Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:10 am

I realize media fakery is the central concern of this forum and I agree it would be foolhardy to take on the entire scientific community with insufficient ammunition (each little branch of science covers a vast enough amount of information for a lifetime of study). Nevertheless, I find this thread about the actual physical conditions of the universe very stimulating.

Like many of you, I enjoy playing with different paradigms. The same facts can be adduced in support for several mutually exclusive paradigms (like humoral medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine), so questioning the assumptions modern science is based on is in itself not unscientific.

Modern science has been very successful, especially with regard to practical applications. Curiously enough, however, this does not mean the adopted paradigms correspond to reality in more than a very limited sense. For example, look at how far evolutionary biology has come based on a metaphysically impossible assumption (deriving the greater from the lesser). Look at how wonderfully chemical reactions can be predicted and controlled based on the theory of the atom which implies the insane notion of a measurable three-dimensional nothingness called "space" in which bodies are "suspended" and move (how do you measure the distance between two "somethings" separated by nothingness?). There are also different time paradigms which can turn our understanding of manifestation upside down.

Certain paradigms dear to the modern mentality lend themselves very well to promoting geopolitical ambitions. To ensure these paradigms remain hegemonic (consensus reality), they need to be persistently conveyed and reinforced. Over the last 150 years (or more, depending on one's definition), propaganda -- especially in the form of media fakery -- has been the cheapest and most effective tool to do so.

Thank you all for going to such lengths to share your musings.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:36 am

I also want to thank anyone for being so understanding of our differences. And I agree we have a right to speculate and apply our imagination and critical thinking to anything. Yet...

Flabbergasted, you mention those that you call "Impossible assumptions": I must say I don't find those assumptions impossible at all? Maybe this is a good example of that jumping to conclusions i was mentioning.

I don't think that evolution "derives the greater from the lesser". As far as I understand it, evolution describes "adaptation", not "progress": and the fact that certain levels of adaptation favored more complex creatures doesn't mean that evolution always works that way, it only means that those combinations were more successful. Apparently 90% of the biomass on this planet is made of creatures that haven't "evolved" at all, and never moved towards more complexity: bacterias and such. So there you go.

The thing is, the sun shines through: the earth is flooded in a constant stream of energy coming from the sun, and this energy cannot but "add" variety to the system, reason why the ecology can grow or become more complex. I don't find this an impossible or paradoxical assumption.

Even if I am far from believing all that the official science tells, and even if i see clearly the propagandistic reasons behind the pushing of evolution as a sort of new standard of thought, nonetheless I would not dismiss the thinking behind it, because, once again, thousands of good-willing individuals have looked into it, people like you and me. Do we want to consider them all complicit? Without being ourselves knowledgeable enough on the subject? Doesn't sound like a good method to me.

We not only risk of being arrogant here: more importantly we risk of feeling "satiated" and satisfied by our dismissive ideas, and halt our efforts at the initial burst of curiosity. "Nah, that's all faked, forget about it" (closes book).

As to the chemical reactions you mention: thing is, the atom model, the chemistry of the molecules, works beautifully: it is what has allowed us to understand so much about materials, compounds, gases, organisms etc. It explains your boiling water and it explains your vapor or ice, and it explains a million of other things.

Do you seriously think that something so demonstrable, so applicable on an industrial level, so always repeatable in countless applications and demonstrations could be based on something entirely invented or paradoxical? Come on. We must know better than that.

Can we just stop at saying that, thanks to their forceful authority and mafia-like thinking, science circles can often impose wrongness and interest on top of the good, sane, measurable efforts made by humankind to understand this world?

In another thread I mentioned the "invention of AIDS". Now, forget the fact that I never found the time and energy to put more into that thread. Thing is, it was never my intention to, say, discuss the biology of viri, the reproduction of molecules and things like that, more than just to, like scud said, call the scientists on their contradictions, or at most call out something that would sound forced and undemostrable to my untrained ears, in the hope that actual scientists would back me up.

But I know I would feel incredibly stupid dismissing a whole branch of study, like molecular biology, based on the fact that the particular experience with HIV has proved to be a fraudulent, propagandistic one.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:03 pm

nonhocapito wrote:The thing is, the sun shines through: the earth is flooded in a constant stream of energy coming from the sun, and this energy cannot but "add" variety to the system, reason why the ecology can grow or become more complex. I don't find this an impossible or paradoxical assumption.


Nonho,

I don't think you have looked into this carefully enough.

Energy does not add new information to the genome. Nor does "adaptation". New functional information is quality, not quantity. Sunlight cannot add meaningful information to the genome any more than it could write a good book. In fact, no blind mechanism is known which can produce novel complex biological systems.

If such a mechanism could be demonstrated, or even hypothesized with any level of seriousness, Darwinism would not be an "ism" and the NDT would no longer be classified as a theory.

What is so compelling about evolutionism is the observation of "common descent", i.e. indisputable genetic and morphological similarities between species and higher classes. However, many professional scientists, now and in the past, have rejected the claim that complex biological structures can arise, gradually or otherwise, through natural selection and random mutation.

For an interesting read, I would indicate:

Lee Spetner: Not by Chance (looks at all the small steps required for the Darwinian process to work and their respective probability)
Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box (looks at irreducibly complex systems, of which the mousetrap is a good analogy)
Michael Behe: The Edge of Evolution (looks at what mutation can do and what it cannot do, by reviewing what has been achieved by evolutionary biologists through the study of E. coli and malaria, the most extensively studied organisms in the field).

(both authors have all the credentials in molecular biology and genetics critics could ask for)
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:42 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:Energy does not add new information to the genome. Nor does "adaptation". New functional information is quality, not quantity. Sunlight cannot add meaningful information to the genome any more than it could write a good book. In fact, no blind mechanism is known which can produce novel complex biological systems.

If such a mechanism could be demonstrated, or even hypothesized with any level of seriousness, Darwinism would not be an "ism" and the NDT would no longer be classified as a theory.


I never said that the sun changes genomes. What I meant is that ecosystems on earth are not closed, are not bubbles. They are influenced by this constant pouring in of energy from outside, which cannot but cause variation because the energy causes the environment to change.
For example the weather gets colder or hotter; winds are produced; natural disasters are produced, adaptation to different conditions is forced on creatures that live in different areas. (If instead we want to say that most of the energy comes from the earth crust or mantel, just as well. The result is the same.)

What I am saying is that first of all, there is a change in the environment. Only then creatures cannot but adapt to it. This is something that we see happening with our eyes everyday, and it doesn't take a scientist to see that it is true.

I am not saying that I have reason to "believe" all this, like a creed, any more than I have reason to believe the opposite (Aliens/Gods donating complex/intelligent life to this planet? Is that it?). I am saying that, as far as my understanding goes, it doesn't seem an impossible model.

Also: i don't think anybody is saying that genomes are actively altered by some sort of deliberate desire towards "better" creatures. What I understand is that all individuals of a species already have different genes, because of natural and dormant variations within a species: when conditions change certain genes would become crucial in success and are selected positively, while others are left behind. For example, the ability to survive outside water for a longer time; or a lighter weight that allows to glide a bit longer; or plants with longer branches that reach more light, etc. It is quite horrific, but it does seem to be the brutal way nature works.
This selection (and the fact that something like "genes" are hereditary, which is obviously, visibly true) is what eventually over time becomes adaptation. Once again, I don't know what's true on a scientific demonstrated level, but I don't find this assumption impossible at all.
(And by the way, if living creatures were "designed", why would their characteristics be so imperfectly hereditary? Why genes are constantly mixed, so to force variations to the "original" design? Why creatures reproduce sexually at all?)

Please note: By not finding an assumption impossible, it doesn't mean I will become a staunch advocate for it: it means I will not discard it with a shrug only because I read somewhere someone denying it, from a point of view for which I have, say, more sympathy.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:47 pm

Nonho,

I agree with most of what you say. I would like to make a couple of additions, though, just to clarify:

What I am saying is that first of all, there is a change in the environment. Only then creatures cannot but adapt to it. This is something that we see happening with our eyes everyday, and it doesn't take a scientist to see that it is true.


Yes, creatures adapt to changes in the environment, to the extent they are capable of. But the Darwinian theory of evolution (NDT) does not attribute evolutionary changes to the environment. It posits that:

1. a random mutation occurs in the genome of a single individual, completely unrelated to the creature’s needs or challenges offered by the environment (hence “random”)
2. If said mutation coincidentally favors survival in whatever direction, the mutation-carrying individual may be “naturally selected”.
3. Said individual must reach sexual maturity and reproduce successfully, passing on the mutated gene.
4. The mutation-carrying offspring must become prevalent in the population to the point of superseding all non-mutation-carrying individuals.
5. Then we sit down and wait for the next random mutation to occur (since it is random, it is not likely to build on the preceding mutation)

What I understand is that all individuals of a species already have different genes, because of natural and dormant variations within a species: when conditions change certain genes would become crucial in success and are selected positively, while others are left behind. For example, the ability to survive outside water for a longer time; or a lighter weight that allows to glide a bit longer; or plants with longer branches that reach more light, etc.


Yes, species already have genes, and that includes a certain number of gene switches which can be turned on and off, according to environmental cues. But the NDT pretends to explain where the original genes came from, how the information got there in the first place. The driving force of evolution is blind, random mutation and natural selection, not adaptation to a changing environment followed by changes in the genome. It’s them, not me, saying it.

(And by the way, if living creatures were "designed", why would their characteristics be so imperfectly hereditary? Why genes are constantly mixed, so to force variations to the "original" design? Why creatures reproduce sexually at all?)


I think maybe because they are “living”. :) We tend to compare organisms to the machines we build and often expect living beings to be subject to the same design criteria.

Please note: By not finding an assumption impossible, it doesn't mean I will become a staunch advocate for it: it means I will not discard it with a shrug only because I read somewhere someone denying it, from a point of view for which I have, say, more sympathy.


Good point.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:31 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:The driving force of evolution is blind, random mutation and natural selection, not adaptation to a changing environment followed by changes in the genome. It’s them, not me, saying it.


I think you are seeing contradictions were there aren't any. First of all, despite the propagandistic depiction of the media, there is NOT a united front of "evolutionists" versus "creationists". Evolutionary biology has many voices and more importantly is a branch of study in progress, so you will find all sorts of approaches out there.
(The old confrontation of Jay Gould against Dawkins is a good example).
What I said, and what I know many evolutionary biologists say, is that the random variations in the genomes can become successful following drastic changes in the environment. In absence of those changes, there are more subtle forms of selection in place that ultimately work the same way, like sexual selection etc.
Nobody "pretends to explain where the genes come from", because nobody knows. At most, I think what evolutionary biology tries to do is to retrace back evolutionary changes as far as it is possible to go. I think this is interesting and I don't have anything against it, as long as we ultimately agree that the blanks of information are much larger than the clear record we have.

But really: Why wasting our time being defensive or indignant against this or that branch of study? I don't understand this.

The real issue here is, I think, that the media hinder the cultural progress and emancipation of society by trivializing everything, and making a mockery of our differences. Personally I have no problem including evolutionary biology among the things that interest me and do not scare me, because I have no problem separating it from the propagandistic use some circles make of it (mostly to further provincialize the formerly central rulership of Christianity).

My question about the so called intelligent design was rhetorical, and I think ultimately it comes to this: it makes no sense to fixate on some hypothetical original "design" behind life, that nobody can prove: what counts I think is to explain first of all what we can see and understand of this world, and what we see is that everything in life favors "variation" and not simple reproduction. What evolution explained was that this variation is meant to shoot in the most possible directions in order to play the odds against a challenging environment. That's not a bad achievement.

More importantly: thanks to those that figured out certain aspects of evolution and made it into a science, we have today a table of discussion on these topics. This isn't so bad. Leave it to the various churches and authoritarian establishments, and we couldn't even think these things, let alone say them out loud.

On this forum, we can expose the scientific mafia when it prostitutes itself to the call of corporate interest or propaganda, but we can also defend the rational approach to this world, the one that allowed so much understanding and emancipation, against the trivialized magics of the media, that ultimately want to re-establish the old fears of the gods on a new technological basis.
I would hate seeing us all cornered in just one of these two sides of the coin.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby bostonterrierowner on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:09 am

This is my friend's rationale behind the claim that Moon is not a spherical object :

" If Moon was a sphere , phenomenon of Full Moon couldn't be taking place . Definition of sphere and how it is built/constructed exclude the possibility of FULL MOON because rays falling of the front of a sphere do it under 90 degree angle and under 180 degrees on the edges , meaning they don't do it at all . Having said that if Moon was a sphere we would be witnessing chiaroscuro and the surface would be evenly shaded . This phenomenon is independent on the level of irradiation. There are of course many other aspects of geometry ant optics that prove Copernicus theory of solar system wrong "

This is all I managed to squeeze out of him in writing :)

p.s.

"as an "edge" I mean the frontier of chiaroscuro on the surface of Moon , sphere doesn't have edges "
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:35 pm

bostonterrierowner wrote:This is my friend's rationale behind the claim that Moon is not a spherical object :

" If Moon was a sphere , phenomenon of Full Moon couldn't be taking place . Definition of sphere and how it is built/constructed exclude the possibility of FULL MOON because rays falling of the front of a sphere do it under 90 degree angle and under 180 degrees on the edges , meaning they don't do it at all . Having said that if Moon was a sphere we would be witnessing chiaroscuro and the surface would be evenly shaded . This phenomenon is independent on the level of irradiation. There are of course many other aspects of geometry ant optics that prove Copernicus theory of solar system wrong "

This is all I managed to squeeze out of him in writing :)

p.s.

"as an "edge" I mean the frontier of chiaroscuro on the surface of Moon , sphere doesn't have edges "


Actually, you very often can see the curvature of the shadow on the surface of the moon. Personally every time I see it I think that the Moon really looks spherical.

Your friend is not using his brain very well. The simple fact that the Moon is full or half full or dark and all stages in between can only be explained with the Moon being spherical. If it was some sort of disc, it would get illuminated all at once or not at all.

And off the top of my head, the lack of more chiaroscuro is probably due to the fact that there is no atmosphere around the Moon, so the light bounces off more uniformly?

In any case, this ties with what I was trying to say: it seems that, shocked by the scams of NASA and all the fake science they have been using, we have decided not only that all science is shit, but also that everyone on this planet who ever looked up to the sky and made observations was or is complicit with the scams of NASA (dating from centuries ago when NASA didn't exist yet, of course).

Whatever. I am sorry but I find this line of thinking a failing one. We are only fooling ourselves going that way. And we are setting ourselves up to either look like idiots tomorrow, or end up in denial.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby scud on Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:48 pm

Hi Nonho.

“In any case, this ties with what I was trying to say: it seems that, shocked by the scams of NASA and all the fake science they have been using, we have decided not only that all science is shit, but also that everyone on this planet who ever looked up to the sky and made observations was or is complicit with the scams of NASA (dating from centuries ago when NASA didn't exist yet, of course).”

No Nonho...obviously not all science is shit and I don’t believe anyone here is saying such a thing but in the case of the science that describes the solar system and beyond I do feel that we have good reason to at least be suspicious. After all, NASA et al are increasingly being shown up here to be not just ‘Apollo fraudulent’ but entirely ‘Zeus fraudulent’ so the question, (other than a straight forward $18bn p/a scam off the taxpayer) is why?

_________________________________________

In my opener to this thread I stated that before NASA, the only proof of a rotating Earth (which by definition creates a Sun centered solar system) was Foucault’s pendulum, (where interestingly we can find a very nice example in the lobby of NYC’s UN building)...
Image

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

...and the ‘Coriolis effect’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect (really two of the same demonstrations, one natural the other artificial). Trouble with this was though and still is, is that this effect could just as well be attributed to the opposite being true, i.e everything rotating around us (as well as many claiming that jesuit Foucault’s ‘invention’...a weight on the end of a string...could very easily be manipulated to show the required result). Apart from this, prior to ‘the space race’ there was nothing, nothing whatsoever in the armoury of those wishing to push an evolutionary, Heliocentric model of the solar system to counter the rather more obvious and compelling observations of those in the ‘primitive camp’ (an Earth centered Universe) which incidentally is still used to this day to predict with absolute accuracy, forthcoming cosmological events such as solar / lunar eclipses).

Talking of ‘evolution’, NASA and fraud, what two pieces and only two pieces of ‘evidence’ have ever been presented (and initially hyped out of all recognition) to the general public as being ‘proof’ that human beings have evolved from other, genetically different life forms’? Well, the first was ape to human, ‘Piltdown man’...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man ...Yes, Siki admits that it was a ‘hoax’ in the first sentence but of course, only because the bullshitters were caught out. The second, ‘Archaeopteryx‘ a dinosaur that was supposedly beginning to grow feathers to eventually transmogrify into becoming a bird...also a total man made con... http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

Now you might wonder why some folk would go to this kind of effort and you might also wonder why these two ‘scientific discoveries’ had enormous exposure in the press at the time....I personally don’t. There is an agenda at play here and it is as simple as this...we, should look upon ourselves as nothing, just a chance, mish mash of randomness that has no importance whatsoever. Earthly evidence for such won’t cut it (can’t cut it) so let’s blast off into space to prove the point, where conveniently no ordinary, non governmental mortal can go...simples.
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby lux on Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:33 am

My interpretation of what BTO's friend said is that a full moon wouldn't be lit the way we see it if the moon was truly spherical.

If the moon were spherical then a full moon should appear as brightest in the center with a gradually darkening shading to black at the "edges."

Like this:

Image
Assuming we are observing from the position of the white dot.

When the moon is full it is being lit from a source (the sun) that is directly "behind" us (more or less) so the light would reflect back to us most strongly at the moon's center. But as the light strikes further from the center the angle of reflection gets larger and larger and we would therefore see darker and darker shading.

However we don't see this gradual shading when we we observe a full moon. It appears evenly lit from center to edge.

I think he has a point.

I'm not saying that I think the moon is a disk but I'm not sure why it doesn't appear to be lit as above.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:50 am

lux wrote:I'm not saying that I think the moon is a disk but I'm not sure why it doesn't appear to be lit as above.


Because the source of light is evidently much larger than the ball of rock it is illuminating; Because the "full" moon is when we are looking at the illuminated side directly and not from the side, hence the light is reflected in our general direction.

Everyone says how big the Moon looks in the sky, but if you try to grab it with your fingers you will see that it is very small, it occupies a tiny portion of the sky. Probably because it is very far. And the farther you are from an object, the less chiaroscuro you are going to see. All planets we see shine like points of light without chiaroscuro. Even Jupiter, and that's supposed to be a big one.

But you don't even need to look at the sky. Try to illuminate a spherical pebble with a flashlight and look at the illuminated side. You will notice very little or no chiaroscuro. Take any bright roundish object on this planet, like a water tank or a church dome, illuminated at high noon; imagine looking at it from quite far, say several blocks away or even better from a plane. How much chiaroscuro do you think you are going to see, supposing you are facing directly the illuminated side? Zero. You will see the white shape of that object being illuminated. Chiaroscuro will come later, when the sun has moved, or you have moved, and you are not on the illuminated side anymore.

scud wrote:I do feel that we have good reason to at least be suspicious. After all, NASA et al are increasingly being shown up here to be not just ‘Apollo fraudulent’ but entirely ‘Zeus fraudulent’ so the question, (other than a straight forward $18bn p/a scam off the taxpayer) is why?


Judging from what follows, it doesn't seem the question to be "why". It seems that the most important thing is to prove that they are scientifically wrong. But I do find the "why" and the "how" much more interesting, because those I can understand. I see the political, strategical reason why something like NASA exist, and i see how they do it by manufacturing videos and such. Deciding to take down the whole science together with NASA is another kind of political agenda, one that I don't like.

scud wrote:Apart from this, prior to ‘the space race’ there was nothing, nothing whatsoever in the armoury of those wishing to push an evolutionary, Heliocentric model of the solar system to counter the rather more obvious and compelling observations of those in the ‘primitive camp’ (an Earth centered Universe) which incidentally is still used to this day to predict with absolute accuracy, forthcoming cosmological events such as solar / lunar eclipses).


The heliocentric system explained everything that was observed until then and much more. It explained the seasons and, once the telescope became used, it explained all now observable movements of the planets and their satellites. How satellites rotated around planets just like the moon did with the earth. But honestly I really don't want to enter the scientific debate. I'll just say that until I have reason for the contrary, I trust hundreds of years of collective effort to understand all this. I trust they were not in vain.
As I said, I can see that science comes with political agendas (or maybe the changed political scenarios are what influence the direction of science) but this does not mean that the science is necessarily flawed. Only that it is pushed according to interest.
If you really want to me to pick between Galileo and the Pope, I will pick Galileo. But I'd rather not having to make this choice. For intellectual honesty I'd rather suspend my judgment on anything that requires things I am not good at, like math and stuff.

My biggest concern here is (sorry if I repeat myself, but since I am the only one here defending this point of view, bear with me) our method.
I know that we can, say, nail NASA for faking the imagery relative to Hubble. But when I see our version of "scientific debate" whether satellites exist or not, going on for pages on end (thanks to my voice too), ranging from the nature of orbits to how radio waves work, I can see quite clearly that we will get nowhere with that.

Thing is, one can take any scientific discovery that is not immediately verifiable and demonstrable by the average person, and decide that it makes no sense whatsoever. It is thrilling and intoxicating because it seems so easy -- only critical thinking and logic! Why Science should even exist? But this happens often simply because grasping the sense of things would require math or other sophistications. This gap of course is precisely what NASA uses to fool the public. Yet we can not in all honestly decide that the gap does not exist, because it does.

Pretending there is no gap is when things, from being interesting doubts and speculations mostly caused by a mix of healthy skepticism and ignorance, dangerously turn into a belief system that is based on so very little, and precisely for this it is very hard to rock. "The earth is at the center of the universe. I will henceforth ignore all the math or all the calculations that want to prove any differently".

This whole process turns out to be a tremendous waste of time. Lives are swallowed by this.
Just like it happens on those forums where non-engineers discuss the structural damage to the WTC for years on end, and nobody "wins" the argument because nobody really wants or can take in the complexity and act accordingly (knowing when we are not prepared to disprove something; knowing when something makes sense or doesn't; separating hints and doubts from sound evidence, etc). When in that case we know it is all useless effort because a proof for anyone to see is elsewhere, in the videos and the propaganda, while the scientific debate, at least for the general public, can and should be skipped without any loss to the cause (sorry, Heiwa!).

Most importantly there is a matter of ethics here: we are at risk on doing a favor to those that want humanity taken by superstitions, losing any confidence in the rational ability to understand whatever is possible to understand of the world. Isn't this a very likely future that is being prepared for humankind? Technology and superstition?
One way to counterbalance this is, I think, recognize that knowledge is a collective effort and as such it requires a certain amount of trust in our fellow human beings. We should not allow NASA or similar entities to ruin this for us. Even if we are loaded with critical thinking, and we don't take things for granted like most people do, I don't think we can consider ourselves that much smarter than everyone else. We still need to lean on the (glorious? mediocre? they are what they are) accomplishments and talents of humankind.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby lux on Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:30 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
lux wrote:I'm not saying that I think the moon is a disk but I'm not sure why it doesn't appear to be lit as above.


Because the source of light is evidently much larger than the ball of rock it is illuminating; Because the "full" moon is when we are looking at the illuminated side directly and not from the side, hence the light is reflected in our general direction.


Per the rules of lighting, when the sun lights an object in space it can be considered a point light source. Despite its large size it is far enough away that its light can be considered coming from a single point. Its much larger size would only matter if if were close enough to the subject to cause light to strike it from more than a single angle, as when a spotlight is brought so close that its light "wraps around" a small subject. Sunlight here on Earth is not necessarily a point light source because the atmosphere scatters the light. That is why we can still see objects in shadow here on Earth because they are sill illuminated even when not in direct sunlight.

Everyone says how big the Moon looks in the sky, but if you try to grab it with your fingers you will see that it is very small, it occupies a tiny portion of the sky. Probably because it is very far. And the farther you are from an object, the less chiaroscuro you are going to see.


All planets we see shine like points of light without chiaroscuro. Even Jupiter, and that's supposed to be a big one.


Any object whether exhibiting chiaroscuro or not will only appear as a dot when far enough away. Too small to distinguish such things as chiaroscuro. The moon is close enough to easily see it with the naked eye. As for stars, we see them because they are light sources, not illuminated objects.

Remember too that many "photographs" of planets that we are shown are fake just as the photos of "Earth from space" are fake.

But you don't even need to look at the sky. Try to illuminate a spherical pebble with a flashlight and look at the illuminated side. You will notice very little or no chiaroscuro. Take any bright roundish object on this planet, like a water tank or a church dome, illuminated at high noon; imagine looking at it from quite far, say several blocks away or even better from a plane. How much chiaroscuro do you think you are going to see, supposing you are facing directly the illuminated side? Zero. You will see the white shape of that object being illuminated. Chiaroscuro will come later, when the sun has moved, or you have moved, and you are not on the illuminated side anymore.


Again, using the sun on Earth as a light source isn't the same as the sun illuminating an object in space due to the scattering of light by the atmosphere. The atmosphere acts as a light diffuser. You need to be in a completely dark area, preferably outdoors at night in complete darkness with no reflecting surfaces nearby and no other light sources such as street lights, etc. Use a single point light source such as a flashlight held a good distance away from the ball for this experiment to work. (Trying it indoors in a dark room may not work due to reflections from the walls). If you do this with, say, a soccer ball or other substantial and spherical object and a single point light source, you will see the chiaroscuro effect.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:58 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
Thing is, one can take any scientific discovery that is not immediately verifiable and demonstrable by the average person, and decide that it makes no sense whatsoever.


Nonho,

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentence. The fact of the matter is, this is precisely what the higher circles of the scientific community seem to do whenever their 'established, mainstream science' gets challenged.

For instance, when astronomer Halton Arp's observations started challenging the entire "Black Hole/Big Bang" paradigm, not only did his boss curtly dismiss his work as something which "exceeded his imagination" - but Halton was also denied any further access to the Palomar observatory! "No more telescope time, Hal!" Imagine that!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMPlC1rc7U


One of Halton Arp's staunch supporters, Donald E. Scott (author of "The Electric Sky - a challenge to the myths of modern astronomy") has put down these interesting thoughts on his website - which I think are quite pertinent to our current discussions on this particular thread:

Image
Donald E.Scott

One of the attributes that separates the human from the animals is our yearning to know about our world and our sky - to wonder about the cosmos and have a desire to find out how it works and what is up there. Another attribute is that we do not like to be told things that are untrue and have these ideas forced on us by people who claim to have superior knowledge and intellect. We have been told that we average humans are not capable of really understanding the cosmos - that it is inhabited by mysterious and invisible forces and entities that only impenetrably abstract mathematics can explain. We are told to just passively accept whatever the 'experts' tell us. We have become so intimidated by how complicated modern science has become that we throw up our hands and say, "You're the experts - we'll believe what ever you tell us." And they say, "That's good, because our continued funding depends on your feeling that way." What will the reaction of the taxpaying public be if and when they realize the full extent to which they are being bilked by the scientific power-structure?

Educated lay-people have abdicated their responsibility to think proactively and ask the questions that will keep science honest. It seems we would rather just lie back and believe whatever we read in "Discover" magazine. If 'they' tell us black-holes and dark matter exist - so be it. The public has become enthralled by the magic show that astronomy, particle physics, and some other sciences have become. Why does every TV 'science' program have background music that is more appropriate for a sci-fi horror movie? And a narrator's voice that sounds like God? The public apparently enjoys the magic, mystery-tour aura of most of present day science 'shows'. The ship of science, captained by astronomy and astrophysics, is not just steering a wobbling course - it is miles off track and it is intentionally laying down a smoke screen - implying that modern science has to be counter-intuitive and mysterious. The astronomical world badly needs a reality check. The challenges embodied in these pages constitute just that.

The present day peer review system determines which proposed research projects get funded and which do not. It also determines what results get published and which do not. At first it seems very sensible that any scientific field should be able to keep 'quacks and crack pots' from being funded and published. However, when any given area becomes controlled by 'experts' who have accepted a deductively arrived at theory, they tend to see any alternative data or proposed hypotheses as 'crack pot'. When those who steer the ship of science refuse to allow alternative hypotheses from even being discussed or investigated, let alone published, it is little wonder we are wildly off course. The general public thinks of science as always looking for new ideas. The sad truth is: it does not, certainly not in astronomy / cosmology. What it does do is constantly seek funding from friendly peer reviewers.
http://electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm


So all I'm saying here is that I certainly encourage all of us here to maintain the highest standards of rational thinking and to assess every new, 'alternative' scientific/cosmic/astronomical subject with a pinch of salt. However, let us always remember what truckloads of bullcrap NASA and other "top scientific establishments" keep throwing at us. Personally, I'd say the latter should remain our primary concern - if we really care about restoring some measure of sanity and "scientific correctness" in this world.

To be sure, critics (read 'debunkings') of Halton Arp's 1960 findings are now based on the 'superior optics of modern observational apparels such as NASA's "Hubble telescope". Well, as we now know that the Hubble space telescope is most likely yet another complete NASA fraud - wouldn't it be a good idea to alert Professor Arp and Professor Scott about this?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby scud on Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:18 pm

Excellent post Simon! You beat me to it concerning Halton Arp (I had another long one coming...but I don’t think that it is necessary now). The main point here is that the ‘educational establishment’ teaches but just one view of our perception of the Universe as if we really know; we don’t of course and this is how the paradigm is built...such a shame!
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread postby bostonterrierowner on Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:09 pm

I want to repeat here that my nerdy friend thinks that Moon is shaped like a lens .

I wish I could engage in the discussion but unfortunately I don't have any background and even a slightest expertise in this subject.

I will forward your posts to my friend . He will love NoHo's one about not using his brain very well :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron