Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460120 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-02 16:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-20 16:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-02 16:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-03 01:49 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:45 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-04 19:19 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 18:29 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-11 11:30 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 17:14 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-12 14:33 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-11 23:59 -0500
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 18:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-13 13:16 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-13 14:48 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 18:59 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 19:19 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-14 13:13 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 18:55 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-16 09:14 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:05 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:24 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:11 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:31 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-17 14:42 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 17:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 19:09 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 09:55 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 15:46 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:10 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 19:14 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 19:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 22:38 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 21:02 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 21:28 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 22:02 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 18:34 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:43 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-01 12:20 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 03:55 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:42 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:51 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 05:04 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 20:58 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 20:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-12 22:18 -0500
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 19:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:37 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:20 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:40 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:35 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 17:33 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 10:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-19 17:32 +0000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 16:12 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 20:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2428bace-66a8-4a25-907b-2c2b25e31958@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461437 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:39:42 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:24:27 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > > > > >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > > > > >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > > > > >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > > > > >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > > > > >>>>>>> these terms mean? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > > > >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > > > > >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > > > > >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > > > > >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > > > > >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > > > > >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > > > > >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > > > > >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > > > > >> > > > > >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > > > > >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > > > > >> deniers. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto. > > > > Since you are not willing to immediately respond, I will go ahead and tie off this idea. There is a limit to universal darkness. Wherever we are in the universe, there exists a cosmic background radiation. No matter how dark it gets, there is a maximum to darkness and a minimum to light in nature. Now, man should be able to play tricks on nature- to produce DARKNESS or LIGHT- that is accentuated. This is what man does- to learn from nature- and take advantage of what it does. > > I don't know why- but I am thinking about black body radiation and Brownian motion right now. I know the telescope- when it operates outside infinity is non-adjustable. Sadly I know our lenses are inadequate. But, physics-wise, our advancement will ALWAYS be precluded by some HUGE experiment. Ok, I will let this idea out also... imagine a powerful telescope, one that it imagined at your local conservatory... we know what the operation consists of. But, now imagine a powerful telescope... and where the aperture lies is inside a black box- so dark- that any light entering must come through the telescope aperture itself. We know that darkness has a limit at CMBR- but man is clever enough to create what darkness really means on the surface of the Earth with our black boxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <897becf4-caf7-43a7-a38b-fcc153db8ec9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461504 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:11:34 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:39:42 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:24:27 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > > > > > >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > > > > > >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > > > > > >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > > > > > >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > > > > > >>>>>>> these terms mean? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > > > > >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > > > > > >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > > > > > >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > > > > > >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > > > > > >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > > > > > >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > > > > > >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > > > > > >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > > > > > >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > > > > > >> deniers. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > > > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > > > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > > > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > > > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto. > > > > > > Since you are not willing to immediately respond, I will go ahead and tie off this idea. There is a limit to universal darkness. Wherever we are in the universe, there exists a cosmic background radiation. No matter how dark it gets, there is a maximum to darkness and a minimum to light in nature. Now, man should be able to play tricks on nature- to produce DARKNESS or LIGHT- that is accentuated. This is what man does- to learn from nature- and take advantage of what it does. > > > > I don't know why- but I am thinking about black body radiation and Brownian motion right now. I know the telescope- when it operates outside infinity is non-adjustable. Sadly I know our lenses are inadequate. But, physics-wise, our advancement will ALWAYS be precluded by some HUGE experiment. > > Ok, I will let this idea out also... imagine a powerful telescope, one that it imagined at your local conservatory... we know what the operation consists of. But, now imagine a powerful telescope... and where the aperture lies is inside a black box- so dark- that any light entering must come through the telescope aperture itself. We know that darkness has a limit at CMBR- but man is clever enough to create what darkness really means on the surface of the Earth with our black boxes. This reminds me of Newton's black box in which a piece of glass was centered and a single hole was drilled at the optimum angle as it allowed a violation of the definition of the black box before boring the hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 14:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fom750FdbitU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461433 |
On 16/06/2018 12:05 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see >>>>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to >>>>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the >>>>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all >>>>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what >>>>>>>>> these terms mean? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? >>>>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, >>>>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly >>>>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar >>>>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a >>>>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, >>>>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a >>>> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No >>>> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. >>>> >>>> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope >>>> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing >>>> deniers. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. >>> >> >> If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly >> helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some >> level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a >> telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the >> required size is determined by the laws of optics. >> >> Sylvia. > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto. > You seem determined to ignore optics issue. The universe would look pretty much the same from around Pluto. Once you're in space, sunlight isn't a problem. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da7589ce-9764-48d3-adf7-6e27ff94e94e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461433 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > do not change in size. Another fact check, John. Stars, including the sun, do change size. > > > But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther > > > toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) > > > become brighter. What does that even mean? > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > Sylvia. > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see > if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Minimal difference I suspect, since Hubble is well above the interference of our atmosphere. > Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have > never seen a real image of Pluto. Never say never. Just need a closer look: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/images/index.html Enjoy. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33047ec5-043c-43f3-bbe6-74602d910dc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461578 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > do not change in size. > > Another fact check, John. Stars, including the sun, do change size. > > > > > > But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther > > > > toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) > > > > become brighter. > > What does that even mean? > > > > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see > > if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? > > Minimal difference I suspect, since Hubble is well above the > interference of our atmosphere. > > > Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have > > never seen a real image of Pluto. > > Never say never. Just need a closer look: > https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/images/index.html > > Enjoy. > ed The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth from the moon. The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies as we are in her umbra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a83ea37f-de8c-4e95-bcb9-445d9e3e499f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461680 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 7:39:26 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > > > do not change in size. > > > > Another fact check, John. Stars, including the sun, do change size. > > > > > > > > > But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther > > > > > toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) > > > > > become brighter. > > > > What does that even mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see > > > if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? > > > > Minimal difference I suspect, since Hubble is well above the > > interference of our atmosphere. > > > > > Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have > > > never seen a real image of Pluto. > > > > Never say never. Just need a closer look: > > https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/images/index.html > > > > Enjoy. > > ed > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth from the moon. The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies as we are in her umbra. Same as the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12f04c85-4c8c-4ac9-88f6-b78d17ba7776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461680 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > ed > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth > from the moon. That is not the common usage of luminous. Science tries to be precise in terminology. Please try to do the same. > The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- > like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). > Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen > from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies > as we are in her umbra. Again misusing terms. Umbra refers to shadow. Sol does not have an umbra. Try using a dictionary BEFORE you post. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90f71e2c-d084-4b5b-9b4c-a7ccd797a77e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461715 |
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > > ed > > > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth > > from the moon. > > That is not the common usage of luminous. > Science tries to be precise in terminology. > Please try to do the same. > > > The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- > > like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). > > Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen > > from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies > > as we are in her umbra. > > Again misusing terms. Umbra refers to shadow. > Sol does not have an umbra. Try using a dictionary > BEFORE you post. > > Ed Sorry, I did mean the antonym of umbra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0edd57ee-3e6d-4740-a02f-e6e056ad38b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461940 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:46:38 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > > > > ed > > > > > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth > > > from the moon. > > > > That is not the common usage of luminous. > > Science tries to be precise in terminology. > > Please try to do the same. > > > > > The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- > > > like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). > > > Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen > > > from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies > > > as we are in her umbra. > > > > Again misusing terms. Umbra refers to shadow. > > Sol does not have an umbra. Try using a dictionary > > BEFORE you post. > > > > Ed > Sorry, I did mean the antonym of umbra. It started where you said: "a self illuminating object such as the Earth" when you could have just said: 'an illuminated object, such as the Earth' Then you would not have had to search for a term like umbra which you are not familiar with. Glad to see you can learn. enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b28b4ee-869f-473f-85ed-057048c64943@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462022 |
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:46:38 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > > > > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > > > > > > ed > > > > > > > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth > > > > from the moon. > > > > > > That is not the common usage of luminous. > > > Science tries to be precise in terminology. > > > Please try to do the same. > > > > > > > The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- > > > > like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). > > > > Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen > > > > from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies > > > > as we are in her umbra. > > > > > > Again misusing terms. Umbra refers to shadow. > > > Sol does not have an umbra. Try using a dictionary > > > BEFORE you post. > > > > > > Ed > > Sorry, I did mean the antonym of umbra. > > It started where you said: > "a self illuminating object such as the Earth" > > when you could have just said: > 'an illuminated object, such as the Earth' > > Then you would not have had to search for a term > like umbra which you are not familiar with. > > Glad to see you can learn. > enjoy, > ed I'm trying. Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efddaa21-8a1f-4dee-9dc4-94c373eaeb54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462640 |
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 7:14:43 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:46:38 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:23:59 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, > > > > > > > > > or a self illuminating object such as the Earth > > > > > > > > > > > > Check your facts John. the earth is not a luminous body. > > > > > > > > > > > > ed > > > > > > > > > > The Earth is luminous with respect to our images of Earth > > > > > from the moon. > > > > > > > > That is not the common usage of luminous. > > > > Science tries to be precise in terminology. > > > > Please try to do the same. > > > > > > > > > The Earth does not produce any of its' own illumination- > > > > > like the sun (except from volcanos and human activity). > > > > > Instead, nearly ALL of the light from the Earth, as seen > > > > > from the moon, comes from the energy that the sun supplies > > > > > as we are in her umbra. > > > > > > > > Again misusing terms. Umbra refers to shadow. > > > > Sol does not have an umbra. Try using a dictionary > > > > BEFORE you post. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > Sorry, I did mean the antonym of umbra. > > > > It started where you said: > > "a self illuminating object such as the Earth" > > > > when you could have just said: > > 'an illuminated object, such as the Earth' > > > > Then you would not have had to search for a term > > like umbra which you are not familiar with. > > > > Glad to see you can learn. > > enjoy, > > ed > > I'm trying. Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness. Roy Masters? If light moves infinitely fast it would go to infinity right off the bat. You couldn't see it. Some light has an angle to the Moon... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 22:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <532020bf-12f7-4491-9162-f66e44ce3974@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462640 |
John wrote... "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." Here you go, John... https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 21:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53cd2b71-e451-4494-9520-7cf5f328da07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462658 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > John wrote... > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > Here you go, John... > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc065d9f-2697-49c0-948d-8d3b13281291@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463137 |
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > John wrote... > > > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > > > Here you go, John... > > > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. > > The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth. No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. When we look at a crescent moon we only see (duh) a crescent, but be assured that fully half the moon is illuminated, but just can't be seen from our vantage point on Earth. There is ALWAYS a full moon somewhere, just not from here! It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, but even the far side sees the Sun. The dark side if the moon is simply the part that is not being illuminated by the Sun, and we can easily see the dark side at certain phases of the moon where is (the dark side) is illuminated by reflected light from the Earth. If you think about for a while you will realize that the phases of the Earth and moon are always reversed, that is, when we see a full moon from here on Earth, from the moon the Earth would be new (completely unilluminated), and when the moon is new from Earth the Earth would be full from the moon. So, when the moon is in a crescent phase the Earth is nearly full, which means that is has a lot of surface available to reflect light to the moon. None of this is rocket science and is fairly easy to understand, but clearly, you have not studied these basic facts of the mechanics of the Earth-moon-Sun system, normally taught sometime during grammar school. Perhaps you were sleeping in the back of the classroom at the time...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52b35bd3-ccac-4e61-87a5-c70c72c0e722@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463141 |
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:28:41 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > John wrote... > > > > > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > > > > > Here you go, John... > > > > > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > > > > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. > > > > The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth. > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. > > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. When we look at a crescent moon we only see (duh) a crescent, but be assured that fully half the moon is illuminated, but just can't be seen from our vantage point on Earth. There is ALWAYS a full moon somewhere, just not from here! > > It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, but even the far side sees the Sun. > > The dark side if the moon is simply the part that is not being illuminated by the Sun, and we can easily see the dark side at certain phases of the moon where is (the dark side) is illuminated by reflected light from the Earth. If you think about for a while you will realize that the phases of the Earth and moon are always reversed, that is, when we see a full moon from here on Earth, from the moon the Earth would be new (completely unilluminated), and when the moon is new from Earth the Earth would be full from the moon. So, when the moon is in a crescent phase the Earth is nearly full, which means that is has a lot of surface available to reflect light to the moon. > > None of this is rocket science and is fairly easy to understand, but clearly, you have not studied these basic facts of the mechanics of the Earth-moon-Sun system, normally taught sometime during grammar school. Perhaps you were sleeping in the back of the classroom at the time... Sorry, this is incorrect. I surely would appreciate other views.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7608f758-cbc7-4e1c-a97d-5d9700bd4d2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463145 |
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 10:02:11 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:28:41 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > John wrote... > > > > > > > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > > > > > > > Here you go, John... > > > > > > > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > > > > > > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. > > > > > > The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth. > > > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. > > > > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. When we look at a crescent moon we only see (duh) a crescent, but be assured that fully half the moon is illuminated, but just can't be seen from our vantage point on Earth. There is ALWAYS a full moon somewhere, just not from here! > > > > It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, but even the far side sees the Sun. > > > > The dark side if the moon is simply the part that is not being illuminated by the Sun, and we can easily see the dark side at certain phases of the moon where is (the dark side) is illuminated by reflected light from the Earth. If you think about for a while you will realize that the phases of the Earth and moon are always reversed, that is, when we see a full moon from here on Earth, from the moon the Earth would be new (completely unilluminated), and when the moon is new from Earth the Earth would be full from the moon. So, when the moon is in a crescent phase the Earth is nearly full, which means that is has a lot of surface available to reflect light to the moon. > > > > None of this is rocket science and is fairly easy to understand, but clearly, you have not studied these basic facts of the mechanics of the Earth-moon-Sun system, normally taught sometime during grammar school. Perhaps you were sleeping in the back of the classroom at the time... > > Sorry, this is incorrect. I surely would appreciate other views. No, John, it is not incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdb89a92-5c12-47ec-858c-ef1cf7cacad2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463202 |
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 8:04:56 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 10:02:11 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:28:41 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > John wrote... > > > > > > > > > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > > > > > > > > > Here you go, John... > > > > > > > > > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > > > > > > > > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. > > > > > > > > The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth. > > > > > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. > > > > > > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. When we look at a crescent moon we only see (duh) a crescent, but be assured that fully half the moon is illuminated, but just can't be seen from our vantage point on Earth. There is ALWAYS a full moon somewhere, just not from here! > > > > > > It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, but even the far side sees the Sun. > > > > > > The dark side if the moon is simply the part that is not being illuminated by the Sun, and we can easily see the dark side at certain phases of the moon where is (the dark side) is illuminated by reflected light from the Earth. If you think about for a while you will realize that the phases of the Earth and moon are always reversed, that is, when we see a full moon from here on Earth, from the moon the Earth would be new (completely unilluminated), and when the moon is new from Earth the Earth would be full from the moon. So, when the moon is in a crescent phase the Earth is nearly full, which means that is has a lot of surface available to reflect light to the moon. > > > > > > None of this is rocket science and is fairly easy to understand, but clearly, you have not studied these basic facts of the mechanics of the Earth-moon-Sun system, normally taught sometime during grammar school. Perhaps you were sleeping in the back of the classroom at the time... > > > > Sorry, this is incorrect. I surely would appreciate other views. > > No, John, it is not incorrect. As I also pointed out to you John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ece121a-3584-4af2-9d18-2a9d099b061e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463212 |
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 8:34:52 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 8:04:56 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 10:02:11 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:28:41 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:38:44 AM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > John wrote... > > > > > > > > > > > > "... Have you ever thought how much light is supplied on the moon by the Earth? I would say there is none and all the light received on the moon is received by the Sun. We truly live on the edge of darkness." > > > > > > > > > > > > Here you go, John... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120324.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ... for once in your miserable life, learn something new. As usual, you are wrong yet again! 500 years ago DaVinci knew that the reflected light of the Earth illuminated the dark side of the moon. > > > > > > > > > > The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our vantage point on Earth. > > > > > > > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. > > > > > > > > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. When we look at a crescent moon we only see (duh) a crescent, but be assured that fully half the moon is illuminated, but just can't be seen from our vantage point on Earth. There is ALWAYS a full moon somewhere, just not from here! > > > > > > > > It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, but even the far side sees the Sun. > > > > > > > > The dark side if the moon is simply the part that is not being illuminated by the Sun, and we can easily see the dark side at certain phases of the moon where is (the dark side) is illuminated by reflected light from the Earth. If you think about for a while you will realize that the phases of the Earth and moon are always reversed, that is, when we see a full moon from here on Earth, from the moon the Earth would be new (completely unilluminated), and when the moon is new from Earth the Earth would be full from the moon. So, when the moon is in a crescent phase the Earth is nearly full, which means that is has a lot of surface available to reflect light to the moon. > > > > > > > > None of this is rocket science and is fairly easy to understand, but clearly, you have not studied these basic facts of the mechanics of the Earth-moon-Sun system, normally taught sometime during grammar school. Perhaps you were sleeping in the back of the classroom at the time... > > > > > > Sorry, this is incorrect. I surely would appreciate other views. > > > > No, John, it is not incorrect. > > As I also pointed out to you John. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetshine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 12:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1e560f3f-69e4-6e28-53ab-a87df62ee361@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #463141 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: >> The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The >> only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our >> vantage point on Earth. > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. No, everything he wrote there is *correct for a change. You have just misunderstood him, probably by reading only superficially. > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, > half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. It is NOT at all times the SAME part of the surface, though, different from how your oversimplification could rightfully be interpreted. > […] It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, > but even the far side sees the Sun. That is precisely what he was talking about. The far side of Terra Ⅰ (Luna, the Moon, capital M; farther away from the *earthbound* observer) is *colloquially* falsely referred to as “the dark side of the Moon” (cf. the Pink Floyd album title) precisely for the reason that John stated (“dark” = “unseen”, “unknown”) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_Moon> > [correct explanation that confuses scientific and colloquial speech] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76810502-70d0-4cc8-a232-ac3c8558259a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463155 |
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:20:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > >> The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun. The > >> only reason it is called dark is because it is always hidden from our > >> vantage point on Earth. > > > > No, John, everything you just wrote is wrong. > > No, everything he wrote there is *correct for a change. You have just > misunderstood him, probably by reading only superficially. > > > Just like the Earth, or any other round object illuminated by the Sun, > > half is in sunlight and half is not AT ALL TIMES. > > It is NOT at all times the SAME part of the surface, though, different from > how your oversimplification could rightfully be interpreted. It is not an oversimplification. Every spherical body in the solar system always has one illuminated hemisphere and one hemisphere in the dark, except for eclipsed bodies. > > […] It is the FAR side of the moon that cannot ever be seen from Earth, > > but even the far side sees the Sun. > > That is precisely what he was talking about. The far side of Terra Ⅰ > (Luna, the Moon, capital M; farther away from the *earthbound* observer) > is *colloquially* falsely referred to as “the dark side of the Moon” (cf. > the Pink Floyd album title) precisely for the reason that John stated > (“dark” = “unseen”, “unknown”) Colloquial references are not particularly scientific. The dark side of any solar system spheroid is correctly referred to as the dark side. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_Moon> That Wiki reference also states... "The portion of the Moon's surface not currently facing the Sun, see lunar phases." ... which, of course, is not colloquial, and is what I was talking about when I made the statement that it is this part of the moon that is illuminated by Earthshine, and I made that claim because of what John said earlier... "The dark side of the moon isn't dark. It is illuminated by the sun." Clearly, John is incorrect about this, when considering the 'scientific' definition of the dark side of the moon... and keeping in mind that this is a scientific forum and colloquial definitions should be avoided to help insure accuracy. > > > [correct explanation that confuses scientific and colloquial speech] > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web