

    2. Does that 'lunar vehicle' really look like anything of the sort to you? Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall at least one unmanned vehicle being placed upon the moon at some stage - or was it Mars? In any case, I would expect if it was plausible to place it on Mars, it would have been a far simpler task to do a similar thing on the moon. So even if it is a man-produced vehicle, there is nothing to indicate any human sat on the thing post it leaving the earth's exosphere.

    Therefore, for mine it is neither conclusive evidence, nor substantial enough to begin convincing a reject denier. So if I may; mark your final observation at a healthy 100%!

    On the other hand, I would suggest that it maybe should have educated scientists asking a couple more questions about what they actually accept.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    For all we know, this work may well have been accomplished without any direct sunlight/radiation whatsoever, but rather with illumination as provided by a couple of car headlights picked up for a couple of bucks from the dude at the local gas station, on the way to the launch pad.
    Riiight, and I suppose those same headlights are what are providing the illumination of the Earth below in these photos.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    For all we know, this work may well have been accomplished without any direct sunlight/radiation whatsoever, but rather with illumination as provided by a couple of car headlights picked up for a couple of bucks from the dude at the local gas station, on the way to the launch pad.
    Riiight, and I suppose those same headlights are what are providing the illumination of the Earth below in these photos.
    Gotta admit they are impressive looking photos huh? Especially that middle one of Ed White - at least on first viewing.

    Apart from the obvious fact that we have no idea whether, in these small segments of (assuming) authentic photos, we are looking at land or ocean, as partly covered by clouds - indicating that the photos could have been taken in the middle of the night, which leads me to the other obvious consideration........

    I'm led to believe by a scientist on this forum. it all has to do with - resolution, and quite a simple operation for anyone who understands such things - not that I assume to include any reject I know in such a category.

    In any case, you can clearly see in the third photo, what appears to be lights on the face of the earth - suggesting it to indeed be night, which by my reckoning would have necessarily required some trick resolution. Or perhaps you might be suggesting that the space shuttle itself is casting the eclipsing shadow over the respective area of planet, Riiiight?

    Don't forget my friend; "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"
    -W.E. Gladstone

    **Speaking of scrutiny; please shed some better educated than a Reject illumination, on what you suppose that strange brown stuff in the helmet mask reflection of Gemini 4's Ed White might be - if not further cause for concern/a little scientific investigation?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    So, none of all these arguments can convince you. Would you be so kind as to tell us, what could be the arguments that would? What would you consider being proof that could convince you that men landed on the moon? I mean, the only thing I could imagine from your argumentation is that you would have been there yourself.

    Depending on your answer, I will consider closing this thread. If no reasonable argument can convince you, then there is nothing left to discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    So, none of all these arguments can convince you. Would you be so kind as to tell us, what could be the arguments that would? What would you consider being proof that could convince you that men landed on the moon? I mean, the only thing I could imagine from your argumentation is that you would have been there yourself.

    Depending on your answer, I will consider closing this thread. If no reasonable argument can convince you, then there is nothing left to discuss.
    I believe I have already acknowledged in regards some of the previously well presented arguments, that I have no further questions. However if you expect me to now offer my own rebuttal from a knowledge base only you might have access to, then I guess I would have to plead from within my own undoubted ignorance.

    Truly, if I have asked any questions that cannot, as yet be sufficiently answered, is that to be regarded as a failure on my part?

    You obviously have the right to 'close' the thread if such is your want, yet at this stage, I would think it to be an extremely negative and transparent move - on the part of a scientist and this forum. After all, when all is said and done; surely one man's insignificant doubts are no match against the undoubted powerhouse of information on offer here. And furthermore; isn't it a right (indeed responsibility) to ask questions in order to arrive at the truth?

    Unquestionably sir; I am not an unreasonable person, here for the purpose of creating unreasonable waves, and therefore can certainly be convinced - provided a reasonable argument along scientific lines to the few presented questions can be offered.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    If any of the answers haven't been scientific, why haven't you pointed it out, scientifically?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    How much time did they spend outside of the capsule?

    How much time did they spend in the sun?
    About 2.5 hrs for Apollo 11. But that is not a real issue. The amount of Sunlight striking the Moon's surface per square meter is only about 30% more than that which strikes the Surface of the Earth. (the 30% reduction being due to attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere) So while the surface of the Moon can reach quite high temps during its day, this is mainly because the Lunar "day" is 28 days long, and the surface is in direct sunlight for 19 of those. If you note the shadows from the Apollo 11 landing, they are quite long, this is becasue the landing was made in early local morning, before the Sun could heat the surface too much.
    Well what can I say?

    If anyone accepts that 1000km of atmosphere, incuding an enormous volume of suspended water and the ozone layer, plus the added protection some believe the Van Allen Belt offers, only reduces the transmitted radiation by a ridiculously moderate 30%, then I am, to say the least - lost!

    Furthermore, if anyone accepts that a 'small amount of water' can possibly compensate for the unfettered radiation into an entirely shut off environment, which is at the same time; generating much heat from within, can possibly be sufficient, I have to admit to being even more hopelessly lost.

    Yet what would a reject know? I guess it is all over to what/who we personally choose to believe/accept.
    I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter as much as you think it does. The astronauts were certainly subject to an above average amount of radiation, and it is expected that a moon colony would require radiation shielding, but spending just a few days at an above average level of exposure isn't going to kill you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    I remember July 1969 and how amazingly we put a man on the moon just 6 years after putting one into space. But, could we even put a man on the moon now, and guarantee their safe return?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Certainly you can. But there is danger in every endeavor. Three astronauts were burned to death on a practice rehearsal in the late 60's. On Earth. Not on launch with a hole in their fuel tank. Not on returning with a hole in their heat shield.

    In their capsule, fully locked into their launch tower.

    It's a dangerous game, and sometimes Astronauts die. But when it works, it works great : because very clever scientists do the calculations.
    If anyone wants to sit back and proclaim things with the barest of science knowledge, they will ultimately be seen as a fool and ignored.

    They ignore the science given to them by scientists, some of them professionals accomplished in the particular field. Then they claim 'victory' when the scientists waste no more time on their refusal to budge when proven incorrect. What do they expect???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    How much time did they spend outside of the capsule?

    How much time did they spend in the sun?
    About 2.5 hrs for Apollo 11. But that is not a real issue. The amount of Sunlight striking the Moon's surface per square meter is only about 30% more than that which strikes the Surface of the Earth. (the 30% reduction being due to attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere) So while the surface of the Moon can reach quite high temps during its day, this is mainly because the Lunar "day" is 28 days long, and the surface is in direct sunlight for 19 of those. If you note the shadows from the Apollo 11 landing, they are quite long, this is becasue the landing was made in early local morning, before the Sun could heat the surface too much.
    Well what can I say?

    If anyone accepts that 1000km of atmosphere, incuding an enormous volume of suspended water and the ozone layer, plus the added protection some believe the Van Allen Belt offers, only reduces the transmitted radiation by a ridiculously moderate 30%, then I am, to say the least - lost!

    Furthermore, if anyone accepts that a 'small amount of water' can possibly compensate for the unfettered radiation into an entirely shut off environment, which is at the same time; generating much heat from within, can possibly be sufficient, I have to admit to being even more hopelessly lost.

    Yet what would a reject know? I guess it is all over to what/who we personally choose to believe/accept.
    I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter as much as you think it does. The astronauts were certainly subject to an above average amount of radiation, and it is expected that a moon colony would require radiation shielding, but spending just a few days at an above average level of exposure isn't going to kill you.
    I would have thought such an observation to be a matter of degrees. After all; surely exposure to even a few minutes of 'above average radiation', provided it was sufficiently 'above average', would be enough to cause serious concern.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    It's more like career exposure. Each mission adds a different amount to your career limit. Why Apollo crews were rotated and shuffled.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I would have thought such an observation to be a matter of degrees. After all; surely exposure to even a few minutes of 'above average radiation', provided it was sufficiently 'above average', would be enough to cause serious concern.
    But it wasn't. The highest mission dose for an Apollo mission was Apollo 14, at 1400 millirem. That's about 2 CAT scans.
    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2906.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    I would have thought such an observation to be a matter of degrees. After all; surely exposure to even a few minutes of 'above average radiation', provided it was sufficiently 'above average', would be enough to cause serious concern.

    A strong enough dose of any frequency of light will kill you. If somebody directs a highly powered red-light-emitting laser at you, that could burn you to death. So, you have to be careful not to confuse above average amounts with catastrophically high amounts.

    Raw sunlight contains light from the full spectrum. Wikipedia places the total energy per square meter of raw sunlight (all frequencies put together, including infrared) at 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m˛), at the distance of the Earth, anyway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

    So, take 25 ordinary strength light bulbs, stand about a half meter away from them, and that's about how toasty the sun's light would be with no atmosphere, and no shielding. Fortunately the Astronauts did have some shielding.

    Of that total amount, apparently only a little bit of it is radioactive frequencies. Wiki mentions that the sun behaves approximately like a black body radiating at 5,800 K, and the UV range is light of 400 nanometers and less. If you look at the blue line in this graph, and kind of imagine it was a little taller, that should give you an idea of about how much of the light is in the UV range.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I would have thought such an observation to be a matter of degrees. After all; surely exposure to even a few minutes of 'above average radiation', provided it was sufficiently 'above average', would be enough to cause serious concern.
    But it wasn't. The highest mission dose for an Apollo mission was Apollo 14, at 1400 millirem. That's about 2 CAT scans.
    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2906.html
    And as for you my friend, designating your most precious of all commodities; 'trust' - in this case to the first given level of your (above) offered figures; as being underpinned by what undeniable scientific criteria?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    I would have thought such an observation to be a matter of degrees. After all; surely exposure to even a few minutes of 'above average radiation', provided it was sufficiently 'above average', would be enough to cause serious concern.

    A strong enough dose of any frequency of light will kill you. If somebody directs a highly powered red-light-emitting laser at you, that could burn you to death. So, you have to be careful not to confuse above average amounts with catastrophically high amounts.

    Raw sunlight contains light from the full spectrum. Wikipedia places the total energy per square meter of raw sunlight (all frequencies put together, including infrared) at 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m˛), at the distance of the Earth, anyway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

    So, take 25 ordinary strength light bulbs, stand about a half meter away from them, and that's about how toasty the sun's light would be with no atmosphere, and no shielding. Fortunately the Astronauts did have some shielding.

    Of that total amount, apparently only a little bit of it is radioactive frequencies. Wiki mentions that the sun behaves approximately like a black body radiating at 5,800 K, and the UV range is light of 400 nanometers and less. If you look at the blue line in this graph, and kind of imagine it was a little taller, that should give you an idea of about how much of the light is in the UV range.



    Notwithstanding a hapless Reject might find it difficult to place a great deal of his residual trust in terms of supposed data; as offered for broad consumption by such as 'Wiki'; nevertheless in regards this discussion - the above appears to (finally) be a meatier offering, upon which we might chew.

    Now, I don't know what it is like at your end of the universe, but within my environs; were I to expose my nakedness for just 10 or 15 minutes during the (FILTERED) illuminated hours of a 'ordinary strength' day, I would sustain a decided burning; at least at a superficial level. More time, and an apparently deeper resultant charring will be incurred - to the eventual point of (I suspect); death - provided the day being sufficiently extensive.

    You may heartily disagree, and again I will respectfully acknowledge your and Dr. Odenwald's academic supremacy; yet from my relatively uneducated stance; I somehow doubt your '25 globes at half a meter', would have quite the same effect - even without any attenuation. Unless of course, you are suggesting that even at such a distance; there exists a level of atmospheric protection, which I would suspect; to be a seriously detrimental observation unto your argument.

    Furthermore; I might humbly enquire as to the scientific relevance to all the above, of the following statement - from your Wiki article;
    "Bright sunlight provides luminance of approximately 100,000 candela per square meter at the Earth's surface"
    - particularly keeping in mind the considerable filtering involved, and in relation to the following;
    Since the precise definition is so unwieldy, it is not uncommon in standard usage to see the candela referred to as "roughly" the amount of light generated by a single candle. This definition is perfectly suitable for common usage, as is the translation of 120 candela to roughly the light emitted by a 100 watt light bulb.
    By my simplistic calculations, given the above scientific data; your 25 bulbs would emit roughly 3000 candela, which appears to be just a little shy of your Wiki '100,000' for sunlight - even with atmosphere and it's 'shielding' effect.

    On the other hand - I would proffer, (even at sea level) there would indeed be an inherent, and clearly substantial buffer involved - at no less than; the most conclusive strength available.

    Therefore my friend, how could it also be, that - at (as some suggest) 100km, or what seems a more likely (approx.) 600 - 1000km of atmospheric depth - provides such an astoundingly minor protection to my flesh? I would suggest that we simply cannot have it both ways.

    A further consideration I would have thought needing to be negotiated into to this equation due to the considerable atmospheric water involved; the end of the light spectrum receiving the most significant level of attenuation, would likely be the infrared – thereby seemingly further exacerbating the headache for your (far more universally embraced) position.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    You may heartily disagree, and again I will respectfully acknowledge your and Dr. Odenwald's academic supremacy; yet from my relatively uneducated stance; I somehow doubt your '25 globes at half a meter', would have quite the same effect - even without any attenuation. Unless of course, you are suggesting that even at such a distance; there exists a level of atmospheric protection, which I would suspect; to be a seriously detrimental observation unto your argument.

    Furthermore; I might humbly enquire as to the scientific relevance to all the above, of the following statement - from your Wiki article;
    "Bright sunlight provides luminance of approximately 100,000 candela per square meter at the Earth's surface"
    - particularly keeping in mind the considerable filtering involved, and in relation to the following;
    Since the precise definition is so unwieldy, it is not uncommon in standard usage to see the candela referred to as "roughly" the amount of light generated by a single candle. This definition is perfectly suitable for common usage, as is the translation of 120 candela to roughly the light emitted by a 100 watt light bulb.
    By my simplistic calculations, given the above scientific data; your 25 bulbs would emit roughly 3000 candela, which appears to be just a little shy of your Wiki '100,000' for sunlight - even with atmosphere and it's 'shielding' effect.
    By your logic, the sun's light at the Earth's surface should have the power of 800 light bulbs. If I stood a half meter away from 800 light bulbs, I think it would hurt me somehow.

    For my number, I was going off the wattage. 1,366 Watts is about 25 light bulbs, if you use the smaller 50 watt bulbs. Admittedly, though, I neglected to consider that the light bulbs don't convert electricity perfectly into light.

    So, my number is low, and yours seems just a little high. Here's something from Wiki's tanning bed article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanning_bed

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    A tanning bed or sunbed is a device emitting ultraviolet radiation (typically 95% UVA and 5% UVB, +/-3%) used to produce a cosmetic tan. Regular tanning beds use several fluorescent lamps that have phosphor blends designed to emit UV in a spectrum that is somewhat similar to the sun. Smaller, home tanning beds usually have 12 to 28 100 watt lamps while systems found in salons can run from 24 to 60 lamps, each consuming 100 to 200 watts.
    If we consider that sunlight has a fairly small UV content, especially at the Earth's surface, and tanning beds are known to reproduce the UV effects well enough to bronze a person's skin in a reasonably short time, without over cooking them, then maybe that's a good place to start trying to estimate how much UV radiation we should expect on the Earth's surface. Then we just need to determine how much is being removed by the atmosphere.

    Going back to the graph, however:

    [/quote]

    The difference between the red curve and the blue curve is about the same as the difference between the blue curve, and what the sun's curve would look like if it were present in the drawing, but you'll notice the amount of really really low nanometer light is exponentially smaller than the amount of light that merely falls in the UV range. (Lower nanometers means higher radioactivity)

    Tanning level UV is pretty easy to shield. That's 315 -400 nanometer. It's the stuff below that that gets harder and harder to block, and could give you cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    You may heartily disagree, and again I will respectfully acknowledge your and Dr. Odenwald's academic supremacy; yet from my relatively uneducated stance; I somehow doubt your '25 globes at half a meter', would have quite the same effect - even without any attenuation. Unless of course, you are suggesting that even at such a distance; there exists a level of atmospheric protection, which I would suspect; to be a seriously detrimental observation unto your argument.

    Furthermore; I might humbly enquire as to the scientific relevance to all the above, of the following statement - from your Wiki article;
    "Bright sunlight provides luminance of approximately 100,000 candela per square meter at the Earth's surface"
    - particularly keeping in mind the considerable filtering involved, and in relation to the following;
    Since the precise definition is so unwieldy, it is not uncommon in standard usage to see the candela referred to as "roughly" the amount of light generated by a single candle. This definition is perfectly suitable for common usage, as is the translation of 120 candela to roughly the light emitted by a 100 watt light bulb.
    By my simplistic calculations, given the above scientific data; your 25 bulbs would emit roughly 3000 candela, which appears to be just a little shy of your Wiki '100,000' for sunlight - even with atmosphere and it's 'shielding' effect.
    By your logic,
    Let’s get one thing straight up front my friend – so far there has not been a great deal of ‘logic’ employed. All I used was your presented figures and via a first grade mathematical observation in relation to those same figures, noticed a mere discrepancy in YOUR logic – of what technically appears to be around 97% error.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    For my number, I was going off the wattage. 1,366 Watts is about 25 light bulbs, if you use the smaller 50 watt bulbs. Admittedly, though, I neglected to consider that the light bulbs don't convert electricity perfectly into light.
    Well I was assuming 100W; however I guess if you use 50W bulbs, I doubt it makes too much difference in the overall of our discussion. On the other hand, your wording didn't originally have me thinking your reasoning depended on the current flowing into the bulbs, but rather what was being produced - as outflow.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, my number is low,
    By my assessments, I would have determined it as a little more than 'low' - based upon your own data.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    and yours seems just a little high.
    Well ‘mine’ as you refer to it, is mere first grade math as rather simply applied to your presented scientific figures.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Here's something from Wiki's tanning bed article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanning_bed

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    A tanning bed or sunbed is a device emitting ultraviolet radiation (typically 95% UVA and 5% UVB, +/-3%) used to produce a cosmetic tan. Regular tanning beds use several fluorescent lamps that have phosphor blends designed to emit UV in a spectrum that is somewhat similar to the sun. Smaller, home tanning beds usually have 12 to 28 100 watt lamps while systems found in salons can run from 24 to 60 lamps, each consuming 100 to 200 watts.
    If we consider that sunlight has a fairly small UV content, especially at the Earth's surface, and tanning beds are known to reproduce the UV effects well enough to bronze a person's skin in a reasonably short time, without over cooking them, then maybe that's a good place to start trying to estimate how much UV radiation we should expect on the Earth's surface. Then we just need to determine how much is being removed by the atmosphere.

    Going back to the graph, however:



    The difference between the red curve and the blue curve is about the same as the difference between the blue curve, and what the sun's curve would look like if it were present in the drawing, but you'll notice the amount of really really low nanometer light is exponentially smaller than the amount of light that merely falls in the UV range. (Lower nanometers means higher radioactivity)

    Tanning level UV is pretty easy to shield. That's 315 -400 nanometer. It's the stuff below that that gets harder and harder to block, and could give you cancer.
    I’m not at all sure what all the above has to do with our discussion, and not being able to adequately view your graph doesn't much help. I would certainly be interested to listen to further explanation as to relevance, however I currently feel you have rather missed the most essential observation on offer here, and am respectfully curious as to whether this is intentional, or otherwise.

    I would have thought the primary observation for our consideration does not at all depend upon whether 25, 50 or 800 light bulbs be employed for our intellectual experiment, or for that matter if they each be 50, 100 or 1000W. For if I were to venture my naked flesh close enough to even a single bulb of relatively low intensity, I would not be able to maintain my loving disposition forever. For I would certainly, and close enough to instantly; sustain a severe enough burn of reasonably localised dimension to bring about a swift withdraw, the cursory curse and a blister or two.

    For mine, we need not venture to discussing such as cancer or any life changing damage, but rather submit ourselves to first grade observations and logic – as available to anyone. I think sometimes our minds can become cluttered and confused by a few too many trees, thereby blocking our view to the simplicity of wood.

    So again, what is the difference between, on the one hand; a pleasant warming glow from our single low wattage light globe at half a metre, and a reasonably violent audible and visible reaction to the same - on the other?

    I would suggest the (perhaps) first grade response of ‘distance’ to be a reasonable enough starting point, yet patently insufficient. For it is my assertion that there is much more to this scenario than a few centimetres disconnectivity.

    Indeed even in your half metre, there is obviously much atmosphere, acting as a buffer to the energy outpouring from our illuminating fixture, which I would suggest protects our flesh and bone to a far greater degree than we have ever acknowledged – to the point that our knee-jerk suggestion of ‘distance’ really only plays the most nominal of roles in such equation.

    So now, how much ‘attenuation’ does our atmosphere offer, in bringing into reality as it does; the making of our planetary home into the perfect life supporting/enriching humidicrib we nonchalantly take for granted and much too readily abuse?

    Regardless whether our consideration is the 600 – 1000km deep cushion that NASA seems to suggest, or the astoundingly alternative 100km barrier, that far more knowledgeable minds such as Janus and KALSTER seem to favour, I would suggest your light bulbs at half a metre illustration draws us to an awesome observation indeed – that the naturally occuring attenuation we enjoy – simply has to be way above the 30% of Janus' previous observation - particularly, I would suggest; at the infrared end of the spectrum.

    Unless of course, his suggestion was along the lines that the direct energy arriving at the outer limits of our atmosphere and continuing through till it reaches the earth's surface, is in the process attenuated DOWN TO - 30%, which a Reject might have regarded as getting closer to the mark, although perhaps still a little high.

    After all, if half a metre (or even much less) can make such an enormous difference, how can it also be plausible that 200,000 times such protective cushion (based upon Janus’ theoretical 100km atmosphere), or even 16000 times (based upon his hypothetically homogenous 8km medium) be responsible for a mere 30%?

    I would suggest that even at a level of first grade logic; a second opinion is urgently called for, AND someone needs to immediately get back to their slide rule, abacus and drawing board - or perhaps trim a few trees in favour of the wood.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Going back to the graph, however:



    The difference between the red curve and the blue curve is about the same as the difference between the blue curve, and what the sun's curve would look like if it were present in the drawing, but you'll notice the amount of really really low nanometer light is exponentially smaller than the amount of light that merely falls in the UV range. (Lower nanometers means higher radioactivity)

    Tanning level UV is pretty easy to shield. That's 315 -400 nanometer. It's the stuff below that that gets harder and harder to block, and could give you cancer.
    I’m not at all sure what all the above has to do with our discussion, and not being able to adequately view your graph doesn't much help. I would certainly be interested to listen to further explanation as to relevance, however I currently feel you have rather missed the most essential observation on offer here, and am respectfully curious as to whether this is intentional, or otherwise.
    What the graph explains is that only a very very small percentage of the sun's light is dangerously radio-active in the first place.


    I would have thought the primary observation for our consideration does not at all depend upon whether 25, 50 or 800 light bulbs be employed for our intellectual experiment, or for that matter if they each be 50, 100 or 1000W. For if I were to venture my naked flesh close enough to even a single bulb of relatively low intensity, I would not be able to maintain my loving disposition forever. For I would certainly, and close enough to instantly; sustain a severe enough burn of reasonably localised dimension to bring about a swift withdraw, the cursory curse and a blister or two.
    Yeah, this was the core of my mistake. Light bulbs do not convert all of the electricity into light directly. Most of it is converted into heat. That's why it would burn you. I suppose we'd have to imagine flourescent light bulbs or something, in order to properly quantify the light itself.

    Most of the reason it would burn you if you got too close is because the air is conveying that heat to you. I mean, the bulb is heating up the air around it, by physically touching it (not from its light) and the air is heating up your hand. The light itself has a much smaller effect. So, in a vacuum, the light bulb would be much less likely to burn you.


    I would suggest the (perhaps) first grade response of ‘distance’ to be a reasonable enough starting point, yet patently insufficient. For it is my assertion that there is much more to this scenario than a few centimetres disconnectivity.

    Indeed even in your half metre, there is obviously much atmosphere, acting as a buffer to the energy outpouring from our illuminating fixture, which I would suggest protects our flesh and bone to a far greater degree than we have ever acknowledged – to the point that our knee-jerk suggestion of ‘distance’ really only plays the most nominal of roles in such equation.

    So now, how much ‘attenuation’ does our atmosphere offer, in bringing into reality as it does; the making of our planetary home into the perfect life supporting/enriching humidicrib we nonchalantly take for granted and much too readily abuse?

    Regardless whether our consideration is the 600 – 1000km deep cushion that NASA seems to suggest, or the astoundingly alternative 100km barrier, that far more knowledgeable minds such as Janus and KALSTER seem to favour, I would suggest your light bulbs at half a metre illustration draws us to an awesome observation indeed – that the naturally occuring attenuation we enjoy – simply has to be way above the 30% of Janus' previous observation - particularly, I would suggest; at the infrared end of the spectrum.

    You have to remember that most of that cushion is incredibly thin. Only maybe the first 10 km are as dense as the air between you and a light bulb, or even nearly so.


    After all, if half a metre (or even much less) can make such an enormous difference, how can it also be plausible that 200,000 times such protective cushion (based upon Janus’ theoretical 100km atmosphere), or even 16000 times (based upon his hypothetically homogenous 8km medium) be responsible for a mere 30%?
    [/quote]

    Light intensity diminishes with distance according to what is called an "inverse square law". If I is the intensity, and D is the distance away, then I divided by D squared is how strong the effect is at a distance D. I/ (D^2)

    So, if you're very far away already, like how far the Earth is from the Sun, then moving a few thousand Km further won't affect the intensity very much. But if you're very close, like a half meter away, the moving another half meter away beyond that (so you're now a whole meter away) drops the intensity down to 1/4 what it was before.

    So, even with not atmosphere at all, moving a half meter away from a light bulb makes a dramatic difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What the graph explains is that only a very very small percentage of the sun's light is dangerously radio-active in the first place.
    Light isn't radioactive. But high energy photons can be ionising or at least can cause serious burn. However, the statement is correct that only a tiny fraction of the 1.4 kW per square meter radiative energy is made of UV or X rays.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Going back to the graph, however:



    The difference between the red curve and the blue curve is about the same as the difference between the blue curve, and what the sun's curve would look like if it were present in the drawing, but you'll notice the amount of really really low nanometer light is exponentially smaller than the amount of light that merely falls in the UV range. (Lower nanometers means higher radioactivity)

    Tanning level UV is pretty easy to shield. That's 315 -400 nanometer. It's the stuff below that that gets harder and harder to block, and could give you cancer.
    What the graph explains is that only a very very small percentage of the sun's light is dangerously radio-active in the first place.
    I accept that the radio-active component of light is not the major problem to be addressed, yet I suspect there is more to this scenario, so (if I may suggest) we might return to this observation a little further down the track???


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would have thought the primary observation for our consideration does not at all depend upon whether 25, 50 or 800 light bulbs be employed for our intellectual experiment, or for that matter if they each be 50, 100 or 1000W. For if I were to venture my naked flesh close enough to even a single bulb of relatively low intensity, I would not be able to maintain my loving disposition forever. For I would certainly, and close enough to instantly; sustain a severe enough burn of reasonably localised dimension to bring about a swift withdraw, the cursory curse and a blister or two.
    Yeah, this was the core of my mistake. Light bulbs do not convert all of the electricity into light directly. Most of it is converted into heat. That's why it would burn you. I suppose we'd have to imagine flourescent light bulbs or something, in order to properly quantify the light itself.
    Ok, here in some measure; is where my theory parts company with yours. For I would suggest that light and the heat that has always seemingly been linked with it, have a far more intimate relationship than your more generally accepted scenario.

    I would suggest that the infra-red end of the light spectrum is in fact one and the same as the heat (perhaps) being carried by the released light. It (heat) is not any more a separated by-product, than the UV or X-ray components.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Most of the reason it would burn you if you got too close is because the air is conveying that heat to you.
    Whilst the air is indeed being heated via the transference of the substantial heat of our illuminating process, I would humbly suggest it is acting more as a protective buffer, than a relay of such heat - as being released. Therefore, in the converse to your explanation; especially by virtue of the suspended water component; more than anything else, the surrounding medium of air is offering a substantial defensive barrier for my flesh.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I mean, the bulb is heating up the air around it, by physically touching it (not from its light) and the air is heating up your hand. The light itself has a much smaller effect. So, in a vacuum, the light bulb would be much less likely to burn you.
    I would further suggest that whilst in a vacuum (nothing), the light – including it’s infra-red (heat) component, is as virtually non-existent – at least as long as there is no physical thing to receive/absorb/reflect it.

    Therefore, I fully concur with you on this point – as long as we are in agreement that once ‘I’ am there, it ceases being a vacuum (no physical thing).



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would suggest the (perhaps) first grade response of ‘distance’ to be a reasonable enough starting point, yet patently insufficient. For it is my assertion that there is much more to this scenario than a few centimetres disconnectivity.

    Indeed even in your half metre, there is obviously much atmosphere, acting as a buffer to the energy outpouring from our illuminating fixture, which I would suggest protects our flesh and bone to a far greater degree than we have ever acknowledged – to the point that our knee-jerk suggestion of ‘distance’ really only plays the most nominal of roles in such equation.

    So now, how much ‘attenuation’ does our atmosphere offer, in bringing into reality as it does; the making of our planetary home into the perfect life supporting/enriching humidicrib we nonchalantly take for granted and much too readily abuse?

    Regardless whether our consideration is the 600 – 1000km deep cushion that NASA seems to suggest, or the astoundingly alternative 100km barrier, that far more knowledgeable minds such as Janus and KALSTER seem to favour, I would suggest your light bulbs at half a metre illustration draws us to an awesome observation indeed – that the naturally occurring attenuation we enjoy – simply has to be way above the 30% of Janus' previous observation - particularly, I would suggest; at the infrared end of the spectrum.

    You have to remember that most of that cushion is incredibly thin. Only maybe the first 10 km are as dense as the air between you and a light bulb, or even nearly so.
    Your above (more reasoned) observation, was never an issue under disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    After all, if half a metre (or even much less) can make such an enormous difference, how can it also be plausible that 200,000 times such protective cushion (based upon Janus’ theoretical 100km atmosphere), or even 16000 times (based upon his hypothetically homogenous 8km medium) be responsible for a mere 30%?

    Light intensity diminishes with distance according to what is called an "inverse square law". If I is the intensity, and D is the distance away, then I divided by D squared is how strong the effect is at a distance D. I/ (D^2)

    So, if you're very far away already, like how far the Earth is from the Sun, then moving a few thousand Km further won't affect the intensity very much. But if you're very close, like a half meter away, the moving another half meter away beyond that (so you're now a whole meter away) drops the intensity down to 1/4 what it was before.

    So, even with not atmosphere at all, moving a half meter away from a light bulb makes a dramatic difference.
    I can see how this effect clearly works in an environment such as the earth, where (according the above discussion) there is extant atmosphere to be negotiated, again with particular attention on the suspended water vapour. However I am unsure how the released (full spectrum) light can possibly be diminished over distance without anything to act in such a manner upon it.

    Therefore, unless we are speaking in terms of dissipation via disperse-ment rather than disintegration, I find it difficult, in an environment deviod of physical impediment (vacuum); to accept any serious degree of reduction over any distance whatsoever.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I am unsure how the released (full spectrum) light can possibly be diminished over distance without anything to act in such a manner upon it.

    Therefore, unless we are speaking in terms of dissipation via disperse-ment rather than disintegration, I find it difficult, in an environment deviod of physical impediment (vacuum); to accept any serious degree of reduction over any distance whatsoever.
    The sunlinght is emitted by a sphere having a radius of the sun. So, all the energy released is condensend across a surface being the surface of the sun. It is calculated by:

    (r: solar radius)

    After its travel to the orbit of the sun, the same energy is the dispersed across a much larger area with the radius now being the distance between the sun and the earth. So, the concentration of energy per square metre is diluted. The total energy is redistributed relative to the surface area of a sphere determined by the length the light has travelled, i.e. A or . So, simply by increasing the distance to the light source, you are less affected by it. The total radiative power contained within one square metre at the earth (outside the atmosphere) is about 1.4 kW. The black body spectrum shown in this thread tells you that only little amount of that power is emitted in the UV or the infrared. And much of the energy is simply reflected by space suits or the shell of spacecraft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    I must note that the preceding post presents to an uneducated infidel as a bunch of words having an effect akin to spinning the head upon my shoulders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I am unsure how the released (full spectrum) light can possibly be diminished over distance without anything to act in such a manner upon it.

    Therefore, unless we are speaking in terms of dissipation via disperse-ment rather than disintegration, I find it difficult, in an environment deviod of physical impediment (vacuum); to accept any serious degree of reduction over any distance whatsoever.
    The sunlinght is emitted by a sphere having a radius of the sun. So, all the energy released is condensend across a surface being the surface of the sun.
    What does all that mean? In particular, what are you suggesting by 'condensed' across the surface of the sun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    It is calculated by:

    (r: solar radius)

    After its travel to the orbit of the sun
    Orbit of the sun? Around what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    the same energy is the dispersed across a much larger area with the radius now being the distance between the sun and the earth.
    Are you suggesting the sun orbits the earth? What else has an uneducated dude been missing all these years?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    So, the concentration of energy per square metre is diluted.
    Yes it will indeed be 'diluted' over any increasing distance away from the source - as the emmitting radiation is dispersed in fan-like manner. Therefore the further I am away from the origin, the less of the released stuff will be hitting me. That much is quite obvious, I would have thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The total energy is redistributed relative to the surface area of a sphere determined by the length the light has travelled, i.e. A or . So, simply by increasing the distance to the light source, you are less affected by it.
    Notwithstanding the (again) 'surface area of a sphere' and mathematical symbols; thus far, I would expect my previous observation (above) to suit adequately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The total radiative power contained within one square metre at the earth (outside the atmosphere) is about 1.4 kW.
    1.4kW huh? Would that be relative to any particular time frame? In any case, I guess I will have to take your word on that figure, even though it would appear to an unenlightened dude, to be relatively rubbery for a scientific conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The black body spectrum shown in this thread tells you that only little amount of that power is emitted in the UV or the infrared.
    Black body spectrum shown in this thread? I'm sorry to admit to having no concept as to what any of these words relate. On the other side of the coin; if my expectation that the released heat is in fact part of the 'infra-red' of light, then I would strongly suspect your percentage, as placed upon this section of band-width, to be increased from 'little' - even to 'ginormous'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    And much of the energy is simply reflected by space suits or the shell of spacecraft.
    Well, I thought the discussion had moved a little from the specific hypothetical - to a more general observation of reality. Even so, I would concur that it is clear some (if not most) of the illumination within the spectrum of light, would be reflected by such as space suits, yet there are other components such as x-rays and the excessive heat on board, that would not nearly be so affected by reflection.

    Now; as we are seemingly back on Apollo specifics for the moment; were I to inject my 10 year old son into a closed and sealed suit of any variety, then place him in the sun for (let's say); a half hour (even with a clean air supply), I would expect any court on the planet, in the name of humanitarianism; to see fit to immediately relocate my person behind bars for an indeterminate period - and so they should.

    Even though my pleas to the honourable bench might well be citing the obvious existence of the surrounding kilometers of atmosphere, including the cooling effect of much suspended water, as surely an undeniable (yet patently insufficient) defence to his existence, I sincerely doubt my case to be treated with any level of sympathy whatsoever.

    Yet somehow, we seem expected to blithely accept that a couple of men walked and ran and jumped, and worked in an entirely undiluted full spectrum solar radiation for a couple of hours plus - in total comfort and safety, no less. And this of course, doesn't include the weeks of travel to and from their lunar destination, all in the sun’s direct unfettered radiation; which would assuredly have presented further significant problems to be traversed.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    It is calculated by:

    (r: solar radius)

    After its travel to the orbit of the sun
    Orbit of the sun? Around what?
    I believe Dishmaster meant to write "orbit of the earth."

    Yes it will indeed be 'diluted' over any increasing distance away from the source - as the emmitting radiation is dispersed in fan-like manner. Therefore the further I am away from the origin, the less of the released stuff will be hitting me. That much is quite obvious, I would have thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The total energy is redistributed relative to the surface area of a sphere determined by the length the light has travelled, i.e. A or . So, simply by increasing the distance to the light source, you are less affected by it.
    Notwithstanding the (again) 'surface area of a sphere' and mathematical symbols; thus far, I would expect my previous observation (above) to suit adequately.
    It will suit adequately if you only want a qualitative description. Astronomers like to calculate things, however.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The total radiative power contained within one square metre at the earth (outside the atmosphere) is about 1.4 kW.
    1.4kW huh? Would that be relative to any particular time frame? In any case, I guess I will have to take your word on that figure, even though it would appear to an unenlightened dude, to be relatively rubbery for a scientific conclusion.
    The power in kilowatts _is_ relative to a time frame. It is the number of kilojoules of energy per second. There is nothing rubbery about it.
    entirely undiluted full spectrum radiation for a couple of hours plus - all as in total comfort and safety, no less.
    Why are you still making this argument? I thought you understood that the rays spread out through space and are not as intense as at the surface of the sun. You seemed to indicate that you understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    I can readily accept that ' Astronomers like to calculate things, however.', yet I would have thought it would perhaps be infinitely more helpful to their conclusions, were their calculations and methodology be a little more transparent - at least for the hopelessly uneducated among us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I believe Dishmaster meant to write "orbit of the earth."
    I can likewise accept this - as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The total radiative power contained within one square metre at the earth (outside the atmosphere) is about 1.4 kW.
    1.4kW huh? Would that be relative to any particular time frame? In any case, I guess I will have to accept your word on that figure, even though it would appear to an unenlightened dude, to be relatively rubbery for a scientific conclusion.
    The power in kilowatts _is_ relative to a time frame. It is the number of kilojoules of energy per second. There is nothing rubbery about it.
    Again, I guess I will have to accept your word for that, huh? Now my friend, perhaps you would like to offer a definitive explanation as to the scientific methodology and calculations to arrive at such a precise figure?

    My issues with the figure, really are inappreciable, for little reason more than I have not a great deal of cognizance of it's import to this investigation.

    BTW; expressions such as 'There is nothing rubbery about it', does nothing - as per explanation. For such appears as a mere offer of trust in someone else's declaration - whether trustworthy or not, or scientific or otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    entirely undiluted full spectrum radiation for a couple of hours plus - all as in total comfort and safety, no less.
    I thought you understood that the rays spread out through space and are not as intense as at the surface of the sun. You seemed to indicate that you understood.
    'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are in fact two separate observations.

    I would have thought the answer to your question had already been sufficiently explored. Even so, I will offer the following by way of further explanation;

    As I understand it; the ‘rays’ as emitted from the sun, would be entirely unhindered and undiminished as they travel through a vacuum. Therefore would be as intense upon arrival - anywhere their destination may be. What would be different at a distance however, would be the quantity of ‘rays’ that arrive, rather than quality.

    Therefore, I would have expected it to be a reasonably conspicuous observation; the intensity would surely decrease, by virtue of the decreasing volume striking the destination at a greater distance - wherever that may be.

    At the same time, I would have expected there to be little appreciable difference between the distance of the sun; to the earth, and the moon.

    Furthermore my friend, would you now care to offer enlightenment on;
    The sunlinght is emitted by a sphere having a radius of the sun. So, all the energy released is condensend across a surface being the surface of the sun.
    and;
    The black body spectrum shown in this thread tells you that only little amount of that power is emitted in the UV or the infrared.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Going back to the graph, however:



    The difference between the red curve and the blue curve is about the same as the difference between the blue curve, and what the sun's curve would look like if it were present in the drawing, but you'll notice the amount of really really low nanometer light is exponentially smaller than the amount of light that merely falls in the UV range. (Lower nanometers means higher radioactivity)

    Tanning level UV is pretty easy to shield. That's 315 -400 nanometer. It's the stuff below that that gets harder and harder to block, and could give you cancer.
    What the graph explains is that only a very very small percentage of the sun's light is dangerously radio-active in the first place.
    I accept that the radio-active component of light is not the major problem to be addressed, yet I suspect there is more to this scenario, so (if I may suggest) we might return to this observation a little further down the track???
    The high UV and gamma part of the light spectrum is the only part that's really hard to shield them from.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would suggest the (perhaps) first grade response of ‘distance’ to be a reasonable enough starting point, yet patently insufficient. For it is my assertion that there is much more to this scenario than a few centimetres disconnectivity.

    Indeed even in your half metre, there is obviously much atmosphere, acting as a buffer to the energy outpouring from our illuminating fixture, which I would suggest protects our flesh and bone to a far greater degree than we have ever acknowledged – to the point that our knee-jerk suggestion of ‘distance’ really only plays the most nominal of roles in such equation.

    So now, how much ‘attenuation’ does our atmosphere offer, in bringing into reality as it does; the making of our planetary home into the perfect life supporting/enriching humidicrib we nonchalantly take for granted and much too readily abuse?

    Regardless whether our consideration is the 600 – 1000km deep cushion that NASA seems to suggest, or the astoundingly alternative 100km barrier, that far more knowledgeable minds such as Janus and KALSTER seem to favour, I would suggest your light bulbs at half a metre illustration draws us to an awesome observation indeed – that the naturally occurring attenuation we enjoy – simply has to be way above the 30% of Janus' previous observation - particularly, I would suggest; at the infrared end of the spectrum.

    You have to remember that most of that cushion is incredibly thin. Only maybe the first 10 km are as dense as the air between you and a light bulb, or even nearly so.
    Your above (more reasoned) observation, was never an issue under disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    After all, if half a metre (or even much less) can make such an enormous difference, how can it also be plausible that 200,000 times such protective cushion (based upon Janus’ theoretical 100km atmosphere), or even 16000 times (based upon his hypothetically homogenous 8km medium) be responsible for a mere 30%?

    Light intensity diminishes with distance according to what is called an "inverse square law". If I is the intensity, and D is the distance away, then I divided by D squared is how strong the effect is at a distance D. I/ (D^2)

    So, if you're very far away already, like how far the Earth is from the Sun, then moving a few thousand Km further won't affect the intensity very much. But if you're very close, like a half meter away, the moving another half meter away beyond that (so you're now a whole meter away) drops the intensity down to 1/4 what it was before.

    So, even with not atmosphere at all, moving a half meter away from a light bulb makes a dramatic difference.
    I can see how this effect clearly works in an environment such as the earth, where (according the above discussion) there is extant atmosphere to be negotiated, again with particular attention on the suspended water vapour. However I am unsure how the released (full spectrum) light can possibly be diminished over distance without anything to act in such a manner upon it.

    Therefore, unless we are speaking in terms of dissipation via disperse-ment rather than disintegration, I find it difficult, in an environment deviod of physical impediment (vacuum); to accept any serious degree of reduction over any distance whatsoever.
    Light actually doesn't travel as a "beam". That's just a term that's used when a physicist only wants to look at one part of the light wave. Light travels as an expanding sphere. Like a ripple in a pond of water, expect it's a full sphere, instead of just a circle.

    So, with the exception of lasers, which are a special case, light absolutely always spreads out as it travels through space, and it spreads out at a certain rate. The equation for the surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * R^2 (Four times pi times radius squared), and the original power of the light is divided uniformly across that surface area, so Energy/Area is Energy/(4* pi * R^2) R = Radius.

    Air can make it weaken by even more than that, but the "inverse square law" is the minimum amount of intensity light can lose as it moves through space. It's like if you were swinging a knife with a dull blade instead of a sharp blade. With a sharp blade, all of the force hits a very thin area. With a dull blade, it's the same amount of force, but it hits a wider area.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    entirely undiluted full spectrum radiation for a couple of hours plus - all as in total comfort and safety, no less.
    I thought you understood that the rays spread out through space and are not as intense as at the surface of the sun. You seemed to indicate that you understood.
    'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are in fact two separate observations.
    Spreading out diminishes the intensity per area.


    I would have thought the answer to your question had already been sufficiently explored. Even so, I will offer the following by way of further explanation;

    As I understand it; the ‘rays’ as emitted from the sun, would be entirely unhindered and undiminished as they travel through a vacuum. Therefore would be as intense upon arrival - anywhere their destination may be. What would be different at a distance however, would be the quantity of ‘rays’ that arrive, rather than quality.
    This is what I meant by saying that a "ray" is just a way of looking at it. Going back to the idea of a ripple in a pond, if the ripple hits you, and you can tell which direction it came from, you might choose to look at that as a "ray" of water, but that ray was really part of a circular ripple. All beams of light are parts of ripples of light.

    So basically, the word "ray" is a misleading term that is often used, because it makes it possible to simplify a lot of physics problems, but to a layman it makes light seem very different than how it really is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are in fact two separate observations.
    No. they are really the same. What you have to understand is that photons of light are indistiguishable, whether they come from the sun, a distant star, or a lamp. The difference in intensity is a difference in the number of photons arriving per unit area per unit time. If the photons are spread out over a larger area, the intensity is less.
    I would have thought the answer to your question had already been sufficiently explored. Even so, I will offer the following by way of further explanation;

    As I understand it; the ‘rays’ as emitted from the sun, would be entirely unhindered and undiminished as they travel through a vacuum. Therefore would be as intense upon arrival - anywhere their destination may be. What would be different at a distance however, would be the quantity of ‘rays’ that arrive, rather than quality.

    Therefore, I would have expected it to be a reasonably conspicuous observation; the intensity would surely decrease, by virtue of the decreasing volume striking the destination at a greater distance - wherever that may be.
    Yes. Here you seem to get it. Now why do you think 'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are separate observations?

    At the same time, I would have expected there to be little appreciable difference between the distance of the sun; to the earth, and the moon.

    Furthermore my friend, would you now care to offer enlightenment on;
    The sunlinght is emitted by a sphere having a radius of the sun. So, all the energy released is condensend across a surface being the surface of the sun.
    and;
    The black body spectrum shown in this thread tells you that only little amount of that power is emitted in the UV or the infrared.
    1. Let's say at some instant the sun is emiting a certain number of photons. That means the intensity at the sun's surface is determined by that number of photons passing through the area at the sun's spherical surface, which is the formula given by Dishmaster above. Some time later those same photons occupy a spherical shell of radius equal to the earth's orbital radius. By that time, the same number of photons are spread out over that spherical surface, so the incident light has less intensity, in proportion to the surface area of the two spheres.
    2. The black body spectrum in question is the figure posted by Kojax above. Specifically, it was stated that the sun's temperature was close to the temperature shown on the 5000K blue line on the chart. The blue curve has a peak in the visible spectrum (400 to 700 nm) and the intensity is lower in the UV (wavelength 10 nm to 400 nm) and infrared (above 700 nm).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Nice discussion. I am sorry, but I wasn't aware of the fact that my explanation was really so hard to understand. I surely would have thought that calculating the surface of a sphere would be common knowledge. It is really sometimes not easy to judge what knowledge one can assume in this forum. And - yes - my mistake: I meant the orbit of the earth of course. Maybe, I shouldn't write anything just after getting up in the morning.

    So, I think, it is settled know why the intensity of light diminishes with distance. Just as Harold nicely explains, the same amount of photons per second (=intensity) are penetrating a smaller surface area at the sun than at the orbit of the earth. So, same amount of photons, but much larger area. So much for the reason of my wording: condensed vs. diluted/spread out

    The other thing is with the spectrum shown. It tells you, how much energy is contained in the radiation per wavelength. With the peak being in the visual range, it demonstrates that the majority of energy is emitted there. Since the curve drastically drops towards short wavelengths = UV/X ray, there is hardly any energy present there. It might still be enough to give you a serious sunburn or even can cause cancer if exposed to it unprotected, but it is easy to block. A simple glass window is already very effective in blocking UV radiation.

    The value of 1.4 kW (energy per time unit) at the location of the earth is the well established solar constant. It includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum of radiation emitted by the sun. This is really not so much. This is about the same amount of energy that a vacuum cleaner or a hair dryer consumes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The high UV and gamma part of the light spectrum is the only part that's really hard to shield them from.
    I would have thought the considerable raw heat (infra-red) to have been an even greater hurdle to overcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Light actually doesn't travel as a "beam". That's just a term that's used when a physicist only wants to look at one part of the light wave. Light travels as an expanding sphere. Like a ripple in a pond of water, expect it's a full sphere, instead of just a circle.
    I have no problem with the above, as long as we agree that waves through a pond are required to negotiate transmission through a physical medium, so will necessarily lose some intensity as they extend - based upon the physicality of this comparison.

    As far as I can tell, light from the sun or a distant star has no such impediment - on a physical level at least.

    Even so, it would seem obvious that nothing - not even light, will be able to fill in all the spaces as it fans out. For again - it is not transmitting through a physical medium such as water.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, with the exception of lasers, which are a special case, light absolutely always spreads out as it travels through space, and it spreads out at a certain rate. The equation for the surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * R^2 (Four times pi times radius squared), and the original power of the light is divided uniformly across that surface area, so Energy/Area is Energy/(4* pi * R^2) R = Radius.
    I would have expected the above to be reasonably axiomatic.

    Now, if we were to separate the release of light from all over the surface of a sun - over just a moment (say one millionth of a second), and watch it, for instance extend out over a light year; I would expect that whilst it would have radiated quite some distance, it would necessarily have also garnered some distance between it's particles. The further it travels, the greater distance between them we would see.

    The individual particles remain as intense as ever, yet the space between them is ever increasing - thereby 'losing intensity' in a different manner to a simple transference of energy into a separate (physical) medium.

    So, by your determination; am I sufficiently embracing the picture so far?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Air can make it weaken by even more than that, but the "inverse square law" is the minimum amount of intensity light can lose as it moves through space. It's like if you were swinging a knife with a dull blade instead of a sharp blade. With a sharp blade, all of the force hits a very thin area. With a dull blade, it's the same amount of force, but it hits a wider area.
    Your illustration offers a physical knife through physical air, or striking a physical object. However, light is only partly physical - and that 'part' is incredibly small at that, but otherwise it is (what I would term) 'spiritual' - in that the concurrent wave characteristic has no physicality whatsoever.

    Furthermore, in space light travels through nothing between the moment of release and collision with it's destination, so the illustration of ripples through water is (at best); a very limited comparison. How am I going so far?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Spreading out diminishes the intensity per area.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Going back to the idea of a ripple in a pond, if the ripple hits you, and you can tell which direction it came from, you might choose to look at that as a "ray" of water, but that ray was really part of a circular ripple. All beams of light are parts of ripples of light.

    So basically, the word "ray" is a misleading term that is often used, because it makes it possible to simplify a lot of physics problems, but to a layman it makes light seem very different than how it really is.
    Understood and thank you, my friend - although it was not in any post of a Reject that you first read the term 'ray'. I believe it was yourself who initially employed such term.

    Do you now think I have sufficiently covered all the above? For I would have thought maybe we have been on the same page in this regard for a quite some time.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are in fact two separate observations.
    No. they are really the same.
    No, I am sorry - they certainly are NOT.

    On the one hand, intensity is lost via a progressive transference of energy over time and distance - into the physical medium being negotiated. This would be the case when passing through a physical habitat such as air, particularly with it's water component.

    On the other hand, in a vacuum, the energy level remains constant - with the distance between the particles as ever increasing.

    I would have expected that intensity is progressively reduced in both the above scenarios, yet via entirely differing processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    What you have to understand is that photons of light are indistiguishable, whether they come from the sun, a distant star, or a lamp. The difference in intensity is a difference in the number of photons arriving per unit area per unit time. If the photons are spread out over a larger area, the intensity is less.
    Which (apart from the words employed) is seemingly indistinguishable from what I have previously noted - around 5 times now. So where is the problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Yes. Here you seem to get it. Now why do you think 'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are separate observations?
    Look above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    At the same time, I would have expected there to be little appreciable difference between the distance of the sun; to the earth, and the moon.

    Furthermore my friend, would you now care to offer enlightenment on;
    The sunlinght is emitted by a sphere having a radius of the sun. So, all the energy released is condensend across a surface being the surface of the sun.
    1. Let's say at some instant the sun is emiting a certain number of photons. That means the intensity at the sun's surface is determined by that number of photons passing through the area at the sun's spherical surface, which is the formula given by Dishmaster above. Some time later those same photons occupy a spherical shell of radius equal to the earth's orbital radius. By that time, the same number of photons are spread out over that spherical surface, so the incident light has less intensity, in proportion to the surface area of the two spheres.
    Notwithstanding a miscommunication between 'condensed' and 'expanded', as far as I can tell, we are reading from the same page thus far. So with all due respect; what would you consider the cause for your confusion to this point, my friend?

    The black body spectrum shown in this thread tells you that only little amount of that power is emitted in the UV or the infrared.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    2. The black body spectrum in question is the figure posted by Kojax above. Specifically, it was stated that the sun's temperature was close to the temperature shown on the 5000K blue line on the chart. The blue curve has a peak in the visible spectrum (400 to 700 nm) and the intensity is lower in the UV (wavelength 10 nm to 400 nm) and infrared (above 700 nm).
    Unless of course; the abundant heat being emmitted from the sun, also needs to be included in the infrared range. Nevertheless, I currently feel there is way more to the above than first meets the eye, so if I may return to this a little further down the track?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    'Spreading out' and 'diminishing intensity' are in fact two separate observations.
    No. they are really the same.
    No, I am sorry - they certainly are NOT.

    On the one hand, intensity is lost via a progressive transference of energy over time and distance - into the physical medium being negotiated. This would be the case when passing through a physical habitat such as air, particularly with it's water component.

    On the other hand, in a vacuum, the energy level remains constant - with the distance between the particles as ever increasing.

    I would have expected that intensity is progressively reduced in both the above scenarios, yet via entirely differing processes.
    Okay, the intensity is diminished by a different process. It is still diminished, and the astronauts would not get roasted. Isn't that what the discussion was about. Or do you want to argue just for the sake of argument?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Okay, the intensity is diminished by a different process. It is still diminished, and the astronauts would not get roasted. Isn't that what the discussion was about. Or do you want to argue just for the sake of argument?
    Who's arguing? As far as I can see, we have always been engaging each other in a process of discovery - predominantly for myself. If such be 'argument' to my friend, perhaps you disagree with Dishmaster, when he noted just yesterday;
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Nice discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    the astronauts would not get roasted. Isn't that what the discussion was about.
    Why do you seek a return to argumentative discourse, as based upon little more than empty opinion?

    The origins of this discussion were indeed about one Reject's opinion as admittedly being in opposition to the vast majority of persons in this forum and the world, however I would have regarded that level of conversation as, for the time being, having run it's course, and since evolved into far more interesting, general and profitable arenas.

    In any case, if it is all the same to you, I would much prefer to continue to engage you or anyone else in a respectful course of discovery, rather than argument for the sake of anything at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Okay, the intensity is diminished by a different process.
    So if we are now convergent to this point, since a diminishing via transference can seemingly be ruled out due to a serious lack of anything to accept that transference; it would appear to me that the next step in our investigation, is to attempt to establish the degree of 'expansion' of the abundant energy, as continually released from the sun.

    Or would you regard such as a little too argumentative?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Okay, the intensity is diminished by a different process.
    So if we are now convergent to this point, since a diminishing via transference can seemingly be ruled out; it would appear to me that the next step in our investigation, is to attempt to establish the degree of 'expansion' of the abundant energy, as released from the sun.

    Or would you regard such as a little too argumentative?
    This is what Dishmaster explained. It is the square of the ratio of the sun's radius to the radius of the earth's orbit. The radius of the sun is 695,500 kilometers. The average radius of the earth's orbit is 150 million kilometers. This gives a distance ratio of about 215.67 to 1. From this I calculate that the intensity of radiation at the surface of the sun is a factor of 46514 times the intensity at earth's distance from the sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The high UV and gamma part of the light spectrum is the only part that's really hard to shield them from.
    I would have thought the considerable raw heat (infra-red) to have been an even greater hurdle to overcome.
    If you use reflective material, like a mirror, then most of the light is never absorbed. Only the portion you absorb converts into heat. The portion that is reflected does nothing.

    That's why black colored objects get hotter when you leave them in the sun than white objects get. A white colored object reflects more of the light that hits it, and absorbs less.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, with the exception of lasers, which are a special case, light absolutely always spreads out as it travels through space, and it spreads out at a certain rate. The equation for the surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * R^2 (Four times pi times radius squared), and the original power of the light is divided uniformly across that surface area, so Energy/Area is Energy/(4* pi * R^2) R = Radius.
    I would have expected the above to be reasonably axiomatic.

    Now, if we were to separate the release of light from all over the surface of a sun - over just a moment (say one millionth of a second), and watch it, for instance extend out over a light year; I would expect that whilst it would have radiated quite some distance, it would necessarily have also garnered some distance between it's particles. The further it travels, the greater distance between them we would see.

    The individual particles remain as intense as ever, yet the space between them is ever increasing - thereby 'losing intensity' in a different manner to a simple transference of energy into a separate (physical) medium.

    So, by your determination; am I sufficiently embracing the picture so far?
    Yeah. That's what I mean by the diminishing intensity. The number of photons that are likely to hit you from the Sun is fewer and fewer the further away you get, though each photon individually has its natural energy.

    That's what the inverse square law is all about. It's kind of like if you were standing very far away from a shot gun, when it's fired at you. The number of pellets from the scatter shot that hit you is less and less the further away you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Air can make it weaken by even more than that, but the "inverse square law" is the minimum amount of intensity light can lose as it moves through space. It's like if you were swinging a knife with a dull blade instead of a sharp blade. With a sharp blade, all of the force hits a very thin area. With a dull blade, it's the same amount of force, but it hits a wider area.
    Your illustration offers a physical knife through physical air, or striking a physical object. However, light is only partly physical - and that 'part' is incredibly small at that, but otherwise it is (what I would term) 'spiritual' - in that the concurrent wave characteristic has no physicality whatsoever.

    Furthermore, in space light travels through nothing between the moment of release and collision with it's destination, so the illustration of ripples through water is (at best); a very limited comparison. How am I going so far?
    Now, the actual way this works is very interesting. Suffice to say there's a reason people used to believe in a "Luminiferous Ether" that acted as a medium, because light has properties that make it almost seem like it were moving through a medium, but other properties that make it evident that it is not.

    It retains all of its wave characteristics even when it's not moving through a medium like air or water. I don't know of any really good explanation for why that is so. It just is.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Spreading out diminishes the intensity per area.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Going back to the idea of a ripple in a pond, if the ripple hits you, and you can tell which direction it came from, you might choose to look at that as a "ray" of water, but that ray was really part of a circular ripple. All beams of light are parts of ripples of light.

    So basically, the word "ray" is a misleading term that is often used, because it makes it possible to simplify a lot of physics problems, but to a layman it makes light seem very different than how it really is.
    Understood and thank you, my friend - although it was not in any post of a Reject that you first read the term 'ray'. I believe it was yourself who initially employed such term.

    Do you now think I have sufficiently covered all the above? For I would have thought maybe we have been on the same page in this regard for a quite some time.
    It's quite possible that we have. Physics, like so many fields, has its own jargon. So, you may describe the right thing using the wrong words, and everyone will think you're describing the wrong thing.

    After you learn the jargon, however, it does become easier to communicate with other people, so it's worth the trouble to remember proper names for things when you hear them, if you're going to be interested for a long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Call me history's most irretrievable cynic, yet I simply cannot bring myself to accepting that man has been any further than in a reasonably low orbit around the home planet. I’m not sure if we are looking at a list of well organised urban myths, or a profound and wondrous deception, yet I thoroughly suspect that truth has little part to play in this scenario.

    There are far too many unsatisfactorily answered questions for my liking, for instance;

    1. As I understand it, the most powerful computer available in 1969 was less gifted than today's $10 digital watch; yet I doubt too many would be jumping at the opportunity to hand their entire future over to the computing power in a watch for a second, much less the duration of many weeks and the highly complicated manoeuvres required in such an inhospitable and unexplored environment - even for such a momentous event as we are led to believe.

    2. Remembering point 1 (above); given the supposed delay of a turn around transmission between the earth and moon (of around 2.5 seconds), with the added interval to consider the every next setting (given that it seems there were at mission control; at least 30 people at their respective control panels); how could it have been possible to tweak every minor adjustment of the module in perfect harmony and timing for the process to be so entirely uneventful - on it's first attempt no less? Amazing is one thing, yet miracles are entirely something else.

    3. How could the original high quality tapes of likely the most meritorious event in US advancement and history, mysteriously go missing - two years ago? hmmmmmmm

    4. As far as I can tell, no-one has offered any explanation as to how the men aboard the craft survived passing for days (on each leg), through the immense radiation levels contained within the Van Allen Belt.

    5.
    "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of the moon is something bigger than a house."
    We have been led to believe that the Hubble telescope is hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than the biggest 'on earth', and (apparently) was increased by up to 100 times during 2008, permitting
    Hubble to see 900 galaxies where its original instruments would have revealed only 10
    So for mine, it would be reasonable to expect the thing to readily locate, lying in perfect vision in the lunar dust; the missing button from Neil Armstrong’s fly – let alone the various lunar vehicles, flag etc.

    Additionally, I find it puzzling to say the least; that we were originally told that the Great Wall of China and the Great Pyramid at Giza, were the only two man-made structures that could be physically seen from the moon - presumably by the naked eye, yet this statement seems to have been withdrawn. hmmmmmmm.

    6. (Further to point 4.) No-one has satisfactorily explained how the lunar wandering astronauts, once outside the relative safety of their capsule - in their space suits, managed to avoid; due to the enormous levels of unfiltered solar radiation they would necessarily have been absorbing, expiration within minutes - like a couple of micro-waved potatoes in their jackets. Some have suggested they were fitted with an (invisible) air conditioning unit – until it was pointed out that with little (or no) exterior atmosphere, there could be little (or no) alleviating heat transference of which to speak.

    7. In accordance with being the cynic that A.R. undoubtedly is, I have to ask; Why on earth would the respective authorities be investing so much money at this time in order to bolster this historic occasion in our societal consciousness, as if it were amazingly significant to us today; even some 40 years after the event? Could it possibly be that there is a more significant yet less savoury undertaking afoot; from which it would be best; we avert our attention? After all, such underhand manoeuvres have from time to time, previously been adopted.

    Am I hearing whispers of 'conspiracy theory' right now? Well suffice to say; a theory is only a theory until it is a proven fact, and even if it never gets to that stage, the truth will always remain the truth - even in no-one accepts it. On the other hand, one may well ask; just who has more to lose if their version of 'truth' lacks acceptance - insignificant 'theorists' such as A.R, or NAASA and it's masters?

    With regards the above suggestion;
    about a decade ago astronomers did try seeing something very small on the Moon but at high enough magnification the telescope could not track fast enough so just saw a fast moving surface.
    This is a new one - to a dyed-in-the-wool cynic at least! Therefore I have to ask; just how many unbelievable explanations - all seemingly delivered well after the event, are we going to be expected to navigate in relation to this obvious and significant discrepancy?


    fantastic answer!!! your have a sharp mind and ask questions thats good!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    To add to a couple of points made by Dishmaster.

    5. The "why can't the Hubble see the equipment left on the Moon?" argument has to be one of the silliest ones I've heard. As poined out, it does not have the resolution. Not only that but it is designed to look at faint objects, if you pointed it at the Moon, you'd overwelm the optics.
    But assume that it could be done. Would anyone who really believed that the Moon landings were fake accept that the images were real? So the argument boils down to: " You haven't provided a piece of evidence that we wouldn't accept even if you did provide it."

    7. We were in the middle of the Cold war and in a space race with the USSR. That Soviet Union wasn't above fudging the facts if they thought it would make the US look bad internationally. What do think they would have done if there there was any good reason to believe that the US did not go to the Moon. They would have been yelling it from the mountain tops. Thy did no such thing. They knew that we went there, and that they would just look foolish in trying to deny it.

    you are very wrong my friend about the Hubble, nasa was caught before!!

    Yes they said they cant look at the moon because it would damage the optics, yet the openly state how the pointed it straight at the earth to tune the optics, a much much brighter body then our dear freind the moon!!!

    nasa are liars! this is a fact!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenithar
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    To add to a couple of points made by Dishmaster.

    5. The "why can't the Hubble see the equipment left on the Moon?" argument has to be one of the silliest ones I've heard. As poined out, it does not have the resolution. Not only that but it is designed to look at faint objects, if you pointed it at the Moon, you'd overwelm the optics.
    But assume that it could be done. Would anyone who really believed that the Moon landings were fake accept that the images were real? So the argument boils down to: " You haven't provided a piece of evidence that we wouldn't accept even if you did provide it."

    7. We were in the middle of the Cold war and in a space race with the USSR. That Soviet Union wasn't above fudging the facts if they thought it would make the US look bad internationally. What do think they would have done if there there was any good reason to believe that the US did not go to the Moon. They would have been yelling it from the mountain tops. Thy did no such thing. They knew that we went there, and that they would just look foolish in trying to deny it.

    you are very wrong my friend about the Hubble, nasa was caught before!!

    Yes they said they cant look at the moon because it would damage the optics, yet the openly state how the pointed it straight at the earth to tune the optics, a much much brighter body then our dear freind the moon!!!

    nasa are liars! this is a fact!
    Maybe they pointed it at the night side of the Earth? And, actually the Moon is brighter than the Earth due to its whitish color.

    However, I do wonder why they couldn't point it at a part of the Moon that's approaching night time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenithar
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    To add to a couple of points made by Dishmaster.

    5. The "why can't the Hubble see the equipment left on the Moon?" argument has to be one of the silliest ones I've heard. As poined out, it does not have the resolution. Not only that but it is designed to look at faint objects, if you pointed it at the Moon, you'd overwelm the optics.
    But assume that it could be done. Would anyone who really believed that the Moon landings were fake accept that the images were real? So the argument boils down to: " You haven't provided a piece of evidence that we wouldn't accept even if you did provide it."

    7. We were in the middle of the Cold war and in a space race with the USSR. That Soviet Union wasn't above fudging the facts if they thought it would make the US look bad internationally. What do think they would have done if there there was any good reason to believe that the US did not go to the Moon. They would have been yelling it from the mountain tops. Thy did no such thing. They knew that we went there, and that they would just look foolish in trying to deny it.
    you are very wrong my friend about the Hubble, nasa was caught before!!

    Yes they said they cant look at the moon because it would damage the optics, yet the openly state how the pointed it straight at the earth to tune the optics, a much much brighter body then our dear freind the moon!!!

    nasa are liars! this is a fact!
    Maybe they pointed it at the night side of the Earth? And, actually the Moon is brighter than the Earth due to its whitish color.

    However, I do wonder why they couldn't point it at a part of the Moon that's approaching night time.
    I would imagine from space, the moon to appear much brighter than the earth on the basis that it has NOT any atmosphere to 'soak up' the radiated light that hits it, therefore the percentage of reflected transmission - back from it's surface should be far greater.

    Come to think of it a little further, I'm wondering how any electromagnetic radiation at all, once caught within the awesome level of attraction of the earth's magnetic field; then greatly diluted by negotiating the atmosphere, can 'bounce' back, and whilst being diluted further; actually escape the same magnetic field that attracted it - in the first place. That would seem very strange - to a Reject at least, as magnets don't usually work like this. Hmmmmmm

    A little more upon which to ponder ..........
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Who said that it cannot be pointed at the moon, because it is too bright? That's nonsense. The telescope mirror has a diameter of only 2.2 m, which is pretty small compared to optical telescopes on ground. The reason why observing the moon is difficult is the tracking of the telescope, just as it was described in the first quote. In order to have a good picture, you will have to keep the telescope moving synchronously with an object on the moon. But this is very difficult. A comoving reference point is needed for that, and this can only be something on the moon itself. The guiding cameras that do this are not very sensitive, because they normally focus on bright stars. But there are no objects on the moon the have a similar brightness contrast with the moons's surface. Therefore, those guiding cameras easily loose their target.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Come to think of it a little further, I'm wondering how any electromagnetic radiation at all, once caught within the awesome level of attraction of the earth's magnetic field; then greatly diluted by negotiating the atmosphere, can 'bounce' back, and whilst being diluted further, actually escape the magnetic field. That would seem very strange - to a Reject at least. Hmmmmmm
    Why? Have you ever tried changing the light path with a magnet? No? Well, you can't. By the way, the magentic field of the earth not that big as you suggest. Actually, it is very weak compared to small commercial magnets for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Come to think of it a little further, I'm wondering how any electromagnetic radiation at all, once caught within the awesome level of attraction of the earth's magnetic field; then greatly diluted by negotiating the atmosphere, can 'bounce' back, and whilst being diluted further, actually escape the magnetic field. That would seem very strange - to a Reject at least. Hmmmmmm
    Why? Have you ever tried changing the light path with a magnet? No? Well, you can't.
    You can't? Are you sure about that?

    It's not much of a secret that A.R. is no physicist, yet wasn't it one; being A. Einstein I believe, who proved that the passage of light is 'changed' or 'curved' as it passes the magnetic field of planets? My guess would be this observation as according the light that actually 'escaped' the major part of the inward 'pull'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    By the way, the magentic field of the earth not that big as you suggest. Actually, it is very weak compared to small commercial magnets for example.
    So this must be according some strange inverted law of; the sum of the total being far less than the sum of it's many integrated parts, right?

    I would be very interested to learn just how scientists go about measuring/assessing such a thing as this??????
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It's not much of a secret that A.R. is no physicist, yet wasn't it one; being A. Einstein I believe, who proved that the passage of light is 'changed' or 'curved' as it passes the magnetic field of planets?
    No. That's by gravity, not the magnetic field.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    By the way, the magentic field of the earth not that big as you suggest. Actually, it is very weak compared to small commercial magnets for example.
    So this must be according some strange inverted law of; the sum of the total being far less than the sum of it's many integrated parts, right?

    I would be very interested to learn just how scientists go about measuring/assessing such a thing as this??????
    Simple. Take a compass and observe that it points in the direction of earth's magnetic field. Then take a small commercial magnet and move it near the compass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Come to think of it a little further, I'm wondering how any electromagnetic radiation at all, once caught within the awesome level of attraction of the earth's magnetic field; then greatly diluted by negotiating the atmosphere, can 'bounce' back, and whilst being diluted further, actually escape the magnetic field. That would seem very strange - to a Reject at least. Hmmmmmm
    Why? Have you ever tried changing the light path with a magnet? No? Well, you can't.
    You can't? Are you sure about that?

    It's not much of a secret that A.R. is no physicist, yet wasn't it one; being A. Einstein I believe, who proved that the passage of light is 'changed' or 'curved' as it passes the magnetic field of planets? My guess would be this observation as according the light that actually 'escaped' the major part of the inward 'pull'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    By the way, the magentic field of the earth not that big as you suggest. Actually, it is very weak compared to small commercial magnets for example.
    So this must be according some strange inverted law of; the sum of the total being far less than the sum of it's many integrated parts, right?

    I would be very interested to learn just how scientists go about measuring/assessing such a thing as this??????
    actually, Dish is right on both counts and you're wrong about the reasons why light bends near a massive object. It's the Gravity Well, not the magnetic field that distorts light near, say, something as massive as a black hole.

    The approximate magnetic field of the earth is about .5 Gauss. You're common, average, everyday fridge magnet has a magnetic field of about 100 Gauss. My NbFeB Magnets have a field of nearly 4000 Gauss. Suffice to say, the magnetic field of The Earth is relatively small and weak, compared to a good electromagnet or Neodymium magnet.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It's not much of a secret that A.R. is no physicist, yet wasn't it one; being A. Einstein I believe, who proved that the passage of light is 'changed' or 'curved' as it passes the magnetic field of planets?
    No. That's by gravity, not the magnetic field.
    Unless gravity is more about the magnetic field than we have ever reasoned, I would suggest. In any case, does it make more sense to you for electro-magnetic radiation to be affected by 'gravity', or a dynamic magnetic field?

    The answer to a Reject at least, would seem axiomatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    By the way, the magentic field of the earth not that big as you suggest. Actually, it is very weak compared to small commercial magnets for example.
    So this must be according some strange inverted law of; the sum of the total being far less than the sum of it's many integrated parts, right?

    I would be very interested to learn just how scientists go about measuring/assessing such a thing as this??????
    Simple. Take a compass and observe that it points in the direction of earth's magnetic field. Then take a small commercial magnet and move it near the compass.
    I see, however I would have thought that this must necessarily produce (to say the least) a skewed result - being well within the magnetic field as it is - and especially if it is an integral part of that field. No matter where you might perform this exercise, it must yet be compromised to some degree by both ends of the magnetic field, which is a constraint that the 'small commercial magnet' would not have.

    In other words, perhaps the needle of the compass would necessarily have both ends of the planetry magnet acting upon it at the same time; thereby (almost) cancelling each other out.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    actually, Dish is right on both counts and you're wrong about the reasons why light bends near a massive object.
    Am I? Well admittedly I may be, yet I have only commenced upon this line of reasoning over the past 2 or 3 hours, so I hope with (years?) under your belt, you can aim at remaining a little patient with an annoying Reject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It's the Gravity Well, not the magnetic field that distorts light near, say, something as massive as a black hole.
    Are you suggesting that a 'black hole' is entirely devoid of magnetic attraction? Or could it possibly be that your term 'gravity' is the same thing - under a different title?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The approximate magnetic field of the earth is about .5 Gauss. You're common, average, everyday fridge magnet has a magnetic field of about 100 Gauss. My NbFeB Magnets have a field of nearly 4000 Gauss. Suffice to say, the magnetic field of The Earth is relatively small and weak, compared to a good electromagnet or Neodymium magnet.
    Well, these seem like impressive figures to be sure, yet I still have no idea how anyone could possibly measure the planetary magnetic field, even if such were performed from 'outside'.

    Just take a moment and a deep breath, and consider this thing - an enormous spinning magnet with vast amounts of charged electro-magnetic radiation, as generously provided by the powerhouse that is the sun, constantly pouring in - charging it day and night; for thousands/millions of years. Does all this; as a picture, truly present as 'weak' to you my friend????

    Indeed even much "weaker" than the smallest hand held permanent magnet, that is at the same time; contained within it? Do you not notice the wondrous paradox here?

    I would humbly suggest that someone urgently needs to get back to their calculator.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    A.R., Gravity is not the same thing as electromagnetism. I am not suggesting that a 'black hole' would be devoid of a magnetic field, but it has been noticed that no matter how large of magnetic field you have present, no light will bend in it's presence. A neutron star, for example, bends light only by how much gravity it has. If you consider the size of it's magnetic field, light should bend directly into the planet instead of making a slight curve to the left, as it were. And you seem to think that there is this massive current inside of the earth producing this magnetic field, and that is simply not true. The magnetic field of the planet is produced by a rotation of molten iron, a much less inductive process than a flow of electricity around an iron core, because it only has one "turn" or loop around it's core, instead of thousands. The field strength of Earth was calculated by someone well versed in the laws of electromagnetism, let me assure you.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Well, these seem like impressive figures to be sure, yet I still have no idea how anyone could possibly measure the planetary magnetic field, even if such were performed from 'outside'.
    This is a simple experiment conducted already by undergraduates when studying physics. They use a Hall probe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Or could it possibly be that your term 'gravity' is the same thing - under a different title?
    No. Gravity is always attractive; magnetism can be attractive or repelling. So, these forces are completely different. Also, magnetism can be induced by electrical currents, gravity does not - it is a property of mass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed even much "weaker" than the smallest hand held permanent magnet, that is at the same time; contained within it? Do you not notice the wondrous paradox here?
    No idea what you are saying here. The two magnetic fields are not related, because they have different sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •